|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
60.229.226.166
In Reply to: Re: What is the origin of this recording? posted by Frank.. on April 4, 2006 at 00:50:44:
Whats the point its second rate material
its an illegal bootleg not endorsed by PF management nor EMI
you can't confirm -verify the original source
and even if it was from the original quad master it has tempered with for the .1 equation
2nd generation behind the tapes Guthrie used for the 5.1 mix
Guthrie mixed from analog tapes not PCM for the SACDjust "sour grapes"because PF and Guthrie chose SACD over DVD-A
because PF chose Guthrie over Parsons ...get on with it...
Naturally DVD-A offers higher 24bit sonic specs but as Guthrie said DSD was chosen for its closer to analog fidelity.
No "harshness" nor PCM "ringing" with the SACD
Follow Ups:
So your opinion is worthless.I don't have to care about the original source.
The 'second rate material' sound quality is far better than the sa-cd.
and it's the original quad mix.We could argue about the actual mix as these are diffrent. I prefer the original quad mix.
For your information G. mixed in 24/96 pcm after the analog tapes where transferred to digital tracks.
The .1 channel is just an additional channel.
The other channels are not tampered with. So you're wrong about this.
(The center channel is used instead of the .1 channel.
This mistake isn't bothering me as my center channel is full range anyway. It can also be switched off.)Sour grapes indeed, paid for a lame (too conservative) mc mix from G. with the dsd sonic filter creating the typical tame, flat sa-cd sound.
> > The center channel is used instead of the .1 channel.
This mistake isn't bothering me as my center channel is full range anyway. It can also be switched off. < <Frank, I'm just curious what is meant here. When I play the Parson's quad mix on DVD-A (superb b.t.w.), there's nothing coming out of the centre on my 5.1 system (as I would expect since it's the 'quad' mix), and the 0.1 is the additional LFE info. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
I believe I did actually hear the .1 stuff coming through the center channel.I could have been fooled by the very holographic soundfield from this mix.
Yeah its so good it has to be "ripped off" over the net....
and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source....
I would n't pay for it either ha ha
Even Parson said it was crap because he was rushed
EMI commisssioned it not PF
G did it how PF intended .....like I said its free over net if they haven;t taken it down....A real seller hey...
> Yeah its so good it has to be "ripped off" over the net....
> and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source....I will survive without verifying.
I'm satisfied just by listening to it.
No need to verify in order to enjoy.> I would n't pay for it either ha ha
> > and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source.... < <
I gather there was also a quad mix of Wish you were her" Does anyone know who did it?Regardless I hope the [suppose to be] Surround version of WYWH is released on in Adv Res DualDisc and hybrid SA-CD..stop all this fff...ing bickering
Seriously considering the praise and support for the "Quad Mix" and support for the 2003 surround version I don't understand why a company like say Mobile fidelity a speciality label... doesn't get the licence to release both on a DVD-A ....Could you fit both the surround and quad version in 96/24 Adv Res... if there was nothing else on it....
I noticed there are "multichannel" only SACDs out there why can't you have only those mixes on one DVD-A > ????????
Parson's did the quad mix.Even though you "can" find this, none of the issues in the wild are from the quad masters. They are either from 8 track or LP. The conversions to DTS CD sound decient for what your getting.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: