"Fleetwood Mac" (1975 S/T Album) Deluxe Edition with 5.1 surround DVD!

[Clint Eastwood]

I edited my original post above Clint.

Thanks...I was wondering if it was on my end...my software is a little buggy now...I purchased a new computer and haven't bothered to set it up yet..let me take this chance to THANK YOU for the awesome job you have done on the surround polls

 

[LuvMyQuad]

..let me take this chance to THANK YOU for the awesome job you have done on the surround polls

I want to be the first person to second that. Great job.

 

[Bill Mac]

My Fleetwood Mac Deluxe box set arrived yesterday from Amazon.co.uk in fine shape. No bends or any issues with the discs or packaging. I had a chance to listen to the 5.1 mix and the first thing that stands out is how loud it is. The mix is fairly immersive but the fact that it's lossy and DD only leaves it a bit short in overall resolution IMO. I want to give it another listen in a day or two as I was a bit preoccupied when listening to it this morning. On a scale of 1-10 I'd say it's a 7 on the overall mix and musical content. I'm definitely glad I bought the set and will enjoy the extras on CD and the vinyl as well as the DVD .

Bill

 

[peterzach]

To me this release sounds better than most DD 5.1's I have ever heard, guess that is props to the mixing done by Ken Caillat on this which is very good. The DD of this is louder than the one song I have on Acura sample "Monday Morning" which the Dvda just sounds smoother but that is to be expected so not saying anything new here.

Such a shame this did not come out in early 2000's when we would have gotten another stellar dvda like Rumours, well one can hope that "forging rhino" comes to the rescue for us in the next few years and these FM releases come out in a Chicago like BR boxset,as I will repeat Ryan, 'One can dream'

On a side note when I first started collecting 5.1's I did get FM Rumours very early in my collecting and at the time I liked the clarity of the sound of the 5.1 presentation but it did not give me that WOW factor which some other releases like Flaming Lips and Queen did for me at the time.
Now 15+ years of surround listening later guess which is one of my most treasured disk's, yes its 'Rumours', as it does not have any crazy gimmicky stuff going on but it's a work of art in surround as it is just a very GOOD mix that compliments what was done in stereo and just gives you that wonderful enveloping experience that all of us music fans always hope for when putting on a good recording that we want to listen to.
Now its albums like Flaming Lips that I rarely listen to mostly because of the mastering compression on their recordings and the swirling 5.1 I must admit has kind of lost its appeal for me as a result. Once in a while its still nice to have these other crazy mix's though.
I still really like Queen-A Night at the Opera though which was another early disk and still a top 10 favorite for me.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

To me this release sounds better than most DD 5.1's I have ever heard, guess that is props to the mixing done by Ken Caillat on this which is very good. The DD of this is louder than the one song I have on Acura sample "Monday Morning" which the Dvda just sounds smoother but that is to be expected so not saying anything new here.

Such a shame this did not come out in early 2000's when we would have gotten another stellar dvda like Rumours, well one can hope that "forging rhino" comes to the rescue for us in the next few years and these FM releases come out in a Chicago like BR boxset,as I will repeat Ryan, 'One can dream'

On a side note when I first started collecting 5.1's I did get FM Rumours very early in my collecting and at the time I liked the clarity of the sound of the 5.1 presentation but it did not give me that WOW factor which some other releases like Flaming Lips and Queen did for me at the time.
Now 15+ years of surround listening later guess which is one of my most treasured disk's, yes its 'Rumours', as it does not have any crazy gimmicky stuff going on but it's a work of art in surround as it is just a very GOOD mix that compliments what was done in stereo and just gives you that wonderful enveloping experience that all of us music fans always hope for when putting on a good recording that we want to listen to.
Now its albums like Flaming Lips that I rarely listen to mostly because of the mastering compression on their recordings and the swirling 5.1 I must admit has kind of lost its appeal for me as a result. Once in a while its still nice to have these other crazy mix's though.
I still really like Queen-A Night at the Opera though which was another early disk and still a top 10 favorite for me.

I've often wondered why people liked the Flaming Lips disc...it's so compressed and the surround came across as a gimmick...but IMO the Queen surrounds don't sound like a gimmick...they are an integral part of the music...plus the Queen music content is excellent..I can't wait to get the Fleetwood Mac disc...I haven't heard those songs in a long time...that is what has kept the music "fresh" for me..I didn't keep playing that music in the decades that passed....I moved on to other music..I'm glad I did..many are burned out on some of this music...I'm glad you enjoyed it...

 

[ar surround]

I've often wondered why people liked the Flaming Lips disc...it's so compressed and the surround came across as a gimmick...but IMO the Queen surrounds don't sound like a gimmick...they are an integral part of the music...plus the Queen music content is excellent..I can't wait to get the Fleetwood Mac disc...I haven't heard those songs in a long time...that is what has kept the music "fresh" for me..I didn't keep playing that music in the decades that passed....I moved on to other music..I'm glad I did..many are burned out on some of this music...I'm glad you enjoyed it...

Clint, this new 5.1 of Fleetwood Mac is going to make your day! :banana::banana::banana:

 

[4-earredwonder]

Sorry to be somewhat of a debbie downer regarding the DD 5.1 but on my system the 96/24 Stereo remaster blows away the lossy DD significantly.

The album itself is a solid 9, the surround mix by Ken is a 9 but unfortunately, at the same volume [73 on my pre/pro] the limitations of the Dolby Digital codec are clearly and significantly eclipsed by the 96/24 with unbelievably deeper bass....and a much more effortless presentation of vocals...and ALL else!

There was plenty of space on this DVD for a 96/24 5.1 remaster.

I feel gipped....and UNENTITLED

Rumors and Say You Will were LOSSLESS 5.1 > Tusk/Mirage DTS 5.1 > Fleetwood Mac DD 5.1 > what's next MP3?

I voted a [generous] 7 for the DD 5.1 and a [silent] solid 9 for the Stereo 96/24 remaster!

Rhino/Warner: Let's stop messin' around with 1990 codecs developed for laserdiscs and DVD~V.

ALL these Fleetwood MAC albums deserve THE FULL MONTY :yikes BALLS and ALL!

 

[ar surround]

Sorry to be somewhat of a debbie downer regarding the DD 5.1 but on my system the 96/24 Stereo remaster blows away the lossy DD significantly.

The album itself is a solid 9, the surround mix by Ken is a 9 but unfortunately, at the same volume [73 on my pre/pro] the limitations of the Dolby Digital codec are clearly and significantly eclipsed by the 96/24 with unbelievably deeper bass....and a much more effortless presentation of vocals...and ALL else!

There was plenty of space on this DVD for a 96/24 5.1 remaster.

I feel gipped....and UNENTITLED

Rumors and Say You Will were LOSSLESS 5.1 > Tusk/Mirage DTS 5.1 > Fleetwood Mac DD 5.1 > what's next MP3?

I voted a [generous] 7 for the DD 5.1 and a [silent] solid 9 for the Stereo 96/24 remaster!

Rhino/Warner: Let's stop messin' around with 1990 codecs developed for laserdiscs and DVD~V.

ALL these Fleetwood MAC albums deserve THE FULL MONTY :yikes BALLS and ALL!

What is your system again 4-earred? IIRC it is one of those $50,000 uber set-ups?

 

[fredblue]

fwiw Dolby Digital was developed for the cinema..

 

[salsdali]

What is your system again 4-earred? IIRC it is one of those $50,000 uber set-ups?

i don't understand your point.

Clearly he has a system that makes transparent any limitations in the source, what does the cost matter?

If his system can show the difference between 48K and 96K like my less costly system can also then I'd say he has not only a good system but a proper system.

Isn't the point of a system to replicate the source as closely as possible. His seems to be doing a good job of that.

Rumors and Say You Will were LOSSLESS 5.1 > Tusk/Mirage DTS 5.1 > Fleetwood Mac DD 5.1 > what's next MP3?

this is all true so I still don't see the point in your post

 

[4-earredwonder]

fwiw Dolby Digital was developed for the cinema..

Yes, it was Adam but it was a BIG deal in the early 90's for laserdiscs and DVD~V as it was fully discrete and replaced Dolby Surround and those silly decoders!

 

[4-earredwonder]

i don't understand your point.

Clearly he has a system that makes transparent any limitations in the source, what does the cost matter?

If his system can show the difference between 48K and 96K like my less costly system can also then I'd say he has not only a good system but a proper system.

Isn't the point of a system to replicate the source as closely as possible. His seems to be doing a good job of that.




this is all true so I still don't see the point in your post

The point is they have slowly denigrated the codecs and have given us the bottom of the 5.1 codecs ........Dolby Digital 5.1 and as some astute posters have noted....the LOSSLESS masters for Fleetwood Mac 'might've' been fully finalized in the early 00's when Warner pulled the plug on MLP DVD~A 5.1.

 

[salsdali]

The point is they have slowly denigrated the codecs and have given us the bottom of the 5.1 codecs ........Dolby Digital 5.1 and as some astute posters have noted....the LOSSLESS masters for Fleetwood Mac 'might've' been fully finalized in the early 00's when Warner pulled the plug on MLP DVD~A 5.1.

I agree wholeheartedly. I meant the point in ar surrounds post.

still unsure why cost of a system would change the fact that's it's a low quality format release?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I agree wholeheartedly. I meant the point in ar surrounds post.

About the cost of my system......YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW.:yikes The DVD~A is reference, RBCD: reference....the SACD needs some work!

 

[fredblue]

Yes, it was Adam but it was a BIG deal in the early 90's for laserdiscs and DVD~V as it was fully discrete and replaced Dolby Surround and those silly decoders!

of this i am aware, i got my 1st Dolby Digital decoder (how silly) and AC-3 demodulator in 1996, was just saying it was initially developed for theatrical rather than home video use afaik, that is all

 

[4-earredwonder]

of this i am aware, i got my 1st Dolby Digital decoder (how silly) and AC-3 demodulator in 1996, was just saying it was initially developed for theatrical rather than home video use afaik, that is all

And I spent a small fortune having my Theta Laserdisc player converted to AC3 [aka DD]. For that price today you can buy the new UHD OPPO 205 and have money left over for caviar and champagne in a swank Parisian Bistro:yikes

And Adam, it wasn't silly back them........it was state of the art....that is, until DTS 5.1 started to be incorporated into DVD~Vs and RBCDs!

So when are you going 11:2, Adam? :51banana::51banana::banana: : :banana: :banana:

 

[LuvMyQuad]

You shouldn't need a $50,000 system to detect the difference between Dolby Digital and a lossless codec. If you did, its all the more reason for the record companies to not bother issuing a lossless codec. If surround listeners represent a minor niche in the overall market, imagine how small a niche high end surround must be? So why should they bother even considering the wants and needs of those who listen to surround AND have a $50k+ system to play it back on?

Speaking for myself, I can hear the difference between DD and lossless on my relatively modest system, so I have no issue with the DD complainers. The issue I do have is with the hyperbole and exaggeration inherent in descriptive phrases used to describe the difference like "night and day", "unbelievable", "blows away", "no comparison" "revelation", and countless others. To me the difference is there, but its not overwhelming and it certainly isn't enough to ruin my appreciation for a well mixed release. A high end fanatic will tell me that is because my system just cant resolve things as well as a more costly system would? To that I say BS.

I think it speaks to two issues: The difference seems larger to a small segment of the population because they are more sensitive to it than I am, and/or, the more cash you put into a system the more you want to hear an exaggerated difference.

My guess is, for every person out there who claims to hear a "night and day" difference between DD and lossless, there are probably 1000 others who will say they hear no difference at all. So if you were a record company, who would you cater to? :couch

 

[4-earredwonder]

You shouldn't need a $50,000 system to detect the difference between Dolby Digital and a lossless codec. If you did, its all the more reason for the record companies to not bother issuing a lossless codec. If surround listeners represent a minor niche in the overall market, imagine how small a niche high end surround must be? So why should they bother even considering the wants and needs of those who listen to surround AND have a $50k+ system to play it back on?

Speaking for myself, I can hear the difference between DD and lossless on my relatively modest system, so I have no issue with the DD complainers. The issue I do have is with the hyperbole and exaggeration inherent in descriptive phrases used to describe the difference like "night and day", "unbelievable", "blows away", "no comparison" "revelation", and countless others. To me the difference is there, but its not overwhelming and it certainly isn't enough to ruin my appreciation for a well mixed release. A high end fanatic will tell me that is because my system just cant resolve things as well as a more costly system would? To that I say BS.

I think it speaks to two issues: The difference seems larger to a small segment of the population because they are more sensitive to it than I am, and/or, the more cash you put into a system the more you want to hear an exaggerated difference.

My guess is, for every person out there who claims to hear a "night and day" difference between DD and lossless, there are probably 1000 others who will say they hear no difference at all. So if you were a record company, who would you cater to? :couch

I can also hear the difference between codecs on my secondary and tertiary 'lesser' systems.

But the point is, The record companies don't care and continue to even master RBCDs in messy compressed fashion and we, the buying public, do suffer.

And ironically, on my megabuck system, DD 5.1 from FIOS sounds incredible and my system also serves as a movie theater [NO Atmos yet].....which is likewise awesome and benefits from LOSSLESS BD~Vs which only cost a couple of bucks [compared to 5.1 music remasters which are becoming lossier....and pricier]

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Sorry to be somewhat of a debbie downer regarding the DD 5.1 but on my system the 96/24 Stereo remaster blows away the lossy DD significantly.

The album itself is a solid 9, the surround mix by Ken is a 9 but unfortunately, at the same volume [73 on my pre/pro] the limitations of the Dolby Digital codec are clearly and significantly eclipsed by the 96/24 with unbelievably deeper bass....and a much more effortless presentation of vocals...and ALL else!

There was plenty of space on this DVD for a 96/24 5.1 remaster.

I feel gipped....and UNENTITLED

Rumors and Say You Will were LOSSLESS 5.1 > Tusk/Mirage DTS 5.1 > Fleetwood Mac DD 5.1 > what's next MP3?

I voted a [generous] 7 for the DD 5.1 and a [silent] solid 9 for the Stereo 96/24 remaster!

Rhino/Warner: Let's stop messin' around with 1990 codecs developed for laserdiscs and DVD~V.

ALL these Fleetwood MAC albums deserve THE FULL MONTY :yikes BALLS and ALL!

Shocking observation..well not really...you felt "gipped" long before you even listened to this title...you have been saying it on here ever since this release was announced...I even offered to buy the set from you and you told me you were buying it for the stereo version..again absolutely no surprise at your "observations"(if you could even call that an observation)...did you try using that magic fluid of yours on the disc?....some say it will cure arthritis...well anyway..my offer still stands...I will buy the dreaded DD disc from you...and you can keep all the other stuff as souvenirs of this traumatic experience...you can walk away with your money back...what do you say Ralphie?..I hate seeing a friend in so much pain...c'mon Ralphie..let those inner demons go..take the cash and run

 

[ar surround]

I can also hear the difference between codecs on my secondary and tertiary 'lesser' systems.

But the point is, The record companies don't care and continue to even master RBCDs in messy compressed fashion and we, the buying public, do suffer.

And ironically, on my megabuck system, DD 5.1 from FIOS sounds incredible and my system also serves as a movie theater [NO Atmos yet].....which is likewise awesome and benefits from LOSSLESS BD~Vs which only cost a couple of bucks [compared to 5.1 music remasters which are becoming lossier....and pricier]

To elaborate on my point about a super high-end system: I have spent significant time listening to 2-channel uber-systems with 500W Mac monoblock amps, 300lb+ monster speakers that practically reach the ceiling and are placed in big listening-specific rooms well away from all the walls. These rigs make the great sound even better and the mediocre sound worse and can play super loud without any compression whatsoever. So it would not surprise me that the lossless 2.0 version of Fleetwood Mac sounds better to 4-earred than the DD 5.1 especially at extemely high volume levels. As I said in my review of the package, the lossless 2.0 is excellent. However I know I cannot duplicate the uncompressed volume levels and commensurate performance of 4-earred's system. But the DD layer on this disc is not so inferior to the point where I would reject it or even knock it down a notch...possibly because the surround presentation compensates for any perceived lossiness in my mind; and it doesn't have that "grainy" sound that seems to be pervasive in all DD recordings at any volume level.

We can debate this matter forever. I hope the comparison between the DVD-A of Monday Morning that I understand is out there and this DD gets posted soon. In the meantime, if anyone wants to donate five 500W Mac monoblocks to the AR Surround cause then I'm all ears.