Still digesting this. First impressions (to my tastes):
Mix: Very good. Discrete, open, and revealing as compared to the stereo mix.
Clarity: Very good, especially considering the lossy encoding. Sounds great played loud.
Tonality: The surround mix is too “fat”, with emphasis in the bass. Especially when compared to the stereo mix. Anyone else feel this way, or is it me? Overall the tonality is smooth and easily corrected. Sounds much better with 3-5 dB bass cut.
I would like to backup this and other comments that very much match my opinions on this. I LOVE this album, always have, and to finally have the Ken C mix available to me, is wonderful. I need to do more listening to compare it to the 96/24 stereo version, but I would agree that the mix is very nice and very enjoyable. I'd also agree it's a bit bass heavy, though it works well with the toms in "I'm So Afraid" but they kind of overdid them on Warm Ways IMO! Considering this is a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, it really is quite amazing how decent this does sound, over-heavy bass and slight lack of top end clarity aside (it's really not that bad)!
To the Dolby Digital argument, I have to say, I LOVE hi-res multichannel mixes and regularly buy BluRay Audio discs and always look to get my hands on the highest possible quality format of something, and am REALLY disappointed in the fact that they chose to deliver the multichannel mix in this way! The 96/24 2.0 audio quality is much nicer, and I would really love to have that quality, on the 5.1 mix!! (I *will* mail Warner/Rhino (and I won't rant, it's counter-productive IMO), but I will express my deep disappointment with their decision!). So whilst I really do not like the fact we "only" have the DD 5.1 mix (BTW, it's in 448kBit and I have seen 640Kbit used in the past but it's confusingly/apparently, it's not actually in the DVD specs), it *does* sounds half decent, all things considering, and is still definitely worth having and is still a joy to listen to, at least on my system (which is budget/mid-range, but stands up well to properly expensive systems that I have listened to). My system will let me hear stuff in recordings that I can't hear on other systems, and really does make the higher quality releases shine - I love just sitting down and listening to "stuff"!
I manually ended up ripping the tracks of the DVD with dvdbackup, my other usual tools didn't work - they either didn't "understand" the DD audio stream for some reason, or, they extracted the correct number of tracks, but all the tracks except the last one were empty, and the whole album was as one track as the last track (for both the PCM and DD versions). There is definitely something odd about the production of this DVD, I've been ripping DVDs for years (and BluRays also) and never encountered this kind of problem. Anyway, dvdbackup was perfect, and I ended up with the raw VOBs per track, which I converted to WAVs (keeping the PCM and DD "inside" the WAV container untouched), and then onto FLACs (did the tagging manually). What I can say is that I hear no audible clipping on the tracks, the audio is as I said is actually not half bad, and looking at the tracks in Audacity confirms this, there is audibly and visually, nothing close to brickwalling or clipping, plenty of dynamic range, and I don't understand why Jon's screenshots show something quite different to what I have. I am fairly certain I have exactly what is on the disc, and that is nothing close to having clipping!
I think Rhino/Warner struggled with how to release this as:
1. "Most" people don't have a DVD-A player to play MLP so don't want to release the full-fat 96/24 5.1 on DVD-A
2. Most people DO have a DVD-V player but then you're limited to DD 2.0/5.1, DTS 2.0/5.1 (which would have been better (up to 96/24)), PCM up to 96/24 2.0, and I think, Mpeg2 Audio (which nobody ever really used).
3. "Many" people have a BluRay player, but probably, they didn't like the cost associated with producing it this way (though to me that seems crazy).
Surely 12 years after BluRay came out, and where you can if you want, buy a BR player for less than GBP/EUR/USD20, you can no longer use the availability of playback devices, as justification for this choice not to use a BluRay release!!??
Rumours came out on SACD, and I LOVE that album also (always have), and LOVE the 5.1 mix (and because it came off of SACD, is in "full-fat" 96/24 multichannel
). I think most mainstream labels see SACD as a dead format (which is *nearly* is, but as we all know, is limping along just enough to still be delivering decent, new content). If the Eagles can finally get round to re-releasing the 96/24 5.1 of Hotel California on BluRay audio, I don't see why Rumours wouldn't be given the same treatment, though I guess I could understand if they didn't want to take the risk on any other Fleetwood Mac albums like this one, but this was the perfect opportunity.
This might sound odd, but, I am hoping the reason is that they plan on "price gouging" their customers once more, for a later separate release of this on BluRay, so suckers like me, who *will* pay to get it, will go out and buy it yet again....
(yes I'm a sucker, but life is too short...
)
Cheers,
Matt.