Anyone else dissaponted that DSOTM is not coming on DVDA (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

To get 6 channels of 24/192K (aggregate around 28Mb/sec) you'd have to get an average compression ratio of ~4:1, to have some bandwidth left over for compression shortfalls. This simply isn't doable.

This is what makes HD DVD so interesting - the ability to do 192khz on all six channels on a (I'm told) 23GB disc. That could really be something. Also, it would also help to minimize transient issues that some believe occur at 96khz but are minimal at 192khz. I have not done any specific tests or have a fully developed opinion myself on this topic.
Of course, the industry could possibly upset all camps and introduce a third high resolution format based on HD-DVD. I would not be completely surprised but I would be angry. Of course, good luck to the music labels if they don't have one single version/format to stand behind.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Thanks, John!

But I'll need to ruminate on this a bit before it (hopefully) penetrates the gray matter... :b

If I could ask a more general question, does it disappoint you to know that "only" a 24/96 resolution will be used on "Pet Sounds", or is the difference between this and 24/192 (DVD-A's "highest" resolution?) not particularly audible?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Some background data on Pink Floyd Quad mix from Ed Bishop on Steve Hoffman's Forum...I thought the Quad mix lovers might enjoy this opinion...

Honestly, if I had the SQ decoder and didn't have a copy--but with the setup I've got--I'd spring for that $100 platter. It's uncommon rather than rare, but since the new SACD is going to have a new 5.1 remix, that original Quad mix--coupled with the album's legendary status worldwide--is going to make that price a bargain someday, IMHO.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

the difference between this and 24/192 (DVD-A's "highest" resolution?) not particularly audible?

Rich,
If you want my opinion as well, I do find 192 to sound better but 96khz, in addition to transient differences, is very good and a notable step over redbook. A lot will also depend on the Pet Sounds mastering.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

With SACD, you can have a single layer SACD only, which provides 4.7GB of space, and is referred to as a DVD-5. You can also have a dual layer SACD only, which provides ~8.5GB of space which is referred to as a DVD-9.

Actually, more like 4.3GB and 7.75GB. The 'GB' that the DVD industry likes to quote is actually a billion bytes, not a true gigabyte.

 

[John Kotches]

Rich,
Much of this will depending on the mastering.
The best 24/192K I've heard is on Ray Brown's "Soular Energy" from Hi-Res. It's stunningly good.
The best 24/96K I've heard is also on the same disc. It's stunningly good too.
The problem is, every time I hear 24/192K, it's sighted, ie I know its playing.
Honesty compels me to say, if I had to pick 24/96K vs. 24/192K in a blind comparison I have my doubts as to whether I could hear a difference. There is no question 24/192K measures better though.
We don't know how long the Pet Sounds project has been underway, nor do we know what equipment was at the team's disposal. These are critical factors. Also, you have to consider the practicality of working with all of the various tapes that are required to "reassemble" this work. Pet Sounds really was a tremendous technical accomplishment for its era. They might have sacrificed the last little bit of resolution for practicality.
Will I be disappointed with the lack of 24/192K? I might be for about 15-20 seconds, after that I won't really care! Brian Wilson's master work about as good as it's ever sounded in digital seems like a good deal to me
Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Yes Michael, I'm fully aware of the difference between base 10 (aka marketing) Gigs (10^9) and binary Gigs (2^30).

It doesn't change the fundamental message however.

Regards,

 

[Michael St. Clair]

John,
I had no doubt that you knew. I was just nitpicking, and thought others might want to know.
I really, really hope that the original mono on 'Pet Sounds' is definitive, it would be a shame of Hoffman's mastering made the DCC Redbook a better listen. It would be nice to have definitive stereo, mono, and surround, all on one disc.
This is my most eagerly awaited high-res release. The Zappa concert is the next. I love Pink Floyd but I've been listening to pretty damn good stereo and surround versions for years now.

 

[LanceJ]

For dvd-audio's disc feature set, check out this site (click on the "About dvd-audio" link, then "main specifications" link):
http://www.panasonic-europe.com/dvdaudio/
LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

We don't know how long the Pet Sounds project has been underway

I spoke with a mastering engineer and he says Pet Sounds will be a 24/96khz disc.

Oh, apologies. I guess in rereading some posts that this was already established.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

The more I think about the Quad mix, the more I think it is over-rated.

Lee, have you heard the quad mix?
If not, please allow people to say: "The more I think about SACD, the more I think it is over-rated".

 

[John Kotches]

Ed,
Of course it's overrated, it isn't included on DSotM, therefore it has to be overrated. :rolleyes
Just because it's what the band wanted and had implemented via Alan Parsons doesn't mean diddly. Lord knows Parsons has no clue about anything when it comes to mixing
Regards,

 

[KeithH]

John, I guess Parsons has no clue. They didn't include him in the mixing of Dark Side of the Moon for SACD.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Ouch!

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Double ouch!

 

[GregK]

Regarding a few of the quadraphonic opinions from some of the other forums, I think it's important to mention the following:

* The DSOTM 2-channel stereo mix found on the standard stereo LP or current CD is NOT matrix encoded. Therefore any decoding of said mix will result in unintended surrounds with SQ, QS/RM, DPL-2, or any type of matrix decoding. The two channel (SQ matrix encoded) quad mix was a separate release, along with the QS/RM matrix release, and the British discrete Q8 release. (Obviously the various incompatible versions along with a dedicated stereo release didn't help the quad cause.)

* SQ and RM matrix decoders were certainly NOT created equal. Even the full-logic designs varied in quality. Unlike the Dolby Surround matrix era, quadraphonic's heyday had various (incompatible) matrix formats, and many decoders not only produced very little usable separation, they also suffered from various artifacts. By the time quality SQ and QS/RM decoders arrived on the market, the quad format had too many nails in the coffin.

Now I've had a chance to hear DSOTM in better than normal quad playback conditions. I've heard the SQ version decoded with the legendary Tate-II SQ decoder and also heard the British Q8 quad eight track, which kept the four channels discrete. Both versions simply sound excellent, with great usage of all four channels. An old interview with mixer Alan Parsons reveals DSOTM was one of the few quad releases recorded in the studio from the onset with 4-channel audio in mind, and it shows. If someone wanted to hear an example of quadraphonic music, the first thing I would play was track #6: Money, and it always brought a smile, even to the '2-channel music only' fans.

Now even though the above conditions were great, they are still limited by their original carrier formats, in this case, the LP or (shudder) eight track. To have the opportunity to hear the 4 channel mix digitally transferred from the original quad master would be a treat indeed. Of course a new 5.1 mix from the original stems will probably sound great, but sadly current SACD release practices seem to avoid multiple multichannel mixes. Will I enjoy the 5.1 mix? Sure.. but the historical significance of the original 4.0 mix along with the potential to easily offer that mix with today's discrete multichannel formats should not be quickly pushed aside.

 

[LanceJ]

Dammit, where's "I Robot", "Pyramid" or even "Try Anything Once" in surround???
Come on DTS, cough up the bucks for these, I'll buy all of them. Dvd-audio or DTS Music Disc, I don't care! Don't stop with just "On Air"!
Pleeeeeeeeease?
LJ

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Of course it's overrated, it isn't included on DSotM, therefore it has to be overrated.

Only a small mind would feel threatened enough by Super Audio fans to think that is the only reason some feel it is over-rated.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Lee,
I 'think' that statement/"quote" is made too you. :b

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I 'think' that statement/"quote" is made too you.

I am not sure exactly what you are saying given the grammar.
I will point out that I was trying to be gracious to the quad lovers by bringing in Ed Bishop's comments above so that people would have some price and quality and hardware information to help guide them in the quad version on LP until we get it on hi-rez hopefully.
As I have stated some 3-4 times, I would prefer to have both the 5.1 and quad versions.
Unfortunately on this Forum nowadays being nice does not work for people as John Kotches or Michael St. Clair will attack me anyway.
So be it then. No more mister nice guy.