 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.254.45.183
In Reply to: RE: How many DVD-A have bad Mastering? posted by antoneb on March 25, 2010 at 21:35:06
Woah one thing I just noticed looking at the Steely DAN
Stereo 96kHz Mix
and the Surround 96kHz tracks
It looks to me like for the Stereo version they used the old Master Tape from the RedBook Master...
There is a lot of Content Filtered at 20kHz. You see a notch after 20k and a bunch of noise from about 25k on up.
That is not present on the surround tracks.
They need to be called on their Shenanigans.
Also Something interesting about a lot of the Surround mixes.
The Front L&R are a bit squashed (Limited and Maximized) The surrounds and centers are much more open no maximizing to be seen.
Why would they mix the fronts like that??
Follow Ups:
Sorry Thoughts about this topic keep popping into my head.
I also have a background in music, amature jazz improv once upon a time, and music theory.
One thing that I've noticed, which may or may be why some people tend to like this using these maximizing compression tools.
For example the Gaucho up convert vs Surround mix.
The opening symbol hit has a much more harmonically sonorous character to it. The surround mix symbol hit seems to be more dominated by the attack and has a very different fade out character.
I've noticed playing with multichannel tracks that have been and have not been maximized. Things like the overtones on acoustic guitar pop out way more than on the less squashed tracks. And by my own experimenting with tube compressor simulators, and maximizers. I too can bring out the overtones on such things (Audio Engineering secrets spoiler). Of course its all about getting the Attack and release envelopes right.
But I find the maximizers do this at the expense of a far grittier abrasive sound.
Anyhow I know but I don't knowwwwww.
Anton,
With all due respect, I think you are bit out of your skill level in your attempt to analyze DVD-A masters.
First of all, you simply cannot make final pronouncements based on how waveforms are rendered in software applications. Many applications will render waveforms differently at different sample rates. Anybody who has worked with audio applications in a professional setting knows this. Screen rendered waveforms are always an approximation of the audio, not the actual audio and can vary quite a bit based on bit-depth and sample rate and even song length.
Secondly, the stereo master for Gaucho was originally recorded on the 3M digital system at 50khz sampling. It was then up converted to 96/24 PCM to get it into a modern PCM format. This was done by a 3M engineer and one of our studio engineers on one of the few working 3M machines.
The surround master was mixed from the original multi-tracks and mastered in the usual way. The mix was performed by Eliot Scheiner, and both stereo and surround were mastered by Bob Ludwig at Gateway. There was no record company direction to "compress" or "maximize" or do any of the other crap you claim is destroying music.
Although it's entertaining to think that there are conspiracies out there specifically designed to ruin your personal enjoyment of high fidelity music, I think in reality you don't know what you are talking about.
Music is about listening, not about looking at waveforms.
Regards,
Jim
(DVD-A disc producer on Diana Krall, Steely Dan, The Who, and about 40 more DVD-A titles)
Oh and I take that back actually,
Revisiting the Steely Dan stereo up convert.
Your engineers went to far with the limiting/maximizing. Audible distortion of a crackly nature is never good unless its intentional.
And unfortunately there is some in that Babylon Sister Track.
This seems to be the trade mark in so many post DAW digital masters.
Also In the widows comparing the 16 bit red-book Babylon Sisters, and
the UP converted Babylon Sisters.
Altough the Sample rates are indeed different.
The amplitude scales and time scales are identical using the same software, so your argument about different wave for representations is a bit invalid.
Since I'm out of my depths where do I need to go to learn how to properly analyze DVD-Audio??
When was the Gaucho Stereo master done on the 3M machine?? Gaucho is from 1980 I'm assuming the primary tracks are analog? Or did they have access to all digital? I have a lot of respect for the amount of pre and post production that went into Gaucho.
The software in question that I have been using to edit my DVD - A are cubase and Adobe Audition. I used DVD-Audio Explorer to extract. I also use FFT.
I use no gain modification when I rip tracks. Its obvious that the RED-Book Gaucho from the early 90's release and the DVD-A version have been handled differently. Its also obvious that the DVD-A stereo version is an up conversion I don't know why they wouldn't go the extra mile to do an analog to 24/96 stereo mix except that it was convenient.
Now I'm not saying that using some of the modern Maximizing and limiting tools is terrible thing. I think its fine to sacrifice a few transients for the good of the mix.
In fact I think even with the maximizing/limiting on the DVD-A stereo version of Gaucho is very restrained compared to what most modern CD's are doing. And Babylon Sistas has a huge almost unheard of dynamic range for a pop fusion album, something like 32dB. It is generous and commendable it speaks volumes to the engineers and the band.
Still maximizing and limiting was used on the DVD-A release yes its not an direct up convert the 50kHz (48kHz?) masters?? Personally I think having access to graphical DAW tools has contributed to the abuse of audio tracks more than improve the quality, since people will master with their eyes and their ears and eventually something like "Death Magnetic" plops out.
I use the tools to try and confirm what I'm hearing and experiencing. All that said when using 24/96 why bother using the maximizing/limiting tools to squeeze the NTH degree of headroom out of the tracks. Whats the point?
I doubt that my Audio editing tools are giving me erroneous representation of the tracks unless my source material is somehow corrupt. And I can see the effects of maximizing and limiting. In the case of Steely Dan I believe that they are almost imperceivable, because its not extreme, but lets face it many modern masters sound cloudy and grainy, unpleasant and fatiguing because they are abusing the wave forms so badly and introducing all sorts of distortions. I've become increasingly frustrated with most modern CD masters, the technology has improved and we end up with a worse sounding product.
You have some very impressive credits to your name. Did you work on the Diana Krall look of love??
I love the stereo master on the DVD-A, It sounds amazing I would like to know more about it.
I know you appear to be against the visual evaluation of the audio waveforms. But since you are in the business perhaps you can answer me this.
On the Diana Krall,
The Stereo master on S'Wonderful is appears to have been mixed so through the entire song there is one obvious dominant peak, that actually looks to hit 0dB for a moment.
In the Surround Rf and Lf tracks they are limited to a hair bellow -1dB. Just wondering why the stereo would be treated with a more of a hands off approach where that track is basically normalized to its most unruly peak, where the surround tracks have been symmetrically sawed off at this level? Instead of being mixed to where the track is just normalized to -1.3dB or whatever the level is?
Again there is nothing gross or abusive about how Diana's tracks where approached but it would seem that they where approached quite differently.
Probably the worst multi-track I've examined to date... Flaming lips Soft Bulletin The surround mix does not translate from the Stereo Just all channels balls to the wall.
Again I don't think a terrible injustice has been done with these DVD-A's though A fresh 24/96 Stereo Master mix would have been nice. I don't see the reason why maximizing/limiting was even necessary since the bit bucket is nice and deep compared to 44/16. Using such tools on a HD product seems to go against the idea of having a superior dynamic range, and up-converting from a redbook master that is brick wall filtered at 20kHz also seems to go against the concept of HD audio.
Unfortunately HD formats are more or less a failure as a commercial product. The audience isn't listening.
Sonically I find the surround tracks for Gaucho Superior.
On the up converted version I can actually hear the chorus clip when they sing the line "SHAKE IT". So did it suffer from how it was treated on this DVD A.... UHHHM YES! It doesn't sound near as open as the surround tracks (which I have to crash down to stereo since I don't have a surround configuration at the moment).
I have not worked in the industry much so to speak. I have worked a bit with designing surround systems that are installed at sky walker and ILM (speaker's passive x-overs audio processors b-chain). I am a trained electronic technican, who has studied basic audio engineering, done a bit of live audio, moving on the to the study of Engineering (Physics kind not audio).
I do understand that how it sounds is what is the most important, but I also know that using visual tools can help describe much of what you're hearing if you know what your looking at.
Industry conspiracy?? you mean the loudness war is coincidental?
I disagree with your Flaming Lips comment. I extracted a sample from the MC DVD-A and did not see the brickwall you claim.
I just looked at the Tracks.The surround tracks on Soft Bulletin are not brickwall filtered but the "Hi res Stereo Tracks are Brickwall filtered which means they are probably just up converts from the Red Book Masters Something that it seems almost all of the DVD-A / SACD producers have been doing. Thats really a rip off since Stereo is still and will probably always be the dominant format. It like the Engineers are treating stereo like a second class citizen unworthy of a True Hi Res Remaster.
The Surround mix or lack of mix doesn't translate very well compared to the stereo. Passages that are quiet/dynamic on the Stereo mix are totally maximized on the Surround mix.
Edits: 05/24/10
I assume were talking about the same thing when were talking brick wall but perhaps not.
How are you evaluating the existence of a brick wall filter on the DVD-A.
I use Spectra Lab and Adobe Auditions FFT function.
I only have a copy of Flaming Lips Soft Bulletin I will post screen caps of the FFT display.
It is obviously brick wall filtered at 20kHz, there is not ambiguity about it.
Just download vlc. It's much better than the average media player since it plays virtually any video/audio file format out there and has already all the codecs preinstalled. There are lots of other near features too. If you don't know where to look then check out the vlc player download page.
Because they don't get it.
Who are they and how do we get them to stop!!!
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
