Just got my Eagles DVD A

[Jesper Nielsen]

AMAZING!!!! Go buy it. Its the best disc I have and my DCC version is OUT! :)

Keep up the good work Warner and others...

[lennonfan]

I gotta agree, the DVD-A of Hotel California is a great experience...I don't know why anyone would stick with a 2 channel mix after hearing this (tho the 24/192 stereo mix is pretty clean...but not as clean as the multi-channel)
LIFE IN THE FAST LANE!

[Sckott]

Where did you guys spot them? A lot of online and on-foot retailers still don't have the SOB.

Would LOVE not paying $27 like I did for Workingmans' Dead.

TIA.

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by lennonfannn:
[QB]I gotta agree, the DVD-A of Hotel California is a great experience...I don't know why anyone would stick with a 2 channel mix after hearing this

Well, I haven't heard the surround mix, so I'm commenting out of ignorance, but...

Some of us don't like surround in general, and some of us *only* want to hear the original mix.

I'm still curious to read a review from someone who's compared the DCC CD to the stereo mix available on the DVD-A (I presume that the DVD-A has the original mix, not a remix?).

Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Holy Zoo ]

[Sckott]

I'll review HC as long as I can find it. I have the DCC and I'll admit night now; that CD is (and was if you remember) high on my best DCC Gold discs of all time, I'd say top 3.

(Sonic wize, not content wize. I still hold Pet Sounds highest in both regards, LP and CD)

[Doug Hess Jr.]

I certainly would think a well produced DVD-A would have pretty cool surround sound, but I agree with Holy Zoo. The Eagles never intended it to be in surround-- just two track. It's like looking at a famous painting under black light. It may look cool, but you are not experiencing what the actual artist intended...and if you aren't doing that, what's the point. Might as well give us the multi-tracks and let us remix the album to our own satisfaction since what the artist wanted doesn't seem to matter...

[Sckott]

Originally posted by Dough:
(snip)Might as well give us the multi-tracks and let us remix the album to our own satisfaction since what the artist wanted doesn't seem to matter...

This will also happen very soon. Hey, watch what you wish for!

[Unknown]

Sckott,

Try here for the Eagles DVD-A. Not as cheap as I've seen it, but appears to be the only place still in stock.
http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_item.asp?userid=21441923000013&item_id=42602

[Drew]

If Michangelo wanted you to see the Sistene Chapel in 3d he would've invented those funky red & blue glasses. ;)

[Sckott]

TY. I ordered it. They're in PA so to MA even in Media Mail, that'll take 3-4 days.

I'm not in a 2 horse town, but I looked into the usual suspects. I was shocked I found both Dead DVDa's at all.

We'll see. I like the fact that DTS was done. More of those should be done. Sure beats the pants off of DD, and most playback HT chains support DTS anyways.

[Unknown]

The DTS track is excellent, not as good as the DVD-A version, but very well done. I picked it up for $17.48, but then I pre-ordered it a month before it was released.

[Sckott]

Originally posted by Drew:
If Michangelo wanted you to see the Sistene Chapel in 3d he would've invented those funky red & blue glasses. ;)

Good point. Then again, if someone dropped acid before visiting, you would get a totally different review.

I view surround mixes with a bit of optimism, like I do most audio stuff. I just got a DTS conversion of Santana III last night that blew me away from Q8; The last great Santana album from the original lineup. I have a much better appreciation for that recrord now.

Just got a QR4 24-bit DTS conversion of "Capt & Me" from the Doobies. This title is one of my favorite Doobie releases, and this one just 10 minutes ago just killed my opinion of my greel label WB. WOW. Great stuff...

[Unknown]

Sckott,

I have both of those and they are very good, but if you don't already have it, you need to pick up the DTS Floyd-DSOTM. That will absolutely blow you away, I guarantee it. If you don't have access to it let me know and I can get you a copy.

[Jesper Nielsen]

Originally posted by Dough:
I certainly would think a well produced DVD-A would have pretty cool surround sound, but I agree with Holy Zoo. The Eagles never intended it to be in surround-- just two track. It's like looking at a famous painting under black light. It may look cool, but you are not experiencing what the actual artist intended...and if you aren't doing that, what's the point. Might as well give us the multi-tracks and let us remix the album to our own satisfaction since what the artist wanted doesn't seem to matter...

The 5.1 mix is what they want! If you dont like the 5.1 mix dont listen to it. I like the steoro track, but I prefer the 5.1 mix and its blow the stereo tracks away!

I dont know if you have seen the producers note on the disc? Then you will understand..

:cool:

[Unknown]

Scott, what is Q8? Would love to pick up Santan's third.

[RetroSmith]

Originally posted by Dough:
The Eagles never intended it to be in surround-- just two track. You are not experiencing what the actual artist intended...and if you aren't doing that, what's the point. Might as well give us the multi-tracks and let us remix the album to our own satisfaction since what the artist wanted doesn't seem to matter.


>>>>>>That is pure nonsense. Music is for LISTENING, and 5.1 sound gives the listening experience a whole new dimension, which in turn creates new interest in the artist and spurs sales.

Surround Sound did not exist when the Eagles recorded their classic hits. If the industry followed YOUR theory, Cds would not exist, and we would still be listening to 8 tracks and LPs!!!

Glen Miller "didnt intend" his music to be released on Cd, because it didnt exist.
Does that mean I should have to pull out 78s when I want to listen to Glen Miller when pristine Cds and DVDs DO exist?

see my point?

[BradOlson]

You are right Mikey. Reissues provide a new perspective of listening to music.

[JohnnyK]

Originally posted by Mikey:

Surround Sound did not exist when the Eagles recorded their classic hits. If the industry followed YOUR theory, Cds would not exist, and we would still be listening to 8 tracks and LPs!!!
QB]


Mikey,

I think what Doug meant was that since surround sound was not available when Hotel California was recorded, then it should only be listened to in stereo. It doesn’t matter if Hotel California is recorded onto an LP or a CD, what matters is that it should only be listened to in stereo.

I respect what Doug is saying, but I am going to buy the DVD-A of Hotel California anyway. I have Fleetwood Mac Rumors on DVD-A and I think it sounds great. On the other hand, I still enjoy listening to the stereo version. To be honest, I enjoy the differences in the mixes.

Music is a great thing. Just enjoy it.

:D

[Sckott]

Originally posted by terry:
Scott, what is Q8? Would love to pick up Santan's third.

Q8 is an ancient format of (gasp) 8 track cartdriges. It's discreet 4 track, and depending on title and label, (this goes for 4 track reels too) their either hissy and crap, or blooming beautiful. So, both sides of the LP are on two programs in the cart, and the tracks are positioned something like 1)ACBD, 2)EGFH.

The Santana Q8 was spooled on a modified reel to reel at 3 1/4 IPS and sounds 10 times better than if you played it on a Q8 deck. It was a Fostex quad, if details seem correct.

Don't always knock Q8's, as a lot of them sound absolutely amazing when converted well to DTS. Old quad conversions are best listened to a HT DTS system with the sub turned off, using full rage 4 speakers. Most HT preamps and recievers have the ability to turn center and woof's off.

I'm not kidding. People should listen to these again in this new light. However, depending on how you feel or the source of the Q8's or QR-4's, the presentation competes with many modern DTS'ers.

So far, although the Pink Floyd British Q8's sound really nice, the better ones so far are largely from reel 4's, and so far, the Moody Blues "Threshold Of A Dream" and the Doobies "Capt & Me" are tops in many areas. Many others come close. I must have 10-11 DTS quad conversions, and getting more.

I think Tab Patterson is posting his conversions to Usenet on alt.binaries.cd.images.other himself(??), for those who are savvy with Agent, RAR and Monkey's Audio. Having broadband or high speed access helps!!

[RetroSmith]

'I think what Doug meant was that since surround sound was not available when Hotel California was recorded, then it should only be listened to in stereo. It doesn’t matter if Hotel California is recorded onto an LP or a CD, what matters is that it should only be listened to in stereo."

>>This point can be argued all day, but in the end, money talks, and the record companies need a new way to sell us all the music we have already bought 5 times yet AGAIN.

Guess What? Surround SOund is it!!!

When EMI releases 5.1 versions of The Beatles Lps (and its coming, Ringo has leaked it) they will sell millions of units yet AGAIN. I'm sure in the coming years, there will be DVD-A disk with performance videos of the songs, all in 5.1.

Mikey

[JohnnyK]

Jesper,

Based upon your recommendation, I went out at lunch and picked up Hotel California on DVD-A. I got it at Rock Records in downtown Chicago for less than $20.00!!! Seems like a good deal. I can't wait to hear it.

By the way, do you have a DVD-A player, or do you just have a DVD player?

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: JohnnyK ]

[vinylrec]

Originally posted by Mikey:
When EMI releases 5.1 versions of The Beatles Lps (and its coming, Ringo has leaked it) they will sell millions of units yet AGAIN. I'm sure in the coming years, there will be DVD-A disk with performance videos of the songs, all in 5.1.

Mikey

Huh? What you talking 'bout? :)

[lennonfan]

To those who think the Eagles never wanted their albums heard in surround, well, you're wrong. Both On The Border and One Of These Nights came out in quad 8-track and CD-4 lp surround, and Hotel Calif. would have too, but the companies were phasing out quad at the time due to a lack of a single standard for the quad lp (there were 3 types, SQ, CD-4, QS) and of course, the lp was -the- main medium for music reproduction at that time (with 8-tracks in 2nd place)...the quad tapes were fine, but you always had to wait up to 20 minutes to hear your fave track again, unless you had fast forward which ran a good risk of screwing up the tape ;).
I doubt many will be disappointed with the new surround mix, IMO it's ab fab!

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by Mikey:
That is pure nonsense.


Well, I beg to differ... (Doug, I hope I'm not stepping on your toes here :))

Music is for LISTENING, and 5.1 sound gives the listening experience a whole new dimension, which in turn creates new interest in the artist and spurs sales.


Well, I think this argument is rather simplistic. By your argument, it would seem that any alteration of the original material is fine and dandy becuase it would bring a new/wider audience, regardless of what it does to the original work, historical legacy be damned.

What do I mean by that?

Simply this: a whole new generation that's brought up on a 5.1 2002 mix of The Beatles, with pumped up bass and highly compress dynamics with instruments panned all over the place will *never* know what the original material sounded like.

And no - they WON'T seek it out. They'll just think it's always sounded this way. In my opinion, it utterly *destroys* the history of the recording.



If the industry followed YOUR theory, Cds would not exist, and we would still be listening to 8 tracks and LPs!!!

Glen Miller "didnt intend" his music to be released on Cd, because it didnt exist.
Does that mean I should have to pull out 78s when I want to listen to Glen Miller when pristine Cds and DVDs DO exist?

see my point?[/QB]

Well, not really. Doug was specifically referring to newly mixed 5.1. I don't see how your analogy makes any sense, I think you're using faulty logic.

You can't take his position and distort it any-which way you want in an attempt to negate his view.

You want an example? Your position seems to be that "bringing a new audiance" is the justification for 5.1 a mix. By your reasoning, doing anything to the original recording is ok because it brings a new audiance. So why not make a new Beatles mix with a new techno drumbeat to replace the original Ringo drums. Heck, it's bring a new audiance!

Yes, of course thats ridiculous. You were specifically speaking about 5.1, not doing *anything* to the original work.

Well, Doug was being specific too.

Dragging CD vs vinyl into is a completely different discussion.

See my point? :D

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Holy Zoo ]

[Holy Zoo]

Originally posted by lennonfannn:
To those who think the Eagles never wanted their albums heard in surround, well, you're wrong.


I don't so much care about unrealized original artist intent (look at how many things have been screwed up recently by the artist going back and noodling with the original work - Lucas and Townshend come to mind) so much as what really happened *at the time*. If there was a quad mix, great! If no, leave it alone. Just my preference.

Again, I hate the idea of new 5.1 remixes destroying the original legacy of the recording.

There is already a new generation out there that has only heard the remixed albums of The Who, The Beatles, Elton John, and D&TD's Layla.

With 5.1, I think this will go into overdrive. How common do you think it'll become to do new stereo mixes while they're in there doing a 5.1 mix? Heck, it's already happened with the Beatles Yellow Sub soundtrack.

Indeed, I suspect the more the artist is involved, the worse things will turn out. They'll be in the control room saying "yeah, more reverb! I always wanted more reverb!".


I doubt many will be disappointed with the new surround mix

Probably not! But as I say... I somehow think that we're about to obliterate a lot of our musical history.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Holy Zoo ]