DVD/DTS Poll Davis, Miles - Sketches of Spain [DTS 96/24 DVD]

[JonUrban]

Please post your thoughts and comments on this DTS Surround Limited Release from Monster Music, "Sketches of Spain" by Miles Davis, arranged and conducted by Gil Evans. This disc was created to be exclusively included with some high end headphones. In the Summer of 2012 a few sealed copies surfaced on eBay. Thanks to QQ Member jsulzinger pointing out the auction, some of us had a chance to grab one.

 

[elmer]

I gave this a critical listen today and I have to say that the results are fantastic! - especially considering that the original source was 3 analog tracks. According to the liner notes they took the 3 tracks and converted them to 19 tracks in order to create as closely as possibl,e the actual original instrument positions (from session photographs). The resulting effort is uncanny and truly three dimensional. And it sounds flat out great. This is an all time classic recording - one of the standard bearers in the jazz canon and widely regarded as a masterpiece. This new mix is stunning. A 10.

 

[Quad Linda]

How did they create the new channels? Each track has 21 or 22 musicians, so they could somewhat isolate them through filters, eq, etc.

I'm eagerly awaiting my copy and will a/b it to some of the five other copies I own, mainly the SACD. Will post if & when I receive it. Any other comparisons would be appreciated. I've never owned this album on vinyl.

Also, check out my posting on Miles on the Largest Collection thread: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...ion-Which-Artist-is-Yours&p=153905#post153905

 

[DKA]

Did some A/B-ing between this and an SACD-sourced SPEC version I did several months ago as part of my critical listen. On its own merits, this is a very good mix, with "Concierto de Aranjuez" utilizing the rears in a more meaningful way than the rest of the mix, which spends most of its time accentuating Miles. Soundfield and sound quality were excellent. Very nice high end here.

It was surprising for me to see that, although I like the natural placement of this retail mix better at times, I found that I was able to engage the rears in a more meaningful way throughout, and finding some separation in places, when working from the stereo. It makes for a much more immersive listen on some of the later tracks, and even on "Aranjuez" at times. This makes me feel like, even with their "work from the position of the musicians" POV when placing the instruments being noted, some punches were pulled here which perhaps shouldn't have. I found my SACD-source mix to be a bit shriller than the retail mix.

What is this, in the end? I gave it an 8 out of 10. It's certainly a very good mix, with the lack of use of the rears at times to separate out more of the layers present the primary minus for me, especially on the non-Aranjuez tracks. Otherwise, there's not a whole lot to complain about here.

 

[LizardKing]

I'm keen to know what people think of the Stereo on the SACD version compared to the DVD 96/24 stereo.

Waiting for mine to arrive...

 

[zabble]

I've never owned this album until my $9.99 Monster version arrived. I can't compare it sonically with any other version, but it sounds really good to me.

The liner notes read: "We took 3 analog tracks and translated them to 19 in order to create as complete an audio picture as is possible, but without processing and absolutely no digital software." This being the case, exactly what did they do with those 19 tracks if there was no processing involved? How do you isolate an instrument to place in the surround field without processing it ?

A nice upmix as far as upmixes go (it's got an extra channel advantage over most of them). Too bad they didn't also include a pure three channel version with it. I'm sure glad I didn't have to buy a super expensive pair of earbuds last year just to get this; I actually entertained the thought as it was the only way to get it back then. I'm glad I put the headphone purchase on hold.

 

[fredblue]

still waiting on my copy too. super excited to hear this!

 

[Quad Linda]

Ditto. I'm not expecting any great shakes on the mix. Still, I want to hear it. This is one of Miles' most classic albums and I love it. If you dig this, Miles Ahead is also a large ensemble album, though it isn't an interpretation of Classical music. As good as Sketches is, I think Miles Ahead is better musically. Sonically, Sketches may be better.

Original cover, available on Japan SACD & CD releases:


Cover currently available in US:

still waiting on my copy too. super excited to hear this!

 

[DKA]

I've never owned this album until my $9.99 Monster version arrived. I can't compare it sonically with any other version, but it sounds really good to me.

The liner notes read: "We took 3 analog tracks and translated them to 19 in order to create as complete an audio picture as is possible, but without processing and absolutely no digital software." This being the case, exactly what did they do with those 19 tracks if there was no processing involved? How do you isolate an instrument to place in the surround field without processing it ?

A nice upmix as far as upmixes go (it's got an extra channel advantage over most of them). Too bad they didn't also include a pure three channel version with it. I'm sure glad I didn't have to buy a super expensive pair of earbuds last year just to get this; I actually entertained the thought as it was the only way to get it back then. I'm glad I put the headphone purchase on hold.

You don't isolate an instrument. You give the listener the illusion that it's coming out of one place in the soundfield. You can't successfully isolate an instrument from stereo unless you're using some software I've never seen, and I've seen people try to do it spending days with Sonicworx.

We tried experimenting with a similar approach to this with SPEC, but the interface was too difficult for anyone but the stubbornest user to be able to understand, and we didn't think the results were markedly better than ArcTan, as I don't really think the results here were necessarily markedly better either.

A "nice" upmix? Sure. I thought this was well done. There are better ones done by people not being money by Monster to do them, and you may be able to do a better one yourself.

I don't understand the extra channel comment. I'm not reading anywhere where it says this is 6.1 on the box.

 

[Quad Linda]

10. Mine just arrived. It's my sixth copy and it is AWESOME!! I a/b'ed it to the US 2ch single-layer SACD and the remastered CD from The Complete Columbia Album Collection. Neither of those begin with the studio chatter. It blows those two away. Perhaps later I'll a/b it to the 2 CD remastered and Complete Miles Davis/Gil Evans box set versions. I could ask why Columbia couldn't do this with Kind of Blue, although in their defense they have less than 1/3 as many musicians on that date.

Although it's an upmix, it's a damn good one, hence I rated it a 10. An ESSENTIAL album in Miles' Oeuvre. Kudos to Noel Lee at Monster for his mix!

Was everyone else's a DVD-V packed in a standard DVD case, with no CD included?

If you don't own a copy of this, you simply don't like jazz!

I'm keen to know what people think of the Stereo on the SACD version compared to the DVD 96/24 stereo.

Waiting for mine to arrive...

 

[Quad Linda]

If this makes you want more Miles with Orchestra, it and all his orchestral collaborations with Gil Evans, including outtakes are collected on the Complete Columbia Studio Recordings box:



View attachment 6100

Those who have never heard Sketches before may not be familiar with the original cover:



View attachment 6101

 

[LizardKing]

....
Was everyone else's a DVD-V packed in a standard DVD case, with no CD included?

If you don't own a copy of this, you simply don't like jazz!

My firsy copy of this!!!! Yes - STD DVD case....no cd.. but who needs a cd with 96/24 stereo and DTS96/24...

 

[DKA]

10. Mine just arrived. It's my sixth copy and it is AWESOME!! I a/b'ed it to the US 2ch single-layer SACD and the remastered CD from The Complete Columbia Album Collection. Neither of those begin with the studio chatter. It blows those two away. Perhaps later I'll a/b it to the 2 CD remastered and Complete Miles Davis/Gil Evans box set versions. I could ask why Columbia couldn't do this with Kind of Blue, although in their defense they have less than 1/3 as many musicians on that date.

Although it's an upmix, it's a damn good one, hence I rated it a 10. An ESSENTIAL album in Miles' Oeuvre. Kudos to Noel Lee at Monster for his mix!

Was everyone else's a DVD-V packed in a standard DVD case, with no CD included?

If you don't own a copy of this, you simply don't like jazz!

This is where the "upmix logic fallacy" that I will never understand happens. Someone listens to something like this and says, "this is great....for an upmix." I say the SPEC can pull out more separation, and more information for the rears, from stereo, but those same people say they're not interested in upmixing.

This is good, but anyone giving this a "10" needs to work more with upmixing.

Not directly pointed at Linda, but rather a jumping-off point into something I was thinking already.

 

[Quad Linda]

DKA, I've heard several upmixes and have detected many flaws in them. Does this sound like discrete 5.1? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. IMHO, this is one of Miles' best efforts. I have 500 Miles CD's. It's light years beyond the mix of Kind of Blue in 5.1. Based on the music, which I'd rate 11 or 12, and it sounding discrete at times, I gave it 10. BTW, I expected no great shakes on the upmix and foresaw rating it 8, primarily based on the music.

I'm very pleased and it's better than expected.

 

[LizardKing]

This is where the "upmix logic fallacy" that I will never understand happens. Someone listens to something like this and says, "this is great....for an upmix." I say the SPEC can pull out more separation, and more information for the rears, from stereo, but those same people say they're not interested in upmixing.

This is good, but anyone giving this a "10" needs to work more with upmixing.

Not directly pointed at Linda, but rather a jumping-off point into something I was thinking already.

The issue I have with SPEC up-mixes (at least that I've heard) they seem to loose the "air" in the original recording...

Question - I'm not doubting that SPEC could do more separation, but can it maintain the fidelity & "air" like this mix does?????

 

[jefe1]

Well, this is my lucky day! Received a second chance offer on an auction I lost and just bought this for $10.67 shipped. Sounds like most here like the mix, and if not, you get a hi rez stereo version so how can you lose?

So lets see, within around one week it looks like 25 copies have been sold just to members of this forum. Right, there sure is no market for surround music....

 

[fredblue]

Well, this is my lucky day! Received a second chance offer on an auction I lost and just bought this for $10.67 shipped. Sounds like most here like the mix, and if not, you get a hi rez stereo version so how can you lose?

So lets see, within around one week it looks like 25 copies have been sold just to members of this forum. Right, there sure is no market for surround music....

great job on the 2nd chance, jefe1..! thats how i won my copy! (tho' not for $10 unfortunately.. haha!)

totally with you, on the "no surround market" bull.

it's just total rubbish that one of the arguments that comes up is that there's no market for surround music!

there is! all of us on QQ are proof positive.

we may be relatively small in number but we are committed to the cause and have money to spend on our passion.

everything is in place now for surround music to really shine.

1.) home theatre/surround at home is now more common than ever.

2.) SACD & DVDA are clinging on in there while CD dies out! 5.1 downloads are still not a reality the same way they're an ubiquitous stereo replacement for redbook CD. reports of Hi-Res/M-C's death have turned out to be.. presumptuous/erroneous!

3.) Hdmi instead of separate phono/RCA's makes modern multi-channel easier to hook up than ever.

 

[Bleedink]

You don't isolate an instrument. You give the listener the illusion that it's coming out of one place in the soundfield. You can't successfully isolate an instrument from stereo unless you're using some software I've never seen, and I've seen people try to do it spending days with Sonicworx.

We tried experimenting with a similar approach to this with SPEC, but the interface was too difficult for anyone but the stubbornest user to be able to understand, and we didn't think the results were markedly better than ArcTan, as I don't really think the results here were necessarily markedly better either.

A "nice" upmix? Sure. I thought this was well done. There are better ones done by people not being money by Monster to do them, and you may be able to do a better one yourself.

I don't understand the extra channel comment. I'm not reading anywhere where it says this is 6.1 on the box.

Was this the software that Sony developed but doesn't distribute? I saw an article recently on some software that Sony helped develop (I believe fairly recently and I have forgotten who does the distribution and the name of the software) that essentially extracts individual instruments from a stereo track to make multis from it. Is this the software you are referring to? The video demo I saw of it was pretty impressive (for the record I'm a graphic artist--I don't use or know about this kinda stuff) but they generally make those things to show the software off. It seemed (being the operative word here) as if the software was doing a great job...but how would I know? Can you tell me anything about these tools and how well they work? It sounds like your view isn't all that positive of the particular software you're referring to.

 

[Quad Linda]

Here's what I expected the package to look like. Has anybody seen one that looks like this:

 

[zabble]

I don't understand the extra channel comment. I'm not reading anywhere where it says this is 6.1 on the box.

I was simply referring to the fact that whoever did the upmix on this had three channels to work with as compared to two, which is what the vast majority of upmixers have to work with.