DVD/DTS Poll Anderson, Ian - Homo Erraticus [DTS DVD+CD]
- Thread starter Bob Romano
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Ge Someone
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
This is an very nice release. The music is comparable to (or even better than) TAAB2. The lyrics are a bit easier to follow than that one (but that might be different for you).
The surround mix is one of the best. This is a demo quality surround mix. I can't praise Jakko Jakszyk enough for the surround mix. Looking forward to what he will do with the classic rock stuff (ELP)
BTW the sticky section of this forum part should be cleaned-up a bit
The surround mix is one of the best. This is a demo quality surround mix. I can't praise Jakko Jakszyk enough for the surround mix. Looking forward to what he will do with the classic rock stuff (ELP)
BTW the sticky section of this forum part should be cleaned-up a bit
THE AUDIOPHILE: Jethro Tull’s Ian Anderson brings back the flute for new HD audio album
By Mike Mettler — June 17, 2014
Read more: www.digitaltrends.com/music/audiophile-ian-anderson-homo-erraticus/#ixzz34uqNCzB9
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
Ian Anderson is a man with an audio mission. The once and future mastermind of the legendary Jethro Tull is now staking his claim as a solo artist, having just released his second album under his own name in two years and hitting the road for another world tour. How does he do it all?
“Well, I’ve not successfully been able to clone myself yet, much to my wife’s disappointment,” he told Digital Trends. (Maybe someday.) His new album Homo Erraticus (Calliandra/kScope) is another critically acclaimed collaboration with Gerald Bostock, Anderson’s notorious compatriot on a pair of Thick as a Brick albums, and it features scores of progressive rock jamming and of course, masterful flute soloing.
I spoke recently with the hard-charging Anderson, 66, about the amazing surround-sound mix of Homo Erraticus and the critical importance of high-definition, 24-bit recording. Clearly, Anderson is a man who will never be too old to rock and roll.
Digital Trends: Do you feel strongly about having your music made available to listeners as high-resolution, 96-kHz/24-bit files?
Ian Anderson: Well, I’m very keen on the 24, which is absolutely necessary to get the best out of digital recording. 16-bit recording is alright — or it was, back in the ’80s. But 24-bit is not just 8 bits better — it’s a huge amount better.
That probably represents the limit of our human physiology to appreciate any difference between 24-bit digital and the analog world in which we live, in terms of recording. 24 bits is all we need. There’d be no point in going to 32 bits. That would be beyond our ability to perceive any actual benefits.
But 24 bits is crucial. 96k, to me, is just double the file size. I’m personally a believer in 48k/24-bit recording, because with 48k, you’ve got ample headroom to more than exceed the limits of human hearing. 48k is going to give more than 20k of bandwidth, and anybody who pretends they can hear more than that is just bull$h1tting. Even if it’s my dog.
DT: I was recently in New York with Steven Wilson, your usual go-to surround mixer, and even he said he can’t hear the difference between 96 and 192.
Anderson: I don’t think there’s any point to it whatsoever. 48k, for all intents and purposes, is just fine and dandy. If I’m doing something for somebody else’s album and they want to work in 96, then I’ll just dial in at 96k. But as far as I’m concerned, it’ll take twice as long to send them the file — and there will be no perceptible difference.
So many other elements in the signal chain can degrade the quality of sound that I don’t think we need to be worrying whether it’s 48k or 96k. What we should be worrying about is the clarity of our signal, the quality of our microphones, and the quality of the music we’re producing in the first place — whether it’s the sound of human vocal chords, a Hammond organ, or an electric guitar. There are far more crucial things to worry about than the sample rate. The bit rate is crucial. Anything other than a 24-bit recording would be a folly.
I do know some people who are still working at 16-bit. In fact, I recorded something for somebody a couple of weeks ago who said, “No, no, I’m doing it in 16-bit because it’s only going to be for CD release. There’s no point in doing it in 24-bit.” I thought, “Well, to me, there would be a valid reason to do it in 24-bit from a commercial standpoint, because it can be released that way for high-resolution outlets — DVD, Blu-ray, or 24-bit downloads. And there are people who want to have 24-bit audio rather than a compressed MP3 file. For someone who only sees the outlet as being a physical tangible product, I can see their point of view. But it’s not the way I would record.
DT: Tell me a little bit about how you arrived at the surround sound mix for Homo Erraticus. On what I’m going to call the mostly spoken-word track — Track 14, “Per Errationes Ad Astra,” where your vocal is being panned to each surround channel for dramatic effect — did you direct your surround mixer, Jakko Jakszyk, as to which part of the lyric went in the center channel, which part should go to the rear left, and which part should go to the right?
Anderson: Yes. I drew a little map on a piece of notepaper, and I took a photo of it with my iPhone and just banged it off to Jakko as a JPEG so he could see what I was getting at. Basically, I outlined the positions usually maintained by the general instrumentation, but once in a while you like to move things around to create something that’s on the move. When I went to his studio to do the 5.1 with him, he had everything readily in balance, and I set out the way I wanted it to be. We tweaked and changed a few things together, and then I let him get on with it and finalized it.
The 5.1 is usually an addendum to the main stereo mix, because by the time you’ve got your balances, your EQs, and your effects sorted out, going back to the 5.1 is just mainly about re-allocating positions and creating a 360-degree field. I’d say 70 percent of the original work is in creating the stereo mix.
DT: One thing I’m personally happy about is that, more and more, listeners have the option to get high-resolution audio files.
Anderson: Yes, it’s good that people have a choice if they want to hear a compressed digital MP3 file or they want to listen to uncompressed high-quality digital audio. The important thing is that people do have that choice to make. The second important thing is that they know how to make that choice.
It’s up to all of us to try and put it in layman language. There’s no point in going to extremes unless you’re going to take your listening very, very seriously indeed.
And it’s my job to be serious about it.
By Mike Mettler — June 17, 2014
Read more: www.digitaltrends.com/music/audiophile-ian-anderson-homo-erraticus/#ixzz34uqNCzB9
Follow us: @digitaltrends on Twitter | digitaltrendsftw on Facebook
Ian Anderson is a man with an audio mission. The once and future mastermind of the legendary Jethro Tull is now staking his claim as a solo artist, having just released his second album under his own name in two years and hitting the road for another world tour. How does he do it all?
“Well, I’ve not successfully been able to clone myself yet, much to my wife’s disappointment,” he told Digital Trends. (Maybe someday.) His new album Homo Erraticus (Calliandra/kScope) is another critically acclaimed collaboration with Gerald Bostock, Anderson’s notorious compatriot on a pair of Thick as a Brick albums, and it features scores of progressive rock jamming and of course, masterful flute soloing.
I spoke recently with the hard-charging Anderson, 66, about the amazing surround-sound mix of Homo Erraticus and the critical importance of high-definition, 24-bit recording. Clearly, Anderson is a man who will never be too old to rock and roll.
Digital Trends: Do you feel strongly about having your music made available to listeners as high-resolution, 96-kHz/24-bit files?
Ian Anderson: Well, I’m very keen on the 24, which is absolutely necessary to get the best out of digital recording. 16-bit recording is alright — or it was, back in the ’80s. But 24-bit is not just 8 bits better — it’s a huge amount better.
That probably represents the limit of our human physiology to appreciate any difference between 24-bit digital and the analog world in which we live, in terms of recording. 24 bits is all we need. There’d be no point in going to 32 bits. That would be beyond our ability to perceive any actual benefits.
But 24 bits is crucial. 96k, to me, is just double the file size. I’m personally a believer in 48k/24-bit recording, because with 48k, you’ve got ample headroom to more than exceed the limits of human hearing. 48k is going to give more than 20k of bandwidth, and anybody who pretends they can hear more than that is just bull$h1tting. Even if it’s my dog.
DT: I was recently in New York with Steven Wilson, your usual go-to surround mixer, and even he said he can’t hear the difference between 96 and 192.
Anderson: I don’t think there’s any point to it whatsoever. 48k, for all intents and purposes, is just fine and dandy. If I’m doing something for somebody else’s album and they want to work in 96, then I’ll just dial in at 96k. But as far as I’m concerned, it’ll take twice as long to send them the file — and there will be no perceptible difference.
So many other elements in the signal chain can degrade the quality of sound that I don’t think we need to be worrying whether it’s 48k or 96k. What we should be worrying about is the clarity of our signal, the quality of our microphones, and the quality of the music we’re producing in the first place — whether it’s the sound of human vocal chords, a Hammond organ, or an electric guitar. There are far more crucial things to worry about than the sample rate. The bit rate is crucial. Anything other than a 24-bit recording would be a folly.
I do know some people who are still working at 16-bit. In fact, I recorded something for somebody a couple of weeks ago who said, “No, no, I’m doing it in 16-bit because it’s only going to be for CD release. There’s no point in doing it in 24-bit.” I thought, “Well, to me, there would be a valid reason to do it in 24-bit from a commercial standpoint, because it can be released that way for high-resolution outlets — DVD, Blu-ray, or 24-bit downloads. And there are people who want to have 24-bit audio rather than a compressed MP3 file. For someone who only sees the outlet as being a physical tangible product, I can see their point of view. But it’s not the way I would record.
DT: Tell me a little bit about how you arrived at the surround sound mix for Homo Erraticus. On what I’m going to call the mostly spoken-word track — Track 14, “Per Errationes Ad Astra,” where your vocal is being panned to each surround channel for dramatic effect — did you direct your surround mixer, Jakko Jakszyk, as to which part of the lyric went in the center channel, which part should go to the rear left, and which part should go to the right?
Anderson: Yes. I drew a little map on a piece of notepaper, and I took a photo of it with my iPhone and just banged it off to Jakko as a JPEG so he could see what I was getting at. Basically, I outlined the positions usually maintained by the general instrumentation, but once in a while you like to move things around to create something that’s on the move. When I went to his studio to do the 5.1 with him, he had everything readily in balance, and I set out the way I wanted it to be. We tweaked and changed a few things together, and then I let him get on with it and finalized it.
The 5.1 is usually an addendum to the main stereo mix, because by the time you’ve got your balances, your EQs, and your effects sorted out, going back to the 5.1 is just mainly about re-allocating positions and creating a 360-degree field. I’d say 70 percent of the original work is in creating the stereo mix.
DT: One thing I’m personally happy about is that, more and more, listeners have the option to get high-resolution audio files.
Anderson: Yes, it’s good that people have a choice if they want to hear a compressed digital MP3 file or they want to listen to uncompressed high-quality digital audio. The important thing is that people do have that choice to make. The second important thing is that they know how to make that choice.
It’s up to all of us to try and put it in layman language. There’s no point in going to extremes unless you’re going to take your listening very, very seriously indeed.
And it’s my job to be serious about it.
Thank you so much for that great interview JohnN! 
What a LEGEND Ian Anderson is. He is such a clued up bunny too. Probably the most tech-savvy artist of his generation imho. He really understands what all the bits and bytes are all about in a way very few acts that first made it big in the 70's do. Neil Young and others are very passionate but Ian has the facts at his fingertips to back it up. He patently really gets surround and can separate the wheat from the chaff where Hi-Res is concerned.
What a LEGEND Ian Anderson is. He is such a clued up bunny too. Probably the most tech-savvy artist of his generation imho. He really understands what all the bits and bytes are all about in a way very few acts that first made it big in the 70's do. Neil Young and others are very passionate but Ian has the facts at his fingertips to back it up. He patently really gets surround and can separate the wheat from the chaff where Hi-Res is concerned.
LizardKing
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
Need to give this another spin... As I'll be off to this - nice to have a local concert for once:
It is nice to see an artist that's clued up on recording technology and delivery formats. I wonder why most of the Tull stuff has been DTS 96/24 though - is it because Ian feels that DTS is 'good enough', or is it because the label feels that an uncompressed delivery format (either BDA or DVD-A) isn't cost effective?
Yeah, I mentioned this on here the other week. its a trait shared by Jakko's BSS 5.1 and his 5.1 of Homo Erraticus.. both centre-heavy mixes.
lots of nice rear activity though and thoughtful panning and placement, which kinda makes up for it.
try shutting off your centre and downmixing the front three to just Front L & R.. and see how the Jakko mixes for this Ian Anderson and the new BSS really open up.. Quadtastic
I don't think Ian Anderson really cares about DTS vs DVD-A vs Blu-Ray, etc.
HOWEVER, if these Jethro Tull releases are going to continue to use Ray Shulman as the DVD authoring person, he really needs to learn how to author DVD-A already.
It's unacceptable for me to have DVD-V when there is no video content to supplement the 5.1 mix.
That's why this disc will get one point off for that when I give a proper vote.
So that would give the overall vote a '7' as I find the material to be very uninspiring and boring.
I must admit I didn't have my hopes set too high for this disc after 'TAAB2' and that was probably for the best as I would have come away even more disappointed.
I don't blame Steven Wilson for passing up this mix due to being 'overworked'. He didn't miss much that's for sure.
With all that being said, it's a good mix on Jakko's part (with no excessively loud bass moments to ruin any fine moments...) and it was nice to see him with Ian Anderson on the 'Making Of" video bonus feature.
(I found the CD/DVD-V edition at Barnes & Noble today and went with that. I couldn't imagine spending all that money on the deluxe set...)
DVD As cost more for the artist/ label just be happy we have DTS!
Why would a DVD-A cost the artist/label more to produce than a DTS DVD-V? Neil Wilkes has said here before (and he should know) when this line is trotted out it is total bollocks.
Really? I thought it was a fact that DVD Audios cost more to manufacture than DVDs?
Yeah, Neil's said as much on here, more than once. Hopefully he'll see this and chip in
LizardKing
2K Club - QQ Super Nova
The physical disc production costs are identical - they both use the same media & replication facilities. Although the size of a DVD-A/V might push the necessity from using a DVD-5 (single layer) to a DVD-9 (dual layer).
There is more authoring for a DVD-A/V, but it comes down to what the authoring house charges for this vs. what they are charged for authoring a plain old DVD-V.
There is more authoring for a DVD-A/V, but it comes down to what the authoring house charges for this vs. what they are charged for authoring a plain old DVD-V.
Back in the day, the DVD council required a licensing fee from replicators to use the DVD Audio logo. The fee was in certain instances fairly onerous for large replicators. Based on the volume of DVD Audio - certain replicators chose not to pony up - as the volume of business for DVD Audio did not justify the licensing fee. Sometimes thing change - in a good way.
Last edited:
If every 5.1 release was DTS 24/96 on DVD I would be satisfied with that. DM Violater; perfecto.
I finally got around to listening to this one. It has been sitting on my shelf for a number of weeks. I have listened to it in stereo in my office, but not in surround.
The music didn't really "click" for me until I listened in surround. Perhaps the surround mix forced me to pay attention to the music.
The surround mix is very good. Jakko did a great job on this one.
The fidelity is also very good despite it being lossy DTS. I know, it is unfortunate that it isn't MLP, but I can get over it. The most important thing is the quality of the recording, closely followed by the mastering. Both are very good in this case. An impressive amount of dynamic range for a modern release.
I gave it a 9.
The music didn't really "click" for me until I listened in surround. Perhaps the surround mix forced me to pay attention to the music.
The surround mix is very good. Jakko did a great job on this one.
The fidelity is also very good despite it being lossy DTS. I know, it is unfortunate that it isn't MLP, but I can get over it. The most important thing is the quality of the recording, closely followed by the mastering. Both are very good in this case. An impressive amount of dynamic range for a modern release.
I gave it a 9.
I caught Ian's latest tour where he is performing this album along with a selection of Tull songs earlier this week and enjoyed it a lot. It took me a few listens before this one clicked. I really like TAAB2 but this one didn't quite grab me on the first few listens. Reading the lyrics and liner notes and grasping the concept helped a lot. It's a heavy, bold concept piece that basically tracks man's comings and goings throughout history. Anyway, by the time the concert came around I was a big fan of the album and was excited to hear it live. I had read a lot of reviews on the Ticketmaster site and noted that everyone that had never heard the album seemed to be very unhappy about having to sit through 60+ minutes of unfamiliar music and it had me worried about how this crowd would react. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of this audience has not sat and listened to a complete new album in a long time. Ian must have heard the reviews too, because he has now cut the Homo Erraticus part of the show down to about 30 minutes or so of the highlights of the album. I thought it was very well performed and appreciate it even more now. I figure shortening it to have been a good move as the crowd's energy was very high for this show.
I thought the mix that Jakko did was mostly very good buy always thought something was odd whenever Ian's voice would change from the center speaker to front speakers. Some of this seemed just that the center is a little louder than the others and adjusting it seemed to help but not completely. I even knocked down my score a notch for it. But watching the concert I realized that I'm an idiot. When it's not the center speaker, it's not Ian's singing but the young Ryan O'Donnell singing those parts. Live and learn, I guess. I'm still a bigger fan of TAAB2, but this is a very good disc. To still be coming up with new ideas and great music at this stage of his life is testament to how musically brilliant Ian Anderson is. I know a lot of people compain about his voice and how he doesn't sound like he used to, but at least he's not lip syncing and sounding perfect. And I'm also impressed that he's not just playing the same old songs over and over every year, but is still giving us something new. Even his "hits" included a couple of surprises for me.
He really surprised me by playing a piece of Passion Play, which I definitely didn't expect. It was the Critique Oblique section and when he introduced it he talked about how, at the time, the critics said he'd gone over the top with this one and he realized they were probably right. He then said, but if that interests you, then it is now available in glorious 5.1 sound mixed by Steven Wilson. I'm sure 99% of the crowd had no idea what he was talking about, but there were a few whoops from here and there so someone besides me knew. Anyway, good to see him give a shout out to the surround sound presentation but wonder why he didn't mention that he now has a lot of music available it that format (with more coming!).
K
I thought the mix that Jakko did was mostly very good buy always thought something was odd whenever Ian's voice would change from the center speaker to front speakers. Some of this seemed just that the center is a little louder than the others and adjusting it seemed to help but not completely. I even knocked down my score a notch for it. But watching the concert I realized that I'm an idiot. When it's not the center speaker, it's not Ian's singing but the young Ryan O'Donnell singing those parts. Live and learn, I guess. I'm still a bigger fan of TAAB2, but this is a very good disc. To still be coming up with new ideas and great music at this stage of his life is testament to how musically brilliant Ian Anderson is. I know a lot of people compain about his voice and how he doesn't sound like he used to, but at least he's not lip syncing and sounding perfect. And I'm also impressed that he's not just playing the same old songs over and over every year, but is still giving us something new. Even his "hits" included a couple of surprises for me.
He really surprised me by playing a piece of Passion Play, which I definitely didn't expect. It was the Critique Oblique section and when he introduced it he talked about how, at the time, the critics said he'd gone over the top with this one and he realized they were probably right. He then said, but if that interests you, then it is now available in glorious 5.1 sound mixed by Steven Wilson. I'm sure 99% of the crowd had no idea what he was talking about, but there were a few whoops from here and there so someone besides me knew. Anyway, good to see him give a shout out to the surround sound presentation but wonder why he didn't mention that he now has a lot of music available it that format (with more coming!).
K
Spock
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
I like this album a lot, great surround mix - I give it a 9.
What do people think of the sound quality on this? I ripped my DVD and started playing but soon stopped because I thought I'd ripped the DD layer by mistake. It just sounded muddy to me and I wanted to listen in the best quality. I will admit that I perhaps want more top than many but I am normally happy with a well-mastered disc, so it feels like there's something wrong.
I've just gone to re-rip and I see that there is no DD layer, so I can't have got the wrong codec.
Are others happy with the sound on this disc?
I've just gone to re-rip and I see that there is no DD layer, so I can't have got the wrong codec.
Are others happy with the sound on this disc?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
- Poll
DVD/DTS Poll
Soord, Bruce - CAUGHT IN THE HUM [DTS DVD]
- Sticky
- Poll
- Sticky
- Poll
