Pink Floyd Animals DVDA

[JohnA]

Has anyone listened to it?:alienrob:

It has only been around for a few days, so feedback is scarce (the original poster's comments only)

It's 1.6Gb in size, so it could potentially not be compressed too much. Hopefully it will be of higher quality that the WYWH DVDA attempt.

....still downloading....@:

 

[ress4278]

I'd like to know about this one as well.

 

[PossumPete]

How about a link? Can a hard copy be purchased? Thanks!

 

[JohnA]

Pete,
It is against forum rules to provide such links or be more specific. Quite rightly so.

Just look in the usual places, really it is not that hard to find.

Once it is done, I'll let you guys know if it is any good.
WYWH DVD-A for example I found to be a bit of a letdown - hiss, muddle and more hiss (compared to the CD). Still, it is true surround, so it's better than nothing I guess.

Hopefully Animals will be of better quality.

 

[etzeppy]

Has anyone listened to it?:alienrob:

It has only been around for a few days, so feedback is scarce (the original poster's comments only)

It's 1.6Gb in size, so it could potentially not be compressed too much. Hopefully it will be of higher quality that the WYWH DVDA attempt.

....still downloading....@:

Is this something new or is it the same Animals DVDA that's been floating around for a while? The DVDA upmix I have had for some time was made by "Area 51". There is a WYWH upmix DVDA from the same folks, which is different from the DVDA 4.0, which is some sort of quad transfer. I've seen debate elsewhere if the 4.0 DVDA was sourced from SQ vinyl or Q8.

 

[bnyhof]

Is this something new or is it the same Animals DVDA that's been floating around for a while? The one I saw was made by "Area 51". There is a WYWH upmix DVDA from the same folks, which is different from the DVDA 4.0, which is some sort of quad transfer. I've seen debate elsewhere if the 4.0 DVDA was sourced from SQ vinyl or Q8.

Probably the same one. The copy I have had for almost two years is also 1.6mb.

 

[JohnA]

Probably the same one. The copy I have had for almost two years is also 1.6mb.

so is this listenable then?

 

[etzeppy]

so is this listenable then?

If it's the same one, it's "listenable" as I recall. I got it with a pile of other stuff and kind of forgot about it. I need to give it another spin to refresh my memory. When you're done with the download, maybe we can compare notes and figure out if it's same version.

p.s.
I just compared the file size of the ISOs and both are 1,176,128 kb. It has to be the same upmix. Whomever repackaged this latest one did not include the artwork from Area 51. Is it allowed for me to post it in this thread or not?

 

[JohnA]

Mine looks like a 1.6Gb iso file.

It should be complete in a day or two.
If it's any good I'll post feedback here.
Mind you, the official Animals CD isn't exactly brilliant either.

 

[PossumPete]

Pete,
It is against forum rules to provide such links or be more specific. Quite rightly so.

Just look in the usual places, really it is not that hard to find.

Gotcha! Didn't know what I was looking at on this thread. I'll find it. Thanks!

 

[JonUrban]

It seems silly sometimes to restrict posting links like this here, especially when most labels have stopped giving us legit surround releases to spend our money on D), but we try and stay above board by not doing so.

However, there is no restriction about sending links back and forth via PM. Remember though, we're not responsible for whatever happens to you at those PM'd links!

 

[ChristopherLees]

Mine looks like a 1.6Gb iso file.

It should be complete in a day or two.
If it's any good I'll post feedback here.
Mind you, the official Animals CD isn't exactly brilliant either.

Yes it wasn't their best recording for some strange reason...but the original UK Lp pressing seems to be the best sonically, and is quite good...quite a bit better than all over pressings...much like the Japanese lp of the final cut sounds the best out of all other final cut releases.....

 

[JohnA]

Just finished listening to it.
I also did A/B tests with the CD (1994 remaster) comparing it to the stereo mix of this DVDA version.

Not bad!
Back-to-back it is very similar to the CD. No worse, but not better either - they are both flat. Guthrie remaster it aint.

Quad-wise, it is the real deal. The rear channels mainly host the acoustic guitars and some effects.
Not much happening in the sub, probably it is a transfer from 4.0 tapes. No DVD images either, a-la-AP-DSOTM.

Overall, well worth the download IMO.

 

[Bob Romano]

It's definitely an upmix. I know where it was done and who did it but that's all I can say.

 

[Feisal K]

Yes it wasn't their best recording for some strange reason...

thanks *whew* I can trust my ears again

I've been saying - its not really bad sounding, just a shade under par compared to the rest - people keep telling me the Animals CD sounds good (buncha audiophiles... )

It's definitely an upmix. I know where it was done and who did it but that's all I can say.

I don't get upmixes - why not hit the PLII button when listening to a regular CD? I was going to ask but then remembered there was no original quad mix of Animals

 

[etzeppy]

I don't get upmixes - why not hit the PLII button when listening to a regular CD? I was going to ask but then remembered there was no original quad mix of Animals

The TOUP upmixes are interesting and are certainly better than I could do with PLII. To quote Neil from another thread.

The TOUP stuff is not done in the same way as the recievers decoders would use, but by a series of extractions from the stereo - and then taking the extractions (In "Pepper" there are 8 to 10 per track) and mixing them back together again.
Other methods include Ambisonic expansion, and various other tricks generally involving Phase & Comb Filtering amongst others.
There are some real treats available, but a heck of a lot of dross that should be avoided as you would a dose of the clap.

 

[JohnA]

It's definitely an upmix. I know where it was done and who did it but that's all I can say.

I suspect that too, because the 'body' of the music has been left untouched.

Only peripheral ding dongs and acoustic guitars have been moved to the rear channels.
That said, it is better than many commercial 'surround' SACDs and DVDAs I've got, which only have some reverb and echoes passing them as 'immersed in surround'
I could do that myself sending A-B at the back with some delay, but surround it ain't.

At least in this Animals DVDA they didn't degrade the sound from the original CD.

 

[neil wilkes]

I don't get upmixes - why not hit the PLII button when listening to a regular CD? I was going to ask but then remembered there was no original quad mix of Animals

Feisal, Animals was mixed in Quad, it even got a catalogue nuimber - but it was one of those that never got released. Maybe one day a true version will show up ( ) but this one is not it.

As far as DPL II goes, that is one way to do things, but as quoted above, the chaps at TOUP are much more clever than this and their work is truly worth looking at (or should that be listening to?) because they manage to achieve some very good things. I have nothing but admiration for their releases. You should definitely give their version of the Led Zeppelin material a listening to. Page's guitars manage to slide from front to rear in "Whole Lotta Love", for example.
A well-crafted upmix can do things a DPL II decode simply couldn't even begin to achieve.

 

[Feisal K]

ah ok.. forgot about TOUP I do have the White Album. most of the other DTS upmixes are... pretty ordinary

didn't know that Animals had a unreleased Quad mix... why didn't they get around to it? or had Quad 'died' by 1977?

 

[JohnA]

..or had Quad 'died' by 1977?

...stillborn more like it...@: