Bill Bruford in surround!

[rusinurbe]

Can we play nicely please.

 

[ssully]

i think there may have been at least one DVD-Audio release where the 5.1 Adv'd Res was encoded as LPCM rather than PPCM/MLP (Al Green Greatest Hits) but i'd need to double check so don't quote me on that until its verified!

More than one. One I know for sure is this quad Messiaen release on DVD-A

https://www.discogs.com/Olivier-Mes...od-André-Previn-Turangalîla-S/release/1251877


(NB not true 5.1..quad)

 

[ssully]

This set was done on an ultra-low budget. There was not enough money for more encode licenses.

I was gonna say.... but as I did not know for sure, I refrained. Thanks.

A friend of mine was offered the art gig for this set, putting all the graphics together for the printers and box sssembly. When he heard what the budget for this set was, he was forced to turn down the work.

Be grateful they were able to get this one off the ground at all.

I am, and the graphics and packaging actually turned out pretty well.

 

[ssully]

I would never expect this kind of box set to have the budget that the King Crimson and Yes releases have, but still, what I don't understand is how could Eddie Jobson (Bruford's UK bandmate) manage to release a box set with 4 Blu-Ray Audio discs but yet this box can't even include 2 DVDA-V discs.

Eddie solicited orders before his box was even assembled...you recall the contents kept changing as time went on. He also got more creative with different 'tiers' of product (I think the highest included sheet music or something?)

From what I know, authoring DVDA-V discs is a little more expensive than authoring DVD-V discs, but the difference is not that great at all, and it sure is a heck of a lot cheaper than authoring Blu-ray Discs.

I am guessing that when you can put a "DTS' label on your product there is tech licensing cost involved? And MLP is owned by Meridian. It might be that if you use official encoding software you already ahve that license, but I don't really know.

Did the team putting this box set together even bother to see what Neil Wilkes would have charged to author these two DVDs as DVDA-V discs?

Another 'ask the producer' question. You might ask him why Steve Wilson wasn't the remixer too.

But I strongly suspect that complaints about 'wtf it's DD and not DTS or lossless??' would be greeted with a cocked eyebrow.

 

[ssully]

Sorry to hear that , rt...I'm sure that if they had contacted NW he'd have NOT let it go anywhere else!!!!

It IS quite unbelievable that someone from the KC camp would have released something like this...either he did not consult anyone or his team was clueless...

? Bruford hasn't been in the 'KC camp' for years.

One theme made clear in my recent re-reading of his autobiography is the difficult relationship he has always had with Fripp.

 

[ssully]

I think most players these days allow the user to defeat the dialnorm, and I imagine most on here turn it off when listening to music. Therefore, the level should be comparable assuming a lossless and lossy encode were created from the same master without level changes.

Dialnorm is an integral part of Dolby Digital standardization, so I'd be surprised if hardware licensing allowed it to be turned off. But I haven't dug into hardware player settings in a long time. And there's really no need to turn it off. Just turn up the volume a little. I doubt many listeners set their playback volume and never adjust it.

 

[ssully]

Probably every time anyone has tried to take you seriously and asked for an example of one your claims when you just want to try to prove someone wrong about something rather than engage in a discussion.

Dude, take any release you have that offers both. Do you have the old ELP 'Brain Salad Surgery' DVD-A? That'll do. Set up am properly level-matched and bias-controlled DBT, with someone there who can proctor the answers and report the process back to me.

Of course you're not gonna do that, so why should I bother going into more detail?

Figured you would come up empty handed. Yeah, that's it. My perception bias is so strong that when I level match two sources within .1db I'm just not able to do it.

Could be!

And all my tools lie.

What 'tools' are these? Lossy and lossless versions are measureably different, for sure.

The 'tool' for determining whether AC3 instantly turns clear audio to 'muddy' -- which is your claimed perception - is a properly chosen and executed DBT.

And everyone else in the industry... their tools lie to them too. There's just really no one else out there besides you that has any clue about any of this.

Are the folks at Dolby Labs not part of the industry?

Hey, want to share one of your 5.1 mixes you've engineered (or point me to something for purchase) and just school me? Sounds like I could learn a lot!


PS. Don't worry. I'll refrain from any further conversations.

 

[ssully]

Can we play nicely please.

I'd be perfectly happy if people like jimfisheye would forever cease trying to make the issue *lossy perceptual encoding*, and focus instead on things far more likely to be causing the 'sound' of these mixes. It's a silly and scientifically dubious prejudice that distracts from the real issue(s)

The choices normally involved in tape sourcing, EQ/compression/noise processing/effects, placement of elements in the mix, and final mastering, have *overwhelmingly* more impact on the sound than whether the final product came out in DD, DTS, or lossless, in the normal course of events.

And that's a fact, Jak.

(If however it turns out something somehow went badly wrong with *AC3 encoding* here, I'll be thrilled, since it means an easy fix could be offered.)

 

[jimfisheye]

5.1 LPCM does not work on the specs for DVD-V, does it? Unless there has been a change.

It doesn't no. On the one hand, making a format that's backwards compatible and lets people play something (or even just kinda almost play something) is a better option than silently spitting the disc back out with a question mark or error message. Some artists will appreciate that while others might prefer that it be all or nothing and that's a fair debate.

It's when an intentional choice is made to restrict a release like authoring that physical round shiny thing as a DVDV instead of a DVDA/V that legitimate questions come up. The suggestions that this is a big ticket decision in a release are wild. The mix session is the big ticket item. It's like building a whole house and then arguing over putting a latch on a door or something.

Now if someone wants to make a full quality release in a higher price bracket vs SD res or stereo only or even lossy/portable, while debatable how well that pays off it's still a fair enough decision to make. This practice of releasing lossy only for a tease and holding back the full release (not available for any price and no release date ever announced) can really come across as insulting. "See what I have? This 5.1 mix? You can't have it! You can only have a reduced version." Seems to me there are plenty of creative ways to gouge your consumers with boxes of trinkets and marbles and so forth without stepping on the music.

Or to put it another way. If the premise that some format license IS the big ticket expense in the project that just dwarfs ALL the mixing and production costs (yeah...), I'll suggest someone is really getting taken to the cleaners with that and should really look into that because it's leading to your release choices coming out really messed up!

Sorry, ranting and certainly repeating myself at this point! This release just pisses me off. Just... why?

I'll stop now I promise! (Found the ignore feature so it won't happen again.) And I have a bluray image to finish...

 

[ssully]

Sorry, ranting and certainly repeating myself at this point! This release just pisses me off. Just... why?

No listening required.

 

[himey]

I agree that dulby won't make a great sounding mix poor but let's not get too crazy and think lossy compression sounds equal to uncompressed hires formats, on a quality system. I don't know who Steve Wilson is but Steven Wilson's In The Land of Grey and Pink, although sounds very good in dulby, a proper uncompressed release would take it too the next level sonically.

 

[Frogmort]

Just to get in on this side-tangent, regardless of how imperceptible the difference is, I would always prefer to have an exact copy of the original audio, or a losslessly compressed equivalent thereof, than a lossy mix, even if it's supposedly transparent. Wouldn't everyone?

 

[4-earredwonder]

Just to get in on this side-tangent, regardless of how imperceptible the difference is, I would always prefer to have an exact copy of the original audio, or a losslessly compressed equivalent thereof, than a lossy mix, even if it's supposedly transparent. Wouldn't everyone?

ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, RIGHT ON THE MONEY, FROGMORT!

Accept NO substitutes..... :yikes

 

[sukothai]

Just to get in on this side-tangent, regardless of how imperceptible the difference is, I would always prefer to have an exact copy of the original audio, or a losslessly compressed equivalent thereof, than a lossy mix, even if it's supposedly transparent. Wouldn't everyone?

Yes, of course; but once it is released - and with a decent mix - get over it and enjoy the music!

 

[François]

Losslessly compressed is not "equivalent", it is an exact copy of the original audio. As the name implies, it is decoded, "expanded", without loss.

 

[JediJoker]

Dialnorm is an integral part of Dolby Digital standardization, so I'd be surprised if hardware licensing allowed it to be turned off. But I haven't dug into hardware player settings in a long time. And there's really no need to turn it off. Just turn up the volume a little. I doubt many listeners set their playback volume and never adjust it.

Most players have a "DRC"—dynamic range compression—setting that can be switched on or off. This is not a traditional compressor as used in recording/mixing/mastering, but the very algorithm triggered by Dolby dialnorm metadata. It is activated by this metadata and it dynamically lowers and raises the volume of all channels in accordance with the dialnorm specifications, and may also be used by the player for non-Dolby material (without the metadata) triggered by actual program level. This will, of course, change the dynamic relationships from one section of program material to another. It is therefore usually best to turn it off for music playback so that the intended dynamics are kept intact. I'm surprised you don't know this, given your seemingly extensive knowledge of AC3.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Perhaps Jakko should've listened to Audio Fidelity's 5.1 SACD of drummer Billy Cobham's 1973 jazz/fusion recording of SPECTRUM to hear how drums should be properly reproduced.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Perhaps Jakko should've listened to Audio Fidelity's 5.1 SACD of drummer Billy Cobham's 1973 jazz/fusion recording of SPECTRUM to hear how drums should be properly reproduced.

Ummmmm...I'm more than positive that JJ knows how to mix drums...now, ANOTHER THING is whatever BB might have told him to do...

 

[fizzywiggs41]

Perhaps Jakko should've listened to Audio Fidelity's 5.1 SACD of drummer Billy Cobham's 1973 jazz/fusion recording of SPECTRUM to hear how drums should be properly reproduced.

Er , ah it's quad .

 

[Frogmort]

Losslessly compressed is not "equivalent", it is an exact copy of the original audio. As the name implies, it is decoded, "expanded", without loss.

Equivalent means: equal in value, identical, the same.