Ever wonder what DVDA stereo tracks would look like if you could rip them the way you can rip a CD?

Well, it turns out some would look like this

"Out On The Weekend", Neil Young Harvest DVDA
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/OutOnTheWeekend_DVDA.PNG


or this:

"Quadrant 4" , Billy Cobham, Spectrum DVDA
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/Quadrant4_DVDAst.PNG


but others would look like this:

"Roundabout", Yes Fragile DVDA
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/Roundabout_DVDAst.PNG




or this:
"Burning Down the House", Talking Heads Speaking In Tongues DualDisc
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/BurningDownTheHouse_DVDAst_correct.PNG


or even this:

"Death On Two Legs", Queen A Night at the Opera DVDA (2002)
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/DeathOnTwoLegs_DVDA_st.PNG


for comparison, the same track from most recent CD version of Night at the Opera looks like this:


"Death On Two Legs", Queen A Night at the Opera anniversary CD (2007)
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/DeathOnTwoLegs_CD.PNG

Haha, you've really unleashed the beast on this forum, krabapple!

For those of use less educated on the ripping tools/graphs (me :)) can you explain the scales/graphs? To me it looks like the CD version of 'death on two legs' is a better copy than the DVDA.

And those are the reasons why some are good and some are bad. I wonder if the six channel mixes would be better.

Harvest sounds great. Steely Dan sounds great. Fagan is nice.
Some bad ones just sound like the CD only LOUDER.

The good ones are amazing to hear in 6 channel. The best sounding disks are the ones that have quality recording, mixing and mastering. DVD-A should be compared to DTS and Dolby-D not CD's anyway. A well done CD sounds fine, but those are few and far between.

For those of use less educated on the ripping tools/graphs (me :)) can you explain the scales/graphs? To me it looks like the CD version of 'death on two legs' is a better copy than the DVDA.

Yes, it does, doesn't it. ;)


Each graph shows two 'black rectangles' with green waveforms in them, left channel is the green trace on top, and right channel on bottom.

The x-axis is time, the y axis is sample level with respect to digital full-scale (0dB ) and 'infinity' (perfect silence -- that is the grey line bisecting each channel) .


So, If the waveform (the green stuff) touches the top or the bottom of its 'black rectangle', those are the timepoints in the track where it has reached maximum digital level (you can say maximum loundess, thought that's not quite correct). The more time the green stuff spends near these limits, the more limited its dynamic range is.

Notice that the Cobham and Young traces only send out very thin 'feelers' to these limits, with significant black space around them, with most of the solid reen well below them; this is good old-fashioned mastering to preserve dynamic range (that's what 'resolution' translates to in digital world) .

Notice that as I went from the Yes to the Queen, the solid green part of waveform got wider and/or blockier, with few 'feelers' until parts of the Queen track look almost like 'bricks' of green.
Where the waveform actually looks 'shaved flat' on top or bottom, there may be digital clipping going on. This is bad modern mastering where every moment is almost as loud as every other moment. Great for listening in noisy environments, though.

And those are the reasons why some are good and some are bad. I wonder if the six channel mixes would be better.

They might well be. Here's the front Left/Right channels of the 6-channel DVDA mix from the 2002 ('Death on Two Legs' again)
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/DeathOnTwoLegs_DVDA_mcLR.PNG


However, I don't htink there's anything intrinsically preventing an engineer from making a highly compressed/limited/clipped surround mix for DVDA. I just haven't looked at that many yet.

DVD-A should be compared to DTS and Dolby-D not CD's anyway.

Why shouldn't the stereo mixes be compared to CD?

A well done CD sounds fine, but those are few and far between.

I have many. Most are classical :p.

Hi krabapple,

Those graphs are interesting. Can you post info on how you were able to generate them? I'd like to try this on some DVD-As that I have... ;)

Thanks,

- Steve O.

See this thread and follow the links therein:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=61928

See this thread and follow the links therein:

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=61928
What's the program that generates the graphs?

BTW, despite that horrid graph, Speaking In Tongues still sounds great (to me).

It's called DVDAExplorer. Follow the link above.

Btw here's another for the honor roll -- a DVDA stereo mastering that isn't smashed to bits

'Space Truckin' from Deep Purple, Machine Head DVDA
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/SpaceTruckin_DVDAst.PNG

and here's one that maybe belongs on the dishonor roll

"Dreams" from Fleetwood Mac Rumours DVDA
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/Dreams_DVDAst.PNG

Do you remember 'Dreams' sounding as loud as 'Space Truckin' back in the 70's? Me neither.


BTW, despite that horrid graph, Speaking In Tongues still sounds great (to me).

But one wonders how it would compare in a levelmatched blind comparison to a DVDA stereo mastering from the original masters, that WASN'T compromised in dynamic range. (The CD version from the DualDisc is no better than the DVDA stereo version)

It's called DVDAExplorer. Follow the link above.I just want to analyze the compression (or lack of compression) of some of my remastered CDs vs. the original CDs. What program is best to use simply for CDs? Thanks.

I just want to analyze the compression (or lack of compression) of some of my remastered CDs vs. the original CDs. What program is best to use simply for CDs? Thanks.
Any standard wav editor/recorder. The one used in the screenshots is Adobe Audition, but there are free ones all over the place. Chances are one came with your sound card.
All you do is open the wav file/CD track (may have to rip first depending on the program) and it will show the waveform like that.

Is it possible to reverse the dynamic compression with a tool like the Adobe product mentioned?

Is it possible to reverse the dynamic compression with a tool like the Adobe product mentioned?
I've never tried that. My first instinct is probably no, because you'd be trying to get back parts of the waveform that was simply cut out with the compression - like how a lossy codec simply cuts out information, and it's lost.
You'd have to go back to the original source. There may be some smart methods/algorithms to try and *improve* it, but again I'm no expert there. Either way, I'm sure that a DRC-applied track cannot be fully restored to the original dynamic range.

I tried that - knowing that what was lost could never be regained. I still had to try though, and it was a failed experiment :|

the information is just not there anymore, and all you get is a lower level that may not clip, but theres no dynamic range still, and probably even less satisfying that the first version. at least that one was loud..

I've never tried that. My first instinct is probably no, because you'd be trying to get back parts of the waveform that was simply cut out with the compression - like how a lossy codec simply cuts out information, and it's lost.
You'd have to go back to the original source. There may be some smart methods/algorithms to try and *improve* it, but again I'm no expert there. Either way, I'm sure that a DRC-applied track cannot be fully restored to the original dynamic range.

You CAN reverse dynamic compression, like that done with a dynamic range compressor or limiter - but NOT "compression" as in lossy data compression such as MP3 and the like.

I still use a dbx-128 processor in my system, which is an all-in-one Dynamic Range Expander/Peak Un-Limiter and dbx Type-II Noise Reduction unit. The, uh, "modern" normalized CD's actually sound quite a bit better when ran through the 128 with an expansion ratio of about 1.4. I set the threshold way up so that, basically, everything but the loudest sound is being expanded downward, and it really seems to nicely restore the impact and overall quality of these nasty normalized CD's.

Also, if you do much FM listening, the dbx-128 is great for peak un-limiting FM signals, which usually have a lot of peak-limiting applied. A gentle expansion ratio of about 1.2 will push down the noise just enough to make the sound much more listenable.

Expansion with peak un-limiting also works well with films that have highly compressed soundtracks meant for that was optimized for optical sound prints - like the HD-DVD audio of the Charlton Heston version of The Omega Man. And if you still watch LaserDisc's, it's great for non-CX encoded FM analog tracks or hissy Dolby-A mastered films (a good example is the original LD of Neil Diamond 'film' The Jazz Singer).

Krabapple,

Do you have the "un-released", non-Brian May mixed/mastered version of the DVD-A of A Night At The Opera? I wonder if it would show different results from the officially-released version that you used? (I assume you used the Brian May mixed version of ANATO)

BTW, for those who haven't heard it (or know the story), the non-Brian May version of ANATO DVD-Audio is truly retched in its 6-track mix... And on "Bohemian Rhapsody", guitars are even missing in certain parts! When the album was originally remixed/mastered for DVD-A by DTS Entertainment, Brian May wasn't involved at all - DTS had the resulting DVD-A pressed, sent to reviewers and ready to ship to stores when Brian May finally heard the disc and said "NO WAY!" - DTS put the release on "hold" while Brian supervised a proper remix - DTS claimed the differences between the two versions were "minor", but that is a vast understatement - besides the actual surround mix differences, which are numerous and obvious, the non-Brian May DVD-A has such heavy NR applied you can hear the hiss duck on and off as voices and instruments come and go. It's just awful.

Anyway, I wonder if it's clipped like the version you used Krabapple?

I tried that - knowing that what was lost could never be regained. I still had to try though, and it was a failed experiment :|

the information is just not there anymore, and all you get is a lower level that may not clip, but theres no dynamic range still, and probably even less satisfying that the first version. at least that one was loud..
It goes to show that the record industry cares more about money than giving a good quality product to the consumer.
And it seems some don't even respect the DVD-Audio format. IMO they should take the opportunity for MP3 to be the domain for all the detritus, and keep the good mastering for the hi-res prints.

If this juggernaut trend of crap audio production and consumption cannot be stopped, then we will have to have a definitively separate version of each product for the people who care good sound.
I'm sure that not ONE (good) mastering engineer would ever employ anything like hard limiting of their own volition. They are told what to do by their tyrant executives.

Sometimes the artists also insist on certain "undesirable" techniques (I know I've read about a few such bands, though the specifics elude me at the moment). But the bulk of the "demands" come from marketing departments who don't want their CDs to be 10dB down from the others in the mega changer in the music store.

Sometimes the artists also insist on certain "undesirable" techniques (I know I've read about a few such bands, though the specifics elude me at the moment). But the bulk of the "demands" come from marketing departments who don't want their CDs to be 10dB down from the others in the mega changer in the music store.
Well in that case, it is part of their art and if you don't like it it means you don't like that particular track/album that they've applied those techniques to. It's like some films are deliberately grainy or with a certain effect...
I'm guessing genres like heavy rock/metal would be the more likely ones?

I just want to analyze the compression (or lack of compression) of some of my remastered CDs vs. the original CDs. What program is best to use simply for CDs? Thanks.

I use Audition, but it's not free.

Audacity can do it too, I think -- and that's free. Any wave editor will show yuo a waveform (some will show it different than others). Audition has a 'statistics' function that displays data from which I can calculate crest factor (difference between peak and average level)

Krabapple,

Do you have the "un-released", non-Brian May mixed/mastered version of the DVD-A of A Night At The Opera? I wonder if it would show different results from the officially-released version that you used? (I assume you used the Brian May mixed version of ANATO)

I bought the disc fairly soon after it came out. The date on the packaging is 2002. From the liner notes I presume Brian May was involved.



BTW, for those who haven't heard it (or know the story), the non-Brian May version of ANATO DVD-Audio is truly retched in its 6-track mix... And on "Bohemian Rhapsody", guitars are even missing in certain parts! When the album was originally remixed/mastered for DVD-A by DTS Entertainment, Brian May wasn't involved at all -

But Roy Thomas Baker was , wasn't he? You'd think he'd get it right. I've never heard that guitar parts were actually missing, just that May didn't like some of the level and placement choices in the surround mix.


DTS had the resulting DVD-A pressed, sent to reviewers and ready to ship to stores when Brian May finally heard the disc and said "NO WAY!" - DTS put the release on "hold" while Brian supervised a proper remix - DTS claimed the differences between the two versions were "minor", but that is a vast understatement - besides the actual surround mix differences, which are numerous and obvious, the non-Brian May DVD-A has such heavy NR applied you can hear the hiss duck on and off as voices and instruments come and go. It's just awful.


You've heard it?

Anyway, I wonder if it's clipped like the version you used Krabapple?

Send it to me and I'll tell you :p

You CAN reverse dynamic compression, like that done with a dynamic range compressor or limiter - but NOT "compression" as in lossy data compression such as MP3 and the like.

You can only truly everse dynamic range compression in a dbx-like scheme, where the compression and expansion are done by the same compander technology. For dbx that means buying recordings encoded in dbx (those used to be available, long ago) or making your own recordings using dbx.

You can't take a CD you bought from the store, and actually 'restore' the original dynamics on the master tape. You can only make a 'guess' at it using certain software or hardware. That's what you're doing with the dbx device when you apply it to a CD.

see this thread and others like it for discussion

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=53456

You can only truly everse dynamic range compression in a dbx-like scheme, where the compression and expansion are done by the same compander technology. For dbx that means buying recordings encoded in dbx (those used to be available, long ago) or making your own recordings using dbx.

You can't take a CD you bought from the store, and actually 'restore' the original dynamics on the master tape. You can only make a 'guess' at it using certain software or hardware. That's what you're doing with the dbx device when you apply it to a CD.

see this thread and others like it for discussion

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=53456

I didn't mean to imply it would be 'exactly' the way an uncompressed studio master would sound - just that it can really, really help a lot - whereas with lossy compression systems, there's nothing to be done for them!

I bought the disc fairly soon after it came out. The date on the packaging is 2002. From the liner notes I presume Brian May was involved.





But Roy Thomas Baker was , wasn't he? You'd think he'd get it right. I've never heard that guitar parts were actually missing, just that May didn't like some of the level and placement choices in the surround mix.




You've heard it?



Send it to me and I'll tell you :p

Yeah, I have both DVD-A's - during Bohemian Rhapsody, after the middle chorus, when Brian May's guitar is supposed to come in, it's completely missing... VERY bizzare sounding. And as I said, the aggressive gating applied for NR is just awful.

Guys, I don't understand what you're getting at. The subject was "Hi Rez". Nothing in this thread has anything to do with resolution, only dynamic range compression. Every commercial recording ever made (except for classical) uses dynamic range compression; it has to, otherwise a mix would be imposssible. All the way from the classic UREI LA-2a's, 3a's, 1176LNs, and now their digital plug-in counterparts. Usually these days, the peaks just get lobbed off.

It's all up to the discretion and artistry of the mastering engineer. None of this has anything to do with resolution. Can you explain your point?

The first thing that a microphone goes into -- at least in a pop/rock music recording session -- before even being captured on tape or on a digital workstation -- is a dynamic range compressor. It has to. The human voice is too unmanageable in dynamic range to ever record without going into distortion without doing a touch of compression as step #1. Not only that, but it just doesn't sound very good without a touch of compression. It's the same reason a singer in concert pulls the mike away from their mouth when singing a loud note -- that is dynamic range compression performed by the performer.

These days, pop/rock records usually compress vocals down to a no more than 10db dynamic range -- then manually edit out all the breath sounds.

In remixes, compressors are again used just to balance out the mix; otherwise it would be musical chaos. It would just sound like a jam session.

And please don't confuse dynamic range compression with digital encoding compression, i.e. lossy vs. lossless. Neither one has anything to do with the other. Nothing. Except that they both have "compression" in their name. It's like confusing spring the season vs. spring the water vs. spring the twisty metal thing. Neither has anything to do with the other.


-John

Average volume, dynamic range and crest factor are highly correlated with resolution.

Average volume, dynamic range and crest factor are highly correlated with resolution.

No they're not, they have nothing to do with each other. Dude, I'm really sorry, I don't know who you are, and I want you to be a friend, but I have been working as an audio engineer all my life, making my living at it since the mid 1970's. So did my dad and my grandfather. My friend Dave Haynes developed the Studer Dyaxis, the world's first digital workstation. I've been working with digital audio since the early 1980's often traveling to Sony in Teaneck just to evaluate equipment designs and prototypes.

I've been a consultant and an evaluator at Dolby, spent three years developing the country's first media digital audio network at Skywalker Ranch, and have a couple Emmy awards for my work in TV sound. Right now I'm working on several major projects with film studios.

I really, really hate "pulling rank", and I don't want to offend you, but you're spouting words you don't even understand yourself, obviously. Stop it; you're just confusing people.

=John

No they're not, they have nothing to do with each other. Dude, I'm really sorry, I don't know who you are, but I have been working as an audio engineer all my life, making my living at it since the mid 1970's. Irrelevant to the facts of the matter!

http://www.audio-software.com/K-System.html
Narrow Dynamic Range Pop Music
“We can avoid a new loudness race and consequent quality reduction if we unite behind the K-System before we start fresh with high-resolution audio media such as DVD-A and SACD. Similar to the above classical music example, pop music with a crest factor much less than 14 dB should not be mastered to peak to full scale, as it will sound too loud.”

“The average level of popular music compact discs continues to rise. Popular CDs with this problem are becoming increasingly prevalent, coexisting with discs that have beautiful dynamic range and impact, but whose loudness (and distortion level) is far lower.”

But none of that has anything to do with resolution. 16-bit, 24-bit, and a zillion-bit recordings can still be mastered too loud, clipping the peaks, if that's what you're talking about -- but that has nothing to do with resolution. Resolution is how many bits you're using for each sample.

Are you talking about clipping peaks when mastering too loudly? I, too, hate that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with resolution, it's simply dynamic range clipping. Bob Katz would be the first to agree with me. But again, it has nothing to do with resolution. Please keep the terminology accurate; I apologize for Bob.

And especially this has nothing to do with whether something is a "high res" recording. A 24/96 recording can still be poorly mastered, with extremely high peak clipping (just too darn loud), but being 96/24, it's still a "high res" recording, by definition. High res is simply anything above 44.1/16, it has nothing to do with how well or poorly mastered it was.

'hi rez' DVD-A? Sometimes.Guys, I don't understand what you're getting at. The subject was "Hi Rez". Nothing in this thread has anything to do with resolution, only dynamic range compression.Yeah. I agree. The thread title misleading. Compressed or not, the examples presented as compressed DVD-As are still "hirez".

I DO think the dynamic range compression sounds better in hirez. :D

clipping the peaks, if that's what you're talking about -- but that has nothing to do with resolution. Resolution is how many bits you're using for each sample.No!

I'm referring to "average volume" or sound density. Histograms like those posted by krabapple that appear to LIVE at the 0dBFS level should never happen. In fact the top 10dB of headroom should rarley be used and the upper most 5dB.. probably never for most productions! Many pros in the industry don't comprehend relative volume or just how powerful a tool dynamic range compression can be if used correctly.

I really, really hate "pulling rank", and I don't want to offend you, but you're spouting words you don't even understand yourself, obviously. Stop it; you're just confusing people.Oh please! hi rez means high sample rates and (robust) increased bit depth! Who knew?

Pot kettle...kettle pot

let's not get into a pi$$img match here - I tend to agree within the confines of digital audio discussion high-resolution would be recordings above 16b/44.1kHz - purely because of the redbook standard (I mean, if the standard was 8b/22khz, 16/44 would be hi-rez)

this definition needs to be established -at least within the confines of this forum area - so as to not confuse matters; otherwise you'd be talking at cross purposes, because there's also a wider ranged discussion where resolution in audio would mean (whatever Stereophile suggests in their glossary)

Its true that a highly compressed recording may not be highly resolving but it could be hi-rez in this case if its above 16/44.

But none of that has anything to do with resolution. 16-bit, 24-bit, and a zillion-bit recordings can still be mastered too loud, clipping the peaks, if that's what you're talking about -- but that has nothing to do with resolution. Resolution is how many bits you're using for each sample.


The format is high rez. The mastering is rather not (even though at was done in a >16 bit domain). There's nothing audible on some of these DVDA stereo masters that could not have been fully rendered on 16-bit CD.


Are you talking about clipping peaks when mastering too loudly? I, too, hate that, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with resolution, it's simply dynamic range clipping. Bob Katz would be the first to agree with me. But again, it has nothing to do with resolution. Please keep the terminology accurate; I apologize for Bob.


But resolution is, of course, intimately related to dynamic range. I don';t think Katz would disagree.

And especially this has nothing to do with whether something is a "high res" recording. A 24/96 recording can still be poorly mastered, with extremely high peak clipping (just too darn loud), but being 96/24, it's still a "high res" recording, by definition. High res is simply anything above 44.1/16, it has nothing to do with how well or poorly mastered it was.


Yes, the 'potential' is there. The delivery format *could* present 'hi rez' audio. But it's far from exploited. When the dynamic range is so limited , it's not 'hi rez' audio. It's 'hi rez' packaging. It's like putting cubic zirconium in a Tiffany box. It doesn't make it diamond. It's like a black and white movie presented on a color TV. SO WHAT? That doesn't make it 'color' video. (Actually, it's like taking a color movie, 'downcoloring' it to black and white, THEN showing it on a color TV. Idiotic, but that's the music industry)

This leaves aside, of course, the issue of the audibility of hi rez' consumer audio in the first place. Does your home theater make it possible to audibly exploit >96dB of dynamic range? If so, are the recordings exploiting that range?

Krabapple,

Do you have the "un-released", non-Brian May mixed/mastered version of the DVD-A of A Night At The Opera? I wonder if it would show different results from the officially-released version that you used? (I assume you used the Brian May mixed version of ANATO)

BTW, for those who haven't heard it (or know the story), the non-Brian May version of ANATO DVD-Audio is truly retched in its 6-track mix... And on "Bohemian Rhapsody", guitars are even missing in certain parts! When the album was originally remixed/mastered for DVD-A by DTS Entertainment, Brian May wasn't involved at all - DTS had the resulting DVD-A pressed, sent to reviewers and ready to ship to stores when Brian May finally heard the disc and said "NO WAY!" - DTS put the release on "hold" while Brian supervised a proper remix - DTS claimed the differences between the two versions were "minor", but that is a vast understatement - besides the actual surround mix differences, which are numerous and obvious, the non-Brian May DVD-A has such heavy NR applied you can hear the hiss duck on and off as voices and instruments come and go. It's just awful.



The original mixer was Elliot Scheiner, and was produced by long time Queen producer Roy Thomas Baker, who also produced the original album back in '75 with the band. DTS did the distribution,and DVD-A production and the DTS encoding as well, but not the actual mix. Scheiner's version was never released to the public, only some promotional copies survived, which were given out on CES and such trade shows. May's mix still screws up his own guitar intro on "Death on two legs". Pity.

Thanks for your useful info penteosurround.

Of course it has nothing to do with resolution. I loosely understood in this case that we were more talking about overal "quality" rather than the strict definition of high resolution, since they advertise it as amazing "quality", clarity, DYNAMIC RANGE, etc. Absense of bad DRC should be something that proudly stands next "high-resolution" on a DVD-A disc, just like other things like good mastering. So I interpreted the OP's title as more like "why would thy have the nerve to call it high resolution if they're overly compressing the dynamic range?"

And e.g. when I was comparing it to encoding compression, I meant that some quality, (in terms of what's in the original mix, and what could sound "better" in the music) is lost and you can't get it back unless you go back to the source. I know, bad analogy, but there is a parallel here regarding how "something" in the original mix was lost. And surely we were not even thinking about pre-final-mix dynamic compression, but what's done at the end. It's when it looks almost completely flat, that it's obvious what's been done to it. truncated for release.
+ you didn't acknowledged the loudness war. That is something of note, and really, what we (should be) meaning here.

The original mixer was Elliot Scheiner, and was produced by long time Queen producer Roy Thomas Baker, who also produced the original album back in '75 with the band. DTS did the distribution,and DVD-A production and the DTS encoding as well, but not the actual mix. Scheiner's version was never released to the public, only some promotional copies survived, which were given out on CES and such trade shows. May's mix still screws up his own guitar intro on "Death on two legs". Pity.

Which part of Death On Two Legs? I honestly don't know the album (other than the hits) that well in 2-channel sound. I think Freddy Mercury would have been THRILLED with the DVD-A's though - I just wish Queen had released some Quadraphonic stuff back in the day.

I can't believe Scheiner thought the incredibly aggressive noise reduction he applied to the initial mix of the DVD-A was acceptable and listenable.

Some copies of the original DVD-A did make it to the retail chain - I saw them at Best Buy down in North Kansas City (Gladstone) one time when the DVD-A was first released - they were mixed in with the Brian May version! Stereo Review did a GREAT review comparing the two versions to each other and the original stereo mix - like a dummy I lost my copy of it and Stereo Review has nothing of the review available on their website - which I find odd since everything else is! If anyone reading this has that issue of SR, would you please scan the review and email it to me???

For those who are interested in more info on the surround mix of ANATO and The Game, Brian May has extensive notes available on his website - the notes are really fascinating, although I absolutely disagree with his statements about the center channel.

Thanks for your useful info penteosurround.

Of course it has nothing to do with resolution. I loosely understood in this case that we were more talking about overal "quality" rather than the strict definition of high resolution, since they advertise it as amazing "quality", clarity, DYNAMIC RANGE, etc. Absense of bad DRC should be something that proudly stands next "high-resolution" on a DVD-A disc, just like other things like good mastering. So I interpreted the OP's title as more like "why would thy have the nerve to call it high resolution if they're overly compressing the dynamic range?"

And e.g. when I was comparing it to encoding compression, I meant that some quality, (in terms of what's in the original mix, and what could sound "better" in the music) is lost and you can't get it back unless you go back to the source. I know, bad analogy, but there is a parallel here regarding how "something" in the original mix was lost. And surely we were not even thinking about pre-final-mix dynamic compression, but what's done at the end. It's when it looks almost completely flat, that it's obvious what's been done to it. truncated for release.
+ you didn't acknowledged the loudness war. That is something of note, and really, what we (should be) meaning here.

It's so sad that the mass market concept of "high fidelity" has changed so drastically - I mean, back in the day, Half-Speed Mastered or dbx-II encoded LP's were sold and marketed on the basis of absolutely NO unnecessary compression or limiting being applied! dbx-II encoded LP"s could present a 100db dynamic range and the albums released took advantage of that (I'm not saying there were dbx LP's released with an actual 100db of dynamic range) - even pop and rock recordings released with dbx-II NR, like Heart-Dreamboat Annie have un-restrained dynamics and sound simply incredible - in fact, I like that particular dbx LP better than even the DCC-label's 24k Gold, 24-bit mastered CD release - I think it sounds MUCH better than the Gold CD edition, not due to anything 'inherent' with digital or the LP format, but because the master tapes where physically 'newer' back then, when the dbx LP was produced, and didn't have any of the degradation with time that those creating the CD had to contend with. It's much the same for the dbx LP's of Diana Ross - Diana and Kenny Rogers Greatest Hits.

T
+ you didn't acknowledged the loudness war. That is something of note, and really, what we (should be) meaning here.


It's absurd enough for dynamic range of an old analog recording to be purposely compromised on CD (one of whose initial 'selling points' was...the potential for presenting the full dynamic range of such recordings, for the first time on a popular home audio format).

For the same thing to happen on DVD-A, advertised as the next step beyond CD, offering mo' better sound (as well as multichannel), is almost insulting. And it it certainly misleading to tout the 'high resolution' or 'advanced resolution' aspect of the format as an *audible* selling point of some of these releases. That'd be akin to touting a mono LP as stereo, just because LPs are capable of stereo.

It's also funny to read reviewers -- professional and amateur -- ooh and ah over the sound of some of these remasters, almost invariably claiming that the 'more detailed' or 'more natural' sound they hear has to do with the
'hi rez'-ness. But given what we can know now, are they really hearing 'more bits', are they hearing 'better source' -- or are they hearing 'less dynamic range'? The role of expectation bias in reviews of 'high rez' discs, as with any remaster, should never be discounted.

It's absurd enough for dynamic range of an old analog recording to be purposely compromised on CD (one of whose initial 'selling points' was...the potential for presenting the full dynamic range of such recordings, for the first time on a popular home audio format).

For the same thing to happen on DVD-A, advertised as the next step beyond CD, offering mo' better sound (as well as multichannel), is almost insulting.

'Hi rez' has been a shuck in so many ways.

It's not "almost insulting", it is totally insulting. It says: "you're such an idiot, you'll think this DVD-A is better than the others because it is louder."

I really, really want to go slap up-side the head the record producers/mastering labs that allow such abominations to be released.

It's why I can't listen to the last few Rush albums. I like the music, but the presentation is just so darned muddy.

grrrr....

shinksma

There’s no gray area here at all period! In fact your thread title is spot on! A subject btw that I'm quite passionate about.

I know Bob Katz personally and he gave a dissertation on this very subject matter at the college http://www.scad.edu/ where I'm employed.

For PenteoSurround to misrepresent Bob’s expertise on resolution, dynamic range, sound density is quite telling. I don’t care what your resume says or how many Emmy awards you have..its your understanding thats lacking!

I didn't in any way disagree -- I'm a strong advocate of complaining when the dynamic range is squashed as flat as a burrito under an 18-wheeler. I was simply perplexed when I opened the thread, expecting to see someone complaining about 44.1/16 DVD-A (a format we use all the time to evaluate 5.1 mixes) which isn't high-rez at all, it's just 44.1/16 DVD-A. Instead, it was about dynamic range compression. It was a mis-composed subject line. I was confused as to what everyone was talking about. If you re-read my posts, I was asking what everyone was talking about. We all agree, then, that dynamic range compression and resolution are two different things...

Also, tbrunet, chill out. We're here to have fun, not to argue...

..But resolution is, of course, intimately related to dynamic range. I don't think Katz would disagree.Bob is probably the most vocal individual I know regarding the correlation between the two.

Bob is probably the most vocal individual I know regarding the correlation between the two.

While that may be, it tends to confuse people, because novices to audio engineering can start using terminology that doesn't help them to understand the basic concepts.

Dynamic range compression= using a device or a computer program to make loud sounds not so loud and quiet sounds not so quiet, usually used to avoid distorted peaks in recording, or to make the overall program material louder in a TV commercial or pop record for broadcast.

Resolution= the number of bits used to enumerate a sample in a specific time period, for example the current temperature this second can be expressed as 72.5 degrees Fahrenheit, or 72.47754537 degrees Fahrenheit. In audio, the current sample could represent 1.25 volts (for 1/48000th of a second) or 1.2543745 volts for 1/48000th of a second.

Hi Resolution= usually used to denote the allocation of a more than 2 byte memory space (16 bits) for sample value storage, using either 3 bytes (24 bits), or 4 bytes (32 bits), often combined with the act of taking of samples more than 44,100 times per second, per channel, often 48,000 times per second, 88,200 times per second, or 96,000 times per second, per channel.

For simple stereo, this requires handling a stream of 4,608,000 bits per second in 24/96, instead of standard res (CD's) stream of 1,411,200 bits per second, or 3.26 times the data. That's the high rez definition.

i.e. I went to the pool and took a water temperature sample. I can take it in a small 6.5536 ounce jar (16 bits) or a big 42949.67295 ounce sample, which would take six 55-gallon drums to hold (24 bits). I can also take it 44 (44.1) times per day (once every 32 minutes), or 96 times per day (once every 15 minutes). It takes a lot more room to store all those 55 gallon drums coming out every 15 minutes than it does those little jars coming out every half hour.

Compression would involve putting a heater in the pool to make it not get so cool, ever.

They have nothing to do with each other, so you shoudn't mis-use the term "resolution". Katz shouldn't either.

Theres is either a direct correlation or not! You seem unable to grasp the concept and continue to speak of clipping program peaks and now allude to defining compressor or limiter actions. My issue with you is this statement:

"..but you're spouting words you don't even understand yourself, obviously"

IMO it’s now obvious; you have a limited understanding dynamic range and "sound density" as it relates to resolution. In fact compression not only reduces dynamic range.. alone it contributes harmonic distortion products. Compression used competently is NOT limiting resolution in well mastered material, but does indeed limit it through ignorance!

Theres is either a direct correlation or not!

There is not.

Dynamic range compression has nothing to do with resolution, and confusing the terms should be avoided at all cost, to avoid confusing novices to the industry, and to keep my brain from blowing green smoke.

I'm may be starting to understand what you're saying: You actually think that having higher resolution allows for a larger dynamic range??? It doesn't. (at least not in the capabilities of sound as we know it)... This is a common misconception. 24 bit (high rez) recordings have exactly the same dynamic range as 16 bit. They only have a noise floor that is at -144db vs. a noise floor at -96db. They have exactly the same audible dynamic range...

Dynamic range compression in a 24 bit recording would be exactly the same as in a 16 bit recording, resulting in exactly the same values per sample time.

http://www.iet.ntnu.no/~ivarlo/files/School/Other/what_happened_to_dynamics.pdf

What good is a 24 bit 96-kHz digital audio system if the programs we create only have a 1 bit dynamic range?
Bob Katz, Digital Domain Studio

“So what does this do with the music? Obviously, it adds distortion products, since it is symetrical odd harmonic ones. Although a soft-limiter has a somewhat gentler distortion characteristic than pure clipping, significant amounts of harmonics are produced. Figure 2 shows a pure sinewave run through a limiter with -15dB threshold and 4:1 compression in the sound editor Audacity. As can be seen, the harmonic content is gross.”

http://www.iet.ntnu.no/~ivarlo/files/School/Other/what_happened_to_dynamics.pdf

What good is a 24 bit 96-kHz digital audio system if the programs we create only have a 1 bit dynamic range?
Bob Katz, Digital Domain Studio

I agree. But that has nothing to do with resolution. You keep championing fighting the squashing of dynamic range, which has nothing to do with resolution.

Every sound that you hear takes place in the active 16 bits (actually more like 12 bits) of audio. The other 4 (if 16 bit) or 12 (if 24 bit) are random noise. Unless you're compressing some audio levels in the inaudible (-96db) range (which don't really count as audio since you can't really hear them) then 16 bits of resolution are all you need, increasing it to "hi-rez" would make no difference.
I consult with audio engineers all the time. This thread caused me to have this very discussion with Tom Scott yesterday for nearly 45 minutes, talking about how resolution gets "mis-interpreted" by most people -- even the highest level audio engineers. All having "high-rez" means is that you have a noise floor that is (for 24 bits) 48db below 96db; in other words, 48 decibels of silence below 96 decibels of silence. 16 bits takes you all the way down to -96, how far below that level of silence you want to go is up to you...

In order for 24 bits to have any real effect on audio quality, you would have to have a non-linear quantization method. That's well and good, and has been done, but it's not in the 24-bit format that applies to conventional audio recordings.

Besides, it's usually dithered up to -88, regardless of format anyways, filling the first 9-10 bits (of 24, or 4 bits if 16) with random noise. Most people think it sounds "smoother", since it masks the sharp artificial cutoffs that noise reduction algorithms, etc., cause. I've said this so many times: all the most significant bits in a 24-bit sample contain one value: FF FF FF FF, in other words, noise. They have to. It's just a waste of bits that's used to package a format that sounds reallly impressive coming out of the mouth of the sales guy on the showroom floor...

Feel free to do a hex dump of almost any 24-bit recording; you'll see that the most significant bits of every 24-bit sample contain 8-9 bits of random noise. Microphone preamps, at their best, can only deliver about -100db, so recording the best microphone available on the best recorder available -- with absolutely no dynamic range compression -- will still give you at least 8 bits per sample of pure noise, so unless its some kind of synthetic music not involving a microphone, it's really only a 16-bit recording anyway.

Some copies of the original DVD-A did make it to the retail chain - I saw them at Best Buy down in North Kansas City (Gladstone) one time when the DVD-A was first released - they were mixed in with the Brian May version! Stereo Review did a GREAT review comparing the two versions to each other and the original stereo mix - like a dummy I lost my copy of it and Stereo Review has nothing of the review available on their website - which I find odd since everything else is! If anyone reading this has that issue of SR, would you please scan the review and email it to me???

I've read that issue, but like I said their copy came from a CES "handout". It's possible that some did made it to retailers, and many including mine still credited Elliot Scheiner as the mixer, not Brian, but I have the Brian May mix for sure.
Which part of Death On Two Legs? At the begining the first guitar sound is late.

mine still credited Elliot Scheiner as the mixer

I thought he sold car radios. :-)

http://www.recordproduction.com/Elliot-Scheiner.html

PenteoSurround: you may want to go back and edit your post to clear up some "most-significant"/"least-significant" confusion.

Let's just be clear, Penteo dude -- you're asserting that in digital audio, resolution and dynamic range have nothing to do with each other -- am I characterizing your claim correctly? I'd like to run it by Mr. Katz (whom you've so graciously offered to 'apologize for') , Dan Lavry, James Johnston, and a few other relative nonentities in audio (compared to you, of course), and I want to make sure I get it right.

I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that he was arguing that resolution and dynamic range compression do not necessarily have anything to do with each other--you can have high resolution with hideous amounts of DRC, or "low" resolution with almost no DRC. The two are NOT automatically related--the mastering of the recording can be good or bad regardless of the format it's intended for.

Now, we can probably all agree that most of the time, the two do in fact correlate. But correlation does not imply causation, yeah?

I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that he was arguing that resolution and dynamic range compression do not necessarily have anything to do with each other--you can have high resolution with hideous amounts of DRC, or "low" resolution with almost no DRC. The two are NOT automatically related--the mastering of the recording can be good or bad regardless of the format it's intended for.

Now, we can probably all agree that most of the time, the two do in fact correlate. But correlation does not imply causation, yeah?
This is how I understood it as well.

I thought he sold car radios. :-)
http://www.recordproduction.com/Elliot-Scheiner.html
I know him; he's listened to Penteo at some trade shows. He designs car stereo/surround systems -- the ELS for Acura is his initials. :-) He always gets ribbed about that by everyone else -- he's a sweet guy, he used to be Phil Ramone's assistant engineer. Phil's one of my (Penteo's) fans; we've worked together on several projects; I wired his home studio for digital transfers.

I hesitate to speak for anyone else, but it seems to me that he was arguing that resolution and dynamic range compression do not necessarily have anything to do with each other--you can have high resolution with hideous amounts of DRC, or "low" resolution with almost no DRC. The two are NOT automatically related--the mastering of the recording can be good or bad regardless of the format it's intended for.

Now, we can probably all agree that most of the time, the two do in fact correlate. But correlation does not imply causation, yeah?

That's precisely the point I was making. The word "resolution" was being mis-used. Resolution means whether it's 96-bit, 48-bit, 32-bit, 24-bit, 16-bit, 12-bit, or 8-bit; nothing less and nothing more. Every one of those is a valid audio resolution standard. Every one of those from 96 to 12 would be the same and sound the same, of course, at the same sampling rate, when the source recording is analog, in fact the actual numbers (the least significant bits) would be identical; all the other bits are carrying noise, and could be just discarded to save storage space.

Let's take an easy example. Request that a random analog master tape (let's say the B-52s) from 1982 be shipped in from UV&S. Bake it for a bit, and then load it up on a current 2-track machine with low-noise electronics. Plug it directly (Left Out to Left In, Right Out to Right In) into a digital workstation. Properly set up NAB EQ and do your best to set azimuth properly. (It'll probably still be 1-3 samples out, the best you can do. :-), I'll fix it later on the workstation :-)) Transfer the first entire song at 16-bit. Rewind the tape and transfer it again at 96-bit. Each time, you're making an identical copy -- you're making the SAME copy - because all of the bits up to the -65db level contain noise. But that's resolution. Whether the tape had Dynamic Range Compression when someone put it on the shelf back in 1982 is irrelevant. You're just hoping that the guy doing the transfer isn't adding additional compression.

Whether you're using dynamic range compression or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with resolution. But many of the classic records of all time -- especially classic rock -- would sound pretty poor (in fact it would have been impossible to mix) if they had been mixed using no dynamic range compression. It's without a doubt the most commonly used tool in any recording or mix session. This discussion, I hope, is mostly about the additional dynamic range compression that a mastering engineer uses after the mix session, usually just to make a potential hit record sound "louder" to "cut through" on the radio. It would/should never be used on any audiophile recordings, which should only contain the same dynamic range compression that the master left the mix session with. But if the output of the mix session is clipped off to a 10db dynamic range, that was the choice of the artist, the mix engineer and/or the producer.

PenteoSurround: you may want to go back and edit your post to clear up some "most-significant"/"least-significant" confusion.

Um.... the most significant bits are usually carrying just noise. It's the least significant that actually carry the sound. In a 16-bit recording (from an analog source with no noise reduction) the four most significant bits are noise, meaning that it's really about a 12-bit recording. (That still gets you a -72db noise floor, far above analog's typical -65 or so). If you sample it with 24 bits, then 12 of every 24 bits are noise -- it's the same, identical 12-bit recording in either 16 or 24 bits. Whether it's had any dynamic range compression or not is irrelevant.

On a digital source, the noise floor usually gets dithered up to about -88, as I said earlier, just to a) smooth out the noise floor, b) help work with processing algorithms that freak out when they see all zeros and grind to a crawl, and c) give a base noise floor when doing sample rate reduction if the material is coming from a higher-bit-rate source.

Let's just be clear, Penteo dude -- you're asserting that in digital audio, resolution and dynamic range have nothing to do with each other -- am I characterizing your claim correctly? I'd like to run it by Mr. Katz (whom you've so graciously offered to 'apologize for') , Dan Lavry, James Johnston, and a few other relative nonentities in audio (compared to you, of course), and I want to make sure I get it right.

I'm not disagreeing with Bob Katz -- but he, and everyone else -- should never use the term "resolution" when talking about dynamic range. It's confusing to novices, obviously, from the discussion we're having to have here.

Going back to the very subject line: DVD-A isn't necessarily hi-rez, because 44.1/16 is a valid DVD-A resolution; it doesn't even require MLP to do in 5.1. But it would not be considered "hi-rez" by the typical standards we use now, so no, DVD-A isn't necessarily Hi-Rez.

None of this has to do with the dynamic range that the mixer and mastering engineer have let sneak through.

That's precisely the point I was making. The word "resolution" was being mis-used. Resolution means whether it's 96-bit, 48-bit, 32-bit, 24-bit, 16-bit, 12-bit, or 8-bit; nothing less and nothing more. Every one of those is a valid audio resolution standard. Every one of those from 96 to 12 would be the same and sound the same, of course, at the same sampling rate, when the source recording is analog, in fact the actual numbers (the least significant bits) would be identical; all the other bits are carrying noise, and could be just discarded to save storage space.

Let's take an easy example. Request that a random analog master tape (let's say the B-52s) from 1982 be shipped in from UV&S. Bake it for a bit, and then load it up on a current 2-track machine with low-noise electronics. Plug it directly (Left Out to Left In, Right Out to Right In) into a digital workstation. Properly set up NAB EQ and do your best to set azimuth properly. (It'll probably still be 1-3 samples out, the best you can do. :-), I'll fix it later on the workstation :-)) Transfer the first entire song at 16-bit. Rewind the tape and transfer it again at 96-bit. Each time, you're making an identical copy -- you're making the SAME copy - because all of the bits up to the -65db level contain noise. But that's resolution. Whether the tape had Dynamic Range Compression when someone put it on the shelf back in 1982 is irrelevant. You're just hoping that the guy doing the transfer isn't adding additional compression.

Whether you're using dynamic range compression or not is irrelevant and has nothing to do with resolution. But many of the classic records of all time -- especially classic rock -- would sound pretty poor (in fact it would have been impossible to mix) if they had been mixed using no dynamic range compression. It's without a doubt the most commonly used tool in any recording or mix session. This discussion, I hope, is mostly about the additional dynamic range compression that a mastering engineer uses after the mix session, usually just to make a potential hit record sound "louder" to "cut through" on the radio. It would/should never be used on any audiophile recordings, which should only contain the same dynamic range compression that the master left the mix session with. But if the output of the mix session is clipped off to a 10db dynamic range, that was the choice of the artist, the mix engineer and/or the producer.


That was a remarkable display of talking around the point.

No one here is complaining about DR compression per se, but rather specifically the abuse of the digital version of it, which has been increasing since at least the early 90's. Most of the CDs I own that were first released in the 80s and have gone through a few remasters since, have shown a decrease in dynamic range with each new version. And yes, most of us know WHY it's been done.

I'm not confusing it with data compression (which you mentioned in another post), and I don't think other are either.

No one is saying that resolution 'is' dynamic range -- that they are the same thing. But certainly the bit depth sets the 'available' dynamic range, for PCM audio. And the bit depth also determines the 'resolution'.

No one is saying that an AD transfer of a classic rock analog tape is necessarily going to sound better by virtue of being transferred at 24 vs 16 (though it certainly could sound better if all the digital mastering moves following transfer were done in a high-bit domain, rather than 16 bit). Live digital recording at 24 bit does also have its virtues, as well.

I'm CERTAINLY NOT saying that DVD-A intrinsically 'sounds better' than CD,as a delivery format, either by virtue of being 'hi rez' (24 bit) or having a higher sample rate. I've tilted against THAT particular windmill many times on audio forums. There's no substantial proof (from replicated DBTs) that either of the 'hi rez' delivery formats actually offer intrinsically better sound than Redbook CD. Certainly the industry never released any studies to that effect...which was always rather telling, given how the formats were touted; one would think it would be easy to set up a slam-dunk demonstration. My personal 'bet' is the the best CD audio cannot be distinguished from stereo DVDA or SACD in a properly controlled comparison even with 'high end' equipment -- and this was borne out recently, at least for DSD, by a series of blind tests documented in a paper in a recent issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9, Sept 2007) by E. Brad Meyer and David R. Moran

Indeed THAT is the point of this thread -- the degree to which 'high resolution' formats are a bill of goods. The industry touted DVDA and SACD (and today, Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio) as *audible* advances over CD as a delivery format --not just because of their multichannel capability, but because they 'promised' superior sound. A major part of that touting was the trumpeting of phrases like 'Advanced Resolution' or 'high resolution' (for 1-bit DSD and 24-bit PCM), as if that insured 'better sound'. Yet not only are they likely not audibly better than CD (because increasing MEASURABLE resolution and frequency range do not necessarily translate to audible improvement, and CD was already at or near the audible limit of both) but worse, in some cases , as I've shown, they are likley not audibly better than a 'bad' CD -- that is, CD with decidedly non-audiophile mastering.

Are we clear now? I could have called this thread 'DVD-A means 'audiophile' sound? Sometimes." But the industry itself hammered on the 'high resolution' aspect of DVD-A, and the phrase 'hi rez' to a great many self-professed audiophiles means 'sounds better than CD, of course' (usually followed by 'if you can't hear it, your gear must not be good enough'). This is exactly the sort of assumption record companies wanted the consumer to make when they advertised the 'high resolution' of the sanctioned post-CD formats.

Notice that the Cobham and Young traces only send out very thin 'feelers' to these limits, with significant black space around them, with most of the solid reen well below them; this is good old-fashioned mastering to preserve dynamic range (that's what 'resolution' translates to in digital world).That is precisely the concept (sound density) Penteo is unable to grasp. i.e. how the following ingredients DIRECTLY correlate with resolution. (btw Penteo, I'm referring to "relative volume, dynamic range and crest factor" and I said nothing regarding simply transferring legacy analog tapes:)).

Crest Factor: ratio between peak and average program level, or the ratio of instantaneous highest peak an average level
Compression: “dynamic range eduction”.
Average level – Area under the rough waveform curve, ignoring peaks.

Yet another thread that starts out with so much promise, just to turn into 3 pages of termonology pissing. :(

You might consider offering some content of your own then. Or at least suggesting what content you'd LIKE to see.

Yet another thread that starts out with so much promise, just to turn into 3 pages of termonology pissing. :(No, not here. Never. :rolleyes:

I respectfully disagree that the thread turned into a pissing match. It did start with promise, and I learned some things worth knowing from krabapple's graphs. I learned a lot more when a highly experienced audio engineer spoke up. PenteoSurround patiently explained the nomenclature of his profession and also showed why accurate definitions matter (don't they always?). This is a good thing.

You might consider offering some content of your own then. Or at least suggesting what content you'd LIKE to see.

I've been meaning to post my thoughts on a particular aspect, so here I go:

Forget for a while that the signal is being processed digitally - pretend that we're dealing with some magic analog format like tape, but without hiss, etc, and an essentially undefined noise floor.

But also assume that said analog format has some kind of maximum signal strength inherent in the design (player limited, industry convention to limit max signal to 1VDC, whatever).

The abuse of compression seem in the first post, and also experienced with Rush's Vapor Trails, would likely still exist, due to the record company's desire to have the album sound as "loud" as possible, assuming stupid listeners and radio stations do not adjust volume between albums/songs and therefore the loudest album/song is the best.

This kind of abuse was "excused" with CD because of the so-called limitation of 16 bits of depth, but really that doesn't hold much water: a well mastered digital encode of 16 bit depth should have room for all the required dynamics (96 dB worth). I'm not sure what the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exceed 96dB. Whether 16 bits at 44.1 kHz reproduces the sound as warmly as vinyl is not the point: the point is that 16 bits is more than enough to represent the required dynamics. Compression-abuse to "provide enhanced dynamics" is a crock.

So to see overly-compressed DVD-A encodes means the record company just re-sampled the overly compressed master used for a botched CD release, which didn't need to be over-compressed in the first place.

See the wikipedia entry here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound) for some interesting reading on analog vs digital - it might make you go "hmmm".

IMHO, YMMV,

shinksma

I'm not sure what the maximum dynamic range of vinyl is, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't exceed 96dB.

iirc it is 78db, and hirez PCM 114db

So to see overly-compressed DVD-A encodes means the record company just re-sampled the overly compressed master used for a botched CD release, which didn't need to be over-compressed in the first place.

Actually, some of these DVDA stereo masters have no equivalent counterpart in CD -- in other words, the existing CD versions are either less, or more, compressed than the DVD-A version. So it's not necessarily just a case of transcoding a CD master.

E.g.,

- the current Queen 'Night at the Opera' CD is less compressed than the Queen DVDA stereo version

- the current Yes 'Fragile' CD is signficantly MORE compressed than the DVDA. If you have the current remaster of Fragile on the Rhino label, rip 'Roundabout' and take a look at it in a waveform viewer. It's incredible, and not in a good way.

- the CD side of the Talking Heads 'Speaking in Tongues' Dualdisc is a little bit more compressed than the DVD-A -- probably not audibly.

iirc it is 78db, and hirez PCM 114db

Well with vinyl, it's dependent on the formulation. Virgin Keysor Century, at it's best, was probably about -65-70 (with RIAA EQ) (it's not like there's a specific "number", there are way too many variables -- but of course even the slightest imperfection will give you a "tick", but the bulk of the noise floor on vinyl is from the rumble of the playback mechanism itself, and the smoothness of the disc surface -- usually dependent on whether or not an adhesive had been used on the back of the stamper.

HiResPCM (I'm assuming you meant 24-bit) is actually -144.

thanks for the correction!

I did mean 24b PCM - assuming we all agree 16b or 20b PCM is not hirez ;)

No, not here. Never. :rolleyes:
ROFL

thanks for the correction!

I did mean 24b PCM - assuming we all agree 16b or 20b PCM is not hirez ;)

Both are 'hi rez' compared to vinyl. That was one of the selling points of CD way back when, remember? 'For the first time, listeners at home can experience the full dynamic range of the master recording!' Funny how that all worked out.

now you are going to get people arguing there's no such thing as "resolution" when it comes to analog and any discussion of it is irrelevant :D

and, just because people muck up the delivery it doesn't mean the medium is flawed ;)

Babylon Sisters, Gaucho (Steely Dan). 96/24 DVDA mastered by Bob Ludwig

http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/BabylonSisters_DVDAst.PNG

Overture, Tommy (The Who) 96/24 DVDA mastered by Jon Astley
http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/Overture_DVDAst.PNG

can you zoom into that bit between 3:00 and 3:40, lets see it in higher resolution (sic)

and before anyone starts again, this is high resolution 24b / 96kHz (or 48khz) we are looking at, right? not a 16/44 stereo bit

Babylon Sisters, Gaucho (Steely Dan). 96/24 DVDA mastered by Bob Ludwig

Well, Bob is the best. He has to be to get people to come all the way up to Portland, Maine; when I went up there to wire it for the network, I almost froze to death (it was -18F in 1994). But obviously, this is an effort to make a very "loud" performance, using not only compression but dynamic clipping (simply chopping off peaks past a certain point). That's the only way you can get them that flat.

You must remember, the client (Steely Dan/et. al) are old school; the same would have been done to all of their music in the past. Listening to the tracks completely uncompressed would probably sound "weakish". This ain't classical. This is exactly what Bob gets paid the big bucks for.

can you zoom into that bit between 3:00 and 3:40, lets see it in higher resolution (sic)

and before anyone starts again, this is high resolution 24b / 96kHz (or 48khz) we are looking at, right? not a 16/44 stereo bit


96/24 = 96kHz SR, 24-bit resolution, of the delivery format.

Consider four broad categories of digital mastering re: dynamic range, from analog sources:

1) no substantial futzing with the full DR of the source, so peak levels vary a lot across the length of the track even at low magnification, with only one or a few actually reaching the highest track peak value. (e.g. the Billy Cobham , Neil Young and Deep Purple tracks). I would call THIS 'old school'.

2) dynamic range reduced, much less apparent peak level variance (i.e., a great many more peaks samples at or near the highest value, at low magnification), but still nothing clipping. The Talking Heads track is an example. Some of these tracks can even LOOK like they're clipping, in a low magnification view, but zoom in shows the 'clipping' is really a cluster of single peaks at or near the track maximum, not 'flattops'. Again, 'apparent' clipping at low magnification does NOT necessarily mean actual clipping. Further analysis is often required.

3) like #2, but with actual clipping -- 'flat topped' peaks. But there's only a few of them, or the ones that are there don;t last more than a few samples, so they're not likely to make as bad an audible impression.

4) like #2, but clipping is frequent, and often 10 or more samples in length when it does occur, and thus potentially much more audible than the others

Gaucho belongs to #3, a sort of 'walking the fine line' mastering -- Ludwig's a pro's pro, so this is consummately done for what it's trying to do, but why was it felt necessary to do at all for an 'audiophile' release?

Two increasing magnifications of a few seconds around 3.04 min. That plateau in the right channel is ~24 samples wide, btw.

http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/BabylonSisters_mag1.PNG

http://www.m-ideas.com/sullivan/audition/DVDA/BabylonSisters_mag2.PNG


IMO, the client being 'old school' - and famously anal about the sound of their releases -- would lead one to think that Steely Dan would NOT go in for loudness war mastering. But they seem to have changed with the times...the mastering of 'Two Against Nature' and 'Everthing Must Go' is even more 'market ready'.

thanks for the expansions - both imagery and explanation :)

this is high resolution 24b / 96kHz (or 48khz) we are looking at, right? not a 16/44 stereo bit

I'm not starting -- but understand this: Look at the waveforrms shots above. Specifically
The db value scale (the vertical axis) shows 3 values:
-3
-6
-12
then jumps to "infinite"

Every sound that you're seeing here -- at least clearly -- is above about -30db. So everything you're seeing here is taking place in the least significant 7 or so bits -- that is, of the 24 bits that this recording was mastered at, 17 bits of every 24-bit sample are representing silence and random noise. Imagine 17 bits being used for the detail in the "infinite" line, and the remaining 7 spreading out to the top and bottom. That's resolution.

Since 16 bit will take you down to -96, obviously what you're looking at would look -- and in fact would be identical -- in either 16 or 24 bit resolution. 24-bit would take you past -96 (silence) down to 48db even quieter -- that is, down to -144.

None of these resolution levels has anything to do with the spectacular amount of peak clipping that has been done to this recording, hence my earlier comments about not confusing resolution with dynamic range comression or clipping.

What I might suggest, krabapple, is zoom in so that -96 is out near the edge, and see what is contained between -96 and -144; that would be the material that is different between 16-bit and 24 bit. (PS: It'll probably just be dithered noise. If you specifically zoom in on the fade out at the end of the song, you can see if the fade was done pre-dither or post-dither.) If you see where the noise floor actually lives, you can see how many bits are actually being used for audio vs. how many for random noise.

IMO, the client being 'old school' - and famously anal about the sound of their releases -- would lead one to think that Steely Dan would NOT go in for loudness war mastering. But they seem to have changed with the times...the mastering of 'Two Against Nature' and 'Everthing Must Go' is even more 'market ready'.

In mastering something as high-profile as this, the ultimate trust is put into Bob Ludwig and his spectacular track record, of having mastered more moneymakers than anyone else in history. See http://www.gatewaymastering.com/. A lot of clients don't even bother flying up, they just send the master up to Maine, and what comes out, comes out. They get a ref back for listening, but I can't imagine anyone complaining. Besides, flying into Portland, Maine can be scary. :-)

What I might suggest, krabapple, is zoom in so that -96 is out near the edge, and see what is contained between -96 and -144; that would be the material that is different between 16-bit and 24 bit. (PS: It'll probably just be dithered noise. If you specifically zoom in on the fade out at the end of the song, you can see if the fade was done pre-dither or post-dither.) If you see where the noise floor actually lives, you can see how many bits are actually being used for audio vs. how many for random noise.


Good idea. I'll get to this later. Then we can talk about how many home listening environments exist where a noise floor near -144 versus -96 dB, would make a difference :p

Btw, on the basis of Babylon Sisters, I wouldn't say the Gaucho DVDA stereo mastering has a 'spectacular amount of peak clipping' by any means...in the CD realm I've seen much, much more aggressive examples. As tracks with clipping go, this is somewhat conservative. The overall number of clipped peaks is low (though some are wide, like the one I showed). I'll run an analysis later that can generate the actual number of 'flat top' samples in the track.

Btw, I'm going to get my hands on the SACD version and see how THAT was mastered by comparison...DSD spec discourages clipping.

of the 24 bits that this recording was mastered at, 17 bits of every 24-bit sample are representing silence and random noise. Imagine 17 bits being used for the detail in the "infinite" line, and the remaining 7 spreading out to the top and bottom. That's resolution.


I might re-phase this bit as:

of the 24 bits that this recording was mastered at, 17 bits of every 24-bit sample are represented visually identically to silence and random noise in these screencaps. Imagine 17 bits being used for the detail in the "infinite" line, and the remaining 7 spreading out to the top and bottom. That's resolution.

Otherwise it sounds like there actually might be 17 bits of silence or random noise. :eek:

If we actually listened to a 7-bit encode, I hope we'd be able to tell the difference, though. :D

shinksma

huh, I thought Bobby L just threw on some Waves mastering plugz and was done with the deal... Guess those concrete-based speakers are good for sumthin.

For the sake of making sure we're seeing what's on the discs, can you step through the process for capturing the 6ch files please? Especially for SACD, the process, I'd think, would involve taking the analogue outputs from a player and capturing that. For DVD-A you could demux the audio to specific wav streams, and see the "raw" signal, but if you're capturing analgoue output, re-recording back into you DAW, then it's at least possible some of the banging atop the headroom could be a capture issue, not a source issue.

I might re-phase this bit as:



Otherwise it sounds like there actually might be 17 bits of silence or random noise. :eek:

If we actually listened to a 7-bit encode, I hope we'd be able to tell the difference, though. :D

shinksma


No, that's correct. About 12-14 bits is silence or random noise, even on the best recording; all the active audio is taking place in the least significant 12-16 or so bits; that's why the difference between a 16-bit and a 24-bit recording is barely audible; they're both higher than the usual noise floor, and are numerically identical with the exception of the most significant bits, which are just carrying noise, which is usually dithered to about -88, unless the recording was 24-bit digital from the beginning. Basicaly, bits 17-24 are just too darn quiet to hear (they are all below -96).

You can create a faux 24-bit recording from a 16-bit by simply shifting all the bits right 8, and then padding all the most significant bits with noise. It really doesn't matter, you can't hear it, and it helps with quantization error. 20-bit storage started in about 1993 for master storage since it can do -120db, and since 20 bits is an awkward size to work with register-wise, the industry settled on the daunting 24 bits, which even the best recording ever made could never approach the capabilities of (it exceeds the capabilities of the analog electronics in the preamps.)

12 bits still gives you an admirable 72db noise floor, exceeding the capabilities of all but the very best analog tape recordings.

And a 7-bit encode would sound just like any other, but would be noisy in the quiet parts. I can post some examples if you like. 7-bits still exceed, for example, the capabilities of FM stereo radio. (because of the subcarrier, FM Stereo can only do about a -50db floor. With an SCA it's more like -35. FM Mono is about 80db.

For the sake of making sure we're seeing what's on the discs, can you step through the process for capturing the 6ch files please?

I would think they're about right; certainly it doesn't look that different than a contemporary CD mastering job.

huh, I thought Bobby L just threw on some Waves mastering plugz and was done with the deal... Guess those concrete-based speakers are good for sumthin.

For the sake of making sure we're seeing what's on the discs, can you step through the process for capturing the 6ch files please? Especially for SACD, the process, I'd think, would involve taking the analogue outputs from a player and capturing that.

For SACD, indeed it would, and I've done SACD captures that way. I haven't shown any SACD waveforms on this thread (yet).

For DVD-A you could demux the audio to specific wav streams, and see the "raw" signal, but if you're capturing analgoue output, re-recording back into you DAW, then it's at least possible some of the banging atop the headroom could be a capture issue, not a source issue.

I do know how to record analog input so as not to 'bang' the signal up against digital max, thanks.

But these aren't captures of analog output, they're rips. The ripping software is called DVDAExplorer (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=61928&hl=).

No, that's correct. About 12-14 bits is silence or random noise, even on the best recording; all the active audio is taking place in the least significant 12-16 or so bits; that's why the difference between a 16-bit and a 24-bit recording is barely audible; they're both higher than the usual noise floor, and are numerically identical with the exception of the most significant bits, which are just carrying noise, which is usually dithered to about -88, unless the recording was 24-bit digital from the beginning. Basicaly, bits 17-24 are just too darn quiet to hear (they are all below -96).


And it's why hearing that 24 vs 16 bit difference, when it can be heard at all, often requires listening to the fades or reverb tails, with the volume turned up to '11'. :D

And it's why hearing that 24 vs 16 bit difference, when it can be heard at all, often requires listening to the fades or reverb tails, with the volume turned up to '11'. :D

Or 12.

I do know how to record analog input so as not to 'bang' the signal up against digital max, thanks.


...I was not implying that you personally did not, just that it was a consideration to take when ripping SACD, one that some may not have thought about.

Bang aside, is there any other explanation possible for the clipping? Ie., could DVDexplorer be introducing artifacts in the demuxing/transcoding to WAV? Do you see the same clipping on the m/c waves? For fun and giggles, I'd like to see all 6 ch of the same track with the offending clips.

I have no doubt that there's lots of badly mastered discs, I'm just a little saddened that ANATO is one of them, I've personally always enjoyed my DVD-A, aparently to my ears' detriment.

Why would the software introduce clipping on rips from some discs,but not others?
Not all of the DVDA stereo wavevforms I've shown, show evidence of major compression and clipping (e.g. Neil Young, Billy Cobham, Deep Purple). Yet they were all ripped by the same software, on the same drive.

I haven't looked at many multichannel waves, because I'm still figuring out how to archive those for streaming. As I showed, the Queen mix appears to be less compressed in multichannel than in stereo. But that's a remix, of course -- a completely new product, not a remaster.

Btw, the software is out there and it's free. Anyone here with a PC and a DVD drive can 'interrogate' their own DVDA collection.

Um.... the most significant bits are usually carrying just noise. It's the least significant that actually carry the sound. In a 16-bit recording (from an analog source with no noise reduction) the four most significant bits are noise, meaning that it's really about a 12-bit recording.

You've got your least/most-significant terminology totally backwards. :eek:

Stop and actually listen to what you're saying. What's the "most-significant" bit? The one with the largest impact! The one that if it changes swings the speaker by 50% of its travel. Not the ones below the threshold of hearing! You can't have noise or silence in the most-significant bits and information in the least-significant bits - you wouldn't hear the information!

In audio encoding, the simplest way to think of it is as binary fractions. Each sample ranges from -1 to 1.

If you've got a 16-bit signal, you've (roughly speaking) got 1 sign bit and 15 bits below the binary point: samples range from -0.111111111111111 to +0.111111111111111.

If you add extra bits, you get extra less-significant bits at the bottom. Those may well contain noise, or nothing, as you say. But that's fine, because they're the least-significant bits. Each new bit gives a finer control as it's 6dB quieter than the bit before. The most significant bits remain the ones closest to the binary point.

Because of your "most/least" reversal, some of your explanations come across as if you're saying that the extra 8 bits are more significant than the existing ones, but don't get used in case they blow the speakers up - a 24-bit sound could be 48dB louder than a 16-bit sound. But I'm sure you don't really believe it's implemented like that!

You've got your least/most-significant terminology totally backwards. :eek:

You know, it's funny. I've been making a living with digital audio for 23 years (analog before that) and rarely do I admit that someone has truly blown my mind.
I have made digital audio fly across the country and around the world, untouched by compression, live, more than anyone else on the planet.
But you're completely right. In my brain, I was thinking about it backwards.

It doesn't invalidate any of the dynamic range vs. resolution arguments. I've never really had to think about it that way before (usually I'm working with the sound of some saturated tape transfer) so in explaining it, I was talking off the top of my head.

I love it when I truly learn something significant. Feel free to "neener neener neener", everyone.

Krabapple--how come that Talking Heads song at the beginning of this thread looks soooo bad, but sounds sooooo good? I listened to it for the first time the other night with a friend of mine who has heard many MCH recordings here at my house. As I was thinking "That's the best one I have heard yet", he turned to me and said "That's the best sounding song you have ever played for me here."

Maybe because the image I showed was of the stereo, not multichannel, DVD-A track?

Krabapple--how come that Talking Heads song at the beginning of this thread looks soooo bad, but sounds sooooo good? I listened to it for the first time the other night with a friend of mine who has heard many MCH recordings here at my house. As I was thinking "That's the best one I have heard yet", he turned to me and said "That's the best sounding song you have ever played for me here."

Probably because this song is when, the Talking Heads became more mainstream,
and less experimental / new wave.
Brian Eno produced the prior 2 albums, Remain in Light and Fear of Music.
He went on to produce U2. I think the Heads went on to judicial court :)

Maybe because the image I showed was of the stereo, not multichannel, DVD-A track?

Ahhhhhhh--that could be it!