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

[ssully]

The proper DVD arrived awhile ago, and I pronounce it good.

 

[markshan]

One of the better upmixes I've heard. I give it a 9.

 

[fizzywiggs41]

I think it's an incredible surround achievement. Especially given that it comes from very olde master multi tapes which could be only 2 or 3 track.

Mr. Lee could take over where Silverline missed the boat with all those Sanctuary titles in poorly attempted surround , fwiw.

Hoping more like this from Monster, as they clearly show what can be done with this disc from...1960 !!!

Gave it a nine , eight for the sound and mix and one more because of it's rather historic age .

 

[markshan]

I think it's an incredible surround achievement. Especially given that it comes from very olde master multi tapes which could be only 2 or 3 track.

I'm pretty sure it states that the master was 3 track.

 

[ssully]

I really wish they were more transparent about how they actually achieved this from the 3-track master. It seems miraculous.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I really wish they were more transparent about how they actually achieved this from the 3-track master. It seems miraculous.

IIRC, the booklet goes in to it a little bit. But maybe it's vague? My impression was they used spectral analysis to separate sounds.
Whatever they did worked. This disc is a very cool surround experience.

 

[ssully]

IIRC, the booklet goes in to it a little bit. But maybe it's vague?

Quite vague.

They claim to have done this without any digital tools.

"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."

I find that claim remarkable bordering on unbelievable.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Quite vague.

They claim to have done this without any digital tools.

"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."

I find that claim remarkable bordering on unbelievable.

Well, believe IT, ssully as I truly believe, the results ARE remarkable.

Although not discrete, the ambience is truly palpable and is the finest rendition of this Davis classic this listener has ever experienced.

Sometimes, LESS is MORE [meaning, NO digital manipulation]

Hopefully, Monster/Lee will pursue further remixes but this time on BD~A.

 

[ssully]

Well, believe IT, ssully as I truly believe, the results ARE remarkable.

I 'believe' the results, they sound great. I just don't quite understand how they were achieved, based on what Monster has told us.

Although not discrete, the ambience is truly palpable and is the finest rendition of this Davis classic this listener has ever experienced.

Sometimes, LESS is MORE [meaning, NO digital manipulation]

Thanks but I was hoping for a more substantive answer than just cheerleading.

And I suspect that if this was all done in the analog domain, it involved far MORE work and manipulation than it would in the digital realm. Which is typically the case for analog vs. digital results.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I 'believe' the results, they sound great. I just don't quite understand how they were achieved, based on what Monster has told us.



Thanks but I was hoping for a more substantive answer than just cheerleading.

And I suspect that if this was all done in the analog domain, it involved far MORE work and manipulation than it would in the digital realm. Which is typically the case for analog vs. digital results.

Sorry ssully but like yourself I read the liner notes and have no further info on the subject. Best to email Lee @ Monster Music and ask him directly.

BTW, belatedly, I just voted a 10. Well deserved, IMO and even love the 96/24 Stereo remaster, as well.

 

[key_wiz]

Maybe they just meant no extra digital processing after the tracks were created?

I can’t imagine they didn’t use digital equipment in order to split 3 tracks into 19 and mix them.

IS there even any way to create a 5.1 mix usually analog gear?? As some point it has to be done digital to get it to DTS

 

[markshan]

Maybe they just meant no extra digital processing after the tracks were created?

I can’t imagine they didn’t use digital equipment in order to split 3 tracks into 19 and mix them.

IS there even any way to create a 5.1 mix usually analog gear?? As some point it has to be done digital to get it to DTS

31 band or parametric EQs to isolate frequencies would be about the only analog method I can think of.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Maybe they just meant no extra digital processing after the tracks were created?

I can’t imagine they didn’t use digital equipment in order to split 3 tracks into 19 and mix them.

IS there even any way to create a 5.1 mix usually analog gear?? As some point it has to be done digital to get it to DTS

ALL those early QUADs were done strictly via analogue since digital was unheard of in those days.

I'd likewise be somewhat skeptical how Monster managed to extract 19 tracks from a 3 track analogue master with NO noise reduction in the analogue domain without adding undue hiss to the final product [unlike digital, analogue does introduce hiss when bumping tracks around from tape deck to tape deck].

 

[key_wiz]

31 band or parametric EQs to isolate frequencies would be about the only analog method I can think of.

That would split them in 19 analog channels? And why 19? That’s a very un-analog number.

Sounds very unweildly at the very least. Unnecessary and probably counterproductive

I could see not wanting to add any additional digital processing to the sound. But to create the tracks? And then mix it to 5.1?

Hmmm. Yeah I think what was written wasn’t the full story for whatever reason.

But I guess anything’s POSSIBLE

 

[key_wiz]

ALL those early QUADs were done strictly via analogue since digital was unheard of in those days.

.

Well sure. But isn’t even the .1 channel a fully digital creation?

I'd likewise be somewhat skeptical how Monster managed to extract 19 tracks from a 3 track analogue master with NO noise reduction in the analogue domain without adding undue hiss to the final product [unlike digital, analogue does introduce hiss when bumping tracks around from tape deck to tape deck].

Yep.

 

[markshan]

I'd likewise be somewhat skeptical how Monster managed to extract 19 tracks from a 3 track analogue master with NO noise reduction in the analogue domain without adding undue hiss to the final product [unlike digital, analogue does introduce hiss when bumping tracks around from tape deck to tape deck].

NR can be analog.

 

[markshan]

ALL those early QUADs were done strictly via analogue since digital was unheard of in those days.

.

Well sure. But isn’t even the .1 channel a fully digital creation?

Yep.

All .1 channel is is LFE. It can be created with a mono master and a parametric EQ. (I'm not saying it was, just that it could be.)

 

[markshan]

That would split them in 19 analog channels? And why 19? That’s a very un-analog number.

That's one of the few things that makes sense to me. They could have used a really great 24 track console, dubbed the three existing tracks to 1-3, then mixed those onto mono on track 4. That could have been bounced with a bandpass to create the LFE and that would leave 19 tracks to play around with.

 

[4-earredwonder]

NR can be analog.

Sketches was recorded pre~dolby NR!

 

[salsdali]

I haven't heard Head Monster Noel Lee's name almost since these came out.

Anyone know why he seemingly abandoned the whole surround scene since then?