HiRez Poll Yes - TALES FROM TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS [DVD-Audio/Blu-Ray Audio]

[floydflush]

(Quote: The additional processing can lead to a reduction in overall quantity of bass from my personal experience.

How large are your drivers in the six speakers? Are the cabinets large enough and is the amps powerful enough to supply low frequencies? How large is your listening room? I only ask because of the results I am getting bass wise doesn't match yours and maybe there is a simple reason.)

Trust me it's all OK with the calibrated configuration. It's not general. It's on on this disc only. And only on most parts.
And as I said: It's the DRUM sound that comes to thin.

And we should keep this thread as it was posted: as a music poll.

 

[ssully]

Those hearing a mix with too low or no bass - are you listening to the bluray edition or the DVDA edition?

Why should that make even the slightest bit of difference?

 

[ssully]

No need for a center. A center - not as large and the same model as the front speakers - will always falsify
the sound! Center content should be configurated to the front speakers.

No, it won't. Please don't assert nonsense as fact.

As it happens I have the same model loudspeaker across LCR (and for surround LR too). Nothing is 'falsified'.

 

[himey]

(Quote: The additional processing can lead to a reduction in overall quantity of bass from my personal experience.

How large are your drivers in the six speakers? Are the cabinets large enough and is the amps powerful enough to supply low frequencies? How large is your listening room? I only ask because of the results I am getting bass wise doesn't match yours and maybe there is a simple reason.)

Trust me it's all OK with the calibrated configuration. It's not general. It's on on this disc only. And only on most parts.
And as I said: It's the DRUM sound that comes to thin.

And we should keep this thread as it was posted: as a music poll.

Sorry but the drums are not thin. Since you didn't answer my questions about what you are using to output the bass, including the bass drums, much of it emanating from the rears only, I will move on and let you blame the mix, but don't expect many to agree with you.

 

[himey]

No, it won't. Please don't assert nonsense as fact.

As it happens I have the same model loudspeaker across LCR (and for surround LR too). Nothing is 'falsified'.

I don't agree with many of your posts, but we can hold hands and sing Kumbaya on this one!

 

[milt]

(Quote: Those hearing a mix with too low or no bass - are you listening to the bluray edition or the DVDA edition?)

Quadrophenia test was from Bluray. This one here from DVD-A (first version I held in hands this time).
Listened on measure-microphone-calibrated 6.0 system (2 fronts, 2 rears, 2 back rears, no center, no LFE).

The bass here maybe a matter of taste and could be fixed easily.
The worst thing here is the drum part (in most places).
Should this be much better on Bluray?

Overall it's a nice work and listening pleasure. But if 10 is the best note I'd rather give it to Dark Side or Tommy (1st mix).
But I'm happy like you too to get a multichannel mix of Tales after all.

(Btw. I made a fixed version of Quadrophenia for my own. The result was very satisfying. Now one can see that most things
were well done in the original 5.1 mix already. But now with the fixed faults it is just what I'm waiting for all these years:
Stormy waves all around - Bass enough to remember good old John - Strong voice of Daltry, also on the last track....)

For Godsake, whacking around like that with a 5.1 surround recording is just inexplicable.

 

[himey]

For Godsake, whacking around like that with a 5.1 surround recording is just inexplicable.
Your opinions are rendered irrelevant to me.

I hate being that harsh on THIS forum, I save that for shf ...but I totally agree. He definitely deserves a Com' On Man! For sure.

 

[milt]

I hate being that harsh on THIS forum, I save that for shf ...but I totally agree. He definitely deserves a Com' On Man! For sure.

Happy now?

 

[himey]

Happy now?

Sure. Thanks for asking. You happy?

 

[jimfisheye]

I was fishing for clues with the bluray or DVDA question. They SHOULD be identical. Giving benefit of doubt to system setup and asking leading questions. Sometimes mastering errors sneak out.

There are many different speaker arrays that could be used for surround. If speaker managed and calibrated properly, a small top mains 5.1 system or 4.0 quad system or 6.0 system could all deliver a 5.1 recording well. True that you'll find more use for a front center channel than Lr,Rr pair with 5.1 being a common format. But it shouldn't alter a 5.1 mix drastically if properly set up. (Should deliver 5.1 exactly like a 4.0 system would actually. )

 

[milt]

Sure. Thanks for asking. You happy?

Exstatic.

 

[milt]

I was fishing for clues with the bluray or DVDA question. They SHOULD be identical. Giving benefit of doubt to system setup and asking leading questions. Sometimes mastering errors sneak out.

There are many different speaker arrays that could be used for surround. If speaker managed and calibrated properly, a small top mains 5.1 system or 4.0 quad system or 6.0 system could all deliver a 5.1 recording well. True that you'll find more use for a front center channel than Lr,Rr pair with 5.1 being a common format. But it shouldn't alter a 5.1 mix drastically if properly set up. (Should deliver 5.1 exactly like a 4.0 system would actually. )

How can a 6.0 system deliver what's on a 5.1 disc?
No LFE.

It amazes me how people think they can work around the fundamental structure of a format?
Doesn't bother me if someone prefers that but you're not dealing with reality and offering reviews, impressions of a recording is rendered meaningless.

How about installing an extra tire or removing a tire from a car and doing a driving impression.
Laughable.

 

[wavelength]

How can a 6.0 system deliver what's on a 5.1 disc?
No LFE.

It amazes me how people think they can work around the fundamental structure of a format?
Doesn't bother me if someone prefers that but you're not dealing with reality and offering reviews, impressions of a recording is rendered meaningless.

How about installing an extra tire or removing a tire from a car and doing a driving impression.
Laughable.

But I think it is reality in fact that people have different surround setups. Ideally the format - 5.1 - calls for 5 identical, full range speakers with a sub. I doubt many people here have that. Anything outside of that is in essence, as you call it, a workaround

 

[jimfisheye]

How can a 6.0 system deliver what's on a 5.1 disc?
No LFE..

In this example you would redirect the C & Lfe content to the front L,R pair.
You're OS audio utility would do this when you set it for a 6.0 system. A receiver would have similar speaker management controls.

It amazes me how people think they can work around the fundamental structure of a format?
Doesn't bother me if someone prefers that but you're not dealing with reality and offering reviews, impressions of a recording is rendered meaningless.

How about installing an extra tire or removing a tire from a car and doing a driving impression.
Laughable.

To be fair, "laughable" would be reviewing surround on a 2.0 system.
Playing 5.1 surround program on a properly set up 4.0 system in a pinch might be a reasonable thing to do if your other option is to not play it!

I agree that a 6.0 system is an odd investment. Extra speakers not usually mixed for and missing one that is, so requiring speaker management.
But it certainly wouldn't be laughable to listen to 5.1 content on it.
I agree that any review should have a strong opening disclaimer.

You redirect channels and/or bass content for speaker management. Balance is preserved and no content is lost.
The missing wheel example would be the analogy for someone neglecting to manage a non standard speaker array.

If we're talking about redirecting a center channel to a front L,R pair, you're going to lose headroom before directional information.
(If you don't get a phantom center image from mono content that fools you until you put your ear up to the silent C ch speaker, then something is wrong.)
Bass content is non-directional so there is truly no difference between hearing it out of any of the mains vs. a sub on the Lfe channel.
If you don't run out of headroom, then you're doing pretty well.

Yes, you ideally want 5 full range speakers + a sub and run everything 1:1 but a smaller managed system isn't exactly laughable. It's all relative too. I've heard smaller managed systems that put lesser quality 1:1 systems to shame.

 

[himey]

In this example you would redirect the C & Lfe content to the front L,R pair.
You're OS audio utility would do this when you set it for a 6.0 system. A receiver would have similar speaker management controls.



To be fair, "laughable" would be reviewing surround on a 2.0 system.
Playing 5.1 surround program on a properly set up 4.0 system in a pinch might be a reasonable thing to do if your other option is to not play it!

I agree that a 6.0 system is an odd investment. Extra speakers not usually mixed for and missing one that is, so requiring speaker management.
But it certainly wouldn't be laughable to listen to 5.1 content on it.
I agree that any review should have a strong opening disclaimer.

You redirect channels and/or bass content for speaker management. Balance is preserved and no content is lost.
The missing wheel example would be the analogy for someone neglecting to manage a non standard speaker array.

If we're talking about redirecting a center channel to a front L,R pair, you're going to lose headroom before directional information.
(If you don't get a phantom center image from mono content that fools you until you put your ear up to the silent C ch speaker, then something is wrong.)
Bass content is non-directional so there is truly no difference between hearing it out of any of the mains vs. a sub on the Lfe channel.
If you don't run out of headroom, then you're doing pretty well.

Yes, you ideally want 5 full range speakers + a sub and run everything 1:1 but a smaller managed system isn't exactly laughable. It's all relative too. I've heard smaller managed systems that put lesser quality 1:1 systems to shame.

Bass in theory is not directional, but dumping bass management and upgrading rears to large full range speakers is a huge improvement compared to bookshelf or tiny floorstanders + sub.

 

[jimfisheye]

Bass in theory is not directional, but dumping bass management and upgrading rears to large full range speakers is a huge improvement compared to bookshelf or tiny floorstanders + sub.

Sure. But that's a headroom issue that any underpowered system will have.

You could have a counter example where dumping a set of lesser quality full range speakers for more accurate mid/high speakers plus a good sub and then properly set speaker management is a huge improvement. I'm just being academic of course but the point is proper setup is the bigger factor.

Again, I very much recommend a full surround speaker system.
I just disagree with the suggestion that ANY deviation from a full system is reduced to laughable or that speaker management automatically equals compromise.

 

[floydflush]

Many thanks, jimfisheye, for your explanations to the other "multichannel-super-ears" here, really.
I did not switched-on my first multichannel equipment yesterday.
I regret to post something here on a music poll.
One might think: What a strange guy.
Maybe some day you'll listen to the first conversion of a Meddle mix with the spliced-in guitar solo
from the Q8. Or the first full enjoyable conversion of Welcome Back My Friends from Q8 with nearly no flatter.
Or whatever... Maybe they are credited to that strange guy.
Bye.

 

[wavelength]

This is my first copy of this album having never heard any of Tales before. My initial reaction was "oh boy, what the heck is this?" I just didn't care for it at all. Now, after 2 or 3 weeks and 8 - 10 listens to various tracks, this album is really coming together nicely. Great stuff!

 

[ProgRules]

This is my first copy of this album having never heard any of Tales before. My initial reaction was "oh boy, what the heck is this?" I just didn't care for it at all. Now, after 2 or 3 weeks and 8 - 10 listens to various tracks, this album is really coming together nicely. Great stuff!

It is a unique album that requires quite a bit from the listener. I was a big Yesfan when I first bought the vinyl 40 years ago and it took quite a while for it to click w/ me. Congrats on your persistence! I hope it continues to grow on you. At my age, I wouldn't have the patience for 8-10 listens of something I didn't care for at all.

 

[colsky]

At my age, I wouldn't have the patience for 8-10 listens of something I didn't care for at all.

I know what you mean! I occasionally do it still because as we know it can be rewarding with some difficult albums. One album that I've recently tried this with is Anderson Stolt - Invention of Knowledge. But in that case it didn't work! 10 listens and I still really don't like that album. I keep persevering because of all the glowing reviews, and all the forum posts comparing it to Tales. Tales is one of my favourite albums (and Jon Anderson one of my favourite artists), but IOK I don't think will ever be. IOK is not difficult, its just meh.