What's the latest with the Elton John SACDs?

No one is suggesting that they converted redbook (PCM) 2-channel mixes to DSD (though they could have done so), merely that the original stereo mixes were used. All of these original stereo mixes were done analog so unless they went the cheap and/or lazy route with the stereo mixes, I assume they used the original analog stereo masters when they prepared the SACDs.

 

You can't discount the possibility that separate mixes were done back in 1971 and different ones may have been pulled at different times. If you followed any of Steve's stories about "Into the Mystic" or "Gold Dust Woman," you know these things happen.

And FWIW, it states quite clearly in the SACD booklet for Tumbleweed:

"Original Stereo Mixes Re-Mastered by Tony Cousins, at Metropolis Mastering , London."

 

The fact that, as makes all the sense in the world, the 5.1 mixes have already been done does not necessarily mean that they have also been mastered. Then again, it could be that they are also mastered and ready to go to disc. If so, then we can say it is too late for asking for any changes, or lack thereof from the originals.

As to what you say about artifacts. I do notice a lot of saturation in most, if not all, the Elton John SACD stereo layers (mainly connected to the drums and piano). This is without looking at the waveforms posted before. If the saturation we notice stems from the multitrack tapes, then that's all there is. But the compression tends to bring them out more.

I know, for example, that there is a point in the acoustic guitar track on "Rocket Man" where there seems to be multitrack-level saturation because it is obvious on all the versions I've listened to, but some other artifacts seem to be missing - or, perhaps, less apparent - in the less compressed vinyl versions.

 

This is also as I see it. It makes no sense to remix the stereo versions. But we all know how much mastering choices can make a difference.

 

+1

 

Forgive my ignorance or not knowing exactly where to look in the forum - but what are the issues with DTS?

To me, it's an ideal format. DTS seems to be almost universally accepted now (might as well thrown in "what is the problem with DD" though I don't have much interest in it).

Are you guys against or FOR DTS? If new surround discs of old titles came out on DTS, does that turn-off the surround fans??

Jeff

 

DTS tends to get dissed because it's not a lossless compression format. It's quite high quality compression and light years beyond what MP3 can do, but it still gets a bum rap.

 

So what is the order of least lossy to most lossy compression?

Jeff

 

It's not really hirez as well. I think the most sampling I have seen is 48khz. The extra word length helps but it's a half step at best.

 

I have a few DTS disks and while they aren't as juicy as DVD-A or SACD, I still like them a lot. Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth sounds amazing, probably because the recording sounded so good to begin with.

If my choice is between DTS and nothing, I'd certainly choose DTS!

 

To answer question order would be as following:

1. Dvd Audio
2. Sacd
3. DTS
4. Dolby Digital

 

Is the largest quality gap in that list between #2 and #3?

 

DVD-Audio @ 192/24 / SACD
DVD-Audio @ 96/24
DVD-Audio @ 88.2/24
CD
DTS
DD
mp3

An anecdote, some time ago I bought the Santana Abraxas DTS 5.1 disc thinking that it was a DVD-Audio. When I got it and realized my mistake it was the only item that I have ever returned to Amazon.

 

Hmmm, why is DVDA less lossy than DSD?

I've done tests and find good DSD is closer to an analog tape than 24/96 and 24/192.

 

Just to illustrate the previously posted waveform examples further, here's a slightly augmented part of the song "Honky Chateau" before applying EQ. Notice the waveform flatop, which is somewhat broken after applying EQ (see previously-posted waveforms):

 

DVD-Audio and SACD are considered lossless. They are not strictly speaking encoding formats as are DTS and AC3 (Dolby Digital). DVD-Audio can use a format known as MLP, which is a lossless compression format. In fact, due to bandwidth issues, the only way to get 5.1 surround from a DVD-A at 24/96 is with MLP. 24/192 is 2-channel only. It's a limitation of the DVD-Audio specification.

DTS and AC3 are different in that they are perceptual-based lossy formats that discard data considered to be psychoacoustically less valid. We could get into a whole debate on whether this is true or not or whether you can hear the difference, but that's really pushing the limits of threadcrapping. Then there are those who consider all forms of digital audio to be by definition "lossy." Again, that's a debate for another thread.

To get back to DTS, it can sound pretty good on a nice 5.1 system. To get back to Elton, what does DTS have to do with the release of remaining Elton 5.1 mixes, is there a possibility it will be on something other than SACD?

 

Jeff, for some time DTS put out interesting titles that carried both MLP and DTS (Read, DVD-Audio disks with a DTS track). Depeche Mode has released most of their catalog in a double-layer SACD + DVD with DTS track combo.

I don't know what DTS is doing lately, but they seemed to turn towards 48/24 DVD-Audios with a DTS track before ceasing to release new titles. IMHO 48/24 surround usually makes no sense because it is your run-of-the-mill DVD-V sound.

 

I hope if "Here And There" gets released, it will contain the John Lennon appearance.

 

But run-of-the-mill DVD-V sound can be quite nice if well mastered. It's still 256 times the resolution of standard redbook CD in terms of bit depth.

 

Yes, but in this case you just have to release a normal 5.1 no-video DVD-V a get it done with. No problems dealing with Sony.

In fact, you can release a 48/24 5.1 + 96/24 stereo DVD and cover all bases.

IMO, I'd most probably prefer a well-mastered 96/24 stereo DVD of the new Elton John releases than the same thing in 5.1 DTS. And, if not possible, a well-mastered CD.

 

I PREFER 96/24 5.1 DVD-Audio (MLP Lossless), BUT if DTS is what is required to release these mixes, then DTS is what I will buy (hence my avatar). Surround first, format second IMO. DD is out, period, there is no reason these mixes cannot be issued in DTS at an absolute minimum. Why not compromise and get these albums out in DTS 96/24? This has been done with some recent releases. Seems to me that would be the best of both worlds if SACD and DVD-A would kill the project.

As others have said, DTS Entertainment made a habit of releasing many of their most recent surround titles as DVD-A with the MLP and DTS tracks. Albeit the MLP resolution was usually (always?) 48/24 though it often was believed to have offered a distinct improvement over the DTS mix. I guess that is an entirely different argument. Nevertheless, why wouldn't DTS support this approach?

What are folks' opinions on DTS 96/24? Could you live with that?

Here are some FAQs on DTS 96/24 from DTSOnline.com

Hopes are high!
Josh

 

DTS, DVD-A, DVD-V, SACD (my favourite) - whatever it is, I'll buy'em.

 

I love my DVD-A and SA-CD surround discs, but 'Young Americans DTS' and a couple of the Bjork Surrounded releases do just as well.

I also like the 'Queen's Greatest Hits' DVD-V DTS surround track too... without the video on.

 

Can you explain the math you're doing when you make that claim? It sounds confusing (and impossible) to me unless you're simply referring to a stereo-only PCM audio track on a dvd-video disc.