On Apr 13, 9:13 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> MINe109 <smcelr...@[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.
Audiophile product usually is.
> > > > 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.
Why 'right'? There's an irritating sound quality we should all be
familiar with that is due to a combination of elements. The odd
clipped waveform might be a sacrifice to preserve dynamic range.
Reduced dynamic range isn't necessarily unpleasant to hear either.
> > > > > 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)
One could listen to them.
> 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.
It beats the "vast majority" threshold of cd masterings.
> > > > 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.
You asked. However, the DVD-A might be so reduced in dynamic range
that an lp could be an acceptable medium.
> > > 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.
I believe you brought up the Yes title. My 'detour' consisted of
asking you to clarify your statements. The later stuff is in response
to you and your tone.
> > > 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.
I'm familiar with digital audio editing. Looking at views raises
questions of resolution, etc, so what seems obvious is not necessarily
so,
> > > > > > 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.
Yes, we've come full circle.
> > 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.
It's 3/2.1 channels.
Stephen
|
