MINe109 <smcelroy2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 9:13 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
So, now we're talking about a small share of a small share. Fantastic.
Except, classical DVD-A and SACD weren't the only hi-rez releases touted
as 'audiophile'
quality.
>From an audiophile standpoint it's already an absurd misuse of CD's
potential (and its inital
promise -- advertised as a way to finally get us 'what's on the master
tapes) to
compress the dynamics out of music; to do the same on on a 24-bit format
is beyond ludicrous.
> > 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'?
'Right' as is, 'not right', i.e., sarcasm.
> 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.
It's rather unlikely that clipping and dynamic range limiting is used
to *preserve* dynamic range, don't you think?
> Reduced dynamic range isn't necessarily unpleasant to hear either.
Sure, in a noisy environment it's downright useful.
But the germane comparison would be to the same release, in 'high rez'
format, with full
dynamic range. OR do you think your classical discs would sound better if
> > > 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.
One does do that. And one finds the occasional 'high rez' release
sounding curiously louder
than older CD versions. And one is conversant in psychoacoustics, the
effect of loudness, as
well as the effects that expectation has on perception of quality. One is
also well aware
that on hybrid SACDs, sometimes the PCM layer is mastered to less-than-
audiophile standard.
So one wonders how many 'high rez' PCM releases are actually being
mastered to 'high'
standards, and whether any are actually be mastered much like 'modern'
CDs.
> > 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.
Excluding classical CDs. By your logic, because a subset of CDs
actually provide 'audiophile' sound, there's nothing to complain about.
> You asked. However, the DVD-A might be so reduced in dynamic range
> that an lp could be an acceptable medium.
And wouldn't that be a ridiculous turn of events....
> > > > 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 AVSforum thread that I linked to, is where I posted several DVD-A
waveforms. It shows
results for *several* titles right off the bat (Yes' 'Fragile' among them)
and adds more over
the course of its length. Your observation in reponse to this was (I
quote): "Congrats!
Someone found a smashed DVD-A or two." A poor start for you, as the
someone was *me*
('krabapple' on AVSforum -- you seem rather unclear on that point), and it
was rather more
than *two*. Then *you* singled out Yes and 'Fragile' -- I hadn't mentioned
them at all here --
in your next response (I quote)"Hi-rez is still a good bet if you're not a
Yes fan who would
have the Analogue Productions LP anyway" -- a bizarre claim on several
levels, not least of
which is that Yes is clearly *not* the only group whose classic albums are
being offered in
sub-'audiophile' quality on a 'high rez' medium touted as 'audiophile'.
The Yes/Fragile
tangent that *you* for some reason initiated ended with you declaring (I
quote) "The original
recording isn't that great." At that point, I'm wondering how much of the
AVSforum thread you
actually read, and whther mention whether you have a point to make at all.
And you're
wondering about MY tone?
One amusing upshot is that I'm not sure there's any actual *clipping* on
the highly compressed
DVD-A remastering of the 'not that great' Yes recording, but there
certainly *is* clipping the
DVD-A of Steely Dan's arguably quite-great-recording 'Gaucho'.
Which raises the question, what is clipping doing on a remaster of
late-period Steely Dan?
> > > > 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,
All of my waveforms in the first AVSForum post thread were to the same
scale, showing what I
trust is an obvious visible difference between waveforms that leave 'room'
between peaks and
average, and those that don't. I also presented views at both standard
and zoomed-in
resolution, demonstrating the existence of clipping on 'Gaucho'
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13464905#post13464905
So again, I have to wonder how far into the thread you got.
I could just as well have present crest factor calculations (peak -
average) to quantitate the
same findings...they would entirely sup****t the claim that the waveforms
that LOOK more
compressed do have less range than the ones that don't.
As I said, *compression* is pretty obvious if you have seen the
'progression ' of what
waveforms from early 80s through early 90s remasterings looked like. What
is not always
obvious, at low resolution, is whether actual clipping is occurring. But
compression without
clipping is still dynamic range reduction...and can still be massive
enough to warrant the
term 'sma****ng'.
> > > > > > > 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.
We never really left the starting point. Since the topic of compressed
'high rez' releases
came up, I've been pointing up the disjunction between what is
advertised/assumed for 'high
rez' releases, and what is actually delivered, and you've been tossing
peanuts from the
gallery , most of which are beside the point.
> > > 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.
"Still You Turn Me On' and 'Benny the Bouncer' are 3/2. The rest are
3/2.1. None are 'three
channel' (3.0).
--
-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.
|
