DVD/DTS Poll Derek & The Dominos - Layla & Other Assorted Love Songs 40th Anniversary (Ellioitt Scheiner 5.1 Mix) [DTS/DD DVD]

[Jim the Oldbie]

I don't mean to throw gas on the fire, but distorted guitars really do sound better, the more accurately they're reproduced. Also, because it tends to be a more dense, harmonically-rich sound, electric guitar distortion is one of the types of sound that perceptual (lossy) coding algorithms in particular tend to struggle with.

 

[atrocity]

electric guitar distortion is one of the types of sound that perceptual (lossy) coding algorithms in particular tend to struggle with.

It can also cause real problems with ClickRepair.

 

[~dave~~wave~]

FWIW, IMHO, the SACD is not worthless. It makes the album about as enjoyable as I need it to be, anyway.
No, I haven't heard the Scheiner mix, and I can easily take on faith that it's better.
I'm not opposed to finding the box at the right price, rescuing the DVD and sending the rest on to a good home, perhaps.
But, in the possibly vast meantime, the SACD gets occasional spins in my house and it is preferred to any stereo version I've come across.

Well put, could not agree more.
One of the dumbest things I ever did was delay picking up a copy of this on SACD due to opinions in this thread.
Spend what you can afford, listen, decide, keep or sell.

Use your common sense, take free opinions from strangers on the internet for exactly the value you paid for them.
Don't listen to me, either. What do I know?

Several takes were recorded with tiny amps sitting on the piano.

..."Thorn Tree in the Garden", was "the perfect stereo recording", according to Dowd.
Whitlock, Clapton, Allman, Radle and Gordon sat in a circle in the studio, with the microphone placed in the centre as they played live...

 

[rusinurbe]

It was a missed opportunity not including both 5.1 mixes plus both stereo mixes of the album on the HFPA disc.
Why not chuck in the outtakes as well.
Maybe the 50th Anniversary will.incude it all. We had 20th anniversary and 40th anniversary releases fingers crossed

 

[sunra]

It amazes me that the DVD with the 5.1 mix from the super deluxe box is not available for either legal or <<other>> download. You would think it would be out there by now?

 

[Clint Eastwood]

It amazes me that the DVD with the 5.1 mix from the super deluxe box is not available for either legal or <<other>> download. You would think it would be out there by now?

There are a LOT of surround versions that never reach the open market after inclusion in a box set...even more are sitting in vaults and have never been released at all....not unusual...

 

[sunra]

True. I did appreciate that the Alan Parsons Project Blu-ray of Tales was released individually after the box set.

 

[ar surround]

The thing that kept me from buying this box was that it was one of the first sets issued in non-high-res surround. It seemed expensive at the time for lacking a top grade codec. Also, there were some reports of damage to discs as they tended to fly loose within the box. In retrospect, I probably should have sprung for the thing.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

The thing that kept me from buying this box was that it was one of the first sets issued in non-high-res surround. It seemed expensive at the time for lacking a top grade codec. Also, there were some reports of damage to discs as they tended to fly loose within the box. In retrospect, I probably should have sprung for the thing.

It's a shame...you fell for the "if it's not hi rez it's not any good" nonsense...it's ironic when you consider how many hi rez discs are bad...and how many non high rez discs are good...the Dolby Digital haters think that 24/96 is some kind of magical potion...despite all the examples of hi rez failures....reminds me of teenagers that just MUST have a pair of Nike shoes...even though many shoes are much better at half the cost...

 

[sunra]

I agree, me too.
This is against forum policy, so this post will probably be deleted, but I just have to say it. It's digital data we are talking about here. So if it's not available to purchase legally, someone should upload it to a torrent site and we can share it that way.

 

[markshan]

It's a shame...you fell for the "if it's not hi rez it's not any good" nonsense...it's ironic when you consider how many hi rez discs are bad...and how many non high rez discs are good...the Dolby Digital haters think that 24/96 is some kind of magical potion...despite all the examples of hi rez failures....reminds me of teenagers that just MUST have a pair of Nike shoes...even though many shoes are much better at half the cost...

High res is a thing, but it's much less of a thing than (for example) proper mixing or proper mastering. I've certainly heard DTS discs that were more well done than DVD-As.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

High res is a thing, but it's much less of a thing than (for example) proper mixing or proper mastering. I've certainly heard DTS discs that were more well done than DVD-As.

It's not that I don't like the 24/96 masterpieces...because I do....but my problem is... when people just dismiss a disc because it doesn't fit the metrics doesn't make much sense to me..they miss out on a lot of good music..but if that is their preference..I don't have a problem with it...but when those same people discourage others from getting a disc just due to that reason....it is just wrong...

 

[kap'n krunch]

It's not that I don't like the 24/96 masterpieces...because I do....but my problem is... when people just dismiss a disc because it doesn't fit the metrics doesn't make much sense to me..they miss out on a lot of good music..but if that is their preference..I don't have a problem with it...but when those same people discourage others from getting a disc just due to that reason....it is just wrong...

The Beatles SPLHCB BD anyone??????
Sorry to say it again...the more channels there are, the harder it is to please everybody!!!!
My 2 cents...

 

[4-earredwonder]

It's a shame...you fell for the "if it's not hi rez it's not any good" nonsense...it's ironic when you consider how many hi rez discs are bad...and how many non high rez discs are good...the Dolby Digital haters think that 24/96 is some kind of magical potion...despite all the examples of hi rez failures....reminds me of teenagers that just MUST have a pair of Nike shoes...even though many shoes are much better at half the cost...

This discussion has always been a thorn in my side: DTS 5.1/DD/5.1 versus MLP DVD~A or SACD or 96/24 BD~A.

It's NOT that DTS and/or DD 5.1 can 'fool' you into thinking it's the equivalent of higher res formats......because it simply IS NOT. And if YOU can't hear the difference....there are others that can!

If you have one Universal player [whatever brand you choose] to play ALL these formats on.......then it's NOT a fair comparison because Universal Players have their limitations. They don't do everything spectacularly well. There ARE better players out there which specialize in playback of SACD Stereo and/or MLP DVD~A 5.1 and once you've heard them [and believe me, not many have] your heads would spin.

It's like comparing 3D on a Plasma versus OLED TV. IMO, NO comparison. That's why OLED TVs cost more......because they are better than Plasmas. If you saw 3D on OLED you'd be positively astounded at how far the technology has come.

And my biggest gripe.....instead of loading these pricey boxsets with hard bound books, vinyl and endless outtakes, just give us the 5.1 in the BEST FIDELITY currently available, especially when you've commissioned an Elliot Scheiner or a Steve Wilson to painstakingly create the remix. Don't we at the VERY least deserve that?

As an example: Those who have the original Rhino DTS 4.0 of Chicago Transit Authority and have the remastered Rhino BD~A will know there's absolutely NO comparison. The BD~A spectacularly 'trashes' the lossy DTS 4.0 mix....HANDS DOWN. And that's just one example. And the irony, the BD~A was cheaper than the $30 list Rhino charged for the LOSSY DTS 4.0 version.

When I go to a steak house, don't give me hamburger when I've ordered a filet mignon or ribeye......THAT SIMPLE!

Most Commercial Music is recorded on 30 or 15 ips analogue tape or 192/24 Digital [or HIGHER]......if you REALLY think LOSSY CODECS are giving you that MASTER sound.......how naive can you be???????????

 

[markshan]

The BD~A spectacularly 'trashes' the lossy DTS 4.0 mix....HANDS DOWN.

Did anyone say it doesn't? I think you may need to re-read Clint's last post.

BTW, is resolution the only factor which has changed? I went on about how surprised I was that the BD of Sea Change was so much better than the DVD-A I had already fallen in love with. Then someone pointed out to me that there had been an out of phase mastering of the fronts that the BD corrected. So it wasn't just the 192 that made it better. That is the only point I am making, not that high res isn't better, just that people walk around enjoying way worse than Redbook. The music is so much more important. Would I love to have a BD of this? Sure. But anyone who refuses to listen to this because it's "only" DTS is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[sjcorne]

Don't we at the VERY least deserve that?

*sigh*

Whenever I see these lossy vs lossless debates around the forum, I usually keep my distance, but the fact of the matter is (and I don't mean any disrespect, I think you're one of the great active members here and I enjoy reading your posts) that you can't look at this from a perspective of entitlement. We don't "deserve" anything. The record companies owe us nothing. They could stop including surround mixes in these mega box sets and the sales figures probably wouldn't change much. We're lucky they've been so giving lately.

I don't care about codecs and bitrates and lossiness...I care about SURROUND SOUND. And this is the surround sound forum. A good mix is a good mix no matter what the delivery format. I just spun Fleetwood Mac earlier this evening and I thought it sounded lovely. Then I spun Redbone's Message From A Drum from a 40+ year old quad 8-track tape and thought it was perfectly listenable.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and you're probably right about all the technical aspects of these recordings, using separate players, etc. But I think these debates are awfully detrimental to the future of our hobby

Now on to the actual topic of this thread: Scheiner's Layla is his true masterpiece IMO...the immersion and separation in classic tunes like Bell Bottom Blues and the title track is just breathtaking. He makes some real quad-like experimental placement decisions that are just incredible, like isolating the guitar licks in Bell Bottom Blues in the rear channels only. It sounds absolutely gorgeous to me. I'm upping my vote to a 10. I sure wish more members could hear it...

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Did anyone say it doesn't? I think you may need to re-read Clint's last post.

BTW, is resolution the only factor which has changed? I went on about how surprised I was that the BD of Sea Change was so much better than the DVD-A I had already fallen in love with. Then someone pointed out to me that there had been an out of phase mastering of the fronts that the BD corrected. So it wasn't just the 192 that made it better. That is the only point I am making, not that high res isn't better, just that people walk around enjoying way worse than Redbook. The music is so much more important. Would I love to have a BD of this? Sure. But anyone who refuses to listen to this because it's "only" DTS is putting the cart before the horse.

Thanks for understanding my post...it wasn't any comparison between lossy and lossless..but when Ralphie gets on a roll...I have learned to let him go

 

[Clint Eastwood]

This discussion has always been a thorn in my side: DTS 5.1/DD/5.1 versus MLP DVD~A or SACD or 96/24 BD~A.

It's NOT that DTS and/or DD 5.1 can 'fool' you into thinking it's the equivalent of higher res formats......because it simply IS NOT. And if YOU can't hear the difference....there are others that can!

If you have one Universal player [whatever brand you choose] to play ALL these formats on.......then it's NOT a fair comparison because Universal Players have their limitations. They don't do everything spectacularly well. There ARE better players out there which specialize in playback of SACD Stereo and/or MLP DVD~A 5.1 and once you've heard them [and believe me, not many have] your heads would spin.

It's like comparing 3D on a Plasma versus OLED TV. IMO, NO comparison. That's why OLED TVs cost more......because they are better than Plasmas. If you saw 3D on OLED you'd be positively astounded at how far the technology has come.

And my biggest gripe.....instead of loading these pricey boxsets with hard bound books, vinyl and endless outtakes, just give us the 5.1 in the BEST FIDELITY currently available, especially when you've commissioned an Elliot Scheiner or a Steve Wilson to painstakingly create the remix. Don't we at the VERY least deserve that?

As an example: Those who have the original Rhino DTS 4.0 of Chicago Transit Authority and have the remastered Rhino BD~A will know there's absolutely NO comparison. The BD~A spectacularly 'trashes' the lossy DTS 4.0 mix....HANDS DOWN. And that's just one example. And the irony, the BD~A was cheaper than the $30 list Rhino charged for the LOSSY DTS 4.0 version.

When I go to a steak house, don't give me hamburger when I've ordered a filet mignon or ribeye......THAT SIMPLE!

Filet mignon?...c'mon Ralphie...we know you go to Costco and eat those hot dogs

 

[Clint Eastwood]

*sigh*

Whenever I see these lossy vs lossless debates around the forum, I usually keep my distance, but the fact of the matter is (and I don't mean any disrespect, I think you're one of the great active members here and I enjoy reading your posts) that you can't look at this from a perspective of entitlement. We don't "deserve" anything. The record companies owe us nothing. They could stop including surround mixes in these mega box sets and the sales figures probably wouldn't change much. We're lucky they've been so giving lately.

I don't care about codecs and bitrates and lossiness...I care about SURROUND SOUND. And this is the surround sound forum. A good mix is a good mix no matter what the delivery format. I just spun Fleetwood Mac earlier this evening and I thought it sounded lovely. Then I spun Redbone's Message From A Drum from a 40+ year old quad 8-track tape and thought it was perfectly listenable.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and you're probably right about all the technical aspects of these recordings, using separate players, etc. But I think these debates are awfully detrimental to the future of our hobby

Now on to the actual topic of this thread: Scheiner's Layla is his true masterpiece IMO...the immersion and separation in classic tunes like Bell Bottom Blues and the title track is just breathtaking. He makes some real quad-like experimental placement decisions that are just incredible, like isolating the guitar licks in Bell Bottom Blues in the rear channels only. It sounds absolutely gorgeous to me. I'm upping my vote to a 10. I sure wish more members could hear it...

Just to repeat...my post didn't deal with a lossy vs lossless debate...it was merely a rebuttal against those that just dismiss a title because it's not "hi rez"....and I and others have said over and over again that the mix and mastering is more important than the delivery system....you bring up an important point that I agree with...the attitude of entitlement...even though most of us know that the surround pool of potential buyers is a tiny segment of the market place..it doesn't stop people from complaining about not getting stand alone discs...and when you factor in the state of physical discs...we are lucky to get anything at this stage...even these deluxe sets...I don't see them being offered in a couple of years..

I don't think this is his best mix...but it certainly is the best version I have ever heard...

 

[4-earredwonder]

*sigh*

Whenever I see these lossy vs lossless debates around the forum, I usually keep my distance, but the fact of the matter is (and I don't mean any disrespect, I think you're one of the great active members here and I enjoy reading your posts) that you can't look at this from a perspective of entitlement. We don't "deserve" anything. The record companies owe us nothing. They could stop including surround mixes in these mega box sets and the sales figures probably wouldn't change much. We're lucky they've been so giving lately.

I don't care about codecs and bitrates and lossiness...I care about SURROUND SOUND. And this is the surround sound forum. A good mix is a good mix no matter what the delivery format. I just spun Fleetwood Mac earlier this evening and I thought it sounded lovely. Then I spun Redbone's Message From A Drum from a 40+ year old quad 8-track tape and thought it was perfectly listenable.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and you're probably right about all the technical aspects of these recordings, using separate players, etc. But I think these debates are awfully detrimental to the future of our hobby

Now on to the actual topic of this thread: Scheiner's Layla is his true masterpiece IMO...the immersion and separation in classic tunes like Bell Bottom Blues and the title track is just breathtaking. He makes some real quad-like experimental placement decisions that are just incredible, like isolating the guitar licks in Bell Bottom Blues in the rear channels only. It sounds absolutely gorgeous to me. I'm upping my vote to a 10. I sure wish more members could hear it...

Thank you for your kind words but I really don't look at this as an 'entitlement" issue. Of course we at QQ are ALL thankful for any surround titles which the majors [and minors] bestow upon us but we also live in an age when for a FEW pennies more these majors could give us the FULL kilobuck akin to the transition from 480p DVD to 1080p BD~V and or 2060 UHD 4K.

It's called technology....and it exists [hopefully] to make our lives better....especially since a LOT of these are older titles which we have purchased in many different formats of lesser quality and perhaps it's time we were rewarded with not only a 5.1 remix but in the BEST QUALITY currently available.

Doubtful, they'll stop producing these titles because a few dissenters are questioning the lossy resolutions in which they are being produced but any one who is concerned with PREMIUM QUALITY should ask themselves a few simple questions: Do I really want this title (AGAIN) in LOSSY ho hum resolutions?

That ole saying "We Learn To Settle For WHAT WE GET" has never been more apropos. If we Don't complain......then change will never happen and I know there are some astute 'ears' at these major record companies who are fully aware of what we really DO want...........that FULL MONTY!