[SurroundSound] Re: Santa Claws was nice and gave me the Jethro Tull DVD

We got the chance to preview the DVD last week. We listened to the 5.1
remaster only. Our impression was that the recording didn't sound new.
A bit disappointing really.

There wasn't "magic" like PF's new releases or Rush's new "Farewell to
Kings"... But of course those are hi res audio tracks on bluray and
dvd audio, respectively.

Since this was a gift, you must have the whole box set. How does the
bluray sound?

We are going to give this recording another chance next week listening
to the original quad. We guess that's the best it gets?

Those interested in a preview of this one need only search Avax.

Happy Holiidays!

On Dec 25, 5:13 pm, Britre <britre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well after all the hoopla I caused over at QQ I finally was able to
> listen to the Jethro Tull Aqualung 5.1 and Quad on DVD.
>
> The Quad was very good and matched the CD-4 version wonderfully. It
> was nice not to have channels drop from the bad carrier signal and in
> fact this had more detail than it's vinyl counterpart. There is that
> familiar 70's static hum present on lots of early 70's recordings and
> I can say at least in my opinion this realistically sounds like it
> came off the original master tape. Besides the loss of carrier I could
> not tell side by side the Vinyl and DVD. A great transfer and I hope
> our friends at the executive level release more of this material.
>
> Alas the 5.1 mix. It turned out to be exactly as I was prepared for. I
> will say this. There was wayyyy more imaging and placement in this
> then the J.G. WYWH. To compare the mix I ran a CD I made of the Stereo
> through my Audiosource Dolby Surround and did a side by side with Mr.
> Wilsons surround. What do you know? No difference except the stereo
> was way over the top louder. I am not sure if anyone picked up on the
> fact Locomotive Breath is from a completely different take than was
> used for the original album. Both the Stereo and 5.1 have this issue.
> While good it is missing alot of information for instance the
> tambourine after the solo, but I suppose others are happy with missing
> info. My hope is that future Surround releases are not the Dolby
> Surround stuff I can create at home and have been for years. Since I
> bought the Audiosource in the late 80's it has done cool things with
> alot of my more intense stereo recordings. So if that be the case I
> will need to stick with vinyl on the stereo side. Ohh.... Forgot that
> static hum, Hey Mr. Wison, Where Did it go???? And what other minute
> detail did you delete with it??
>
> Also take a listen to My God in Quad then 5.1. On the Quad the chior
> is in all channels and individual voice pop out and knock you over. On
> the 5.1 it is placed front far left as if from a church in the
> distance. Maybe Ian intended it to be that way originally? Don't know.
> And also why would the flute be in the rear and then jump to the
> center front? He did bolt around alot live but not in my listening
> area.....
>
> Ok. Review is done. Someone else chime in.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SurroundSound" group.
To post to this group, send email to SurroundSound@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to SurroundSound-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/SurroundSound