FLEETWOOD MAC TUSK DELUXE EDITION WITH 5.1 SURROUND DVD

[quicksrt]

If Oppo shows it as 96k, then it's 24x96 DTS. That's what I needed to know. Thanks!

And those can be a pain to rip if you wanna put it on a file server. Most methods will fail at extracting the extended channels and only rip the core DTS (48khz, not 96). It's my understanding that Audiomuxer may be capable of ripping a 24x96 DTS with it's core and extended tracks.

Yes those can be difficult when ripping to server drives. But man are they a cinch to copy disc to disc! If I were in charge I would insist on true DVD-A simply because it has much stronger copy protections offered.

 

[quicksrt]

Even this thread title is reffering to a DVD-A disc.

 

[quicksrt]

Peter, I'm having a hard time ordering this for $100 since it's lossy surround. And there are still a lot of unanswered questions. HDTracks has the 5 disc set for $70 (the new 2015 version, not the older 2011). And it's all 24x96 rather than the 16x44 on the CD's. Were these originally in 24x96 and then downsampled for the CD (I know the mastering is usually done in 24x96)? And does HDTracks have the original 24x96? Or did HDTracks just upsample from the 16x44 CD? And the DVD does contain the 24x96 stereo tracks, but is it all the tracks from the 5 CD's? Or just a few selected tracks?

And they are clearly (and mistakenly in my opinion) calling this DVD-A. Which at the very least is misleading.

Does the HD download come with the surround mix? If not, then I am surprised it's even being mentioned in this forum.

 

[audioguy]

Does the HD download come with the surround mix? If not, then I am surprised it's even being mentioned in this forum.

No. HDTracks doesn't offer any surround. I only brought it up because the 5 discs that come in the Deluxe version (which you'll have to buy to get the DVD) are 16x44. But those same stereo tracks are at HDTracks at 24x96. Maybe not worth mentioning on a Quad forum. Sorry!

I may be posting too much. Time to go upstairs, have some margaritas, and listen to some music. Warning....I may not be sober upon my return later to check replies @:

 

[alk3997]

Seems to me that 16/44 would be less lossy than 24/96 since 24/96 would have to be more lossy since there's more data (music) they have to get rid of.

That's a really good question and I had to think about it (for whatever that's worth). The answer to your question is yes it is but DTS 96/24 sounds better.

From a purely data standpoint, since DTS 48/16 and DTS 96/24 both use the exact same bitrate (1509 kbps) there is actually more data (but not information) lost in the DTS 96/24 encoding. DTS 44.1 / 16 uses the stereo CD bitrate (1411 kbps) but actually encodes approximately 1200 kbps. So, there are less bits to work with per second on a DTS-CD but the data loss is still greater on a DTS 96/24 DVD encoding.

But, that's purely bits not information. The whole encoding method for DTS (and Dolby Digital) is based on psycho-accoustics or the ability to only send the information that your ear and brain actually "hear" instead of all of the audio data. For DTS 96/24 that means that the encoder is leaving in more information but removing more data. At least that's how it is supposed to work. The resultant 96/24 signal should be closer to the original analog output than the DTS-CD or regular DVD DTS signals. I should also add that regular DTS does some lossless compression in addition to the psycho-acoustics.

This is getting into information theory where data is a unit of information but data is not, by itself, information. It's only information if the data is not already known. In this case that means the audio data is only needed if it can be heard.

That's pretty esoteric but that's the danger of asking a good data/information question. For DTS to work properly it has to get rid of audio data that can't be heard and yet keep music information that can be heard.

Andy

 

[JonUrban]

Even this thread title is reffering to a DVD-A disc.

I will fix that. Bummer.

(Actually, someone already beat me to it! THANKS BRIAN)

 

[rtbluray]

Even this thread title is reffering to a DVD-A disc.

Well to be fair, when I originally posted the news about this release, it did say DVD-Audio disc on most of the websites and in most of the press releases, and since it was prepped for DVDA release back in the day, it didn't seem that unlikely at the time that it would just turn out to be yet another DVD-V disc, but hey, Warner Music is still continuing their no DVDA streak since 2008, a format that they championed 10-15 years ago!

 

[bktouchstone]

Mine arrived today, but haven't had a chance to do an in depth listen. Initial impressions then are, good sound, good mix, highs are good if slightly thin, but no sibilance that I can tell. Sara sounds great. Think about me is good. Seems to have been put on the disc loud, as opposed to "loudness." So, the volume comes down about 5 to 7 decibels. Is the surround disc worth the $90 for the box? Well, maybe, as I have spent same on eBay. What do I know? I will listen many times so the cost per listen should be reasonable, over time. Lossless would have been nice, but I am not sure I am missing it in what I am hearing. It's a bummer you can't get the surround as a reasonably priced product without buying the vinyl (which I have already given away).

 

[audioguy]

Well to be fair, when I originally posted the news about this release, it did say DVD-Audio disc on most of the websites and in most of the press releases, and since it was prepped for DVDA release back in the day, it didn't seem that unlikely at the time that it would just turn out to be yet another DVD-V disc, but hey, Warner Music is still continuing their no DVDA streak since 2008, a format that they championed 10-15 years ago!

I completely agree. Every news release on this disc tells of a DVD-A disc. This thread was started before the release. The news media was obviously wrong. I seriously believe most of these reviews are done by people who don't know the difference. This is very frustrating for the true multi-channel fans.

 

[audioguy]

That's a really good question and I had to think about it (for whatever that's worth)...... For DTS to work properly it has to get rid of audio data that can't be heard and yet keep music information that can be heard.

Andy

Andy, you made some very good observations. It's my understanding that the DTS 24/96 contains extra "channels" than the core DTS. So there is more musical data that is being compressed....hence better quality. Heck, I'm not sure if I completely understand that myself. Let's say we want to turn that into PCM FLAC files. Would it even matter if we turned those 24x96 DTS files into 16x44 or 24x96 FLAC? Would it even make a difference?

 

[IMachine]

Hi-Rez or not...I'm so glad that I can now listen to the 5.1 mix that was so long held back.
I love it....one of my absolute favourite releases this year. An 11!

Now I can only hope for more Steely Dan......can you hear me!?!?!

 

[Plan9]

Peter, I'm having a hard time ordering this for $100 since it's lossy surround. And there are still a lot of unanswered questions. HDTracks has the 5 disc set for $70 (the new 2015 version, not the older 2011). And it's all 24x96 rather than the 16x44 on the CD's. Were these originally in 24x96 and then downsampled for the CD (I know the mastering is usually done in 24x96)? And does HDTracks have the original 24x96? Or did HDTracks just upsample from the 16x44 CD? And the DVD does contain the 24x96 stereo tracks, but is it all the tracks from the 5 CD's? Or just a few selected tracks?

And they are clearly (and mistakenly in my opinion) calling this DVD-A. Which at the very least is misleading.

If you have a VPN, HDTracks UK has the entire 5-disc Tusk Deluxe set for £17! > http://www.hdtracks.co.uk/tusk-deluxe

The original mastering is in 24bit/96kHz, that's what HDTracks and other sites have. It was downsampled for the CDs.
The Hi-Res vendors don't routinely sell upsamples, and in the very rare cases they do, they instantly receive severe backlash from the customers until they correct and replace it. It is usually the fault of the labels. (Also sometimes customers think they got an upsample when they really haven't...)

The DVD in the box only contains the original album remaster (same as CD 1) in lossless 24/96.

 

[Plan9]

Andy, you made some very good observations. It's my understanding that the DTS 24/96 contains extra "channels" than the core DTS. So there is more musical data that is being compressed....hence better quality. Heck, I'm not sure if I completely understand that myself. Let's say we want to turn that into PCM FLAC files. Would it even matter if we turned those 24x96 DTS files into 16x44 or 24x96 FLAC? Would it even make a difference?

You can't retrieve the original sound that was lost in lossy compression: converting the 24/96 DTS (lossy encoding) into 24/96 FLAC (lossless container) wouldn't make a difference.

To convert it to 16/44 FLAC however you would have to downsample the resolution, which could have an additional negative effect on the sound.

 

[Franklin]

Wasn't this album digitally mixed back in the day? Would it have been 50kHz sample rate at best and not as much as 16 bit?

 

[Plan9]

Wasn't this album digitally mixed back in the day? Would it have been 50kHz sample rate at best and not as much as 16 bit?

Only the drums parts were recorded with the Soundstream equipment at 16bit/50kHz. The rest was recorded analog and the mixing was analog, printed on analog tape.

 

[Franklin]

Only the drums parts were recorded with the Soundstream equipment at 16bit/50kHz. The rest was recorded analog and the mixing was analog, printed on analog tape.

Thanks for the info, what's the digital mixdown credit about then? Just getting the drum parts down to two channel?

 

[Plan9]

Thanks for the info, what's the digital mixdown credit about then? Just getting the drum parts down to two channel?

I guess so, they would have had to do this eventually (Soundstream could only record up to 4 tracks simultaneously).

 

[Lute]

:banana:@:

Muscle of Love ROCKS!

Thank you Audio Fidelity.

Now what to do about Tusk. That's the 90-dollar question, Ralphie. Over on another thread GOS has been raving about how good it is. Hmm... I'll think it over while I'm rocking to "Muscle of LOOOOOOVE". Just again had to say it for GOS. :spot

 

[Clint Eastwood]

:banana:@:

Muscle of Love ROCKS!

Thank you Audio Fidelity.

Now what to do about Tusk. That's the 90-dollar question, Ralphie. Over on another thread GOS has been raving about how good it is. Hmm... I'll think it over while I'm rocking to "Muscle of LOOOOOOVE". Just again had to say it for GOS. :spot

Let's not encourage Gos:ugham:

 

[rtbluray]

Now what to do about Tusk. That's the 90-dollar question, Ralphie. Over on another thread GOS has been raving about how good it is. Hmm... I'll think it over while I'm rocking to "Muscle of LOOOOOOVE". Just again had to say it for GOS. :spot

Obviously I don't know how expensive shipping is to Japan, but aside from that variable, AFAIK the amazon.co.uk price for the Tusk box still has not been beaten yet.