On Apr 18, 4:42 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> MINe109 <smcelr...@[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.
Yes, as we always were.
> Except, classical DVD-A and SACD weren't the only hi-rez releases touted
as 'audiophile'
> quality.
The implied question is whether the percentage of good-sounding
releases is better than the percentage of good-sounding cd releases.
> >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.
Sure.
> > > 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.
It's misplaced. The term 'smashed' implies qualities in addition to
heavy compression. We already have a term for over-compression: over-
compression.
> > 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?
In practice, but suppose one had a dynamic recording and chose to
allow a digital clip or two in passing rather than compress. I believe
a Chesky test disc was criticized for such a choice some years ago.
> > 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
Or original mastering Nirvana vs modern Nirvana. Many rock
performances aren't that dynamic to begin with, so the objections have
more to do with rise time, etc.
> > > > 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.
I suppose, but I don't hear "louder," I just set the volume to where I
want it to be.
The PCM layer thing is well-known, as in Stereophile comments on the
Pink Floyd Dark Side SACD.
> > > 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.
No, it makes me wish more cds were of high quality. But going to
classical is a dodge as most of them have problems, too.
> > 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....
Why? The sound of older recordings includes the effects of mastering
that can be hard to duplicate for cd. See Bill Price discussing the
Clash at mixonline.
> > > > > 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?
Yes, I am. For one thing, you're missing the implied comparison to cd
mastering from the original article. For another, you appear to be
attempting to universalize your experience from a handful of examples
in response to a tepid generalization.
No, I didn't bother to guess that it was you posting under a different
handle, although I don't see why that should make any difference. If
it were im****tant to you, perhaps you should identify yourself as you
link.
I see one of my questions anticipated further developments in the
thread (stereo layer vs multichannel).
> 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?
Enabling greater dynamic range overall.
> > > > > 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.
It doesn't matter. I've since looked into it and found some of my
questions were answered concerning resolution, etc.
> 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.
That would have been very helpful. Please do so to see if that is the
case.
> 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'.
No, sma****ng implies additional faults.
> > > > > > > > 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.
Thanks for agreeing with my agreement.
> 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.
No, I repeated an modest assertion from the article and you overstated
your evidence.
> > > > 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).
I don't have a sub. The high-rez mix must be well-done as I didn't
notice any rear speaker activity, especially in comparison to the 5.1
dts mix.
Stephen
|
