The DTS 5.0 mix

[soundave]

What does Jens have against a dedicated sub channel? I don't get it. Again and again, no sub. I have good speakers, thankfully, so I get some good bass. But, really?? No LF channel?

I've only just started listening to the mix (interrupted by the kids who demanded Dumbo instead....for the hundreth time), but it sounds pretty good. Not sure if I'm a convert to surround sound mixes, though.

If you listen carefully (ear to the speaker) to the center channel, you can hear all sorts of weirdness. Paper rustling (as Mike reads the lyrics, I'm sure, as we've seen in the docs before), I even heard some talking. Kind of messy work, actually, which surprised me. I can't believe those bits weren't muted out. Also, listening to the center channel, I can discern a lot more of the lyrics as the vocals aren't being masked by all the other competing freqs.

What do you all think of the DTS mix? (BTW...I kind of prefer Dolby Digital, but oh well...)

 

[FuneralPortrait]

It was just OK for me. I'd rather listen to the standard stereo mix. There were a lot of times when I felt the seperation (esp vox) was too extreme.. and I noticed some weird things coming from that channel as well. Not sure if it was just the average 5.1 setup I listened to it on, but it also felt like the additional dynamic range possibilites weren't utilized.. and the overall compression was a lot more noticable on all but the center channel, so kinda had an effect like the music had been mastered sans vocals, and they'd been added on top.

A few messy fades and stuff too. Disapointing.

 

[Perdido]

Just how good are surround mixes of albums anyway? I mean, in general.

The idea has always turned me off. It seems too finicky, too gimmicky, and just kind of unnecessary. I don't have a setup that would allow me to listen to an album in surround though, so I don't really know.

 

[FuneralPortrait]

There are a few albums that I've always wanted to hear in surround sound, and I think that in certain cases it can actually add to the effect of the music.

Funnily enough two of these have actually been released in 5.1 (DSOTM and War of the Worlds..) but both are in SACD format, which I don't have any means to play.

 

[Jester-Race]

Having an X-Fi uber soundcard and a Logitech Z-5500 505 watt speaker setup I must say a correctly made 5.1 audio cd blows away the original stereo mix by a mile

proof is lightbulb sun mix from porcupine tree, steven wilson definately knows how to make a damn good 5.1 mix

as well as the still life mix, absolutely phenominal.

if you dont have an audio system capable of playing true 5.1 audio and think it doesnt play good it's because you cant hear the other channels in the first place, so why bother giving your opinion?

 

[Cyrosis]

.. and the overall compression was a lot more noticable on all but the center channel, so kinda had an effect like the music had been mastered sans vocals, and they'd been added on top.

Did we listen to the same mix? I can't stand the stereo mix due to messy, overbearing compression, but I have no complaints of it at all in the 5.0 mix.

:Edit:

(BTW...I kind of prefer Dolby Digital, but oh well...)

May I ask why? Its simply a lower quality version of the same mix.

Also, I would bet that Jens leaves out the sub channel because its unnecessary for music, and is a variable thats easily eliminated to assure that everyone is getting the same source content, its completly normal practice to do this.

 

[hibernal_dream]

I can't manage to downmix it properly to 2.0. I'm guessing the separation is too high because vox come out way too loud and the guitars are muted. I like the quality, great rich bass and smooth guitar tone

 

[Requiem960]

Just how good are surround mixes of albums anyway? I mean, in general.

Actually, if you are listening to 5.1 mixes of anything Steven Wilson has had his hands on, they are phenomenal. I actually have a DVD-A player (as in the competitor to SACD, not just DTS music) and I've got all of Porcupine Tree's albums they've released in DVD-A (Stupid Dream, Lightbulb Sun, In Absentia, Deadwing and Fear of a Blank Planet). He does a fantastic job of putting things where they should be and each one of those records dramatically benefits from the multisound.

I've also got some albums like Eric Johnson's Ah Via Musicom, Metallica's black album, Queensryche's Empire and a few others. Those were done tastefully, but are nothing worth bragging about.

Now the recent DTS multisurround crap that most bands have been releasing flat out suck. The Ghost Reveries multichannel was horrible. Watershed is better, but still pretty freakin' bad. Dream Theater's Systematic Chaos was pretty bad too. Honestly, I didn't hear anything out of place with Watershed in the 5.0 mix. But, the mix was so bland, it's not funny. The surrounds are more ambience and at most times I didn't think anything was coming out of them unless I got out of listening position and closer to my speakers. Trust me, my audio is properly calibrated... But, these RR special edition CDs with DVD and DTS stuff - well, they just flat out suck! I hate to say it, but they're not good. I'd personally choose the stereo mix any day over the mutlichannel audio.

I wish everyone could sit down in my theater room and listen to Porcupine Tree's Deadwing or Fear of a Blank Planet on DVD-A. They are musical bliss and done they way a 5.1 disc should sound.

 

[Requiem960]

Funnily enough two of these have actually been released in 5.1 (DSOTM and War of the Worlds..) but both are in SACD format, which I don't have any means to play.

There was a rip that a fan did of Dark Side of the Moon and converted it to DVD-Audio. He took the SACD masters (or something) and did a full conversion and remix to a 4.1 MLP DVD-A lossless. Unfortunately, I've only got DVD-A and do not own an SACD player, so I've never compared. But, I've read the fan made DVD-A version of DSotM was much better than the SACD version. I don't pop that disc in too often, but it is an impressive audio mix. ...and to think it's somewhat of a bootleg is even more impressive.

 

[Cyrosis]

Requiem, while I can agree that Ghost Reveries surround mix is really no better then the stereo mix, I don't think thats the case at all with Watershed. If you think I am inexperience with this, I also have a DVD-A player, and own Deadwing, In Absentia, and Fear of a Blank Planet on DVD-A, so all of Steven Wilson's A game. I won't put Watersheds mix up with those, but I think its quite well done in its own regard, and much better then the stereo mix, which I personally don't care for that much.

 

[soundave]

Good discussion folks. I prefer Dolby Digital because it sounds a bit crisper to me. For some reason (and it may be my receiver), when I A/B DTS vs DD, I prefer the latter. DTS sounds smeared and lacking in punch. The dynamics don't seem to hit as hard, particularly, transients.

I still have to spend more time with the mix to formulate a real opinion about Watershed in surround.

 

[Vespa60]

Just how good are surround mixes of albums anyway? I mean, in general.

The idea has always turned me off. It seems too finicky, too gimmicky, and just kind of unnecessary. I don't have a setup that would allow me to listen to an album in surround though, so I don't really know.

Comedic post of the Year?

 

[BrandonS]

I have never EVER heard a surround mix that truly impressed me, not even at the theater. Nobody has figured out how to really create something incredible with a surround mix yet. Listening to a surround mix should be like floating in a gravitational sphere and have sound come at you from all directions... Of course the sound is always going to have speaker limitations, but from what I've heard of the 5.1 mix of the new CD, the job just really wasn't done very well at all?

 

[Requiem960]

Requiem, while I can agree that Ghost Reveries surround mix is really no better then the stereo mix, I don't think thats the case at all with Watershed. If you think I am inexperience with this, I also have a DVD-A player, and own Deadwing, In Absentia, and Fear of a Blank Planet on DVD-A, so all of Steven Wilson's A game. I won't put Watersheds mix up with those, but I think its quite well done in its own regard, and much better then the stereo mix, which I personally don't care for that much.

I like the stereo mix a lot. But, I'll go ahead and relisten to it a few times to formulate an opinion. My initial response was posted above. But, comparing what Steven Wilson does with his DVD-A releases against other multichannel music isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. It's kinda like that old school train of thought, "If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo."

 

[Eugenics]

Steven Wilson only does DTS mixes, so I'm left out of the awesomeness because I only have DD.

 

[split load]

I have a good system to play 5.1 but to me it sounds a bit dull. The normal cd is punchy as fuck so that will do for me.

 

[Cyrosis]

Good discussion folks. I prefer Dolby Digital because it sounds a bit crisper to me. For some reason (and it may be my receiver), when I A/B DTS vs DD, I prefer the latter. DTS sounds smeared and lacking in punch. The dynamics don't seem to hit as hard, particularly, transients.

I still have to spend more time with the mix to formulate a real opinion about Watershed in surround.

I think thats simple enough to pin down actually, the biggest difference I've noticed through the years between Dolby Digital and DTS, is most of the DD's compression lies in the mid, to lower mid range, making that area much quieter then DTS. So DTS is giving you the sound thats closer to the lossless recordings, but DD is pretty much doing some subtractive equalization, which causes the equivalent of boosting the highs and lows.

I like the stereo mix a lot. But, I'll go ahead and relisten to it a few times to formulate an opinion. My initial response was posted above. But, comparing what Steven Wilson does with his DVD-A releases against other multichannel music isn't exactly the smartest thing to do. It's kinda like that old school train of thought, "If you're gonna compare a Hanzo sword, you compare it to every other sword ever made... that wasn't made by Hattori Hanzo."

My biggest problem with the stereo mix is that it appears they both have the same compression settings, of course when I say that, you would think they should sound the same then? Not exactly, what I'm getting at, is that the 5.0 mix has an extra 3 channels, each of which has their own dynamic range and headroom, the rear channels will in no way overlap with the front channels for example. In the stereo mix, it sounds as if the compression levels were kept exactly the same, but then bombarded with the extra 3 channels, boosting the overall levels, and causing slight pumping, and distortion.

Also, I agree of course, Steven Wilson has some of the best multichannel mix's around, in lossless 24/48 no less, so comparing them to a DTS mixed perceived as a small extra, isn't quite fair.

As for your comments BrandonS, your entitled to that opinion of course, but I don't see how that would fit well into a band like setting, most surround mixes aside from some small effects and panned vocal harmonies, are used to recreate an environment, and I think 5.1 does quite well at doing that. On a side note, if you want a mix somewhat like the one you are thinking of, go check out "This Binary Universe", I'd call it progressive electronica, and it has a great 5.1 mix, and since its mostly synthesis, its not confined to any sort of reality.

 

[Rezard]

I have never EVER heard a surround mix that truly impressed me, not even at the theater. Nobody has figured out how to really create something incredible with a surround mix yet. Listening to a surround mix should be like floating in a gravitational sphere and have sound come at you from all directions... Of course the sound is always going to have speaker limitations, but from what I've heard of the 5.1 mix of the new CD, the job just really wasn't done very well at all?

I didn't give a listen to 5.1 Watershed yet, so I can't tell about the quality of the mix.
But, if you like Pink Floyd, I can just highly recommend you to listen to the DTS mix of "Wish You Were Here", especially the first track, "Shine On You Crazy Diamond".
That's basically the best mix I've ever heard, + it's a great song, and I think you won't be disappointed since I tend to like the same things in 5.1 mixes as you do.
Though, I don't share your opinions about surround mixes in movies, they REALLY add something, especially in over-produced movies, like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars.

Btw, for those who gave a listen to Watershed and Still Life 5.1 : do you have the same opinion about the surround mixes of these two records, or is one better than the other ?
I'm still waiting for my CDs to arrive, but I'd like to know...

 

[in_my_time_of_disease]

I have never EVER heard a surround mix that truly impressed me, not even at the theater. Nobody has figured out how to really create something incredible with a surround mix yet. Listening to a surround mix should be like floating in a gravitational sphere and have sound come at you from all directions... Of course the sound is always going to have speaker limitations, but from what I've heard of the 5.1 mix of the new CD, the job just really wasn't done very well at all?

+1 The Fountain is an incredible film.

 

[Requiem960]

My biggest problem with the stereo mix is that it appears they both have the same compression settings, of course when I say that, you would think they should sound the same then? Not exactly, what I'm getting at, is that the 5.0 mix has an extra 3 channels, each of which has their own dynamic range and headroom, the rear channels will in no way overlap with the front channels for example. In the stereo mix, it sounds as if the compression levels were kept exactly the same, but then bombarded with the extra 3 channels, boosting the overall levels, and causing slight pumping, and distortion.

Also, I agree of course, Steven Wilson has some of the best multichannel mix's around, in lossless 24/48 no less, so comparing them to a DTS mixed perceived as a small extra, isn't quite fair.

Ok, so I sat down with Watershed on the DVD again and relistened to it. I'll give you Hessian Peel, by far that is the best mix in multichannel. It was done very tasteful and everything seems in place and panned well. There are still a lot of segments though that when I'm listening, I don't feel the surrounds are being used properly. But, there are segments in each song that I found to be done nicely. I remember the first time I sat down with the DVD, I'd been listening to music all day. So, maybe I had a bit of ear fatigue.

I will give you this, the DTS track is a lot better than my initial perception. However, I still prefer the 2.0; but what I haven't done is an A/B. You're arguement regarding combining the channels and keeping (levels) and compression the same does hold a lot of water. So, when I get the time... I'll sit down and do an A/B comparison to see which one I prefer. It's hard to formulate an opinion when I haven't actually done all my homework! I'm glad you know what you're talking about, otherwise I'd probably have let the SE disc collect dust and have not relistened to it; especially when my initial perception was bad. Therefor, I owe you a 'thank you!'