On Apr 13, 9:13 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 12, 4:44 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 10, 7:42 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 8, 5:17 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:20 pm, Steven Sullivan 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/mixin...w_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 important 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 importance 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 important.
Yes, it is, but that's a totally separate feature from the purported 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