Guns N‘ Roses - Appetite For Destruction Locked N’ Loaded Edition

[quattroatl]

On a side note, I purchased this surround release hoping for the best from Elliot Scheiner. But I was prepared to be disappointed or underwhelmed due to prior experience with rock music not sounding too great in surround. I am glad to say that this release surpassed my expectations and then some. The album breathes and has such a bigger sound now. No matter what 2-channel purists have to say, nothing beats being able to hear separate instruments discretely and having my own ears and senses process the beauty of the music together in my own mind. It's such a different listening experience. QQ members understand the awesomeness that is high def surround. I hope GNR sell a shiat-ton of this release, so more bands will pay the master, Elliot Scheiner, to breathe new life to their music catalogue.

 

[Pibroch]

It would be really interesting if they'd asked both Elliot Scheiner and Steven Wilson to remix the album in 5.1 and release them both as selectable options. I'm sure they'd both be fantastic in their own ways.

 

[quattroatl]

Listen to the original again. The guitars on the Blu Ray sound crappy in comparison. That is the truth.

Can you be more specific as to which songs in particular where the guitar sounds crappy to the original release? I readily admit that I have not listened to the stereo layer and rarely ever do so on multichannel releases.

 

[jz1276]

I'm assuming you mean the channels? You'd need to make a decrypted backup of the Blu-ray with MakeMKV, extract the 5.1 audio track (Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio on this release) with DVD Audio Extractor set to convert to FLAC or WAV, then import the resulting file(s) into Audacity (or your DAW of choice) and split the 6 channels into separate tracks. You could then solo each channel to hear it in isolation.

This applies to any Blu-ray or DVD, of course, with any surround format on it. Better results can be expected from lossless formats.

There's a much easier (and better way) to do this (which I've already done).
1- Run the BluRay through MakeMKV
2- Load the MKV file into a program called MKVMerge & select 'split by chapter', just select the audio, in this case the DTS-MA track
3-Load each mkv into a program called TS Muxer
This will result in raw dts files

Just out of curiosity, I loaded some tracks in Audacity. Seems the vocals are mixed into all channels (except the LFE). Weird.

 

[salsdali]

so is there a difference between the DTS-MA and the Dolby TrueHD ?

IMO both the Beatles SPLHCB and the Bob Marley Legend had VASTLY differing DTS vs Dolby

The Beatles had extra channels which makes it an unfair comparrison, but this realease, same number of channels??

I'm not takin' sides, just sayin, IMO it's a HUGE difference, normally

 

[salsdali]

so is there a difference between the DTS-MA and the Dolby TrueHD ?

IMO both the Beatles SPLHCB and the Bob Marley Legend had VASTLY differing DTS vs Dolby

The Beatles had an extra channel which makes it an unfair comparrison, but this realease, same number of channels??

I'm not takin' sides, just sayin, IMO it's a HUGE difference, normally

 

[LuvMyQuad]

so is there a difference between the DTS-MA and the Dolby TrueHD ?

IMO both the Beatles SPLHCB and the Bob Marley Legend had VASTLY differing DTS vs Dolby

The Beatles had extra channels which makes it an unfair comparrison, but this realease, same number of channels??

I'm not takin' sides, just sayin, IMO it's a HUGE difference, normally

You are saying they sound different? Aren't they both 24/96 compressed losslessly? And to say the difference is VAST???

I wasn't even aware there was a channel difference on SPLHCB. I can only play 5.1 anyway.

 

[salsdali]

You are saying they sound different? Aren't they both 24/96 compressed losslessly? And to say the difference is VAST???

I wasn't even aware there was a channel difference on SPLHCB. I can only play 5.1 anyway.

not saying, asking?

beatles was 5.1 vs 6.1 (rear center)

but even Legend had differences, vast is in the eye of the beholder

 

[rtbluray]

I have not heard much difference at all between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA but there could be a big difference if the player or receiver is actually incapable of decoding the lossless audio information, which would mean it is actually playing back the core audio stream.
That's not bad for DTS-HD MA because the core audio stream will either be (lossy) DTS 96/24 or DTS 48/24, neither of which really sound that bad anyway, but it's not good if you're actually hearing lossy Dolby Digital audio when you want to hear lossless Dolby TrueHD.

That's why I'm more in favor of LPCM 5.1 and DTS-HD MA 5.1 over Dolby TrueHD 5.1 (although there's nothing wrong with Dolby TrueHD in and of itself). That's also why people like Neil Wilkes recommend that you set your Blu-Ray player's audio settings to either AUTO or LPCM (instead of bitstream) that way all decoding is done inside the player and not in the receiver.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

SW would have killed this. ES has not.

That's your opinion...which I'm going to bet is in the minority...

 

[edisonbaggins]

You are saying they sound different? Aren't they both 24/96 compressed losslessly? And to say the difference is VAST???

I wasn't even aware there was a channel difference on SPLHCB. I can only play 5.1 anyway.

To my ears, on a system that said it was decoding Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA properly, there was a difference between the two streams on SPLHCB.
I'd have to go back to the particular thread I posted in (if I in fact commented on my preference) to say for sure which one I liked best, but I think it was the Dolby TrueHD.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

but even Legend had differences, vast is in the eye of the beholder

Yes that is what I am referring to. The difference you claim are there on the releases you have heard. Assuming the equipment is capable, shouldn't they both decode lossless to the same 24/96 PCM tracks?

 

[LuvMyQuad]

To be honest, I seldom actually listen to either the Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Maybe once when the disk is new, but seldom after that. I rip the disks and listen to the rips. Typically there is a PCM track that I rip. But if you guys are hearing differences, maybe I need to pay closer attention. I thought the above formats, as well as MLP were simply lossless compression schemes which when decoded, would yield identical PCM tracks.

 

[edisonbaggins]

To be honest, I seldom actually listen to either the Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Maybe once when the disk is new, but seldom after that. I rip the disks and listen to the rips. Typically there is a PCM track that I rip. But if you guys are hearing differences, maybe I need to pay closer attention. I thought the above formats, as well as MLP were simply lossless compression schemes which when decoded, would yield identical PCM tracks.

I think that's probably true in most cases. For SPLHCB, however, there is quite a bit of speculation, if not proof (don't remember), that the Dolby stream decodes to 6.1, instead of 5.1. That would make some kind of difference, whether better or worse.

 

[sjcorne]

SW would have killed this. ES has not.

There's no way SW would've worked with GNR...he only really does prog albums. We're lucky it was ES and not some other inexperienced or conservative engineer.

This release sounds phenomenal to me, I love it!

 

[quattroatl]

There's no way SW would've worked with GNR...he only really does prog albums. We're lucky it was ES and not some other inexperienced or conservative engineer.

This release sounds phenomenal to me, I love it!

I disagree here wholeheartedly. I think Steven Wilson most definitely would have jumped at an opportunity to work on such a hugely popular album. I would not call Tears for Fears or XTC prog bands.

I do agree that Mr. Scheiner knocked this surround mix out of the park though.

This mix of "Appetite" shows how poorly done other rock albums like Soundgarden, Temple of the Dog, Alice in Chains, and Stone Temple Pilots surround mixes were in comparison.

 

[rtbluray]

I don’t think Steven Wilson likes Guns n Roses.
Plus based on previous statements, I’m sure he thinks that this is not the right kind of music for 5.1 Surround mixing anyway, but as others have pointed out, SW has remixed albums for XTC, Tears for Fears, Simple Minds, Chicago, and Roxy Music, and I don’t consider any of them to be ‘prog’ in the strictest sense of the word.

 

[Clint Eastwood]

I disagree here wholeheartedly. I think Steven Wilson most definitely would have jumped at an opportunity to work on such a hugely popular album. I would not call Tears for Fears or XTC prog bands.

I do agree that Mr. Scheiner knocked this surround mix out of the park though.

This mix of "Appetite" shows how poorly done other rock albums like Soundgarden, Temple of the Dog, Alice in Chains, and Stone Temple Pilots surround mixes were in comparison.

I'm not sure what Steven Wilson thinks of this album...but I agree he would love to work with hi profile rock bands and significant albums...and this meets both those requirements...I think he would like to get more recognition for the fine work he has done and to be candid...a lot of those(but not all)progs bands can't give him that kind of exposure...I think that is why he was involved in the Chicago title...

 

[depeche76]

I am one of those crazy idiots that pulled the trigger on the massive super uber deluxe edition........i just received it today at the office and put it in the trunk of my dvd audio player with wheels (acura Rdx)......i will later post pictures of the box and the unwrapping of the box (not sure of unboxing).......but i can tell you that this is the biggest box i have received ever......im afraid i will not have space in the cave to display it.......its megahuge.....my wife is going to beat me.....theres no way i can hide this purchase from her......

 

[GOS]

Hahahahaha...funny as hell!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk