DVD/DTS Poll Moody Blues, The - IN SEARCH OF THE LOST CHORD [DTS DVD]

[4-earredwonder]

I did try the Dolby Digital option on the ISOTLC DVD~V and IMO, both it and the DTS PALE in comparison to the indisputably SUPERIOR LOSSLESS Stereo 2.0 option.

FOLKS, face it. The remix engineers screwed up...plain and simple....and the anemic rear channel info pales also when compared to the existing Moody Blues SACD remixes.

IMO, another shameless cash grab from Universal. A stand alone BD~A would've sufficed. We now have a great Stereo Remaster and a book with lots of pretty pictures. Woo Hee!

 

[ar surround]

I did try the Dolby Digital option on the ISOTLC DVD~V and IMO, both it and the DTS PALE in comparison to the indisputably SUPERIOR LOSSLESS Stereo 2.0 option.

FOLKS, face it. The remix engineers screwed up...plain and simple....and the anemic rear channel info pales also when compared to the existing Moody Blues SACD remixes.

IMO, another shameless cash grab from Universal. A stand alone BD~A would've sufficed. We now have a great Stereo Remaster and a book with lots of pretty pictures. Woo Hee!

Same here. Both the 5.1 DTS and 5.1 AC3 sound like shit. I'm sticking with the lossless 2.0.

 

[rtbluray]

What I'm wondering is if Jakko didn't remix the album in stereo (cause he is only credited for the 5.1 remix) then who remixed the stereo?

 

[ss9001]

I finally got to buying this, holding off due to comments here for months. I concur with the consensus that for 5.1, DD versions are superior to the DTS ones by a big amount! If one wants to listen in 5.1, to my ears, the Dolby Digital versions are the only way to go as others have said.

Fidelity, use of rear channels, expansiveness, clarity. The DTS version reminds me of enhanced stereo and even then the front l/r soundstage seemed narrowed. Some of the vocals seem veiled, or reduced in volume vs the rest of the mix with DTS version.

Someone called some of the tracks (See Saw) closed in; I would add Legend of A Mind to that. That's as far as I've gotten today. The remixed 96/24 PCM stereo tracks have been better to my ears as many of you have said. I listened to the 96/24 2 ch Legend of a Mind and tried Dolby Surround & NeuralX upmixers. Not bad, enhanced space, some directionality, not discrete-like but there's no veiling either My room is HT oriented with 2 large subs and to my ears, for some music, I have to lower the subs by 2-3 dB and that improved the clarity issue but still DD was clearer and more immersive than DTS. It's a shame they didn't bother with a lossless BD or DVD-A - a lost opportunity.

Unless one is willing to do tweaking to improve the overall balance in the DTS tracks, I'd stick with Dolby Digital or play the 2.0 96/24 tracks adding PIIx, IIz, DS or NeuralX. Auro3D might be a nice upmixer nice to try if you have it. Auro works very nicely on 5.1 recordings I have tried it with (didn't use it today though).

It's a shame since all of the 4.0 SACD's of MB's classic 7, were stellar IMO, even the 2.0 SACD of ISOTLC was superior to what I heard so far. Still nice to have this box set especially if one doesn't have the SACD (OOP?)

For me, the DD 5.1 is decent but it's not a Steven Wilson. IMO, Jakko was too timid with surround. He could still keep vocals and main soundstage front-centric but play much more with the mellotron, flute, other sounds - swirl them around you or put them discretely in rears like some of the MB quad mixes. It's psychedelia not a concert hall!

"Departure" was very promising and could have set the stage for the rest of the songs. Listening to Departure, I thought the rest will be a real treat but then came RMSS. IMO Jakko could have made multichannel much more exciting for what is arguably a classic album that so lends itself to surround. I'm glad I have the rest of the 7 on 4.0 SACD when they were released

Am I'm glad I bought this? Yes, if nothing else to complete my valued collection of multichannel Moodies! (I go back to the 60's with MB albums) but it could have been better.

A 6 perhaps? 7?

 

[ss9001]

More songs listened to.

Om in 5.1 DD vs Om in 2.0 96/24 PCM with Neural X & Dolby Surround - the lossless wins and since the mix is mostly front-centered, add an upmixer is about the same to me as this native 5.1.

I dug out my 2.0 SACD of ISOTLC. Hate to say this but to my hearing, playing with same player on same prepro (Marantz) the SACD wins hands down for audio quality over the 96/24 remix. Both played with Audyssey flat and no sub level reduction tweak. Both played with Dolby Surround or NeuralX on top of 5.1. It's just more transparent & clearer without bloat.

I switched to my older Pioneer setup (SC-09TX, 59avi player over Ilink) and added PLIIx Music. PLIIx Music better than the new Dolby Surround with hts. Clarity, front-rear separation, all improved.

To refresh my years' old memory of the quad SACD's, I played a couple songs from To Our Children's Children Children - Higher & Higher, Out & In, Gypsy - and no surprise they are much more enjoyable mixes than the box set's 5.1 DD or DTS. They are not DSOTM or a Steven Wilson but still more enveloping with greater separation and better use of surrounds than Jakko's ISOTLC. Both have a front-centered soundstage so that can't be an excuse for just bleeding some of the front into the back and call it day.

I do like the 5.1 of Departure, it's much better than what DPLIIx Music did for 2.0. Other than that...

Both the Dolby Digital & DTS are bloated, bass-heavy and veiled compared to the OOP 2.0 SACD. It's not a comparison. The SACD beats the new 2.0 PCM for the same reasons. It has to be the mix since the differences shouldn't be attributable to the format - DSD vs 96/24 PCM.

I may try the SACD with QS & SQ synth tomorrow. That might be an interesting comparison

For my enjoyment, ISOLTC in some form of modern surround format sums up as:

#1 2.0 SACD original mix with PLIIx Music
#2 2.0 SACD original mix with Dolby Surround/NeuralX
#3 2.0 96/24 PCM new mix with Dolby Surround or NeuralX
#4 5.1 Dolby Digital
#5 5.1 DTS - don't bother

Sad but that's what it turns out for me. I still have the book , the other discs with different versions & I'll still listen to these surround mixes occasionally but they aren't winners and a lost opportunity to have done something special. Giles Martin's mixes on the Beatles had some critiques, but they are better than these. Plus the label should have damn-well ponied up for lossless. That alone might have improved the transparency.

For Moody fans, I wouldn't wait for more of these box sets in DTS/Dolby Digital. Try to find the OOP SACD's. The quad mixes on them are superior & much more enjoyable than what Jakko did. With the exception of Departure and a few parts of some of the songs, they don't compare at all.

I gave it a 6 but after listening and comparing, I lowered my rating to 5. I may put the SACD in the box which is nice - Just kidding! It would be lonely not being with its buddies, the quaddies

 

[ss9001]

The Best Way to Travel

First, in the OOP SACD collection, ISOTLC was a CD only, sorry for my mistake. I had assumed that it was SACD since the other 6 are. I haven't played them in yrs.

Second, the QSD-1 Sansui decoder blows away the new 5.1 mixes, not even close. Separation was nearly discrete with sounds coming all around you. Legend of a Mind has Haywood's guitar coming from rt rear, Thomas' flute around, behind you and panned across the soundfield. Various vocal choruses also float around. On Om, the effect of QS was simply amazing. Best I've heard yet. Sadly, this is what the 5.1's could have been if Jakko had used more imagination.

For those with Sansui QS Variomatrix gear, especially with blend resistors removed & holy grail adjustment, my advice is skip the 5.1 surround mixes. Go straight to the CD or new 2.0 PCM mix with QS synth. You may be pleasantly surprised. Then play the 5.1 mix

Thanks for all the likes and hope my tidbits help get the best from the box set.

 

[JediJoker]

First, in the OOP SACD collection, ISOTLC was a CD only, sorry for my mistake. I had assumed that it was SACD since the other 6 are.

Incorrect. It is a hybrid SACD like the others, just not multichannel. If yours isn't an SACD, it may: 1) be a counterfeit, 2) be a different edition, 3) be a "misprint," or 4) have had its original SACD swapped out for a standard Redbook CD sometime before or during your ownership. Do the package and disc show SACD logos? Is it possible that your player simply isn't reading it correctly?

 

[ar surround]

Incorrect. It is a hybrid SACD like the others, just not multichannel. If yours isn't an SACD, it may: 1) be a counterfeit, 2) be a different edition, 3) be a "misprint," or 4) have had its original SACD swapped out for a standard Redbook CD sometime before or during your ownership. Do the package and disc show SACD logos? Is it possible that your player simply isn't reading it correctly?

Correct Jedi. It is indeed a hybrid stereo SACD. HOWEVER, the second disc is not an SACD as I found out when I tried ripping it as an SACD twice and failed. The second disc is a plain vanilla redbook CD.

 

[H.A.L.]

I'd be curious if you tried the MoFi version of ISOTLC and what your reaction would be. It certainly beats the SACD stereo (and of course being MoFi, is stereo itself, sigh).

 

[ss9001]

Incorrect. It is a hybrid SACD like the others, just not multichannel. If yours isn't an SACD, it may: 1) be a counterfeit, 2) be a different edition, 3) be a "misprint," or 4) have had its original SACD swapped out for a standard Redbook CD sometime before or during your ownership. Do the package and disc show SACD logos? Is it possible that your player simply isn't reading it correctly?

You are right! And it was the player, a Sony 9000ES that was going to the CD layer. I put it into my Oppo players, and they read the SACD layer correctly. The Sony is what I have connected to the Sansui gear and it has glitched like this a few yrs ago. Should have double-checked before posting. I bought them all at the same time from Amazon when they were 1st released. I was positive it was a SACD but the Sony showed CD. Sony has a simple procedure for aligning the laser so it reads SACD as the default so it's time to do that again. Thanks for the correction!

 

[lennon fan]

the surround mixes for this and Sgt. Pepper have very similar flaws IMO.
No imagination for the rears, an occasional burst that makes you think it's gonna be cool soon followed by a let down (haha)
and these were two wildly imaginative psychedelic masterworks that beg for a wild joy stick here and there
still better to have than not have, but let down is a good description.

 

[rusinurbe]

Finally getting round to listening to this again First time in Dulby.
The comments about the mix sounding better are true the mix sounds better, maybe because its more dull so sounds more balanced

 

[beerking]

I'm fully prepared to eat a lot of humble pie over this release.
I have just received it, after buying it, with a huge discount, from Amazon. No that hasn't clouded my judgement!!
Firstly, I sent this back to Amazon last year as I couldn't get on with it.
Secondly, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I have raised my rears. This gives the album a whole new spectrum, for me.
Another first for me..I'm preferring the Dolby mix over the DTS version!! And I am perfectly sober and have not taken any wacky backy either.

Departure...deff got 5.1 going on.
Ride My See-Saw...Great song, again getting plenty of variation in the speakers.
Dr Livingston, I Presume...mellotron and various other elements from the rears.
House of Four Doors...great intro using all of the speakers. Lovely harmony.
This is going much better than I remember last year.
Legend of a Mind...Vocals using both rears. Mellotron from the fronts and later from the rears. Flute moving around the speakers.
House of Four Doors Pt 2..Getting a good surround mix here.
Voices in the Sky...Delightful song...very, very subtle mix here.
The Best Way to Travel...Slightly muddy percussion, panning of mellotron and vocals mainly from the rears.
Visions of Paradise...The slightly, weaker of the mixes, although still getting separation.
The Actor....Again not a huge amount of mixing going on, apart from at the end but it is a quietish number, so compliments the song.
The Word...subtle mellotron moving about.
Om...voices alternating from left and rear speakers. Good mix.
A Simple Game....My favourite song. And another good mix.

So there we are...a rare vote of 8 amongst the folk who, like me, initially were upset with this release. If I can encourage fellow QQr's to revisit this album in surround, after my post, then perhaps there might be one or two more changes of opinion.

Sorry Jakko for giving you the thumbs down. I think you did a reasonable job, considering the lack of tracks at your disposal

Just to let you know, I am wearing full body armour!!

 

[edisonbaggins]

Another first for me..I'm preferring the Dolby mix over the DTS version!! And I am perfectly sober and have not taken any wacky backy either.

You are far from the first to say the DD is preferable to the DTS on this one. Makes me wonder if, assuming they're the same mix, something happened at the encoding stage, mastering stage or if hardware handling of DD vs. DTS simply suits this mix better? It's not unheard of for other releases too, though none spring to mind.

 

[H.A.L.]

One big difference (for me) between DD and DTS is that the beginning guitar intro to "Ride My Seesaw" seems distant and somewhat fainter on the DTS compared to the DD. It really resounds on the stereo versions!

What I really love about both the DD and DTS is the spacing of the vocals. And I mean "spacing" in more ways than one .

 

[jefe1]

Thanks Beerking I will have to reeval my opinion too after bitching so much when I got it.. I nearly returned this set also.....
Just give dolby a chance........

 

[salsdali]

whatever, some of my favorite music to listen to, whatever that means (it means I like it, can't really think about or care about what you think about it)

Timothy Leary was an Icon, Om is legendary

listening at low volume I can really appreciate the surround separation of the DTS, and it's the low volume listening test that I use as a measure

 

[ar surround]

The very existence of this 5.1 of one of my all-time favorite MB albums really grates me. Some tracks are absolutely butchered. And a SM or L7 upmix of the hi-res stereo layer has better fidelity, impact and an equal amount of separation than either the DTS or DD layers. I’ve dropped my vote to a 2...10 for content less 8 for everything I don’t like about the 5.1.

Ugh, every time this thread pops up it pus me in a bad mood. I wonder if the site has a way of blocking a specific thread.

 

[fredblue]

The very existence of this 5.1 of one of my all-time favorite MB albums really grates me. Some tracks are absolutely butchered. And a SM or L7 upmix of the hi-res stereo layer has better fidelity, impact and an equal amount of separation than either the DTS or DD layers. I’ve dropped my vote to a 2...10 for content less 8 for everything I don’t like about the 5.1.

Ugh, every time this thread pops up it pus me in a bad mood. I wonder if the site has a way of blocking a specific thread.

i don't know if you can ignore a specific thread other than just have the willpower to look away?

maybe one to put the Bat Signal out to the Quad Mod Squad? calling JonUrban rtbluray timbre4 steelydave Quad Linda et al..!

..you know i've wondered about this (could make a good separate discussion thread?) at the time it was specifically relating to Harry Maslin's 5.1 of Bowie's Station To Station when that came out..

Qn: is it better to have a surround mix of a chershed album, even if the surround mix is not upto snuff, than no surround mix at all?

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Didn’t you hear; everything’s supposed to be remixed into glorious ATMOS ........ .............................. ........ any day now ..... .............. any day now ;( ;( ;(