DVD/DTS Poll Santana - Abraxas [DTS CD]

[steelydave]

Exactly the same mix, from the same quad master.

I don't think the DTS CD sounds great by any means, but I think the hate for it here is a bit over the top. I remember waiting for months for it to come out in 1999 or whenever it was, and getting years of enjoyment out of it (despite its shortcomings) until the Robin reel emerged. At the risk of overstating things, I don't think the quality of this disc is a million miles away from some of the quad titles that have shown up on Tidal and Apple Music (in a similarly slow data bitrate), the main difference is that with this album we have a better source to compare it to.

EQ-wise the DTS CD's lack of bass is actually more faithful to the original SQ and Q8, which (like all the early Santana quads, and most of the 1972 CBS SQ releases) are very bass-shy by virtue of the way they're mixed. Do I like (and prefer) the extra bass on the SACD? Absolutely, but it's not historically accurate to the sound of the original release...but sometimes a bit of revisionism is a good thing.

The main downfall of the DTS CD is the noise reduction used on the disc has had its levels set to 'stun'. The result is a lot of the subtle details and reverb trails are eaten up in a sea of artifact-y digital burbling. Digital noise reduction was in its infancy in the '90s, and this kind of problem mars a lot of CD releases of the era too, so Brad Miller and HDS weren't alone in doing this kind of thing.

 

[4-earredwonder]

"The sound of the DTS CD is SUUUUUUUUUPER BAD though "
I agree.

Would like to compare it but the SACD is too expensive for an experiment like this. Anyway I've the CD too and stick with this.

IMO, a superfluous experiment as the current SONY Japan remastered SACD sounds SO MUCH SUPERIOR. The DTS~CD is thin sounding and shrill in comparison.....take my word for THAT!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Exactly the same mix, from the same quad master.

I don't think the DTS CD sounds great by any means, but I think the hate for it here is a bit over the top. I remember waiting for months for it to come out in 1999 or whenever it was, and getting years of enjoyment out of it (despite its shortcomings) until the Robin reel emerged. At the risk of overstating things, I don't think the quality of this disc is a million miles away from some of the quad titles that have shown up on Tidal and Apple Music (in a similarly slow data bitrate), the main difference is that with this album we have a better source to compare it to.

EQ-wise the DTS CD's lack of bass is actually more faithful to the original SQ and Q8, which (like all the early Santana quads, and most of the 1972 CBS SQ releases) are very bass-shy by virtue of the way they're mixed. Do I like (and prefer) the extra bass on the SACD? Absolutely, but it's not historically accurate to the sound of the original release...but sometimes a bit of revisionism is a good thing.

The main downfall of the DTS CD is the noise reduction used on the disc has had its levels set to 'stun'. The result is a lot of the subtle details and reverb trails are eaten up in a sea of artifact-y digital burbling. Digital noise reduction was in its infancy in the '90s, and this kind of problem mars a lot of CD releases of the era too, so Brad Miller and HDS weren't alone in doing this kind of thing.

One also has to realize there was a generational loss in remixing those QUAD masters from the original analogue multi track master tapes. And in the case, most especially with QUAD 8 track, the speed reduction from 15 ips down to 3 3/4 was drastic, IMO and who knows what el cheapo tape formulations they used in stuffing those cartridges when at the time there were Low Noise/High Output formulations available.

Not to get too far off track/topic, but when I hear what Michael J. Dutton has accomplished with those early 70's Columbia and RCA analogue QUAD masters, one really has to wonder was it the deficiency of the actual master tapes or the transfer to SQ matrix vinyl LP/Q8 which was ACTUALLY the culprit in the bass reduction anomaly?

 

[steelydave]

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly, as a discrete quad master would be the same number of generations down from the multitrack as a stereo master - one, or zero depending on how you count generations. As far as 8-track tapes go, regardless of tape stock (of which CBS was one of the better ones manufacturing-wise) 8-tracks exhibit enhanced bass, if anything, due to the treble roll-off you experience with 8-track tape.

It's my (somewhat informed) opinion that CBS NY mixed these with the bass rolled off on purpose, because they wanted to be able to cut them to vinyl without any EQ, which they worried could cause phase-related issues that would damage the SQ encoding. If a master tape was too bassy and they couldn't use EQ to remedy it, then there was no way to remedy the problem. It's not like the elements that produce the majority of bass frequencies (bass guitar, bass drum) aren't present in the mix - they're there, just with the majority of their sub-150Hz content rolled off. The reason D-V's releases of some of this stuff sound so good is because Mike is so talented at what he does that his remastering work (which is extensive, at times) is so spot-on that it sounds transparent.

 

[Beefalo]

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly, as a discrete quad master would be the same number of generations down from the multitrack as a stereo master - one, or zero depending on how you count generations. As far as 8-track tapes go, regardless of tape stock (of which CBS was one of the better ones manufacturing-wise) 8-tracks exhibit enhanced bass, if anything, due to the treble roll-off you experience with 8-track tape.

It's my (somewhat informed) opinion that CBS NY mixed these with the bass rolled off on purpose, because they wanted to be able to cut them to vinyl without any EQ, which they worried could cause phase-related issues that would damage the SQ encoding. If a master tape was too bassy and they couldn't use EQ to remedy it, then there was no way to remedy the problem. It's not like the elements that produce the majority of bass frequencies (bass guitar, bass drum) aren't present in the mix - they're there, just with the majority of their sub-150Hz content rolled off. The reason D-V's releases o Drf some of this stuff sound so good is because Mike is so talented at what he does that his remastering work (which is extensive, at times) is so spot-on that it sounds transparent.

 

[par4ken]

I'm rather shocked by all the negative comments here. I don't think that it sounds bad at all, sure the Sony SACD is another level above in sound quality, that is to be expected. I don't hear any lack of bass nor do hear a lack of bass on the original SQ vinyl. The program gets a ten as does the mix. I do notice that the fast pans jump abruptly, they sound a bit smother when listening to the SQ version. The extreme separation of instruments amongst the four channels was done to get the best from the SQ mix, it might be a bit over the top for some but I still like it.

To those complaining about the mix are you downmixing the centre channel and Lfe channels? Ideally they should not be used at all. I'm using the Millennium DTS decoder with the downmixing options off, no centre speaker. This is a Quad mix!

 

[GarryH]

Exactly the same mix, from the same quad master.

I don't think the DTS CD sounds great by any means, but I think the hate for it here is a bit over the top. I remember waiting for months for it to come out in 1999 or whenever it was, and getting years of enjoyment out of it (despite its shortcomings) until the Robin reel emerged. At the risk of overstating things, I don't think the quality of this disc is a million miles away from some of the quad titles that have shown up on Tidal and Apple Music (in a similarly slow data bitrate), the main difference is that with this album we have a better source to compare it to.

EQ-wise the DTS CD's lack of bass is actually more faithful to the original SQ and Q8, which (like all the early Santana quads, and most of the 1972 CBS SQ releases) are very bass-shy by virtue of the way they're mixed. Do I like (and prefer) the extra bass on the SACD? Absolutely, but it's not historically accurate to the sound of the original release...but sometimes a bit of revisionism is a good thing.

The main downfall of the DTS CD is the noise reduction used on the disc has had its levels set to 'stun'. The result is a lot of the subtle details and reverb trails are eaten up in a sea of artifact-y digital burbling. Digital noise reduction was in its infancy in the '90s, and this kind of problem mars a lot of CD releases of the era too, so Brad Miller and HDS weren't alone in doing this kind of thing.

Finally, a good explanation of why this DTS-CD sounds quite horrible. Thanks @steelydave. I always seem to go back to my Japanese-made stereo vinyl LP. Mmmm.

 

[rusinurbe]

An interesting listen. Who mixed it as it sounds like they had never heard the album before. The music is great but the mix balance and everything else seems to be off then planet.

 

[JediJoker]

An interesting listen. Who mixed it as it sounds like they had never heard the album before. The music is great but the mix balance and everything else seems to be off then planet.

This is a 5.1 manipulation of the original quadraphonic mix, since released on SACD by Sony Japan. This DTS-CD is now merely a curiosity.