DVD/DTS Poll Fleetwood Mac - TUSK [DTS DVD]

[GOS]

LOL! My first impression when I listened to TUSK 5.1 was... WOW! This sounds killer. I guess I just don't know what loud sounds like. I know what it looks like on a graph, but apparently my ears don't know. OK, they do. When I listen to the Sabbath Paranoid surround disc...that is loud. But Tusk? I dunno. My ears think it sounds excellent. I could listen to tusk 5.1 at high volumes for hours and I don't cover my ears...I only smile. Oh well, to each their own.

But yeah - the price of the disc should have zero impact on the poll rating. Well, that's how I feel. I don't think "Value" is part of the criteria for voting in the polls....but oh well.

 

[seilerbird]

I wonder if enough of us complain, considering the expense of the TUSK boxset, if Warners would order a repressing on BD~A [or MLP DVD~A] with the full tilt 96/24 codec instead of lossy DTS. I think it's a travesty, considering many, like myself, purchased the boxset expressly for the 5.1 remix.

Of course, if the 5.1 remix master tape is compressed.....then, what's the point?

Complain to a record company? We all know record companies aren't ran by people with the largest amount of brains.

 

[quicksrt]

I wonder if enough of us complain, considering the expense of the TUSK boxset, if Warners would order a repressing on BD~A [or MLP DVD~A] with the full tilt 96/24 codec instead of lossy DTS. I think it's a travesty, considering many, like myself, purchased the boxset expressly for the 5.1 remix.

Of course, if the 5.1 remix master tape is compressed.....then, what's the point?

They would simply stop including these discs at all, and tell themselves that the DVD format was rejected, 5.1 is not appreciated, and of the line, and end of story.

Better thank your lucky surround-sound stars that this was ever released in the first place. It's now too late for cynicism, my opinion.

 

[rtbluray]

I wonder if enough of us complain, considering the expense of the TUSK boxset, if Warners would order a repressing on BD~A [or MLP DVD~A] with the full tilt 96/24 codec instead of lossy DTS. I think it's a travesty, considering many, like myself, purchased the boxset expressly for the 5.1 remix.

Of course, if the 5.1 remix master tape is compressed.....then, what's the point?

The only way that would work is if there was a real, glaring problem with the discs, something so noticeable and so bad that they had no choice but to repress them, and in this instance, there's no such issue. Yes, these discs should have been authored as DVD-A/V discs, and there's no good reason why they were not, but even then, the perceived loudness would be exactly the same, especially since this disc also matches the perceived loudness of "Rumours" and the "Monday Morning" single.
I definitely won't complain to Warner about any of this at all because they gave us exactly what they said they would, a DVD with the 5.1 mix and high-res stereo. At least they didn't put the DVD-A logo on the discs like they did for "Loaded" and like Universal did for "Premonitions". Especially for "Premonitions", that felt like a giant F.U. to all of us who care about such quality.
Oh and BTW if Warner is too cheap to spend money actually authoring DVD-A/V discs, then they are definitely too cheap to author and manufacture Blu-Ray discs!

 

[edisonbaggins]

It is my opinion that, when recordings are in this condition: very high gain and levels hard-limited, but where there is no audible clipping, that steps can be taken to reduce gain and restore some dynamics.
I have experimented with this and it works for me. Fleetwood Mac does not benefit from machine gun regularity of levels (hardly any music out there does, but maybe metal or industrial does).
At the very least, my experiments have produced a recording that is easier on my ears, less "in my face" and a bit more dynamic-sounding. I can't swear as to how much of that is imagined, but yeah.
The cool thing about DVDs is that they are pretty easy to rip, so you can experiment. Save to FLAC, if you can play them or re-author a DVD. YMMV. YOLO/YODO.

 

[4-earredwonder]

C'mon Ralphie..it's not a travesty..you are too good to fall into the drama queen syndrome....it's just a dated mix and that's the way it is...this whole price thing is starting to wear on me...IMO the price shouldn't even be a consideration of the score in the polls in the evaluation of these discs...but some people are doing it......in this case $60 for 5 CD's...2 LP's and a DVD isn't a rip off by any standard..and if people that belong to this forum paid more there is little excuse as the source was made available to them and the supply never exhausted...and some people in Canada probably paid more....yes I know WE all have to buy these "sets" to get the one or 2 music discs we want....but that's just reality...and certainly nothing new...it's more of the Steven Wilson effect...we get these remarkable results from his work and we think every project should be like that...not gonna happen...and it must not have been horrible as you voted an 8...I beg of you to get a good breakfast...close your eyes...and get that zen feeling...or as Chevy Chase said in Caddyshack..."be the ball"...yes I sense your frustration..we all want perfect...but sometimes as Dudley Moore found out in the movie 10...perfect is not all it's cracked up to be...I'm injecting this humor so Wavelength doesn't think this is a "rant"...because it's not...and we all know I've had 2 of them lately..so I must spread them out

You're SO right, Clint. A good night's sleep and a hearty breakfast (coffee and cigarettes) and my NEW disc treatment alleviated ALL the 'perceived' and 'paranoid' ills of TUSK. Popped it in my Meridian 800 and it sounded 'supercharged.' A TUSK for the NEW millennium.

There's NO room for DRAMA QUEENS @ QQ. They swoon and offer faint praise and then with a little bit of elbow grease, a cup o' java and a Winston that tastes good like a cigarette should: Presto!

So, do I stand behind my score of "8" for TUSK. Perhaps I was stingy.........at least (in Fellini's words) an 8 1/2 or 9.

:yikes....What was I thinking?

And you're right, Clint? What do you get for 60 bucks these days.......Oh, yeah, 30 LOSING Powerball tickets...or, a carton of Winstons in rural Pennsylvania!

 

[ar surround]

They would simply stop including these discs at all, and tell themselves that the DVD format was rejected, 5.1 is not appreciated, and of the line, and end of story.

Better thank your lucky surround-sound stars that this was ever released in the first place. It's now too late for cynicism, my opinion.

You said it, quicksrt! If we complain with our wallets, the record companies will give us "ungatz" surround sound releases. But don't worry, we won't stop buying surround sound because we are addicts. And Clint is right about Steven Wilson's work. His mixes are a gift to the QuadraphonicQuad race!

 

[JonUrban]

I wonder if enough of us complain, considering the expense of the TUSK boxset, if Warners would order a repressing on BD~A [or MLP DVD~A] with the full tilt 96/24 codec instead of lossy DTS. I think it's a travesty, considering many, like myself, purchased the boxset expressly for the 5.1 remix.

Of course, if the 5.1 remix master tape is compressed.....then, what's the point?

We are the sheep. We take what we get. We can't really complain because, as stated above by many, it would only result in getting nothing.

The disc sounds good, but it COULD sound better. It's "our job" as members to point out flaws (and oh do we do that well), and every flaw is relative. One weak point could in fact be another one's strong point. However, NOT pointing out a perceived flaw and voting every release a '10' just because it came out, or it's an album or artist we love, would be much worse than withholding criticism because we want everyone to love the release.

"Tusk" is a fine disc, IMHO it deserves and '8', which is STILL A GOOD VOTE. It's not a '10' to me because the audio is pumped up, and the material deserves a better presentation because it can be delicate and beautiful if done the way it could have been done.

As always opposing opinions have the same validity as any other opinion around here, but complaining that someone MADE an opinion is just a waste of space, as we all know from past experience, changing anyone's mind on the internet is futile.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Ive been watching this thread from afar. I am familiar with this recording, but I was never a fan of it. I didn't like Buckingham's new "direction". Anyway..

I know tis is a poll thread so I'll keep this as short as possible.

I don't own this release and I don't plan on buying it. I do own the Rumors DVD-A and several other excellent releases (Flaming Lips comes to mind) that have, at one time or another, been accused in this forum as being overly compressed. Maybe so. I still think they're great, some of them are even demos for me. If "Tusk" was music I enjoyed, I'd be all over it.

My inquiring mind wants to know:

How different would this conversation be if we did not possess the capability to look so closely at the sound waves? How many of you can actually hear the result of the compression and find it annoying? And how much of what you hear is being magnified by what you saw?

My logic is this: If "Rumors" was processed this same way, and it was similarly compressed... regardless of any number of cropped waveforms I saw, it would still be reference material for me.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Ive been watching this thread from afar. I am familiar with this recording, but I was never a fan of it. I didn't like Buckingham's new "direction". Anyway..

I know tis is a poll thread so I'll keep this as short as possible.

I don't own this release and I don't plan on buying it. I do own the Rumors DVD-A and several other excellent releases (Flaming Lips comes to mind) that have, at one time or another, been accused in this forum as being overly compressed. Maybe so. I still think they're great, some of them are even demos for me. If "Tusk" was music I enjoyed, I'd be all over it.

My inquiring mind wants to know:

How different would this conversation be if we did not possess the capability to look so closely at the sound waves? How many of you can actually hear the result of the compression and find it annoying? And how much of what you hear is being magnified by what you saw?

My logic is this: If "Rumors" was processed this same way, and it was similarly compressed... regardless of any number of cropped waveforms I saw, it would still be reference material for me.

IMHO, the DVD~A 5.1 of Rumours has always been somewhat of a reference disc for me, as well.

Regarding TUSK. My initial opinion was it sounded OK and then I applied my disc treatments and happen to have a great sounding DVD~A player (Meridian 800) and now my opinion of TUSK has 'radically' changed. For Lossy DTS it can sound remarkable but like yourself, I was never a big fan. Listening to it in its new incarnation, one can appreciate the 'change of direction' Buckingham took the group in and I'm really beginning to like it.

Some GREAT tunes on it.

Had it been available separately (devoid of the box set), I'd say GO FOR IT. The 5.1 mix really does open up the soundfield immeasurably.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

Ive been watching this thread from afar. I am familiar with this recording, but I was never a fan of it. I didn't like Buckingham's new "direction". Anyway..

I know tis is a poll thread so I'll keep this as short as possible.

I don't own this release and I don't plan on buying it. I do own the Rumors DVD-A and several other excellent releases (Flaming Lips comes to mind) that have, at one time or another, been accused in this forum as being overly compressed. Maybe so. I still think they're great, some of them are even demos for me. If "Tusk" was music I enjoyed, I'd be all over it.

My inquiring mind wants to know:

How different would this conversation be if we did not possess the capability to look so closely at the sound waves? How many of you can actually hear the result of the compression and find it annoying? And how much of what you hear is being magnified by what you saw?

My logic is this: If "Rumors" was processed this same way, and it was similarly compressed... regardless of any number of cropped waveforms I saw, it would still be reference material for me.

I have the Rumours DVD-A and it's an excellent disc but I never considered it "reference" material...I voted an 8 on the poll thread...my first "blush" impression of Tusk is that it's marginally better than Rumours...they both exhibit the loudness characteristics that I'm sensitive to..it could be that I'm not as familiar with the content of Tusk...as I haven't heard it as often as Rumours...I think your point is especially valid about the waveforms...good or bad it does lead to preconceived ideas about a disc..I dismiss them entirely...and as much as I'm a believer in the Dynamic
Range numbers being important...a clever mix can overcome the lack of dynamic range(Flaming Lips is a classic example)...tomorrow I will take the time to play the Rumours DVD-A and Tusk back to back and see how they compare...

 

[fredblue]

My inquiring mind wants to know:

How different would this conversation be if we did not possess the capability to look so closely at the sound waves? How many of you can actually hear the result of the compression and find it annoying? And how much of what you hear is being magnified by what you saw?

My logic is this: If "Rumors" was processed this same way, and it was similarly compressed... regardless of any number of cropped waveforms I saw, it would still be reference material for me.

Very very good question .. I don't profess to have golden ears by any stretch (they're barely sober ears by the time I get to really sit and listen to any of this surround stuff anyway) but as soon as I loaded this one up (and I said as much elsewhere on QQ at the time) it struck me as kinda bright and a bit loud.. but that I was so overwhelmingly happy to finally hear this one in surround I almost didn't care IF it turned out my hearing actually got it right and there was something going on with the sound or whatever I wouldn't let it spoil my enjoyment.. and right now I stand by all of that jazz!

(Ps. I think the Rumours 5.1 and the other Fleetwood Mac track in surround from that Acura TL DVD-A demo disc are mastered kinda similarly to this Tusk DVD, with loud fronts etc. from just looking at the waveforms.. but don't quote me on that.. I'm no expert on these matters.. and just as with Tusk I'm so in love with the mixes and the music of all the Fleetwood Mac classic surround stuff I almost could not give a flying fig! )

Fwiw I've played it again (Sam) just now and I'm still loving the thrill of hearing what they did with it in 5.1.. not ready to vote on this one yet but I think it'll score pretty high! I may still dock it a mark for not being DVD-A.. but mainly because I like DVD-A and have a kind of nostalgic thing for the old format, mainly because it was my first exposure to Hi-Res Surround.. and I'll never forget that first "WOW" feeling when I first heard my DVD-A's in all their DVD-A glory as opposed to the Dolby D/DTS DVD-V mode I'd had for years.. call it "placebo effect" I don't care, whatever.. nobody can take that special "hairs on the back of your neck" feeling like I had all those years ago with my first listen of DVD-A.. NO-BODYYYYYY I tell thee....!!!! :ugham:

 

[skherbeck]

Finally decided to crack this one open tonight (all the compression controversy really got to me!)... With respect to the surround mix, this one is fantastic; extremely discrete separation of guitars and vocals all around me... Exactly what I was hoping for (reminds me of the Elton John SACDs in this respect). In terms of content, I love the Mac, but this album isn't in my top three Mac albums; I always thought it would have made a great single album rather than a good double album. Now to sonics... This album sounds overly "bright" and it's definitely loud, but there's enough inherent "space" in this music (and in the ultra-discrete mix) that I don't feel any listener fatigue (again reminding me of the EJ SACDs). I hear some distortion (clipping?) in some of the cymbal crashes, but not to the point where it annoys me. So, I give it a 3 for the mix, 2.5 for the content, 2 for the sonics, and no bonus point because I had to buy a Super Deluxe Set... Rounds up to an 8. Recommended for all surround fans in spite of some compression!

 

[rtbluray]

After relistening to the "Hotel California" SACD from the Eagles today, now I REALLY think that the complaints of loudness on "Tusk" are definitely a byproduct of the Steven Wilson flat transfer/no mastering effect we have been spoiled by in recent years.
The fact is that "Hotel California" is just as loud as both "Tusk" and "Rumours", yet after going through the entire "Hotel California" poll thread, I don't think I saw a single comment saying that it was too loud.

Now again, I'm not saying that the loudness complaints on "Tusk" are invalid. Quite the contrary I believe, but this just goes to show everyone how our perceptions have changed quite a bit over the years.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

After relistening to the "Hotel California" SACD from the Eagles today, now I REALLY think that the complaints of loudness on "Tusk" are definitely a byproduct of the Steven Wilson flat transfer/no mastering effect we have been spoiled by in recent years.
The fact is that "Hotel California" is just as loud as both "Tusk" and "Rumours", yet after going through the entire "Hotel California" poll thread, I don't think I saw a single comment saying that it was too loud.

Now again, I'm not saying that the loudness complaints on "Tusk" are invalid. Quite the contrary I believe, but this just goes to show everyone how our perceptions have changed quite a bit over the years.

Spot on...I feel the same way...standards have risen considerably with Steven "Wilson at the helm...expectations have gone up considerably as well....and also there is a difference in "loudness" types..IMO...some you notice but don't fatigue you and stop you from listening to it at high volumes....the other type makes it impossible to listen at high volumes for long periods...Tusk doesn't affect my listening periods...yes I notice the loudness...but it doesn't overwhelm me or restrict the volume level

 

[edisonbaggins]

...but this just goes to show everyone how our perceptions have changed quite a bit over the years.

I noticed last night that, compared to the mastering of Winelight, I had to turn Young Americans waaay down, around 4db. It was just a little uncomfortable in the treble range.
I wanted it louder, but it said "NO!"

But, if this kind of thing means we're getting awesome mastering these days, I ain't complaining about that!
:banana:

 

[fredblue]

I noticed last night that, compared to the mastering of Winelight, I had to turn Young Americans waaay down, around 4db. It was just a little uncomfortable in the treble range.
I wanted it louder, but it said "NO!"

Ah well if they were all like Winelight we wouldn't need Polls...

 

[quicksrt]

I'm listening to Tusk and feel like some tunes do not use the center channel enough. For some it's quite strong and others it's virtually gone completely missing. Still interesting.....

 

[dr8track]

Acknowledging the comments supporting that the disc could technically have been better, I still LOVE this recording. Like some others, I have not and likely will never play anything other than the 5.1 disc, but I'm still glad I made the purchase. I don't think I'd heard this album maybe more than once or twice before hearing the 5.1 version. I know some people say it's not their favorite Fleetwood Mac album, but for me, with a group like FM you can't go wrong. There's not a song that I don't enjoy. Loving the music and having what, to my ears, is a decent surround mix, makes me easily give this one a 9. Love it, love it, love it!

 

[0tto]

as usual i don't cast vote for content, only the mix and sound fidelity.
the mix pretty much mixed bag. too much vocals spread everywhere, which i don't like.
fidelity... c'mon guys, who found its great. i found sound very bad, particularly in middle range
and high end. absolutely artificial sounding, near mp3 quality.
from me 4 and i think it's too generous.