Search results

If a recording has transparency & detail I'm confused about the need for these other nebulous elements being mentioned. "Transparency" indicates an UNaltered sonic event; "detail" refers to the small (but important) parts being reproduced. So to me, a system that exhibited these two qualities...

Javier: read the first post in this thread. Dvd-audio doesn't have a redbook layer, so the MLP stereo track is all we'll get. And yes, I do think 192 PCM is a more transparent format than DSD. LJ

Also: let's keep our fingers crossed the dvd-audio version doesn't use this "exciting sounding" redbook mix. A nice, straight transfer from master tape to transparent 192kHz stereo PCM--with no tweaking--would be great. LJ

I had that 20th Anniversary DSOTM and while I don't have it anymore (needed gas money to get home from college!) I never thought it sounded "horrible/nasty/unbelievably" bad. Where did you guys listen to this CD--on a player made out of wood & rubber bands?? I didn't critically analyze it but...

Does anybody know if Capitol (or DTS?) could release the quad version without PF's approval? LJ

Ken: I know what you're speaking of when you say music sounds more realistic with its natural reverb added from the rear (the "audience" mixes on AIX Records' dvd-audios are a prime example)--it does definitely sound fuller & better. But music to me isn't always about recreating the recording...

I am really, REALLY hoping they don't use Guthrie's mix on the dvd-audio version of DSOTM--I'm reading too many negative things about it now (the above items and lack of high-end detail, reported here and at Steve Hoffman's forum). And I sure hope they use a PCM-based system to make the 5.1...

If they mix ALL the Beatles songs with just a gentle, ambient surround effect, I for one will be very disappointed. I might as well just activate the "hall" DSP effect on my receiver and not waste money on any 5.1 releases. I realize certain songs need varying levels of aggressiveness: Songs...

I'll admit one thing: If DSOTM does make it to dvd-audio, if it is not advertised properly it will probably only do a little better than the sacd 5.1 version (there's that problem again: how many are actually buying that one for its hi-res layers???). And for crissake don't price it above 20...

Do sacd's have that little card inside like Warner dvd-audios do that ask why, where, etc. you bought it for? LJ

And if the number of discs still sitting there at my Best Buy are any indication (about 25), few people are listening to ANY layer of this album. I've been keeping track since I only live 7 minutes from there (and there's a Starbucks next door!); and one of the employees told me yesterday that...

Who tracks sales figures of these? Soundscan? When do they release sales figures? LJ

Ed: I know what you mean about dumbing down the 5.1 surround format just to make up for people who are sloppy with their system's positioning. When I daydream about a no-hold's barred surround rig, it IS made up of five, full range & indentical speakers. Either these or these, (with a sub)...

Jeff: I also don't much like subs for music either--I was just too chicken to admit it in my first post! Movie explosions are one thing (what's an "accurate" one sound like anyway???); music bass is a whole other matter. LJ

Two other problems many people forget about regarding center channels: 1) their position in relation to the other front channels and 2) most likely it won't fully match the left/right mains sonically speaking. Two potentially big problems IMO. And why I am an advocate of 4.1 channel...