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

[Clint Eastwood]

fwiw Dolby Digital was developed for the cinema..

I know Adam....he never lets the facts get in the way....we usually just let him go until he passes out...reminds me of this great movie scene

[video=youtube;SVY7w9DqZ_A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVY7w9DqZ_A[/video]

 

[IMachine]

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

The game is not worth the candle!

 

[Clint Eastwood]

The game is not worth the candle!

 

[milt]

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 agree with you on several points but I will say that depending on the source, DD does suffer in comparison to lossless in the upper-mids on up.
I definitely have heard the difference in both films and music.

 

[H.A.L.]

I agree with you on several points but I will say that depending on the source, DD does suffer in comparison to lossless in the upper-mids on up.
I definitely have heard the difference in both films and music.

My upper-level hearing range "is not what it used to be," and so I have no issue with DD by that standard: however, SOME DD's I've heard (say, the 5.1 LOTR soundtracks) are not nearly as discrete as lossless formats. Whether that is a mix or format issue, I don't know . . . as long as I get an "enveloping" mix, discrete or not, that's fine in DD --IF IT IS THE ONLY FORMAT I CAN FIND IT ON!

 

[himey]

75 Kbps per channel just isn't enough to do music justice. 385 Kbps per channel on a quadraphonic release using DTS is much better. Standard CD's have a bitrate of 705 Kbps per channel.

 

[ar surround]

Anyone know what causes that annoying "sizzly/grizzly/grainy" sound of DD? For whatever reason, I don't detect it on this Fleetwood Mac 5.1DD and I am grateful for it. I remember a few years back I told a colleague who was listening to DD layers on his movies that DD was inferior and to go try the DTS layers instead. He was very impressed with the improvement in quality.

 

[key_wiz]

How can anyone complain about the price of a box set? I just paid $80 for a nose bleed seat to see Joe Satriani for a concert. I will only get to hear the music once. For $395 you can buy a nose bleed seat to see Jacksonville beat New England in 0 degree weather this Sunday. Disney World costs $105 for a one day pass. These box sets are an incredible bargain in my book. Sgt Pepper was worth three times the price.

Let's also remember to take into account inflation. What did the FM album sell for in 1975? $4.99? That'd be $22.75 today. Just for the LP. Add in everything else included in the box set and they are a bargain.

The problem is that not everyone wants everything on these sets, but that's a different issue.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Anyone know what causes that annoying "sizzly/grizzly/grainy" sound of DD? For whatever reason, I don't detect it on this Fleetwood Mac 5.1DD and I am grateful for it. I remember a few years back I told a colleague who was listening to DD layers on his movies that DD was inferior and to go try the DTS layers instead. He was very impressed with the improvement in quality.

I think that is Ralphie grinding his teeth and banging his fist in the background:ugham:

 

[milt]

Anyone know what causes that annoying "sizzly/grizzly/grainy" sound of DD? For whatever reason, I don't detect it on this Fleetwood Mac 5.1DD and I am grateful for it. I remember a few years back I told a colleague who was listening to DD layers on his movies that DD was inferior and to go try the DTS layers instead. He was very impressed with the improvement in quality.

Lack of bandwidth.
Same thing as MP3s

 

[4-earredwonder]

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

But that didn't deter me from buying it in the first place. I cannot help it, Clint, if you ARE satisfied with DD....I'm NOT!

The DD 5.1 is hardly a disaster and I might play it from time to time but will always grit my teeth at what could've been.

Hopefully, Rhino/Warner will release proper Lossless remasters on BD~A of the entire Fleetwood Mac catalogue one day and even remaster some of their classic FM Stereo albums deserving of this pop phenomenon.

And then there will truly be peace in the kingdom : http://www.shakesaspear.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/paradise.jpg

And you ain't getting my magic fluid treated disc, Clinty, simply because you don't believe in magic. YOUR bad!:ugham:

 

[rtbluray]

Once again, please keep the personal sniping to a bare minimum.
After all, we are all adults, aren't we?
(Should be a rhetorical question, I know...)

 

[timbre4]

If it was a lesser artist, and the box set didn’t include hi-rez surround, it may never ever appear.

Since this version of the band continues in its role as a serious Warner cash cow, I expect to see Blu Ray stand-alone releases in the next 12-18 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clint Eastwood]

If it was a lesser artist, and the box set didn’t include hi-rez surround, it may never ever appear.

Since this version of the band continues in its role as a serious Warner cash cow, I expect to see Blu Ray stand-alone releases in the next 12-18 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't see that happening...IMO they included a surround element...because they already had one to include...I'd like you to be right on this one

 

[ar surround]

If it was a lesser artist, and the box set didn’t include hi-rez surround, it may never ever appear.

Since this version of the band continues in its role as a serious Warner cash cow, I expect to see Blu Ray stand-alone releases in the next 12-18 months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you predict we might get Mirage and Tango also? Those box sets are just too pricey for me for albums that are not as brilliant as FM, Rumors and Tusk.

 

[timbre4]

I don't see that happening...IMO they included a surround element...because they already had one to include...I'd like you to be right on this one

I look at it this way; they couldn’t do DVD audio as that’s a “dead format” in their eyes. So if you want to do anything high-Rez in the future, and it would be a sure thing, we ought to take it down a notch, in this case two notches, so that we can still revisit.

This label has proven that they can do it if they want to because they have in the past. It stands to reason they would do it with a sure thing because it represents little risk as the asset is in the vault, with the mortgage already paid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timbre4]

Do you predict we might get Mirage and Tango also? Those box sets are just too pricey for me for albums that are not as brilliant as FM, Rumors and Tusk.

I think we would get the three primary albums you mentioned above, but if they should do a Quadio box then why not all five? Once again all the heavy lifting has been done; we’re just talking about the packaging and form factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I think we would get the three primary albums you mentioned above, but if they should do a Quadio box then why not all five? Once again all the heavy lifting has been done; we’re just talking about the packaging and form factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The awesome thing about Tango In The Night is that the CD sounds so clear and dynamic...the DNR is 13 and it sounds like it...it wouldn't take much "clean up" to have a great sounding hi rez disc

 

[key_wiz]

I think we would get the three primary albums you mentioned above, but if they should do a Quadio box then why not all five? Once again all the heavy lifting has been done; we’re just talking about the packaging and form factor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The fact that no 5.1 exists for “Tango” would be the only reason.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

The fact that no 5.1 exists for “Tango” would be the only reason.

and that is why I think it won't happen