DVD/DTS Poll Chris Squire - FISH OUT OF WATER [DTS DVD]

[JediJoker]

sigh. That's bad logic.

It is bad logic to assume that the difference in fidelity between two different releases of two different mixes is down to the lossy codec used. What isn't bad logic is to assert that DTS is psychoacoustically superior to Dolby Digital. For one, it operates at a higher base bitrate.

 

[jimfisheye]

Listening to a properly decoded dts 2496 version of the 5.1 mix.
I agree with the lossless police on all that is bad with improperly decoded (core only) dts 2496 and all things dolby (dullby) but I continue to find myself none the wiser with fully decoded dts 2496.

I always liked this album but at the same time found some of it long winded and marred with the '70s filler vibe here and there (those flowery slow dull filler parts that sound instantly dated). I'm kind of stunned by this right out of the box! I'm hearing a lot of detail and mix content that just didn't connect before. This is a really well done mix! Bruford's kit maybe doesn't sound quite like the best Steve Wilson mix ever made but it sounds really good. Jakko Jakszyk did this?!?!?! Wow! So those mix abominations out there with his name on them WERE genuinely unfinished! (ELP BSS is a truly glaring example) I had suspensions from what I was hearing but one can only speculate. The Crimson THRAK album and now this are proof this guy can make a fantastic mix! (And the unfinished ones SURE sound like that was the aim to begin with.)

Really surprised and happy with this! Maybe still a bit long winded here and there on repeated listening but this remix is great.
Too bad about the release format messing with a lot of people. Can't help but agree that there's no good reason to use such a clumsy format that can be quite difficult to set up to decode properly. All dts and dolby formats should be considered obsolete here in 2018.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Listening to a properly decoded dts 2496 version of the 5.1 mix.
I agree with the lossless police on all that is bad with improperly decoded (core only) dts 2496 and all things dolby (dullby) but I continue to find myself none the wiser with fully decoded dts 2496.

I always liked this album but at the same time found some of it long winded and marred with the '70s filler vibe here and there (those flowery slow dull filler parts that sound instantly dated). I'm kind of stunned by this right out of the box! I'm hearing a lot of detail and mix content that just didn't connect before. This is a really well done mix! Bruford's kit maybe doesn't sound quite like the best Steve Wilson mix ever made but it sounds really good. Jakko Jakszyk did this?!?!?! Wow! So those mix abominations out there with his name on them WERE genuinely unfinished! (ELP BSS is a truly glaring example) I had suspensions from what I was hearing but one can only speculate. The Crimson THRAK album and now this are proof this guy can make a fantastic mix! (And the unfinished ones SURE sound like that was the aim to begin with.)

Really surprised and happy with this! Maybe still a bit long winded here and there on repeated listening but this remix is great.
Too bad about the release format messing with a lot of people. Can't help but agree that there's no good reason to use such a clumsy format that can be quite difficult to set up to decode properly. All dts and dolby formats should be considered obsolete here in 2018.

Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?

It would seem to me that the purpose of not utilizing MLP or even LPCM 96/24 is the majors are playing it safe for use in players which don't have DVD~A capability but advertising a codec as 96/24 which, for the majority of us, decodes as a LOSSY codec is simply downright bizarre!

 

[JediJoker]

Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?

I think you're confused. DTS "Core" is lossy 16-bit/48kHz. All DTS bitstreams contain the Core data at their center, plus differential reconstruction information for anything above that be it lossy 24-bit/96kHz or something lossless. Any DTS decoder is Core-capable by definition and design, but not all are capable of higher-spec formats.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I think you're confused. DTS "Core" is lossy 16-bit/48kHz. All DTS bitstreams contain the Core data at their center, plus differential reconstruction information for anything above that be it lossy 24-bit/96kHz or something lossless. Any DTS decoder is Core-capable by definition and design, but not all are capable of higher-spec formats.

I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?

 

[Robert van Diggele]

I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?

Oppos from the 10x series onwads do this. Maybe the 9x as well.

And dvdae can do this software wise.

 

[fredblue]

i'm not complaining, the technical/DTS chat is very interesting.. but tbh I'm curious to hear more about the quality of the new 5.1 mix please, are there any more thoughts yet from people here who have it or is it too soon?

a couple of really negative views on the remix have been posted over at the SHF over the weekend, was looking for some balance here before shelling out for a £75 quid boxful of surplus to requirements stuff just to get the 5.1.!

 

[himey]

I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?

My decade old Outlaw Audio processor handles DTS 24/96 perfectly fine from my Oppo 83se.
SHF
The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.

 

[jimfisheye]

Jim, this is totally off the subject of the album itself, but how is it that you can access the CORE 96/24 DTS codec and probably 99.9% of us cannot? And why use a codec that cannot be successfully accessed by everyman?

It would seem to me that the purpose of not utilizing MLP or even LPCM 96/24 is the majors are playing it safe for use in players which don't have DVD~A capability but advertising a codec as 96/24 which, for the majority of us, decodes as a LOSSY codec is simply downright bizarre!

I assume you meant "How can I access the FULL dts decode for dts2496 instead of just the core element... ?"

I can only guess but it seems likely that there are a lot of people with older software or stand alone hardware disc players that are now a few years old that are having no love with this. I'm assuming from the caustic reviews that this is likely the scenario in these cases. I believe at least some of the newer media players (or newer revisions) have corrected this. So I'll throw that out there for anyone upset with the sound to consider. Using some older hardware disc player? I'm suggesting to try converting to FLAC or bluray image yourself and then play that.

If someone STILL has an issue with the sound... well, wow, but OK.
I have a decent enough dialed in system to hear the difference between 24 bit and a reduction to 16 bit. (Assuming dynamic music and not ultra squashed volume war pop hash that sounds like mp3 out of the box to begin with.) I honestly can't hear the difference between 96k and a conversion to 48k or 44.1k with my Apogee converters but I sure can with my MOTU converters (which is kind of expected).

The one direct comparison I had in front of me for full lossless vs. dts 2496 was from the first edition of the JT Aqualung bluray. (I'm assuming they used the same master to encode the dts from and I know how to match volumes for A/B testing as needed. All signs pointed to them being the same master.)
The lossless bluray program nulled with the (proper) dts decode way down into the decimal dust. 60 or 80db or so down. Couldn't hear a difference A/B'ing them.

Comparing the core-only decode to the full decode was very apparent. Obvious difference with an A/B listen. Pretty much didn't null at all with the lossless (or the full decode). The blanket over the speaker effect followed the bad reviews I read around this forum. And this was magnitudes beyond anything I hear from a sample rate reduction with my MOTU converters. This core-only decode is not merely analogous to a sample rate conversion or even a bit reduction.

So that's what I'm hearing. That's what I think is behind it.
I get the part where someone wanted a solution that at least produced sound from old equipment but I very much agree this format has no place for music releases. Save it for the crude 'whispers and explosions' style movie soundtracks or something. Having said that... it turns out that with proper decoding at DOES actually work. And I think well enough for the kind of discerning ears around this place.

If it turns out that there IS loss that I would hear but I'm none the wiser (which would mean the Aqualung dts2496 program was mastered from a better sounding master so that it lined up with the lossless copy of an apparently degraded copy... yeah, that's just a ridiculous stretch there!). All I can say if that's true is the level of fidelity I'm hearing is more comparable to lossless than most anything else I've heard. That Fleetwood Mac s/t album in dolby (in spite of being one of the better sounding examples of such that I've heard actually) is VERY obviously slathered in lossy artifacts. The attenuated higher range that leads to the tubby blurry sound with the imbalance in the lows and low mids. This still sounds better than some chirpy 16bit CD mind you and is still enjoyable. Night and day to a troubled copy of a Q8! But it's obvious and glaring just the same. (Sorry, dts vs. dolby is apples/oranges! My point was to give an example of something that had clear lossy artifacts all over it but at the same time still retained a high level of fidelity.)

It's past due for me to have a media player/software shootout again but I've been lazy and the old stuff is still working. I'm still using the kludged mess of the Arcsoft codec forced into this AudioMuxer app. (And a Windows version of it at that because the OSX version of Arcsoft was $$$.) Yeah, I should update this stuff one of these days...

Pick your battles I guess. These titles absolutely should NOT be released in ANY lossy format. Period. But... some of these mixes are to die for! And there's software that actually works to let you hear them. And the greedy bit with the expensive boxes full of vinyl release facsimiles and other trinkets pisses me off much more.


Anyway, I think this sounds pretty great! The mix is also not only improved but this is a very welcome redemption for Jakko Jakszyk after a string of unfinished/flawed sounding releases (that I suspect weren't his fault). I'm reinterpreting some of what I thought of as "long winded" bits more as mix flaws in the original.


So, are we going to get treated to Olias and Beginnings next?

 

[Robert van Diggele]

My decade old Outlaw Audio processor handles DTS 24/96 perfectly fine from my Oppo 83se.
SHF
The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.

You have the 83se connected via HDMI to the Outlaw I assume?

 

[JediJoker]

The 83se won't decode DTS 24/96 and send it over analog according to the thread I found over at SHF. The original beta firmware did but they removed it in the official firmware versions.

Interesting... It does HD Master Audio, but not lossy 24/96 DTS?

 

[himey]

You have the 83se connected via HDMI to the Outlaw I assume?

The Outlaw Audio doesn't do HDMI, only DVI. I use the analog outs of Oppo to a 5.1 multichannel preamp (Sony P9000ES) for lossless discs. The Outlaw does DTS 24/96 through spdif which I use for PC. The Sony preamp has pass through for 5.1 which is connected to the Outlaw.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Why don't these mastering gurus just release these pricey boxset remasters in LPCM 5.1 96/24 and LPCM 96/24 stereo and just abandon DTS 96/24 [?] altogether as, IMO, ALL decent DVD/BD~A/V players can universally play these LOSSLESS codecs in FULL RESOLUTION! P.S. There's NO royalty payments attached to utilizing LPCM!!!!!!!

BTW, Adam [fredblue] would ike someone who has the Squire boxset to comment on the quality of the 5.1 remix as he's considering a purchase.

 

[rtbluray]

BTW, Adam [fredblue] would ike someone who has the Squire boxset to comment on the quality of the 5.1 remix as he's considering a purchase.

It's kinda difficult for anyone to cut through the clutter and actually talk about this disc when there's a whole lot of technical talk going on that has absolutely nothing to do with the disc at hand!
All posts not directly relating to "Fish Out Of Water" will be moved out of this thread in due course, and let me remind you all that poll threads are meant to discuss the disc at hand, not anything that anyone feels like talking about!

Thanks in advance for your cooperation!

RT

 

[ssully]

It is bad logic to assume that the difference in fidelity between two different releases of two different mixes is down to the lossy codec used. What isn't bad logic is to assert that DTS is psychoacoustically superior to Dolby Digital. For one, it operates at a higher base bitrate.

Actually, it is (bad logic to assert that), when you are talking about two different codecs. For one, bit allocation is done quite differently in DTS vs AC3. The only way to demonstrate 'psychacoustic superiority' is with level-matched, randomized, double-blind listening tests.

Please read and absorb this before venturing such faulty arguments again..

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp

 

[ssully]

I stand corrected. But I think you know what I'm alluding to. None of my players and pre/pros are capable of hi res 96/24 replication from DVD~V......just the Core lossy 16/48. So what player/DACs does Jim utilize to access the higher def 96/24 from DTS?

Any DTS 96/24-compliant hardware device can decode DTS 96/24. Which is basically a DTS 'core' lossy encoding with ultrasonic frequency content added back in. (It's still lossy). DTS 96/24 AVRs etc have been common for many years now.

If you feed a DTS 96/24 encode into a 'plain' DTS-compliant device, it will decode the same DTS 'core' without the ultrasonic content.

Unless you are a bat you are unlikely to hear any difference, in a properly conducted comparison.

Ripping software like DVD Audio Extractor can also rip the DTS 96/24 data, or just the core, depending on settings.

 

[Jim the Oldbie]

Just got this in the mail today, listening now, nearly finished. Wow. I was not prepared for this at all.

This surround mix is so different from the stereo version I've known and loved all these years. There's lots of stuff that wasn't there before, and vice versa. And the sound is so changed! The whole space occupied by this mix feels completely different. Where the stereo was big & raucous, this 5.1 is more intimate and elegant. The stereo sound was a big, creaky old orchestra hall; this is a modern, well-designed studio.

The instruments and vocals sound wonderful. Gone is that familiar crust of distortion, that glommed-together sound that seems to plague the original stereo mixes of so many of these classic recordings. Now we hear each individual part, clean and crystal-clear. This continues to just amaze the shit out of me, how good these original tracks sound (and conversely, how messed-up they got on the original path to stereo mixing & mastering, way back when). This sounds like it was recorded last week! (Would that it was possible, sigh.)

For me (and many of you, I presume), much of the draw of this old music is the emotional connection to the past. In later years for example, listening to Fish Out Of Water could often transport me back to one singular, indescribable summer of outdoor parties, running sound for my buddies' band (and smoking a lot of weed). I've been really impressed by how a lot of these recent multi remixes can still take me back like that, while sounding new and different at the same time! I don't know how much of this is intentional, and how much happy accident, but it's pretty amazing when it happens.

Sadly, this 5.1 Fish ain't gonna do that for me. And while this is certainly disappointing, I'm not ready to write the whole thing off. There's a lot to like here; it's just really different. It's like running into one of your old hard-partying high school buddies after 45-some years, and finding out he's really gotten his act together; like, you can understand what he's saying and everything now!

I'm gonna give this reunion a chance.

-- Jim

P.S. Just one major gripe: the sax solo toward the end of "Lucky Seven" is WAY TOO GOD-DAMN LOUD!! What the hell is that about.

[EDIT] Just had a listen to the hi-res remaster of the original stereo mix, and it's quite nice. Still has the same old "vibe," but with clearer sound, even somewhat better dynamics than my old CD copy, which I think was a Japanese import? (Too lazy to dig it out of the closet.) Anyway, if I do decide the 5.1 isn't gonna work out, at least there's this. Not sure if it was worth seventy-two bucks, but it's pretty good. Ya pays ya money, ya takes ya chances...

 

[4-earredwonder]

The importcd SACD you are linking is from Billy Squire, not Chris.

Yikes: sometimes I get a little 'squirrely!'

 

[blue.monk]

I've enjoyed rediscovering this album. Good stuff. I was never as familiar with it as I was with 70's Yes material. As a result I'm not too bothered by (or often aware of) the liberties Jakko has taken with the mix. To my ears the elements sound nicely balanced and the fidelity is strong. I voted 9.

 

[d0zer]

wow, only 3 votes so far. I guess it is because the high price, that not so many people had the opportunity to buy this (and listen to it). But I really like the surround mix (and the music as well...)