I've got the Thick as a Brick 40th DVDA and it's killer

[KDinsmore]

I saw in DR Database that the remix 40th Thick as a Brick isn't as good as the Flat Transfer. To my ears the remix just BLOWS AWAY the flat transfer. Clear and beautiful!!

[wgscott]

What's the resolution of the DVD? Where did you get it?

[Jud]

What's the resolution of the DVD? Where did you get it?

 

Don't know where he got it, but the resolution (for both the remix and the "flat transfer" of the original mix) of the DVD-A is 24/96.

 

I found Steve Wilson's remix of Aqualung to be excellent, though its dynamic range was somewhat less than the earlier CD pressings, as is the case with TAAB. This shows a limitation of DR Database, that higher DR numbers don't necessarily mean one version of a recording overall sounds better than another. Also, determining the "true" dynamic range of a piece of music turns out to be a proposition subject to a surprising amount of judgment as to what's important and possible to show of a number of factors that affect perceived loudness.

 

With recordings such as those by R.E.M., where the differences between the DR measurements of the older and newer recordings are huge, and the sheer loudness of the new versions is evident even through my iPhone while I mow the lawn, the Database is a very reliable guide to which version you want. For cases like the remastered Tull albums, where the DR measurement differences are relatively smaller and the remixes have been done with audibly evident care, the answer is much less plain.

[wgscott]

Is this it?

[integriscdp]

...This shows a limitation of DR Database, that higher DR numbers don't necessarily mean one version of a recording overall sounds better than another. Also, determining the "true" dynamic range of a piece of music turns out to be a proposition subject to a surprising amount of judgment as to what's important and possible to show of a number of factors that affect perceived loudness.

 

With recordings such as those by R.E.M., where the differences between the DR measurements of the older and newer recordings are huge, and the sheer loudness of the new versions is evident even through my iPhone while I mow the lawn, the Database is a very reliable guide to which version you want. For cases like the remastered Tull albums, where the DR measurement differences are relatively smaller and the remixes have been done with audibly evident care, the answer is much less plain.

 

Well said. This mirrors my observations of the DR software as well. While it's measurements are often good as a general guideline, one should be cautious in relying on its calculations too much. Just recently, I compared the U.S. CD pressing of 'Jerry Douglas - Traveler' to the Japan HQCD. The U.S. pressing actually has a slightly better average DR value (11) than the Japan HQCD (10), but the Japan disc sounds better than the U.S. counterpart, by quite a good margin. And the HQCD certainly does not sound any less dynamic either.

[KDinsmore]

Yes it is!

 

Is this it?

[wgscott]

A lot of people are reporting glitches on the DVD. Did you encounter anything like that?

[Metralla]

A lot of people are reporting glitches on the DVD.

Indeed.

[wgscott]

If it is in only the 5.1 track, I can live with that, at least for now.

[KDinsmore]

I have no glitches on the stereo version. They are going to replace the glitch discs. I saw an announcement from Ian Anderson.

[wgscott]

Good. He is a perfectionist.

[wgscott]

Did they ever replace it?

[Don Hills]

Yes, they did. I don't know about his personal copy, but there was a process for getting a replacement disc. Fixed discs are identifiable by a small horizontal line below the album duration text on the right side of the disc label. Google is your friend...