QUEEN: A NIGHT AT THE OPERA a DVD-Audio review by David Tolsky (1 Viewer)

[RicP]

Well he might be interested to know that quadraphonic versions of "Dark Side of the Moon" and Wish You Were Here" were once available to consumers, and I can testify that you haven't heard PF's "Money" until you've heard it in quad!

This I will vouch for absolutely! I have DSOTM on a dts CD taken from a Quad8 and it sounds fabulous, just astounding. Every day I hope and wish for official releases of the old Quad Tracks.

 

[KeithH]

Stacey and Lee,
As a point of clarification, Ronald Epstein started this thread. He simply copied David Tolsky's review from another web site. Thus, Mr. Tolsky did not post the review here himself. As a result, you may not get a reply from him.
Ronald,
Thanks for posting this review. I am anxiously awaiting the release of this disc.

 

[David Tolsky]

When I have more time I will come back and address this thread in more detail. For now I'll just say that I was reviewing the surround sound mix alone and not the MLP DVD Audio tracks. I just wanted everyone to know who does NOT have a DVD-Audio setup yet that the surround sound mix that WILL play on your dvd player sounds fabulous and is probably the best surround mix I've ever heard. I'm sorry that I did not clarify that enough. When I am set up for DVD-Audio I hope that I can continue to submit reviews to that nature. I'm telling people that do not have a DVD-Audio capable player to go out and get the disc anyway, and just treat it as a DTS CD. Most likely there will NOT be a surround CD version of this title. And don't be surprised if DTS has discontinued the CD's altogether since all their DVD-A's are backward compatible.

And by the way, I am old enough to remember the quad mixes of Pink Floyd. I still think 5.1 Pink Floyd would rock your socks off.

DT

 

[Michael Allred]

Ok, some dumb questions;
I cannot listen to DTS on my player or receiver....so I have no reason to buy the Queen disc then? Is there *anything* on there I can listen to? Is the album ONLY in DTS or is there a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix included (I can listen to DD obviously.)
As a big Queen fan, I'd love to have this but dunno if I can get any use from it.

 

[John Haghighi]

RicP thank you for clearing up the confusion.
Ever since DTS announced that they were going to market DVD-Audio disks I became suspicious. It's clear they are very savy in marketing their product and confusing consumers with a DTS 5.1 mix on their "DTS Music Discs". Don't get me wrong why shouldn't they include their lossy compression for music, audiophiles love it
Yes it does provide backwards compatability, which is great for those that don't have DVD-A players yet. But here is what else it does in my opinion:
The DTS 5.1 mix can use a digital link and benefit from Bass Management of a digital receiver.
The MLP tracks (DVD-A) must use the analog out, so as with most first and second gen DVD-A players there is no bass management.
So suppose your average listener compares the DTS 5.1 mix and the MLP tracks, the DTS 5.1 mix soundly sounds punchier, more Bass...it's still lossy but it just sounds better than the MLP track....hmmm this DTS music track sounds better (setting the stage for the introduction of 24/96)
Is this a fair comparison?
No
Do I think DTS new they could capitalize on the lack of Bass Management for DVD-A players?
Yes
So now what you have is the introduction of DTS 24/96, a new format that is suppose to rival MLP. This further confuses the masses.
I do have an analog bass management device with the Outlaw ICBM, and I will listen to both the DTS 5.1 lossy mix and the MLP (DVD-A) mix in it's full bass managed glory
when I get my hands on the disc.
My one request is that topic is changed, the review was not a DVD-Audio review it was a DTS Music Disc review...
And for those SACD advocates out there, the DSPs in current SACD players are superior to the DSPs currently available for consumer DVD-A players, that's undisputable, but that will change in time

 

[David Tolsky]

I am all for changing the topic area to "Surround Sound Music Review" because that's all I really wanted to do anyway. During one of our HTF meets in LA, Peter Staddon of Fox stated during a dinner that 95.9% of the masses are quite happy with the current CD sound quality. I agree with him. Until DVD-A actually takes the place of CD's I consider it a higher-resolution alternative that is increasing in popularity. As in anything else, content will make or break the format. I am a surround music fan and I would rather talk about a great surround mix than the benefits of DVD-Audio or SACD any day of the week. RonP, if the format doesn't survive, I don't believe it will be because of the confusion of all the audio options on one disc. It will be because the masses are happy with what they currently have and don't want to pay more for an audiophile format.

I just feel that talking about the music and what it's doing makes for a more interesting review than technically preaching the benefits of DVD-Audio. I'll reserve that for the music forums and audiophile magazines. I agree with you RonP on everything you said so I will request to Ron that the topic of discussion be changed.

DT

 

[David Tolsky]

Michael, there is no Dolby Digital 5.1 option on the disc menu. The default is 2-channel PCM stereo so that's probably what you'd get. If I'm not mistaken, doesn't DTS own exclusive rights to 5.1 audio only discs?

 

[Brian Perry]

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't DTS own exclusive rights to 5.1 audio only discs?

Aren't DVD-A and multichannel SACD 5.1 formats? Do you mean to say they have the exclusive rights to 5.1 lossy discs?

 

[KeithH]

Brian and David, what about all the Dolby Digital 5.1 music DVDs out there? Take James Taylor Live at the Beacon Theater as an example. Brian, are you just considering audio-only discs? Maybe Dolby Labs couldn't get the rights to produce Dolby Digital 5.1 CDs or maybe they didn't want the rights. I imagine Dolby makes a killing in the DVD-Video market since every DVD must have some sort of Dolby Digital track. By comparison, the surround-sound CD market is small potatoes. I mean, DTS CDs never really took off.

In any event, had Dolby Digital ever made CDs, I probably wouldn't have bought them. In general, I find that Dolby Digital doesn't work well for music. DTS is much better in my opinion.

 

[David Tolsky]

Brian, for SACD I gathered that they MAY be multi-channel

but they don't have to be. I remember hearing 2-channel SACD recordings at T.H.E. SHOW in Vegas while CES was going on a few years ago. Now as far as the standard multi-channel CD discs, DTS has exclusive rights to multi-channel music. I am not sure about DVD-Audio but I can find out pretty easily.

Anyway, I don't believe that DVD-Audio and SACD are exclusively multi-channel formats. I believe each has very good 2-channel mixes but I'll check for sure.

DT

PS: Lee, I listen to the discs so far using my Pioneer DV-414, Yamaha DSP-A1 integrated amp, and Atlantic Technology System 450 Surround Sound speakers.

 

[Michael Allred]

Michael, there is no Dolby Digital 5.1 option on the disc menu. The default is 2-channel PCM stereo so that's probably what you'd get.

So is the PCM stereo sound any good?
Is the "..Rhapsody" video in DD 5.1 or DTS?

 

[Larry Geller]

The Doobie Brothers' The Captain & Me DVD-A is 2-sided: Side 1=DVD-A 5.1, DD 5.1 & (I think-disc is at home & I'm at work) DTS 5.1; Side 2=PPCM 2.0 stereo AND PCM 2.0 stereo I think this is great, but I would have rather they put all DVD-A stuff on 1 side & regular DVD stuff on the other so I could switch back & forth between the stereo & surround mixes.
Also, I feel that having a lossy version on the discs is a big plus for consumers, not a cause of confusion. I just got my DVD-A player 2 weeks ago & yet I had 20 DVD-A discs already in my collection due to the backward compatibility (as do many of my friends who don't yet have DVD-A --yet none of us own 1 SACD--no dual layer), Even if you cannot judge the audio quality off the DD version, you can certainly judge the surround MIX. If Sony did this , I would own many SACDs (I am dying to hear Blow By Blow & the Billy Joels since I have always loved my SQ records--and god knows, a DD or DTS version would have better separation than SQ did).
And, yes, the SQ record is the only way I generally listen to DSOTM (using my old Lafayette LR-5000 receiver piped through my Yamaha DSP A-1's 5.1 inputs). This was the way PF wanted us to hear it--I only hope that any forthcoming DVD-A or SACD uses the same mix & doesn't remix it again--The Doors cuts on the Quad Best Of record are mixed way better than the new LA Woman remix on the DVD-A.

 

[RicP]

If Sony did this , I would own many SACDs (I am dying to hear Blow By Blow & the Billy Joels since I have always loved my SQ records--and god knows, a DD or DTS version would have better separation than SQ did).

This line of thinking absolutely baffles me. If you want to hear the multi-channel SACD mixes -- which incidentally are far better than any lossy compressed DD or dts version could ever be -- then buy an SACD player and listen to them. Why do the studios have to cater to people who refuse to purchase the proper hardware to listen to these discs? There is not even a comparison possible between SACD and a compressed codec like DD, except if you're comparing how horrible DD sounds in comparison.
If you want to listen to DVD-Audio, buy a DVD-A player; if you want to listen to SACD, buy an SACD player. If you want to listen to both, get a Universal player -- there are more coming -- but without the proper players, don't kid yourself because you're actually listening to neither.. I don't understand why everything needs to be compressed and the resolution of the audio stream decimated simply because people don't want to buy a new player.

 

[Larry Geller]

I don't understand why everything needs to be compressed and the resolution of the audio stream decimated simply because people don't want to buy a new player.

The key word you left out is "YET". People KNOW that the DD & DTS versions are inferior, but at least this lets them build up a collection of discs for the time when they CAN get a new player--this is where Sony is screwing up big time with their single-layer only discs. I, for one, would own several SACDs right now if I could only play them on SOMETHING (for instance, I'm sure that a red book layer of Blonde On Blonde would sound better than the crappy CD that's currently out there--& would be worth getting for that alone), but Sony seems intent on re-living their Betamax debacle with their SACD strategies (Audio Asylum nonwithstanding)!

 

[John Tillman]

Larry said:

If my receiver had more than 1 5.1 input, than I WOULD have both. Unfortunately, the hardware companies have arranged it so that most people CAN'T have both & therefore must choose one format or the other at this point in time.

I had the same issue but solved it with 2 switch boxes from Radio Shack for $15 each.

 

[Larry Geller]

I had the same issue but solved it with 2 switch boxes from Radio Shack for $15 each.

I know this, but I can't bear to put anything from RatShack into my signal chain & I don't want to have to get up & down to switch things. I'm already agonizing as whether or not to send the front & rear channels of my DVD-A player thru my quadraphonic receiver's tape monitor inputs so I can listen to my SQ records (like DSOTM). I'm afraid that the timing for the Center & sub inputs will be off as they would be going direct into the DSP A-1, whereas the other 4 inputs would go thru the old receiver 1st (and which would also probably degrade the audio). Being a surround fan has been a pain-in-the-ass since 1972!

 

[RicP]

I know this, but I can't bear to put anything from RatShack into my signal chain & I don't want to have to get up & down to switch things

How do you put the discs in the player? Monkey?

 

[Larry Geller]

the current "crappy" CD out there was created with exactly the same SBM method that would be used to create a CD layer on an SACD disc.

Sorry, I forgot about my gold disc, I was thinking of the regular release, which has yet to be remastered (but anyway, wouldn't it now be a DSD downconversion & not 20-bit SBM, & also, isn't Sony using 24-bit remastering now, so it STILL might be a better in a new version, & even if it was exactly the same, I STILL would upgrade to a dual-layer version just to future proof one of my precious Dylan albums)

 

[Ryan Spaight]

As far as Blonde on Blonde goes, the SACD version is a completely different stereo mix than the Mastersound SBM, which was a completely different stereo mix than the first CD (which was a completely different stereo mix from the 70s vinyl, which was a completely different stereo mix from the 60s vinyl). We won't even *talk* about mono.

So, that's an odd duck that doesn't follow the rules. A redbook layer on a hybird SACD derived from the SACD master would likely sound worlds better than the standard CD. (As would a new CD derived from the SACD master, which we'll probably get when Sony finally gets around to re-mastering the Dylan catalog.)

Otherwise, what Ric said is accurate.

Keep lo-res lossy DD and DTS off my SACDs!

Ryan

 

[Larry Geller]

Keep lo-res lossy DD and DTS off my SACDs!

I wasn't asking for that, I just want a red book layer in stereo on Sony's discs.