Very well said.. I have been dithering over voting on this one.. I just can't decide.. can my head overlook the flaws (I perceive to be flaws anyway) sufficiently to rate this as high as my heart wants to...??
DVD/DTS Poll Fleetwood Mac - TUSK [DTS DVD]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Very well said.. I have been dithering over voting on this one.. I just can't decide.. can my head overlook the flaws (I perceive to be flaws anyway) sufficiently to rate this as high as my heart wants to...??
Oh boy..I don't think it was "well said" at all.."near MP3 quality".. and "vocals spread everywhere" is somehow a problem......no way it's near MP3 quality.....I think it's better than rumours..and you and I both voted an 8 on that one..I think you are getting spoiled listening to those BIG discs(vinyl)if you agree with that opinion..oh well...it's not life and death...it's just the polls...and like Jon Urban said...it's futile to argue with someone on the internet..it's not going to change their mind...so having said all that..feel free to vote as low as you dare cause I won't be watching:ugham:
Well I think Tusk just isn't as good a set of surround mixes and has worse sound to me than the 5.1 of Rumours (and before we go off on a huge tangent there's very good sounding mp3, excellent in fact, just as there's good and bad examples of every music format and delivery system thru time immemorial its all about the mastering/source as usual plus higher bit rate helps of course with mp3 etc.. I can see where Otto was coming from but the mp3 sound wasn't the bit I was agreeing with..
)... oh and I wouldn't say I was spoiled so much by vinyl.. it has many many flaws and deficiencies which I'm all too aware of but so many of them do sound good to my ears, I believe its more a case of those old records just weren't compressed to kingdom come and were better mastered.. I cannot in all conscience vote low here but it will not be as high as I hoped for, its been a long wait for this one in surround and for that alone I have half a mind to give it a special bonus point just for getting released at all.. though I stick by my initial feelings it sounds bright and loud and for sure on that basis I will be deducting a point at least 
I agree that saying this disc has fidelity that's near mp3 quality is definitely an exaggeration. However, I definitely would say that the fidelity is not as good as many other DVDA, SACD, and Blu-Ray discs that I own. I don't think it's completely down to the fact that it's a lossy disc, but I think it's definitely a factor, and I wish I had the opportunity to hear the fully lossless, mastered files to know for sure.
Lossy dts is the same as MP3 far as I know. What would be the difference?
I'd love to hear it unmastered. The mastering of this one didn't do it any favors. While they stopped shy of obvious digital damage artifacts, there is no reason this type of music needs to be machine gun consistent. It should be organic and breath with varying peaks.
i didn't mean to spark the harsh wordings exchange, just explained the reason why i voted so low.
if others are happy with sound fidelity, that's ok. but just because the release of this mix was so much anticipated for long time,
it doesn't meant to turn blind eye to the final quality of this work. anyone can compare sound of this release and let's say any given
release from SW (not HiRez but core DTS stream). i believe everyone can notice difference in between lossless 96/24 and
lossy core 96/24 DTS of same stream. but even so it still way above the sound of DTS of "Tusk", which lacking any sort of breeze of life in voices and cymbals.
if others are happy with sound fidelity, that's ok. but just because the release of this mix was so much anticipated for long time,
it doesn't meant to turn blind eye to the final quality of this work. anyone can compare sound of this release and let's say any given
release from SW (not HiRez but core DTS stream). i believe everyone can notice difference in between lossless 96/24 and
lossy core 96/24 DTS of same stream. but even so it still way above the sound of DTS of "Tusk", which lacking any sort of breeze of life in voices and cymbals.
No harsh words between Adam and myself
..or anyone else...just a different opinion...I do thank you for giving a reason because other people interested in this release can weigh your reasons against their own preferences...
No harsh words between Adam and myself
of course not! when have you ever known me to get in an altercation on here..!! :slap::violin:slap: :smack: :fly::ugham:
holland123
1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Well I gave this one a 6, overall it was an enjoyable listen. It was actually better than I expected from dts. So I went in with low expectations and was pleasantly surprised, sonics were not bad, surround field was mostly uneventful but pretty much as expected from dvd v.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,750
MP3 is roughly 12 bits, cupboy, whereas a DTS DVD is 16/48.
D
davie
Guest
My player says DTS 96 kHz, which most players support. The original stereo master is 24/96 LPCM.
It seems to me that Ken Caillat, who was one of the engineers on the original 1979 album and did the surround mix, made a good attempt at fixing some of the deficiencies of the original mix, which had no apparent consistency in EQ, vocal levels, or reverb amongst the Buckingham, Nicks, and Christine McVie songs. So I think the remix makes the album as a whole hang together much better. The EQ is not excessively bright nor is it excessively bass heavy, unlike the 2015 stereo remaster. It is loud as others have pointed out but there is enough breathing room to the sound to make it nonfatiguing, even when played relatively loud.
I don't think that one can separate the content from the mix and the fidelity. If you don't like the content, no mix and no degree of high fidelity reproduction will suit you. In this case, the double album is simply stunning in the variety and quality of the material and of the performances, although it can take awhile to fully comprehend and appreciate. I give the 5.1 disc a 9, which is how I voted. Taken as a whole, including the original master in high definition, the alternate Tusk (which has some real gems on it, like Peter Green playing guitar on Brown Eyes with Christine singing different lyrics, the full length Sara with alternate vocal, the acoustic Storms, and the Stevie "duet" with Lindsey on I Know I'm Not Wrong), and the live performances, the package is off the charts. Just amazing.
It seems to me that Ken Caillat, who was one of the engineers on the original 1979 album and did the surround mix, made a good attempt at fixing some of the deficiencies of the original mix, which had no apparent consistency in EQ, vocal levels, or reverb amongst the Buckingham, Nicks, and Christine McVie songs. So I think the remix makes the album as a whole hang together much better. The EQ is not excessively bright nor is it excessively bass heavy, unlike the 2015 stereo remaster. It is loud as others have pointed out but there is enough breathing room to the sound to make it nonfatiguing, even when played relatively loud.
I don't think that one can separate the content from the mix and the fidelity. If you don't like the content, no mix and no degree of high fidelity reproduction will suit you. In this case, the double album is simply stunning in the variety and quality of the material and of the performances, although it can take awhile to fully comprehend and appreciate. I give the 5.1 disc a 9, which is how I voted. Taken as a whole, including the original master in high definition, the alternate Tusk (which has some real gems on it, like Peter Green playing guitar on Brown Eyes with Christine singing different lyrics, the full length Sara with alternate vocal, the acoustic Storms, and the Stevie "duet" with Lindsey on I Know I'm Not Wrong), and the live performances, the package is off the charts. Just amazing.
Nope.
"Bit depth is only meaningful in reference to a PCM digital signal. Non-PCM formats, such as lossy compression formats, do not have associated bit depths. For example, in MP3, quantization is performed on PCM samples that have been transformed into the frequency domain." -- wikipedia
Of perhaps more relevance to what is *heard* re: "bit depth", is the dynamic range...which is not appreciably affected by a decent lossy encoding.
O.M.G.
First of all, there are MAYBE five albums I'd pay 80 bucks for just to hear the surround mix, and this is one of them. I'm not much interested in the LPs (my original 1979 issue suits my LP needs for this one....and are Surround and Vinyl really the same market? Why do they market these sets these ways anyway...?) but my set just arrived in the mail today.
Easy things first.....my LPs appear to be the correct ones, so I don't have to worry about sending back a disc. And I like the packaging. (I know some don't) Very in-keeping with the original set. And all the bonus CDs appear to make the set worth the 80 bucks alone. Haven't got to those yet. Most of the bonus tracks are different from the 2004 reissue, and the live stuff should be great to have as well....but...
OMG...the surround on this is AMAZING. This has always been one of all-time favorite albums because it always sounded like it was practically in "surround" for me anyway. And now it is. Mostly just how I always hoped it would be with some very interesting surprises. Some of the tracks are SO different that I have a hard time believing they were mixed from the same takes. "Sara" has some different vocals at the end. Several other differences I'm going to have to listen to again just to remember which ones they were....lol.
This might be my favorite 5.1 yet. Easily a "10". An "11" if I could give it. "Tusk" was never for everyone, but I was one who loved it once I reconciled myself to the fact that it wasn't "Rumours II". And if you're one who wants your surround mixes to faithfully replicate the original stereo? You'll probably be disappointed here. Some tracks are very close; some are not. But one of the things I like about these re-mixes is being able to hear stuff that wasn't available before. This one gives me that for sure!
I'm in awe. Can't wait to play it again. And again.
First of all, there are MAYBE five albums I'd pay 80 bucks for just to hear the surround mix, and this is one of them. I'm not much interested in the LPs (my original 1979 issue suits my LP needs for this one....and are Surround and Vinyl really the same market? Why do they market these sets these ways anyway...?) but my set just arrived in the mail today.
Easy things first.....my LPs appear to be the correct ones, so I don't have to worry about sending back a disc. And I like the packaging. (I know some don't) Very in-keeping with the original set. And all the bonus CDs appear to make the set worth the 80 bucks alone. Haven't got to those yet. Most of the bonus tracks are different from the 2004 reissue, and the live stuff should be great to have as well....but...
OMG...the surround on this is AMAZING. This has always been one of all-time favorite albums because it always sounded like it was practically in "surround" for me anyway. And now it is. Mostly just how I always hoped it would be with some very interesting surprises. Some of the tracks are SO different that I have a hard time believing they were mixed from the same takes. "Sara" has some different vocals at the end. Several other differences I'm going to have to listen to again just to remember which ones they were....lol.
This might be my favorite 5.1 yet. Easily a "10". An "11" if I could give it. "Tusk" was never for everyone, but I was one who loved it once I reconciled myself to the fact that it wasn't "Rumours II". And if you're one who wants your surround mixes to faithfully replicate the original stereo? You'll probably be disappointed here. Some tracks are very close; some are not. But one of the things I like about these re-mixes is being able to hear stuff that wasn't available before. This one gives me that for sure!
I'm in awe. Can't wait to play it again. And again.
Funny thread---
Is the 5.1 mastered loud? yes. Did it need to be? no. Would it have been better had they not done so? Probably. Did much of anyone notice or care until they "saw" how loud it was? doesn't seem like it.
Only speaking for myself, but if I have to SEE something to HEAR it properly? Ummm....I've got better things to do with my time just pour myself another glass of Malbec before I spin the disc again....
But to get onto another topic----I think it's interesting to see the response to these new mixes of decades-old albums. Yes, "Tusk" is startling in some spots. We get so used to hearing a particular mix for so long that it's almost uncomfortable to hear it any other way. OTHO, so many of those old 70s Quad mixes were way different from the stereo as well.
When I listen to this album I wonder how they would have handled a multi-track mix back at the time. I think this is pretty close. Someone mentioned "vocals all over the place"----but that was one of things that always stood out to me about "Tusk" in the first place. Listen to the stereo through headphones and it seems like they were trying to place the vocals all across the soundstage.
I've always loved the arrangement and mixing choices they made on "Beautiful Child". Having different voices sing different parts and place them in different spots in the mix. Now they really DO come from all over the place. I love it.
One odd choice, however, is it seems they added more reverb to Stevie's vocals? Or at least mixed them more "back" on some songs. Odd because it sounds much different than the stereo, at least on my system.
The drums ---which I love how loud they are on this album---come out too loud and boomy in some spots. Maybe that's a result of the compression? Or maybe a new mixing choice?
I'm not going to argue with the choices made. I've always got the original stereo to go back to if I need it. But some are more...um...interesting...than others for sure.
Is the 5.1 mastered loud? yes. Did it need to be? no. Would it have been better had they not done so? Probably. Did much of anyone notice or care until they "saw" how loud it was? doesn't seem like it.
Only speaking for myself, but if I have to SEE something to HEAR it properly? Ummm....I've got better things to do with my time just pour myself another glass of Malbec before I spin the disc again....
But to get onto another topic----I think it's interesting to see the response to these new mixes of decades-old albums. Yes, "Tusk" is startling in some spots. We get so used to hearing a particular mix for so long that it's almost uncomfortable to hear it any other way. OTHO, so many of those old 70s Quad mixes were way different from the stereo as well.
When I listen to this album I wonder how they would have handled a multi-track mix back at the time. I think this is pretty close. Someone mentioned "vocals all over the place"----but that was one of things that always stood out to me about "Tusk" in the first place. Listen to the stereo through headphones and it seems like they were trying to place the vocals all across the soundstage.
I've always loved the arrangement and mixing choices they made on "Beautiful Child". Having different voices sing different parts and place them in different spots in the mix. Now they really DO come from all over the place. I love it.
One odd choice, however, is it seems they added more reverb to Stevie's vocals? Or at least mixed them more "back" on some songs. Odd because it sounds much different than the stereo, at least on my system.
The drums ---which I love how loud they are on this album---come out too loud and boomy in some spots. Maybe that's a result of the compression? Or maybe a new mixing choice?
I'm not going to argue with the choices made. I've always got the original stereo to go back to if I need it. But some are more...um...interesting...than others for sure.
Rating an album like this for "content" seems a bit odd. It's 36 years old. Either you like the content or you don't. (discounting the bonus material, and we're only talking about the 5.1 disc here) the content is the same as it was in 1979.
And if you're paying ~$100 for an album whose content you aren't already in love with? More power to ya! I'm not that flush with cash, however...
And if you're paying ~$100 for an album whose content you aren't already in love with? More power to ya! I'm not that flush with cash, however...
Nonsense! The musical content is still the most important part of any surround disc, and when rated fairly and equally alongside the other major components (surround mix and fidelity) it provides an opportunity for some to evaluate what others say before buying the disc for themselves. Plus opinions on the music have been known to change ever so often when going from stereo to surround.
Some discs are definitely worth having more for the quality of the surround mix than the quality of the musical material. For other discs, it's the exact opposite. The music shines while the surround mix falls flat. And then there's that special breed (albums like "Hand. Cannot. Erase." and "Oranges & Lemons") that are practically perfect in every way, and for me, if "Tusk" would have been released on a high-resolution format (like DVD-A/V or Blu-Ray) it could have been a close to perfect disc too, but it is what it is. Glad you're enjoying it though!
Nonsense! The musical content is still the most important part of any surround disc, and when rated fairly and equally alongside the other major components (surround mix and fidelity) it provides an opportunity for some to evaluate what others say before buying the disc for themselves. Plus opinions on the music have been known to change ever so often when going from stereo to surround.
Some discs are definitely worth having more for the quality of the surround mix than the quality of the musical material. For other discs, it's the exact opposite. The music shines while the surround mix falls flat. And then there's that special breed (albums like "Hand. Cannot. Erase." and "Oranges & Lemons") that are practically perfect in every way, and for me, if "Tusk" would have been released on a high-resolution format (like DVD-A/V or Blu-Ray) it could have been a close to perfect disc too, but it is what it is. Glad you're enjoying it though!
I disagree. The content doesn't change with a new mix or a different mastering. Of course it's still the most important part. But we all know the content and have given it our reviews going into it. Especially on a $100 reissue. With all due respect, while I value reading others opinions on the mix and the mastering and the packaging----that someone tells me they are giving a new mix "only a 7" because they never cared for the album in the first place? Irrelevant. That's like someone giving a "meh" reviews to a restaurant's tacos after telling me they don't really care for Mexican food.
Content is NEVER rated "fairly and objectively". It's THE most subjective part!
While content reviews are subjective, I find them very useful. When I read reviews of newly released stereo recordings on other websites, people rarely write about how well the stereo sounds are separated or the fidelity of the recording... they generally write about the content, which is exactly what I want to read about before I purchase the album! I know that on this site the recordings may be quite old and many members have heard them repeatedly, but to some of us the content is still fresh and novel. If I find that a multichannel release is consistently rated highly based on content by many reviewers, that information is just as valuable to me as the ratings on fidelity and surround mix.
Some new thoughts after repeated listens:
1) Like "Tusk" itself, the 5.1 mix gets better with repeated listens.
2) Re: staying faithful to the original stereo mix. I have to wonder if this isn't a fault of having the original engineer do the 5.1 so many years later. Not only has he probably beaten himself up for years over choices he made and didn't make, but now he finally has the chance to "do it right"! Of course, that's only going to be HIS take on it. We all love the original because that's the only one we know. A new engineer coming in years later isn't going to know what wasn't there and is going to be much more inclined to replicate the original mix. Things like putting in Stevie's vocals ad-libs towards the end of "Sara" that were obviously muted on the original mix....only the original engineer would have had the balls to do that or think it should have been done. Or adding in her "cleaning lady" line at the beginning (and in an edited form, at that).
3) I listened again wanting to be offended by the 'brickwalled' RF and LF channels, but it really just didn't bother me that much. For one reason, because I think they would have done so back in 1979 if they could. This album always seemed so much about getting the drums IN YOUR FACE in a way I had never really heard before. My GUESS is this was part of the reasoning behind doing this? Good, bad or otherwise, it certainly does push the drums even MORE forward in the mix.
4) Like with many 5.1 mixes, I find that I have to get the mix right myself before it works for me. This one involved me cranking up the center speaker an extra 2db (I almost never turn up my center speaker). Maybe that's partly a result of the RF and LF being brickwalled and it needing to compete more? I dunno. But it helped to "clean up" some of the vocals tracks and the drums to bring it up. The tendency seemed to be to put a dry lead vocal and dry snare drum as well in the center channel and then repeat them with more reverb in the RF and LF channels. Especially on the Stevie songs. Adds a nice depth to the sound to do this, but the dry mixes got buried. At least on my setup. I STILL think he used too much verb the Stevie tracks though. Bordered on gimmicky at times. But cranking the center channel helped a lot.
5) Very odd --- almost wonder if it wasn't a mistake --- but her vocal is missing from the center channel completely (I think anyway...I didn't listen THAT closely...) on "Storms" so we only get the reverb-y RF and LF lead vocals. Really messing sounding and probably the worst mix on the entire album, IMO.
6) Like the original "Tusk"--which was never a cohesive album to begin with--the 5.1 isn't either. It bounces back and forth between being "immersive" and "playful" with mix. But so were the original songs. "Over and Over" fits over you like a warm glove. "Tusk" has things bouncing and swirling all over the place.
But all in all----there are few albums that have begged for a surround mix as much as this one. It's going to get a LOT of play at my house. Hope the wife is OK with it....
1) Like "Tusk" itself, the 5.1 mix gets better with repeated listens.
2) Re: staying faithful to the original stereo mix. I have to wonder if this isn't a fault of having the original engineer do the 5.1 so many years later. Not only has he probably beaten himself up for years over choices he made and didn't make, but now he finally has the chance to "do it right"! Of course, that's only going to be HIS take on it. We all love the original because that's the only one we know. A new engineer coming in years later isn't going to know what wasn't there and is going to be much more inclined to replicate the original mix. Things like putting in Stevie's vocals ad-libs towards the end of "Sara" that were obviously muted on the original mix....only the original engineer would have had the balls to do that or think it should have been done. Or adding in her "cleaning lady" line at the beginning (and in an edited form, at that).
3) I listened again wanting to be offended by the 'brickwalled' RF and LF channels, but it really just didn't bother me that much. For one reason, because I think they would have done so back in 1979 if they could. This album always seemed so much about getting the drums IN YOUR FACE in a way I had never really heard before. My GUESS is this was part of the reasoning behind doing this? Good, bad or otherwise, it certainly does push the drums even MORE forward in the mix.
4) Like with many 5.1 mixes, I find that I have to get the mix right myself before it works for me. This one involved me cranking up the center speaker an extra 2db (I almost never turn up my center speaker). Maybe that's partly a result of the RF and LF being brickwalled and it needing to compete more? I dunno. But it helped to "clean up" some of the vocals tracks and the drums to bring it up. The tendency seemed to be to put a dry lead vocal and dry snare drum as well in the center channel and then repeat them with more reverb in the RF and LF channels. Especially on the Stevie songs. Adds a nice depth to the sound to do this, but the dry mixes got buried. At least on my setup. I STILL think he used too much verb the Stevie tracks though. Bordered on gimmicky at times. But cranking the center channel helped a lot.
5) Very odd --- almost wonder if it wasn't a mistake --- but her vocal is missing from the center channel completely (I think anyway...I didn't listen THAT closely...) on "Storms" so we only get the reverb-y RF and LF lead vocals. Really messing sounding and probably the worst mix on the entire album, IMO.
6) Like the original "Tusk"--which was never a cohesive album to begin with--the 5.1 isn't either. It bounces back and forth between being "immersive" and "playful" with mix. But so were the original songs. "Over and Over" fits over you like a warm glove. "Tusk" has things bouncing and swirling all over the place.
But all in all----there are few albums that have begged for a surround mix as much as this one. It's going to get a LOT of play at my house. Hope the wife is OK with it....
