This just in from Ken Caillat, late of 5.1 entertainment

[timbre4]

Done - now go chime in!

Existing 5.1 Mixes: Fleetwood Mac's Unreleased Tusk DVD-A
Submitted by DVDAWins on Wed, 08/29/2007 - 10:15am.
No list of NEW DVD-Audio titles would be complete without Fleetwood Mac's Tusk. The DVD-A disc is referred to in this 2003 Sound & Vision article:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/wildcard/477/mobile-surround-sound-page...

Mettler: "Seeing that I had raved about the DVD-A version of Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours in my “Road Gear” column in S&V awhile back after listening to it in a 5.1-equipped SUV, Kellogg put me in touch with Ken Caillat, the 1977 album’s original co-producer, who remixed it for multichannel playback in 2001. (He was in the studio putting the finishing touches on the DVD-A version of the Mac’s 1979 opus, Tusk, for a projected fall release.)"

Please add your voice tho this thread if you're as ready to pre-order this DVD-A title as I am.

Tim believes in high resolution surround music

 

[ssully]

The old favourite "It costs too much to mix" is a non starter.
There are so many that we know are done - just never released.
Same thing happened with Quad too - lots mixed that stayed in the vaults.
Why? Who can say - but it is nothing to do with cost.
It may be down to Universal & Warners refusing to agree on High Rez release formats. Universal (being owned by Sony) will not handle DVD-A, and Warners will not handle SACD.
SO they "compromise" with Dolby bloody Digital DVD-V, which then do not sell as they sound like crap,

Oh come now.

If they don't sell it's not likely because they 'sound like crap', and if they sound like crap, it's not likely because they're DD. Most people aren't going to be able to tell an audible difference between DD, DTS, DVD-A, SACD, unless they've been mastered differently or their gear renders them differently.

DD needn't sound like crap. Like almost every other format, it can be done well, or not.

 

[quadtrade]

Oh come now.

If they don't sell it's not likley because they 'sound like crap', and if they sound like crap, it's not likely because they're DD. Most people aren't going to be able to tell an audible difference between DD, DTS, DVD-A, SACD, unless they've been mastered differently or their gear renders them differently.

DD needn't sound like crap. Like almost every other format, it can be done well, or not.

I think that is bullshit! If you can not hear the difference between DD and say SACD, you have not been listening. I can hear the dif between DD and DTS in my vehicle much less at home.

 

[ssully]

What's bullshit is making such claims about DD vs whatever without first showing that the two masterings were otherwise the same, and levels were matched at playback on all channels. Not to mention the problems of 'sighted' listening.

Not only is making such claims bullshit, it's tedious. How many times does this have to be said : different mastering, no level matching , sighted comparison -- when any of these conditions holds, the comparison is not fair for judging the relative sound quality of the FORMATS.

 

[timbre4]

I'm not sure what prompted this belated argument; can you suggest some samples of what I could listen to in Dolby Digital that you think is on par with DTS?

 

[ferret-e]

Oh come now.

If they don't sell it's not likely because they 'sound like crap', and if they sound like crap, it's not likely because they're DD. Most people aren't going to be able to tell an audible difference between DD, DTS, DVD-A, SACD, unless they've been mastered differently or their gear renders them differently.

DD needn't sound like crap. Like almost every other format, it can be done well, or not.

Respect. I'm totally agree.:brew

 

[ssully]

I'm not sure what prompted this belated argument; can you suggest some samples of what I could listen to in Dolby Digital that you think is on par with DTS?

That's irrelevant, actually, for much the same reasons I gave earlier. I certianly haven't done blind levelmatched comparisons of DD/DTS material I know to have been mastered identically. What's relevant to the argument is that if I do hear a difference, ro someone else reports one, I understand that I can't be sure it's due to the FORMAT, without a lot more information.

Can you explain how you have managed to conclusively factor out possible mastering differences, differences in channel levels during playback, or sighted bias, when you hear a difference betweem DD and DTS?

 

[EMB]

We seem to be going a bit off-top here, ain't we?

But what the hell, why not....

First of all, Dolby Digital can offer some nice sonics, IF the music is well mixed and mastered. Same with DTS. And it is true that, on some discs(whether it be movies or music-based)there maynot be any significant differences between DD sound and DTS sound(of course we also know that at times there IS a difference, and it's generally in favor of the DTS track, though WHY that is, I'm not sure).

That said, SACD was designed as a higher-rez audio format, and my belief is that if you take the same master tape and transfer it just as faithfully to SACD as was done in DD or DTS, that SACD would have enough improved resolution to be audible to anyone with the system, ears, and experience to tell the difference(I doubt that most people really, or care to; which is why there are audiophiles, and everyone else).

Of course mastering and authoring can play a part in the end result. So can format. Presumably there's enough improvement in Blu-Ray compared to regular DVD's to justify the format, and that improvement is mainly format-based, even while one can't discount the possibility of better masterings and restorations.

ED

 

[timbre4]

It's completely relevant; if you can't cite examples from personal experience how can you justify that viewpoint? I suppose myth-busting is just for kicks.

It's two different things; mixing and mastering of the material COUPLED with encoding for deliver platform. Dolby Digital can be very good, but on a level playing field, DTS tends to sound smoother in my opinion.

Nice job shifting the burden of proof back to me, by the way.

I don't have anything scientific for you; the standard complaint is that DTS rears are 3db too hot to reference level or the program is entirely above reference level. Reduce the volume level, stand in the sound field, move to specific speakers, listen for the energy in the room to dissipate or does the energy lurch in a particular direction as if running low on bits allocation.

When I get time, I can compare Genesis - Trick Of The Tail in red book CD 1994, remaster 2007, DD, DTS 96/24 and SACD and report the results. I will also select a DVD to compare. But if I can't do it to your scientific satisfaction, am I wasting even more time?

FWIW- I used to sell gear and have been reading this stuff for 36 years. No turnip trucks in sight.

Also, since the quad converters have had access to DD encoding even longer than DTS, why has everybody latched on to DTS or moved on to DVD-Audio?

 

[Guy Robinson]

If you want an excellent example of Dolby, "Fly Like An Eagle" sounds fantastic. Unfortunately there is no DTS stream or any other surround format to compare it to.

 

[zabble]

If you want an excellent example of Dolby, "Fly Like An Eagle" sounds fantastic.

I disagree. Quite a few sections sound weak to me, particularly the song "Serenade". I can hear compression pumping throughout the whole song.

Could it be that different players have better DD decoding? I hope so, because I cannot characterize "Fly Like An Eagle" as having a "fantastic" sound. To me, it sounds like there's a good mix in there waiting to shine via a better delivery system.

 

[Dylan Berichon]

I thought that Fly Like an Eagle sounded very good.

Easily the best Dolby Digital I've ever heard.

 

[neil wilkes]

Oh come now.

If they don't sell it's not likely because they 'sound like crap', and if they sound like crap, it's not likely because they're DD. Most people aren't going to be able to tell an audible difference between DD, DTS, DVD-A, SACD, unless they've been mastered differently or their gear renders them differently.

DD needn't sound like crap. Like almost every other format, it can be done well, or not.

A much wiser man than me once said

It is far better to keep quiet & have the world think you stupid than to open your mouth & let them know it for a certainty

 

[neil wilkes]

I disagree. Quite a few sections sound weak to me, particularly the song "Serenade". I can hear compression pumping throughout the whole song.

Could it be that different players have better DD decoding? I hope so, because I cannot characterize "Fly Like An Eagle" as having a "fantastic" sound. To me, it sounds like there's a good mix in there waiting to shine via a better delivery system.

I could not agree more.
What so many people are getting wrong - IMHO - is that they are mistaking a hiss-free mix as a sonically superior one when often this is just not the case. This can happen in a couple of ways:
1 - Overcompression (The Modern Disease).
2 - Over-use of Noise Reduction (DTS Ents version of DSOTM comes to mind)

This record would be so much better in Lossless that it is just not funny.

 

[Guy Robinson]

I could not agree more.
What so many people are getting wrong - IMHO - is that they are mistaking a hiss-free mix as a sonically superior one when often this is just not the case. This can happen in a couple of ways:
1 - Overcompression (The Modern Disease).
2 - Over-use of Noise Reduction (DTS Ents version of DSOTM comes to mind)

This record would be so much better in Lossless that it is just not funny.

So you are saying that if you take this same Overcompressed, noise reduced version of Fly Like An Eagle and instead of streaming it as Dolby you do a DVD-A then it will be better?

 

[daved64]

I thought that Fly Like an Eagle sounded very good.

Easily the best Dolby Digital I've ever heard.

Yep. That and the Sonia Dada disc sound excellent for DD.

 

[neil wilkes]

So you are saying that if you take this same Overcompressed, noise reduced version of Fly Like An Eagle and instead of streaming it as Dolby you do a DVD-A then it will be better?

No.
I am saying I would like someone to go back to the new 5.1 mix - before it was 'mastered' for Dolby Digital, and then do a version for DVD-A.
It is not the NR that is the problem with this disc, it is the overcompression (I can also hear the pumping in places) that was done by whoever did the mastering.
It's rarely the mix that is the problem, as you don't mix in Dolby - it's the mastering & the insane overuse of brickwall limiting to try & make a louder pressing.
Plus, of course, the perceptual encoding process does not help. Can someone please explain to me how a computer algorithm is supposed to know how the music should sound? Madness.
It works by psychoacoustical principles - IE, if there is a softer sound before a louder sound, the softer sound is removed as the theory says it is "masked" by the louder sound & is therefore redundant data. In stereo this is a dubious principle, in surround it is stupid.
Another problem is that it is not easy to "follow the basslines" when there is a bass drum at thesame fundamental - one will be eliminated by the algorithm as "redundant" data.
"But this is how MLP works" I hear.
Not really.
MLP will not eliminate data - it reduces the file size by 3 methods, and the main - important - difference is that the reconstructed waveform is identical to the original Wave. We proved this with the Yash Raj title "Veer Zaara" (Still to be released) as the project manager is not only a member of AES, he is an audiophile snob "par excellence" and wanted it proved to him.
So, we took the masters from Sterling Sound, and ran the MLP process - simultaneously decoding the stream back to PCM at verification, and sent the decoded files back to India where they were examined very seriously.
It proved to be impossible to say what was the original PCM and what was the decoded MLP.
When we did the same thing with the Dolby Digital files, a spectrum analyzer as well as an aural check found the decoded AC3 every single time. You can not only hear the difference, but you can plainly SEE it in the analyzers as well. Just as you can with PCM against MP3.

Dolby Digital is acceptable for film, but not ideal. For music, it is not at all good.

 

[The Quadfather]

Well, I have never submitted Dolby Digital to spectrum analyzer tests, nor have I ever compared it directly to the master tape, nor do I have a $20,000.00 system to play it on, I don't even claim to be a golden eared audiophile, but what I do know is that when the music gets complex, Dolby Digital thins out. I do not notice this with DTS. Dolby Digital does a very good job when it is used for what it was designed for, that is, movies. It is best if it's kept that way. It should never be used for music. So if I'm proven a fool by saying that, then so be it. I stand by it.

The Quadfather

 

[JonUrban]

I agree that the original AC-3 and "DualDisc-type" Dolby Digital is great for sound effects and even movie soundtracks, but just does not do it for music-only surround like DTS or (of course) SACD/DVD-A. What about the newer version of Dolby Digital that were created for HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray. Is this a better deal music wise?

 

[Dylan Berichon]

I could not agree more.
What so many people are getting wrong - IMHO - is that they are mistaking a hiss-free mix as a sonically superior one when often this is just not the case. This can happen in a couple of ways:
1 - Overcompression (The Modern Disease).
2 - Over-use of Noise Reduction (DTS Ents version of DSOTM comes to mind)

This record would be so much better in Lossless that it is just not funny.

I don't disagree with this.

In fact I was very disappointed that Fly Like an Eagle wasn't lossless. I do think it could have sounded better.