MANDO DIAO - "Aelita" (NEW Music in 5.1..!)

Do you have the DR for the 5.1 Mike?

HomerJAU said:

Do you have the DR for the 5.1 Mike?

Click to expand...

I will check & post it tonight... My ears tell me its (hopefully) much better....

CDs v.similarly compressed by the looks of it..

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/71724

fredblue said:

CDs v.similarly compressed by the looks of it..

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/71724

Click to expand...

Yeah - I saw that - Its actually got marginally better DR (on the CD).... :flame

Here's the DR values for the surround:

DR10 - Better....


foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-09-03 17:18:34


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Mando Diao / Aelita
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR10 -0.85 dB -14.92 dB 3:24 1/10-Black Saturday
DR11 -0.51 dB -13.87 dB 4:57 2/10-Rooftop
DR11 -0.20 dB -14.40 dB 5:06 3/10-Money Doesn't Make You A Man
DR11 -0.80 dB -16.36 dB 4:41 4/10-Sweet Wet Dreams
DR11 -0.78 dB -15.99 dB 7:46 5/10-If I Don't Have You
DR11 -0.20 dB -14.24 dB 6:44 6/10-Baby
DR11 -0.35 dB -16.40 dB 4:28 7/10-Lonely Driver
DR9 -0.46 dB -14.18 dB 6:52 8/10-Child
DR10 -0.28 dB -12.45 dB 4:13 9/10-Romeo
DR11 -0.53 dB -14.84 dB 6:17 10/10-Make You Mine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of tracks: 10
Official DR value: DR10


Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 7742 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

Thanks Mike.

I guess 10 is a lot better than the 5 for the stereo mix, but I was hoping for better...

Hopefully mine will get here in next few days. (I was a bit late to the party).

10 or 11 is more than enough for electronic music not to be fatiguing. It would be interesting to see a single track passed through the DR meter because when you do that it'll show the DR values for the individual channels.

OK - Here's the first track:

foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-09-04 06:06:01


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 1/10-Black Saturday
Number of samples: 19568352
Duration: 3:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Channel 5 Channel 6


Peak Value: -1.51 dB --- -1.07 dB --- -0.85 dB --- -29.65 dB --- -2.30 dB --- -2.26 dB
Avg RMS: -12.28 dB --- -11.55 dB --- -16.22 dB --- -37.05 dB --- -16.60 dB --- -17.45 dB
DR channel: 9.71 dB --- 9.40 dB --- 11.27 dB --- 4.93 dB --- 12.25 dB --- 12.45 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Official DR Value: DR10


Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 7712 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

See, to me that looks (mostly) like creative use of compression at the mixing stage, rather than a lot of mastering compression. What I see is the front speakers look like they have the bulk of the rhythm section in them, and it's been compressed, which is a common way to give drums power. That's why the fronts have a DR rating around 9. You can see the other channels 'breathe' pretty independently of the fronts, and have DR ratings between 11 & 12. If all the waveforms looked like identical buzzsaws (the way the stereo ones do) the mix would feel a lot louder/more compressed, but there looks to be a lot of variation. There's a point of diminishing returns with DR as well - more isn't always better. Beyond a certain point instruments start to lose power - part of the sound of electronic music is the impact and consistency of the percussion, and that's achieved through compression. Obviously music that's DR5 is going to be fatiguing to the ear, but by the same token, electronic dance music with DR18 or something is going to sound weird too...this isn't a style of music with subtlety and nuance (or variations in volume) like classical or jazz.

The way the DR meter calculates DR for 5.1 files is to add the DR of all the channels together and then divide by 6. So in that track for example the LFE track, which really has no effect on the perception of loudness, artificially lowers the DR score by a full point. The DR meter is a useful tool generally speaking, but in 5.1 mode the way it calculates things can make it not very representative sometimes. Take the Led Zep 'How The West Was Won' DVD-A. The 5.1 mix gets a DR rating somewhere around 11, but if you look at it by channel, the FL & FR are DR8, and the other channels are between DR12 and DR15. However, 90% of the instrumentation is in the FL & FR, so what you get is a recording that basically sounds like a DR8 but mathematically scores a DR11.

So the moral of the story is don't just draw conclusions from DR numbers, especially in 5.1 mode, use all the tools at your disposal, including waveforms, but most importantly your ears. How does it sound?

Thanks steelydave.

I wondered how the DR for multichannel was calculated. Just a simple averaging. Including the LFE channel actually lowers the average then.

From what I've seen generally the DR is higher for quad/5.1 mixes than the stereo DR for same release on DVDA, BDA and SACD. I'm thinking some of that is due to the 'spreading' of instruments across 4/5 channels instead of squeezing into 2, but maybe the mastering gurus are using less compression based on the target audience (i.e. 4 and 5 'hi-fi' speakers vs. stereo headphones/ear buds - or is it: that we tend to be an older audience that still wants more open/less compressed masters like we had prior to the nineties? - we like what we're more familiar with).

I know DR alone doesn't make or break a great sounding release but IMO (and those of others based on our Hi-Rez Poll, even without knowing the DR scores) higher DR sounds generally better to me and others and is more likely to get high poll scores here.

The 1st track (i.e. song) has the least going on in the rears on the 5.1 mix on this disc (imho).. analysing other songs' individual channel waveforms might yield different results?

Just had my first listen to this. Discrete mix; fidelity seems fine - no complaints. Recommend.

So if I understand correctly, this was mixed for up to 9.1.

Anybody have a 9.1 surround system? ;-)

Here is a nice interview with Darcy Proper and Ronald Prent about mixing and mastering the Blu-Ray "Black Symphony" from Within Temptation.
This is the same team which created the surround of "Aelita":

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun09/articles/wt.htm

D. Proper about mastering:

"The chain in question consisted of "Basically EQ, compressing, limiting and some loudness maximising. For this, the compression is not doing a whole lot. It's long attack times, low ratios, just a level and feel thing, it's not doing a lot of pumping. The thing to watch out for in surround is that while you're still looking for compression to do something desirable to the sound, you have to keep in mind that it's not necessarily all going to work the same way all the way around [the sound field]. You have to watch what you're doing in the front, and make sure that what's happening in the back then doesn't cause the image to teeter‑totter or something strange to happen.

The nice thing with surround, with regard to compression, is that you generally don't need so much of it, because everything has its own space to breathe. You don't have to squash it all down into two speakers, so you can have all kinds of energy remaining. All you're looking for out of compression is to create a sort of tight and stable soundfield. You're not necessarily bound to try to control the dynamics the same way you do when you're working in stereo, because you're not carrying so much information in each channel. It's part of what makes surround more exciting — not just that you have the sound all around you but that you can leave a bit more life in all of your sound sources.”

matz79 said:

Here is a nice interview with Darcy Proper and Ronald Prent about mixing and mastering the Blu-Ray "Black Symphony" from Within Temptation.
This is the same team which created the surround of "Aelita":

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun09/articles/wt.htm

D. Proper about mastering:

"The chain in question consisted of "Basically EQ, compressing, limiting and some loudness maximising. For this, the compression is not doing a whole lot. It's long attack times, low ratios, just a level and feel thing, it's not doing a lot of pumping. The thing to watch out for in surround is that while you're still looking for compression to do something desirable to the sound, you have to keep in mind that it's not necessarily all going to work the same way all the way around [the sound field]. You have to watch what you're doing in the front, and make sure that what's happening in the back then doesn't cause the image to teeter‑totter or something strange to happen.

The nice thing with surround, with regard to compression, is that you generally don't need so much of it, because everything has its own space to breathe. You don't have to squash it all down into two speakers, so you can have all kinds of energy remaining. All you're looking for out of compression is to create a sort of tight and stable soundfield. You're not necessarily bound to try to control the dynamics the same way you do when you're working in stereo, because you're not carrying so much information in each channel. It's part of what makes surround more exciting — not just that you have the sound all around you but that you can leave a bit more life in all of your sound sources.”

Click to expand...

The chain in question consisted of "Basically EQ, compressing, limiting and some loudness maximising.

Yes I can tell! Not needed. Limiting on Blu Rays WTF?

keenly said:

The chain in question consisted of "Basically EQ, compressing, limiting and some loudness maximising.

Yes I can tell! Not needed. Limiting on Blu Rays WTF?

Click to expand...

It is a shame but have you heard this Aelita BD-A yet? The stereo is regrettably compressed but there is nothing wrong with the 5.1 at all, it sounds excellent imho and has a pretty respectable DR average of 10, as LizardKing posted here the other day.

The Bright Side said:

So if I understand correctly, this was mixed for up to 9.1.

Anybody have a 9.1 surround system? ;-)

Click to expand...

Here's a pikkie of the Auro 9.1 3D set-up If you did catch it already...

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...usic-in-5-1-!)&p=219929&viewfull=1#post219929

I can't afford that many speakers at least at the quality I want...

fredblue said:

It is a shame but have you heard this Aelita BD-A yet? The stereo is regrettably compressed but there is nothing wrong with the 5.1 at all, it sounds excellent imho and has a pretty respectable DR average of 10, as Lizard King posted here the other day.

Click to expand...

No I was referring to WT, which still sounds good but could of sounded much better.

DR of 10? Damn; Blu Rays do not need that level of compression, really stupid. I will still check it out at some point though.

I am trying to find Darcy's email address to let her know what I think. I have previously exchanged email with Bob Ludwig, George Marino, Tom Baker and Herb Dean. With regards to Darcy; it seems it was HER CHOICE to apply limiting and make it that loud, normally a mastering engineer doe snot want to do that and is basically forced to. Herb Dean told me he had to master Justin Timberlake's Future Love THREE TIMES! The first one was dynamic and he said sounded wonderful but he was told it was not loud enough and ended up doing it twice more till the label was happy.

LizardKing said:

Here's a pikkie of the Auro 9.1 3D set-up If you did catch it already...

https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...usic-in-5-1-!)&p=219929&viewfull=1#post219929

I can't afford that many speakers at least at the quality I want...

Click to expand...

I did have 7.1 for a while but my place is really too small for that many speakers, plus I had a hard time trying to find any great films mixed in 7.1 and/or with worthwhile mixes.. as for 7.1 music at that time, forget it!

keenly said:

No I was referring to WT, which still sounds good but could of sounded much better.

DR of 10? Damn; Blu Rays do not need that level of compression, really stupid. I will still check it out at some point though.

I am trying to find Darcy's email address to let her know what I think. I have previously exchanged email with Bob Ludwig, George Marino, Tom Baker and Herb Dean. With regards to Darcy; it seems it was HER CHOICE to apply limiting and make it that loud, normally a mastering engineer doe snot want to do that and is basically forced to. Herb Dean told me he had to master Justin Timberlake's Future Love THREE TIMES! The first one was dynamic and he said sounded wonderful but he was told it was not loud enough and ended up doing it twice more till the label was happy.

Click to expand...

I know, I meant its a shame about the WT disc.. there's nothing wrong with the 5.1 on this Mando Diao Blu-ray, a DR of 10 is perfectly respectable.