 
|
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: sounds positive posted by Joe Murphy Jr on April 08, 2011 at 09:52:08
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!"
Follow Ups:
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 ]
