Simple Minds - "New Gold Dream" Super Deluxe Edition Coming this Summer?

[peterzach]

Hey guys and gals! Long time, no post!

Just thought I'd mention that, as previously mentioned in this thread, the box set DVD that contains the 5.1 mixes is indeed a DVD-V, not a DVD-A, despite Universal cocking it up and sticking DVD-A logos on the disc, disc sleeve and box itself, along with DTS-HD Master logos!! DOH!

I am guessing that the box didn't contain the DVD-A to possibly maintain the exclusivity of the 2005 DVD-A release, maybe?

When all is said and done, Universal are "universal" dicks when it comes to logos and labelling, and the best way to get this album in lossless 5.1 is the Blu Ray, or the DVD-A if you want to throw money away ;-)

Rob, good to hear from you.
This may not be Universal's fault as if you connect the dots and see who has authored disk's as of late that is showing the incorrect information there's been a few and usually if you check it's Ray Shulman(ex of Gentle Giant) that shows as authoring these disk's. I have a few disk's that came out under Esoteric that also show incorrect DVDA labelling.
A few people have mentioned this already in past posts but appears that the only authentic Dvda authoring person in the world is our Neil Wilkes of Opus Productions.

peter

 

[rtbluray]

Hey guys and gals! Long time, no post!

Just thought I'd mention that, as previously mentioned in this thread, the box set DVD that contains the 5.1 mixes is indeed a DVD-V, not a DVD-A, despite Universal cocking it up and sticking DVD-A logos on the disc, disc sleeve and box itself, along with DTS-HD Master logos!! DOH!

I am guessing that the box didn't contain the DVD-A to possibly maintain the exclusivity of the 2005 DVD-A release, maybe?

When all is said and done, Universal are "universal" dicks when it comes to logos and labelling, and the best way to get this album in lossless 5.1 is the Blu Ray, or the DVD-A if you want to throw money away ;-)

That's not what I think, because the reissue of "Once Upon a Time" last year was authored by Neil Wilkes as a DVD-A/V disc.
I hope the reason that this one turned out to be DVD-V only was because they went with another authoring person because Neil wasn't available for this project.
Now normally, I get VERY pissed off when DVD-V discs are labeled with the DVD-A logo (as many others on here will attest to) but it doesn't really bother me in this instance just because we still get lossless audio (stereo and surround) on the (cheaper) Blu-Ray disc.
I only wish the same care would have been taken for Universal's Steve Hackett releases… :violin

 

[rtbluray]

Rob, good to hear from you.
This may not be Universal's fault as if you connect the dots and see who has authored disk's as of late that is showing the incorrect information there's been a few and usually if you check it's Ray Shulman(ex of Gentle Giant) that shows as authoring these disk's. I have a few disk's that came out under Esoteric that also show incorrect DVDA labelling.
A few people have mentioned this already in past posts but appears that the only authentic Dvda authoring person in the world is our Neil Wilkes of Opus Productions.

peter

I don't think Ray Shulman can be blamed at all for the mislabeled DVDs he has authored, because from what I know, he does know the difference.
(And if he doesn't then he's not doing his job properly!)
My thinking is that it's the project managers (people like Mark Powell) who either don't know or don't care about the difference. (His name is attached to the vast majority of the DVD-V discs I have that are incorrectly labeled as DVD-A.)
Plus, this is not the case in all instances, but as far as "New Gold Dream" is concerned, I have a strong feeling that the artwork and designs were put in place before the discs were even authored, and no one can be bothered to change things like that once they are set, right?

 

[Failed Muso]

That's not what I think, because the reissue of "Once Upon a Time" last year was authored by Neil Wilkes as a DVD-A/V disc.
I hope the reason that this one turned out to be DVD-V only was because they went with another authoring person because Neil wasn't available for this project.
Now normally, I get VERY pissed off when DVD-V discs are labeled with the DVD-A logo (as many others on here will attest to) but it doesn't really bother me in this instance just because we still get lossless audio (stereo and surround) on the (cheaper) Blu-Ray disc.
I only wish the same care would have been taken for Universal's Steve Hackett releases… :violin

Very true, but for fans of the band who want the best of everything, this means I am compelled to buy the box set for the content and the Blu Ray too, for the best quality 5.1 mix. Boxes like "Sparkle" and the excellent TFF "SFTBC" had proper DVD-A's which helped me cover all bases. My theory was that the choice was based on keeping the exclusivity of the 2005 DVD-A intact, because as great as Mr Wilkes is, he can't be the only person capable of authoring a DVD-A, can he?

I guess we'll never know, but Universal really need to sort out the mislabelling :-/

 

[rtbluray]

Very true, but for fans of the band who want the best of everything, this means I am compelled to buy the box set for the content and the Blu Ray too, for the best quality 5.1 mix. Boxes like "Sparkle" and the excellent TFF "SFTBC" had proper DVD-A's which helped me cover all bases. My theory was that the choice was based on keeping the exclusivity of the 2005 DVD-A intact, because as great as Mr Wilkes is, he can't be the only person capable of authoring a DVD-A, can he?

I guess we'll never know, but Universal really need to sort out the mislabelling :-/

AFAIK, Neil Wilkes is the only person that has authored 'commercial' DVD-A/V discs for major releases since 2013.
But yes, Universal and every other label who doesn't know the difference between DVD-A/V and DVD-V needs to learn quick, because I will never run out of anger on this issue, that's for sure!

 

[peterzach]

Very true, but for fans of the band who want the best of everything, this means I am compelled to buy the box set for the content and the Blu Ray too, for the best quality 5.1 mix. Boxes like "Sparkle" and the excellent TFF "SFTBC" had proper DVD-A's which helped me cover all bases. My theory was that the choice was based on keeping the exclusivity of the 2005 DVD-A intact, because as great as Mr Wilkes is, he can't be the only person capable of authoring a DVD-A, can he?

I guess we'll never know, but Universal really need to sort out the mislabelling :-/

Rob, its really good that you point out what is actually in the box so a person can make a proper informed decision if you want to get the best quality which is the lossless recording.
I'm glad I have the 2005 DVDA so I am covered there and this is the same mix from 2005 so nothing new for me but if someone missed out on the 2005 Dvda then the Bluray would be the one to get and or as a completist of your favorite bands you need to buy both the box and the bluray like you have done.

 

[q4me]

I am having this battle with somebody over at Discogs who insists this is a DVD-A disc and keeps undoing my fixes to the listing! ;-)

Yup, all good here, albeit quiet on the multi-channel front of late. Heavily investing in vinyl nowadays, but keeping my toes in with the 5.1 stuff too Trust all is well with you, my friend?

Is this your contribution at discogs?

DVD disc, DVD disc sleeve and Box feature the DVD-Audio and DTS-HD Master logos. However, the DVD disc contained in the box set is a DVD-Video disc that contains lossy 5.1 and stereo mixes of the album at "higher-than-CD" resolutions, but is not lossless audio. It is unclear whether the disc has been incorrectly encoded, or whether the logos have been used in error.

This seems to suggest even the stereo is lossy on the DVD. Is that correct?

The box clearly says 96/24 LPCM, so if that is not the case mine will be going back to amazon.

 

[Failed Muso]

Is this your contribution at discogs?



This seems to suggest even the stereo is lossy on the DVD. Is that correct?

The box clearly says 96/24 LPCM, so if that is not the case mine will be going back to amazon.

Hi q4me,

It's not my submission but I was just correcting some errors re: the DVD. The stereo mix on the DVD is 96/24 LPCM and so, therefore, should be lossless. I have reworded the notes and hopefully these will be more accurate...

The DVD disc, DVD disc sleeve and Box feature the DVD-Audio and DTS-HD Master logos. However, the DVD disc contained in the box set is a DVD-Video disc that contains lossy 5.1 (DTS 96/24 and Dolby Digital AC3 48/16) mixes of the album and a lossless LPCM 96/24 stereo mix. Unlike the 'Sparkle In The Rain' and 'Once Upon A Time' box sets in the series, the release was never promoted by Universal as containing a DVD-Audio disc, therefore it is assumed that the logos have been used in error on this box. A lossless 5.1 mix exists on the separate Blu Ray release.

Here are my receiver readouts for all three audio channels on the DVD-V...







Hope that clears things up

 

[rtbluray]

Hi q4me,

It's not my submission but I was just correcting some errors re: the DVD. The stereo mix on the DVD is 96/24 LPCM and so, therefore, should be lossless. I have reworded the notes and hopefully these will be more accurate...



Here are my receiver readouts for all three audio channels on the DVD-V...

View attachment 26850

View attachment 26851

View attachment 26852

Hope that clears things up

Rob, is there a credit somewhere in the box booklet for who authored the DVD?
Another thought I had is that it is possible that there was not enough proper space requirements to author this disc as a DVD-A/V, but I would have to see the space requirements to know for sure.

 

[rtbluray]

Looking on discogs.com, there is also a misnomer on the sticker on the front of the box.
It says "DVD with high resolution 96/24 5.1 mix and promo videos"
Now, I know DTS 96/24 does sound very good (most of the time) but it is in no way high resolution, so yes, Universal needs to get their shite together, but they are not the only ones, trust me on that…

 

[fredblue]

Hmm, I thought DTS 96/24 is technically Hi-Res, it's just not lossless Hi-Res..?

 

[alk3997]

Hmm, I thought DTS 96/24 is technically Hi-Res, it's just not lossless Hi-Res..?

High resolution isn't a precise term. DTS uses it for a high bitrate lossy version of DTS-HD (DTS-HD High Resolution). However, I've never heard them use it for DTS 96/24 since the bitrate is the same regular old (RO) DTS.

From Blu-Ray.com (among other places),
"...Master Audio is lossless at a VBR of up to 24.5Mbps, whereas High Resolution is lossy at a CBR of up to 6Mbps." DTS 96/24 is a constant 1.536 Mbps, significantly below DTS-HD HR.

DTS-HD HR was used extensively during the first year of Blu-Rays when many of the chipsets could not yet support lossless DTS-HD MA.

But, back to the question, in general the term High Resolution is in the eye (ear) of the beholder.

Andy

 

[fredblue]

High resolution isn't a precise term. DTS uses it for a high bitrate lossy version of DTS-HD (DTS-HD High Resolution). However, I've never heard them use it for DTS 96/24 since the bitrate is the same regular old (RO) DTS.

From Blu-Ray.com (among other places),
"...Master Audio is lossless at a VBR of up to 24.5Mbps, whereas High Resolution is lossy at a CBR of up to 6Mbps." DTS 96/24 is a constant 1.536 Mbps, significantly below DTS-HD HR.

DTS-HD HR was used extensively during the first year of Blu-Rays when many of the chipsets could not yet support lossless DTS-HD MA.

But, back to the question, in general the term High Resolution is in the eye (ear) of the beholder.

Andy

High Resolution = extended frequency response of DTS 96/24, n'est pas?

 

[alk3997]

High Resolution = extended frequency response of DTS 96/24, n'est pas?

Sure. A valid way to look at it.

It's truly a marketing name because it leads you to "High resolution compared to what?". It's high resolution compared to regular DTS. In this case - more bits per sample output, higher sampling rate output.

Andy

 

[fredblue]

Sure. A valid way to look at it.

It's truly a marketing name because it leads you to "High resolution compared to what?". It's high resolution compared to regular DTS. In this case - more bits per sample output, higher sampling rate output.

Andy

Ah right, that'd be it then.. so can we say that DTS 96/24 is Hi-Res., just as DTS 48/24 and DTS CD's 44.1/20 are both Hi-Res, compared to.. anything 44.1/16 and below?

Personally could practically care less about all that technobabble these days, as time goes by I just want to hear as much "new" surround as possible and have begrudgingly come to accept things the way they are wrt all the surround formats etc.

 

[Failed Muso]

Rob, is there a credit somewhere in the box booklet for who authored the DVD?
Another thought I had is that it is possible that there was not enough proper space requirements to author this disc as a DVD-A/V, but I would have to see the space requirements to know for sure.

Ray Shulman is the culprit in this case...



The DVD simply contains the album in the three audio sections as detailed previously with about 4 video clips, so space was probably not the issue. Either Mr Shulman couldn't/didn't want to author a DVD-A or Universal made that decision based on something we're not privy to. It's a real shame, given that 'Sparkle...' and 'Once Upon...' were both DVD-A/V's.

 

[fredblue]

Ray Shulman is the culprit in this case...

View attachment 26859

The DVD simply contains the album in the three audio sections as detailed previously with about 4 video clips, so space was probably not the issue. Either Mr Shulman couldn't/didn't want to author a DVD-A or Universal made that decision based on something we're not privy to. It's a real shame, given that 'Sparkle...' and 'Once Upon...' were both DVD-A/V's.

"He's not the son of (Shul)man! He's a very naughty boy!"

Edit: I just noticed, Rob, you mention 4 video clips on the new DVD, the rear art on the old DVD-A says it has 2 video clips.. curious as to what they all are?

 

[rtbluray]

Ray Shulman is the culprit in this case...

View attachment 26859

The DVD simply contains the album in the three audio sections as detailed previously with about 4 video clips, so space was probably not the issue. Either Mr Shulman couldn't/didn't want to author a DVD-A or Universal made that decision based on something we're not privy to. It's a real shame, given that 'Sparkle...' and 'Once Upon...' were both DVD-A/V's.

Yeah, now that I see that, you're probably right that disc space was not an issue.
AFAIK, Ray Shulman doesn't author DVD-A at all, probably because he does not have the software means to do so, and Universal probably could not give a rat's **** about the DVD format. They just needed it done, and they needed it done in time for their projected release date, so if Neil was too busy to author this release after the last two, then that's about the only good reason for how this DVD turned out the way it did.
Thank goodness there's Blu-Ray though, although now I'm curious to see how that was authored as Ray has never been one to follow 'pure audio' guidelines for headless operation and all that…

 

[rtbluray]

"He's not the son of (Shul)man! He's a very naughty boy!"

Edit: I just noticed, Rob, you mention 4 video clips on the new DVD, the rear art on the old DVD-A says it has 2 video clips.. curious as to what they all are?

Adam, two of the videos are the promo films for "Promised You A Miracle" and "Glittering Prize" (both of which are on the old 2005 DVD-A/V) but this new DVD also has videos of those same songs performed on "Top of the Pops".

 

[fredblue]

Adam, two of the videos are the promo films for "Promised You A Miracle" and "Glittering Prize" (both of which are on the old 2005 DVD-A/V) but this new DVD also has videos of those same songs performed on "Top of the Pops".

Thanks for that Ryan