MINe109 <smcelroy2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:44 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > MINe109 <smcelr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Apr 10, 7:42 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > MINe109 <smcelr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 8, 5:17 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > MINe109 <smcelr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Apr 7, 5:20 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > awareness that 'hi rez' is a solution looking for a
problem, seems to
> > > > > > > > be growing...
> >
> > > > > > > > From the online April issue of MIX magazine
> >
> > > > > > >
>http://mixonline.com/recording/mixing/audio_emperors_new_sampling/ind...
> > > > > > > Looks like hi-rez is a handy way to find better masterings,
according
> > > > > > > to the article. Then there's the multichannel thing.
> >
> > > > > > But it's not...at least for stereo DVD-A. I find as many
'modern' (as in ,
> > > > > > severaly reduced dynamic range) remasterings
> > > > > > as there as I do 'audiophile' ones.
> >
> > > > > >http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1009384
> > > > > I'm, not sure what you mean. Do you mean on the forum you cite
or do
> > > > > you have a large collection of 'smashed' DVD-As?
> >
> > > > Did you read that thread?
> > > Yes. of course. Congrats! Someone found a smashed DVD-A or two.
> >
> > Or two? Sorry, it's more than that. Right now the stereo DVD-As I've
checked
> > so far that have obviously compressed dynamic range are
> >
> > Fragile (Yes)
> > Night at the Opera (Queen)
> > Speaking In Tongues (Talking Heads)
> > Tommy (The Who)
> > Rumours (Fleetwood Mac)
> > Gaucho (Steely Dan)
> > Two Against Nature (Steely Dan)
> >
> > The ones that don';t are
> >
> > Harvest (Neil Young)
> > Spectrum (Billy CObham)
> > Machine Head (Deep Purple)
> >
> > that's a 7:3 ratio. And these DVD-As date from the beginning to DVD-A
> > to its most recent incarnation as DualDisc.
> Thanks for sharing that list. I have the Queen and Fleetwood Mac
> titles and can make casual observations concerning sound quality.
> > You see, the the difference between us is, I'm actually checking
> > the mastering of DVD-A stereo tracks in an objective way...you're not.
> There are more im****tant differences.
> > > And
> > > the hideous Hollywood Records Queen mastering is held up as the
Galant
> > > to the DVD-A Goofus. I'll check the shelves: I might be able to do
> > > that comparison. Even a loud DVD-A might be more pleasing without
the
> > > cd eq.
> >
> > Could be. But again, hi-rez was sold as a way to get 'audiophile'
> > quality sound.
> Works for Living Stereo reissues, Telarc, PentaTone, Linn, etc.
One would hope 'classical' music labels , at least, would
meet the challenge. (Though Telarc has been known to do funny
things with compression.) Pretty small market share, though.
> > > The screenshots look loud, but are they necessarily smashed? What
was
> > > the dynamic range of previous issues? I assume these are the
dedicated
> > > stereo layer, not a fold-down or other derived mix.
> >
> > Yes, of course they are dedicated stereo remasters. And in all but
one case
> > (Steely Dan's Two Agianst Nature, which was recorded digitally
> > era) the recordings date from the analog era and there are previous CD
versions with
> > quite a bit more dynamic range.
> > So, what's your definition of 'smashed'?
> Lots of digital clipping. Not merely 'louder' or gently compressed.
> Irritating modern rock radio eq.
So, if you vastly reduce the dynamic range, but refrain from actual
clipping, that's not 'smashed'. Right. See the Talking Heads
release for an example.
> > > > I mean that a surprising number of DVD-As have 'smashed' stereo
> > > > tracks ..at 'hi rez' sample rate.. Suggesting that 'hi rez' is
not
> > > > a particularly handy way to find better masterings (though chances
are
> > > > you'd do better with SACD releases, due to Scarlet Book specs)
> > > That undercuts 50% of your argument,
> >
> > 50%? That's rather tepid as cheerleading for the 'audiophile' quality
> > of hi-rez remastering.
> Isn't that 100% of SACDs? That seems a good bet. And DVD-As aren't 100
> % disappointing.
It's more tedious to check SACDs because that involves an analog-->digital
transfer in real time. ANd SACD spec makes it impossible to clip the
signal in the DSD domain (though it could be clipped in PCM, then
transcoded)
But, again, 'perhaps all SACDs, and definitely some DVD-A' is still a
rather tepid endorsement for the claims of 'audiophile sound'
associated with "high rez" releases.
> > > but a better 'suggestion' would
> > > be the im****tance of the mastering. Hi-rez is still a good bet if
> > > you're not a Yes fan who would have the Analogue Productions lp
> > > anyway.
> >
> > LOL. WHy would I want an even 'lower-rez' version (an LP?)
> It could sound better, new mastering and all. The cover art is
> definitely larger.
I've owned the LP since the early 70's, so I don't really
need the cover art, thanks.
> > I'm happy with the Joe Gastwirt remaster from 1990. What I've
> > heard of the Mobile Fidelity CD sounds fine too.
> I'm glad you like it. The original recording isn't that great.
But that;s rather beside the point, isn't it? Your detour
here and in your previous posts, away from the general issue
and into whether a particular recording 'matters' enough to you,
is just that: a diversion.
> > The fact remains it's hardly an issue *just* for 'a Yes fan'.
> > Again, I'm checking actual DVD-A discs, you're not. I'm finding so
> > far that as more of them have restricted dynamic range, than not,
> > on their stereo tracks.
> I'm under no obligation to do so. Linking to screenshots isn't the
> same as supplying a list you've checked personally, although
> "obviously compressed" is debatable.
If you have any familiarity with digital audio editing, compression
can be quite *obvious* from comparing waveform views.
> > > > > The multichannel thing is still im****tant.
> >
> > > > Yes, it is, but that's a totally separate feature from the
pur****ted benefits
> > > > of 'high rez' sample rates.
> > > It's a handy way to increase your odds of a good mastering according
> > > to the article.
> >
> > But you've got a completely different mix.
> In addition to the stereo, which can be the original.
THe stereo mix is almost always the original one. But as we see,
for 'rock' releases it's often presented with a reduced dynamic range.
> I definitely prefer the ELP three-channel Brain Salad Surgery.
BSS's multichannel mix is mostly 5.1, except for two tracks, which IIRC
are 5.0.
The two-channel stereo mix is a downmix of that. There is no 'three
channel'
mix that I'm aware of.
--
___
-S
maybe they wanna rock.
maybe they need to rock.
Maybe it's for the money? But That's none of our business..our business
as fans is to rock
with them.
|
