 
|
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 |
173.238.99.252
In Reply to: RE: different opinion posted by Joe Murphy Jr on April 07, 2011 at 22:02:38
I too seem to remember the video for Vital Signs too. Weird?
Regarding the DVD-A sound quality- I played the two channel tracks last night (which is mastered from the analog stereo master tape) and then compared to a downmix of the surround, just to compare the overall frequency balance of the two. Then I played a track or two of the CD version.
Of note- the DVD-A two channel sounds pretty darn good! The first thing the wife said to me during Tom Sawyer was "where is the top end??" I had to concur, as we listened, the two channel didn't have a top end boost to it. It sounded warm and yet at the same time, "tighter". Stops and starts, accents in the rhythm, and reverb tails are more noticeable. Geddy also has a presence (both vocally and with his bass tone) that I had not heard before. I guess one could say it has the best PRAT of the 4 versions I've heard so far (wish I could have heard the MoFi for comparison).
The surround version's balance kinda sounds (frequency-wise) like they've tried to mimic the balance of the Remaster Series CD (of course, I couldn't listen in surround, oh well). The dynamics seem a little less powerful than the DVD-A two channel master.
I haven't compared this release's CD to the Remaster CDyet, but against the DVD-A two channel, it pales, and not by a narrow margin again...
Again, YMMV
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
Follow Ups:
I agree with your observations on the 2 channel stereo layer: very tight and very clean w/ seemingly less highs than previously-released CD's. After a few listenings I'd rephrase my description of the highs on the new DVD-A ---- it's not that they've been reduced, but that they are now less immediate and more organic sounding. Personally I welcome this version of the treble notes as I've found many of the Rush CD's to sound brittle and harsh in the high end.
Wile the highs on the new DVD-A aren't as immediate as previously-released CD's, the overall sound is not muffled, or flat, or bass heavy. Sure, there's plenty of low end (and it seems to have been tightened up) but it's well-balanced with the mid's and high's. I did find the stereo layer to have a lower volume than I was expecting, and I had to crank up my amp a little to get to my usual listening level. Perhaps this volume issue contributes to the perception of a reduction in highs?
Nice sound on this one and very glad to see a new hi-rez release....
"I did find the stereo layer to have a lower volume than I was expecting, and I had to crank up my amp a little..."
Perhaps Rush is trying to make amends for the "full steam ahead" style mastering approach of the last three efforts (Vapor Trails, Feedback and Snakes and Arrows)? LOL!
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
I would say that the DVD-A stereo tracks (which I haven't heard) are more along the lines of the Mobile Fidelity release. I base that on your "added detail" comment and your description of the top end, which would seem much lower if your reference was the Remaster CD. That moves me more in the direction of buying.
There was no analog master, Moving Pictures was ADD: the main track was analog, all of the mixing/editing was digital and the master was obviously digital.
Regarding which master was used- my understanding is that TWO masters were made during the MP mixdown sessions- one to analog tape (as a backup! haven't found any information about WHAT machine was used), and another master to Sony PCM F-1. The physical format of storage for the F-1 was a Beta video tape. That's what Peter Jensen and Robert Ludwig used to cut the original Anthem release.
Unless Lerxst comes forward about this (he probably won't), I doubt much more from the Rush camp will come out about this issue. I will continue to assume that the DVD-A stereo and new CD edition of this were cut from the analog master, as I understand ...
Just to clarify- the SPARS code had issues right from the start- we know that the multitrack tapes were analog (the First "A"), the second letter, "D", denotes that a digital tape was used during the MIXDOWN (hence stereo mix), and the final "D" in the SPARS code is the CD medium itself... kinda redundant... Not like this would be any guarantee of quality!
"If the audio industry built gear that sounded as good as it did 50 years ago, there would NEVER be a need to re-issued anything!"
Over on the Hoffman forum it seems the concensus is that the hi rez stereo files were upsampled from the pcm stereo master. If true, and I am not saying it is, it really stinks. there is still some question where the surround tracks came from. Hi rez has a hard enough time gaining acceptance without iffy provenance. Sort of like inferring that the Stones on HD trax are from a new transfer when they are from the DSD transfer done for the SACDs...
Chris Connaker posted the screenshot above of Tom Sawyer 24/96 via Audacity (a free software program that does frequency spectrum analysis). If you look at the great majority of the screenshots in the thread linked below, you'll see frequency spectrum plots which not only go beyond 20 - 22kHz, but are spread out for the real HD audio releases. As long as the content gets near 30kHz or so, it's real HD audio. And notice the intensity of the red in the 15kHz and up range? That's not natural -- it's from re-EQing the original digital master (eg, boosting the highs). Run Audacity on Tom Sawyer from the original CD and you won't see that much red.
Here's an interesting comment from a member of that forum on the compression factor:
"Chris. I am a great fan of rush so I evaluated this High Res files into more detailed and also listen to it. Basically this was an 44.1 SR file. Do doubt about it. So this is another fake High Res file that is sold, to earn more money, with selling again and again the same content to the customer.
When I dig a little be deeper into this file, to understand the behavior above 20 kHz I came to the following conclusion. The Original 44.1 SR Master File must have been sent to an analog compressor and the output of this compressor is sampled with 96 kHz. What does this mean?
1. The new High Res File has lower dynamic range as the original file. I have "Moving Pictures" on Vinyl and on CD and both sounds better, more realistic than this new High Res version. The High Res version sound louder, sure, but less dynamic and more front in the face.
2. Whenever the hardware compressor doesn't have to limit the output, then the spectral content goes only till 22 kHz. But whenever the compressor / limiter has to work, it is a sort of clipping (limiting) so the output has content above 22 kHz and whenever a hard snare drum has to be limited, then the limiter does clipping and creating content up to 48 kHz. This clipping creates an artificial shot of the snare, so untrained ears may mistake this with higher dynamic range but trained ears will recognize that this is a cheap trick and that the High Res sound much more flatter than the Vinyl or CD.
It is really a shame that we, the customer, have to check every time, what type of files the High Res stores are selling to us.
Juergen
PS: There is also a static 28.8 kHz signal in the file. Normally I do see this type of spectral lines only, when a 48 Volt phantom power supply is made out of a switched mode power supply and when the phantom voltage is not symmetrical enough on both lines on a symmetrical cable. But this in an minor mistake compared to the fake."
If you're interested in more of the discussion about HD audio not being real HD audio, click the link
I've been suspecting that a lot of DTS-HD MA audio on "catalog" movie BD titles is just upsampled and manipulated DD 5.1 (e.g.) source. But...it does sound better to me, almost always. Smoother anyway, which is nice for old ears...not that I don't still like the crunchy stuff when it's supposed to be crunchy.
"I've been suspecting that a lot of DTS-HD MA audio on "catalog" movie BD titles is just upsampled and manipulated DD 5.1 (e.g.) source."
I don't think it's anything like that. With movies, there's either an analog master (for older films) -- a PCM digital master has to be created for the encode to DVD or Blu-ray -- or a PCM digital master (for newer films). I doubt anyone's taking the Dolby Digital mix, decompressing it to PCM and then re-encoding to DTS-HD MA. That would be doing more work only to end up with with an inferior product.
Just my suspicious nature based on following the hi-rez music sagas here...
I know nothing about film production methods, just a user who buys/watches way too many...
.
Thanks for the spectrum plot and for keeping your post civil. I appreciate the discussion regarding the presented high resolution file that appears to be upsampled from cd. However, not once I have mentioned the audible qualities of the DVD-Audio disc in the 30th anniversary set or have I praised any other high resolution files on Moving Pictures. You can go back and re--read my posts they are all in praise of the CD disc only. That is it. I also like the Mofi version of the same album just not as much, it sounds a bit too homogenous than the new remaster. The new remaster sounds louder, which is a vice, but I will take that shortcoming in exchange for better sound.
If upsampling took place, there won't be any useful material above 20kHz when looked at in one of the computer audio analysis programs. Now, if they went back to those mythical analog originals, there will be be audio info beyond 20kHz. And for it to be believable, it would have to be music spectra at least out to 28kHz. Either the DVD-A or the Blu-ray audio would be needed for the analysis.
Edits: 05/16/11
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
