[Steven Sullivan]

[Since this subthread has become rather circular as both members have
mentioned, it is ended. No more posts will be accepted on it.
-- deb]

MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 18, 4:42 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
MINe109 wrote:
On Apr 13, 9:13 pm, Steven Sullivan 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, it seems that a considerable share of DVD-As might actually be mastered
like modern CDs, rather thank like 'audiophile' product. Which was my
original point.

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.

But then you went off into a genre tangent.

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.

Neither term is official. And really, you are splittig semantic hairs
here. Meanwhile,the point remains: seven out of ten "high resolution"
DVD-A stereo remasters I've checked so far, via analysis of direct digital rips,
have had their dynamic range limited more or less severely,
very much like modern CD remasters, and very much unlike what
one would expect of an 'audiophile' remastering.

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.

'A digital clip or two' -- and I beleive it was Telarc that was so criticized -- is not what I'm seeing on 7/10 of
these discs. What is seen is either considerable amount of digital compression, or that, PLUS clipping. Never clipping
but no compression. Aside from which, at 24 bit transfer and delivery, there would be no rationale for allowing even a
'digital clip or two', given the available headroom.

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.

Does it make sense to *reduce* the range further, then...particularly for release
on a medium touted for it s'audiophile' capabilities?

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.

If you are setting the volume lower for B vs A, then you are hearing 'louder' for B.

The PCM layer thing is well-known, as in Stereophile comments on the
Pink Floyd Dark Side SACD.

No kidding. I measured it myself too.

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 wish more CDs were of higher quality.. but you're willing to
spend a week arguing with for reporting that DVD-As were/are being mastered
at 'CD quality'. Strange.

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.

Sorry, you'll have to be more descriptive, or provide a direct link.

I don't know what Bill Price says on mixonline, but any audible effects on the
master tape can be captured digitally. Any 'effects' put onto an LP
at the cutting stage (so they weren't on the master tapes) and which
can't be simulated digitally, can be captured by digitizing the LP.
There is nothing audible on an LP -- euphonic or not -- that can't be rendered with
utmost accuracy by a digital recording of the LP (a 'needle drop').
Only the Michael Fremers of the world believe otherwise.

So even in this highly contrived case -- i.e, where for some reason you want
to incldue the euphonic distortions that are particular to LP -- there's still no sonic reason
to release an LP, except for the neat-o cover art. A digital copy of it will
sound the same, AND be immune to surface noise and tics and playback wear.

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.

Who's 'tepid generalization' would that be?

I posted the link to the article about cd vs DSD. Here's what you took from it:

"Looks like hi-rez is a handy way to find better masterings, according
to the article. Then there's the multichannel thing. "

I presented evidence that it may not be as 'handy' a way to find better masterings, as you (and the author of the
article) believe. Seven out of ten popular music DVD-As checked -- not obscurities or modern digital recordings, but
more typically well-known, analog recordings from the late 60's to early 80s by major artists, and surely among the
better-selling DVD-As -- were mastered like CDs, not 'better'.

Really, I'm tired of replaying the history of this thread for you, and little miffed that the moderators are holding
me, but not you, to a strict standard of quoting.

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 important to you, perhaps you should identify yourself as you
link.

Actually, I thought it was obvious. My mistake.

I see one of my questions anticipated further developments in the
thread (stereo layer vs multichannel).

Yes, and it was irrelevant there, too, to the issue of: how do the stereo remasterings
on the 'high rez' releases, compare the 'standard rez' CD masterings?

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.

Wrong for the reasons cited above (there's no reason to introduce clipping in a 24-bit format, for the purpose of
capturing the full range of an analog master tape) , and certainly wrong in this case. The DVD-A stereo remastering
displays LESS dynamic range than older CD versions. Same is true of the other DVD-As.

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.

....and found that at higher visual resolution, one can confirm clipping. It's not
required to diagnose the application of compression, though.

I could just as well have present crest factor calculations (peak - average) to quantitate the
same findings...they would entirely support 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.

It's only 'helpful'if you persist in refusing to accept the visual evidence.
Since you do, which waveforms would you like to see the crest factors for? I don't
want to waste further time showing you evidence you'll refuse to accept.

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 'smashing'.

No, smashing implies additional faults.

To you. I'm not at all bound to use *your* private definitions of a word that has no standard
technical definition. I assume those reading along understand what I mean, from what's
written, if not simply from LOOKING AT those waveforms.

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.

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.

Again, you're reinterpreting history (moderators??).

You wrote 'Looks like hi rez is handy way to find better masterings, according
to the article".

And in response I noted:

"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. "

which post if anything UNDERSTATED my evidence , implying a 1:1 ratio
of 'audiophile' to 'CD style' mastering of DVD-A . The actual evidence suggests
a much higher'CD style' to 'audiophile' ratio. Given that pop music releases far outnumber
classical releases on DVD-A , I'd say the evidence supports what I wrote --
which was about stereo DVD-A particularly -- rather well. I'll say it again:

As far as stereo DVD-A goes, contrary to what one might reasonably assume from the hype,
hi rez is NOT a particularly handy way to find better masterings than what's on CD.

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.

er...the 'high rez' and DTS surround mixes are *the same mix*, with the same number of channels. There should be no
more or less rear speaker activiy in one versus the other, if your system is playing them properly.

__
-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.