This just in from Ken Caillat, late of 5.1 entertainment

[ferret-e]

Is this discussion part about "what format is better"?! Format differences are exists, and in some cases are obvious, but the point is that bad mastering or source quality can сause many more damage, than "bad" format itself. And in most cases, the **** happens because of first.

 

[The Quadfather]

I have no experience with Blu Ray or the version of Dolby it uses. So, I will decline to comment on it.

The Quadfather

 

[neil wilkes]

Is this discussion part about "what format is better"?! Format differences are exists, and in some cases are obvious, but the point is that bad mastering or source quality can сause many more damage, than "bad" format itself. And in most cases, the **** happens because of first.

It was not supposed to come over as "What format is better" from my point of view, although it does indeed read this way.
And you're so right about the 'mastering' generally causing problems. A friend recently told me that in his opinion (as a mixer) quality begins with the recording, then moves to the mix. If these are both good, then 'mastering' should be basically a case of "do as little as possible & leave it the **** alone". He further went on to say that in his opinion, more damage is done by so-called 'mastering' than just about anything else.
I agree.

What irks me is the further damage that then gets done by taking what was a great mix, not content with just ******* it up with overcompression & excessive limiting in the name of volume the bloody fools then proceed to use Preceptual (lossy) reduction algos and claim we are happy with this.
Which is pure bollocks.
It's a losers jackpot from our somewhat unique perspective as surround fans. Why? Simple.
If we buy the DD mixes on the grounds that at least it is something, we are already seeing claims that "Surround Fans are happy with DD< so why give anything more when we can have stupid pointless video instead".
If we do not buy the DD as a protest, we find out the labels are using this to imply that there is no demand for surround - period.

I am at a loss as to know what to do about this.

EDIT.
My personal preference is for DVD-A.
However, if we go down the entire surround format list, then my preferences are as follows:
1 - DVD-A
2 - SACD
3 - DTS (all forms except DTS-HD as this is not really a mainstream format as yet.)
4 - Q4
5 - Q8
6 - CD-4
7 - SQ/QS
4 - DD

 

[atrocity]

(DTS Ents version of DSOTM comes to mind)

???

 

[Quadzilla]

???

Apparently, it was created but never released ... officially that is.

 

[Kazaam]

Done - now go chime in!

Existing 5.1 Mixes: Fleetwood Mac's Unreleased Tusk DVD-A

Please add your voice tho this thread if you're as ready to pre-order this DVD-A title as I am.

I'd sure buy it! Make it high-resolution DVD-Audio, too!

 

[zabble]

Where do I send my check?