Amadeus SE... no DTS and "good" transfer (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

everybody get a chance to check out the review at dvdfile?
http://www.dvdfile.com/software/revi...madeus_se.html
I'm sure Ron will have his review up shortly.
I'm a bit saddened by the lack of DTS...not that I was expecting it...just hoping.
The presence of some minor "ringing" in the transfer is also less than what I had hoped for. Has anyone else seen this new DVD yet on a good/calibrated 16x9 capable system?
Still, looking forward to the disc as I'm certain it's better than what we've got now!
-dave

 

[John_Berger]

Ron's review has been up for several days now.

 

[Patrick McCart]

Well, the transfer can't look perfect as you might expect. Amadeus was shot totally with natural light.

It's not the cause of ringing, but it does show why it looks different.

 

[Seth_S]

Why does everyone want a DTS track for this DVD? Recorded classical music is meant to be listened to in stereo, not in surround sound. Conductors composed their music knowing that the audience would not be in the center of the orchestra. What should have been done with the Amadeus DVD, is that the sound track was mixed for just stereo and the sound effects/dialogue were mixed for 5.1 playback.

Dan Ramer at DVDfile.com says:

What we have here are good recordings that lack both an extreme bottom end and airy highs. I'm having trouble with the concept that these orchestral recordings of only eighteen years ago could not have been finer.

This is precisely because the music was recorded for stereo playback and remixed for 5.1. Furthermore, classical music doesn't sound that great when compressed by either Dolby or DTS.

If you want to hear Mozart's music with the best possible sound quality, buy some CDs.

 

[Shane Martin]

A PCM track would have been better

 

[Seth_S]

Shane,

That would have made a lot of sense, but all people seem to care about is surround sound.

I really can't stand how all these video-opera DVDs now have DTS and Dolby tracks forcing the recordings to span two discs when the PCM track blows away both of the multi-audio tracks.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

First of all:
I have several DTS discs and the fidelity far surpasses any PCM CD I've ever heard. DTS has a mid-range resolution, inner-detail, and refinement of highs that CD just can't match. It sounds much more like analog or live-mic-feed than the 16/44.1 on CD. DTS recordings can also image with a focus and depth that CD just can't match. The most "you are there" recordings I have ever heard have been either on vinyl or DTS. If we're talking about 20/48 or 24/96 PCM...well that's another story.
Next:

Quote:

Lighting isn't a transfer issue and I wouldn't have described it as such...just like film grain IMO a good transfer faithfully replicates the film elements. Edge enhancement does not accomplish this goal of fideltiy.

 

[Seth_S]

No. The 24-bit remastered CDs that I have with the laserdisc SE I purchased sound the same way...the music is "dead"...it sounds like it was recorded in an anechoic chamber with heavy-sound aborbing carpet everywhere sucking up the sound. The recordings never "open up" in the highs and it just sounds unnatural. Also, the orchestral music for this film was recorded multi-channel/track and then down-mixed to 2 channel for CD...this was not an example of some Chesky stereo-miced-2-channel recording that then had to be "processed" to produce a multi-channel mix.

While I don't own the soundtrack (the 3-disc set from the 80s), from listening to it in the past, I remember that it was quite clear that totally different takes and/or recordings were used for the film. I do remember the sound on the CDs also not being very impressive, and that's most likely due to poor micing and an novice recording engineer. I was not aware that the music for the sound track was recorded in surround sound. Many of the opera DVDs I own come with both a PCM track and Dolby 5.1 tracks, and the issues DVDfile had with the track sound much like differences between the PCM and Dolby tracks.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It's the reverberance of a concert hall which creates the impression that sound is all around you, and the room which recorded music is played in can/should recreate this effect.

I sure wish my living room had the acoustics of a concert hall.

DJ

 

[Ed St. Clair]

I sure wish my speakers had the "acoustics" of a concert orchestra.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And this statement shows a lack of understanding about the playback of recorded music and the live concert experience. It's the reverberance of a concert hall which creates the impression that sound is all around you, and the room which recorded music is played in can/should recreate this effect. In fact, stereo recordings are designed for this effect to happen naturally. The less technoligy invloved, the more natural the sound is.

I was always under the impression that the goal of "hi fidelity" was to reproduce the sound of a recording as faithfully as possible with the least amount of coloration, and the goal of a hi-fidelity recording was to capture the sound of the event with the least amount of coloration.
Yes, in 2 channel stereo, to acheive a "full" sound, often room acoustics are used in the playback chain to add a sense of abience or space. But this is NOT ideal at all. The recording engineer cannot predict the acoutstics of your particular room and the acoutstic properites of your listening envrironment can't adapt to fit the vision of the recording engineer of each recording you play.
The best recordings capture ambient information and preserve it. The best audio systems minimize coloration introduced during the playback chain but instead present the subtle acoutstic queus which poorer resolution systems tend to mask.
God did not invent 2 channels for the perfect presentation of reproduced audio. Back in the 50s and 60s many orchestral recordings were actually done 3 channel (front center, and right). It had been determined that the best sound reproduction used a center speaker (yes, we're talking music here people...HT surround sound wasn't evena concept at the time) but records just had 2 sides to a groove so these master tapes were downmixed to stereo for LP. To keep the needle from hopping out of the groove due to heavy bass in one channel, low bass was mixed to mono so the pressure from both sides of the needle would remain constant and not cause the needle to mistrack (this is the source of the myth that "bass is nondirection" in audio...bcs it was mixed to mono for LP!!!).
The point is that 2 channel stereo isn't a divine golden section of audio design...it is a legacy from the days of LP.
If 2 channels can render a realistic soundfield in front of a listener, why wouldn't more channels render a realistic soundfield beyond this one axis? Since live music exists in 3 dimensions in a 360 degree soundfield arriving at the listener from all angles, multi-channel recordings (if recorded properly) can render much more faithfully these musical events than any 2 channel system.
We live with the colorations from our room reflections in a compromised attempt to restore what has been lost in a 2 channel recording/playback chain. The best solution would be to have a multichannel recording/playback chain that faithfully replicates the acoustics of the event in a room that does its best to minimize the colorations it introduces into the experience.
-dave

 

[Seth_S]

God did not invent 2 channels for the perfect presentation of reproduced audio. Back in the 50s and 60s many orchestral recordings were actually done 3 channel (front center, and right). It had been determined that the best sound reproduction used a center speaker (yes, we're talking music here people...HT surround sound wasn't evena concept at the time)

yes yes. My Cleveland Orchestra recordings from the early 60s have been downmixed from 3 channel to 2.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. My problem with mutli-channel music is that it can easily become all about being multi-channel and not faithfully reproducing the music. I own music DVDs where this has already happened - the surround tracks attempt to put the listener on the conductors podium or in the center of the orchestra.

 

[Scott Shanks]

Down goes Frasier! Down goes Frasier!
(It's getting a little heated here, ain't it?)

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Hey Scott,
I'm cool with people being critical of bad *recording or mixing*...regardless of whether 2 or more channels. What I can't stand is the typical 2-channal audiophile stance that somehow 2 channels is "right" and multi-channel or "surround" is "wrong". If a recording engineer puts you in the middle of an orchestra...that's a bad decision. Had he done a good job mixing and placing you in front of the orchestra with the natural acoustics filling the surround channels, you'd experience something much closer to the original event than any 2-channel system could deliver.
I've heard plenty of 2 channel mixes done by engineers who seem to think there are only 3 options to horizontal soundstaging...hard left, center, and hard right (and with no sense of depth or acoustic space...just a bunch of close-miced sounds without any acoustic context). Just becuase the guy who makes such a recording doesn't understand audio doesn't mean that the concept of 2 channel stereo is somehow flawed or not as good as mono.
Just like we know how a *good* 2 channel mix isn't gimicky at all...but instead does a realistic job of placing instruments in a 3-dimensional space in front of us that encompasses the distance between the speakers as well as behind and beyond them, so to should any serious audiophile be aware that a well done multi-channel recording is capable of that and much more.

I'm not even sure what we're arguing about. My problem with mutli-channel music is that it can easily become all about being multi-channel and not faithfully reproducing the music.

Well, somewhere along the line someone in this thread said something to the effect that score to Amadeus would have been better served by 2 channel stereo and that the problems the reviewer cited with the sound were somehow related to the process of taking music that was meant to be 2-channel and modifying it for multi-channel surround.
This was the error I intended to address.
So let's not pretend that a 16/44.1 stereo soundtrack is more faithful in replicating the original event than a well done multi-channel 20-bit DTS or 24-bit MLP surround recording.
If we have a problem with bad or tasteless mixing techniques, let's just say that and help educate the industry on how to properly use surround. Remember those ping-pong recordings from the first stereo LP's? ... We had to do the same thing Stereo.
-dave

 

[Seth_S]

...let's just say that and help educate the industry on how to properly use surround.

I think the bigger problem is that the public at large wants to be "in the center of the orchestra". That way there is music blasting out off all their speakers.

 

[Joel Vardy]

I'm 'thrilled' this rerelease is coming out on the 24th. Only there are 3 others coming out at the same time:

- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
- Unforgiven
- Singin' in the Rain

None so far have been designated by either a B&M nor an etailer for special pricing consideration. Is this because they are classsical titles that are being rereleased? Or is thre just more attention to be placed on Grease or even Trading Places on that date?


Joel