Bill Bruford in surround!

[ssully]

I just want to say "One Of A Kind" is a freakin' awesome album and I'm glad I bought this set (I had never heard any Bruford solo stuff before). Unfortunately, I felt the immediate need to mess with it after ripping from the DVD... the drums just sounded recessed in the mix and kind of dull.

and really, it boggles my mind that Jakko Jakszyk thought this was a good idea.

 

[ssully]

FYI the AAJ reviewer wrote on the Hoffman forum that he doesn't have a 5.1 system so he listens to the surround mix folded down to stereo...

wow.

 

[GOS]

Haven't heard anyone comment on how the box was delivered....

My Bruford box was not wrapped at all, and stuck inside a cardboard box that was nearly identical in size to the Bruford. The outer box had a 2 inch gash in the end, yet the Bruford box was unharmed. :chill

Seems odd, but anyway. Mine is #1799 :lookaround

Haven't listened yet - buried with work.....

 

[jsulzinger]

Haven't heard anyone comment on how the box was delivered....

My Bruford box was not wrapped at all, and stuck inside a cardboard box that was nearly identical in size to the Bruford. The outer box had a 2 inch gash in the end, yet the Bruford box was unharmed. :chill

Seems odd, but anyway. Mine is #1799 :lookaround

Haven't listened yet - buried with work.....

Mine was in cardboard like yours but was wrapped inside an additional heavy padded envelope.

*From Burning Shed

 

[GOS]

Mine was in cardboard like yours but was wrapped inside an additional heavy padded envelope.

Hmmm - odd. Mine came from importCD...

 

[JediJoker]

Mine was in cardboard like yours but was wrapped inside an additional heavy padded envelope.

Mine was packaged in the same way by Burning Shed. Bruford box undamaged.

 

[DuncanS]

So was mine from Burning Shed - I didn't realise you could get Jiffy Bags that big!

Mine was in cardboard like yours but was wrapped inside an additional heavy padded envelope.

 

[Which_One_Is_Pink]

Mine was in cardboard like yours but was wrapped inside an additional heavy padded envelope.

*From Burning Shed

Ditto

 

[Which_One_Is_Pink]

Well I have listened to both DD 5.1 discs 4 times over the last few days, the first 2 listens were at my normal listening volume setting that I use for most things which is 40 on my Onkyo and I was not initially impressed with the overall sound as it sounded a little dull and as has been mentioned the drums did seem a little low in the mix. On the up side the surround mix itself sounded very good, quite discrete with sounds floating all over the surroundfield.

Today I was able to sit down for a thorough listen to both albums (eyes closed and lights out) but with a difference I cranked the volume up, as I said I usually listen with my volume set at 40 for normal everyday listening and this works well for most things, so I raised the volume to 52 on the dial and gave both albums a listen back to back and now everything sounded right, the drums were much more prominent in the mix and to me, the drums sounded much better and everything seemed more dynamic overall without any harshness. The surround mix even seemed to open up a little more, with me, a little happier. Then just for grins I had a 2nd run with both albums raising the volume to 56 and as at 52 it still sounded very fine to me, and after 180 minutes of continuous Bruford, I had endured no ear noticeable ear fatigue.

Though I am not ready to vote yet, my opinion despite the DD only surround option (Stoopid!!! DTS 24/96 should be the minimum) I think this actually sounds (at a proper volume anyway) pretty good to me (oh but what this could have been if only done on Blu-ray *SIGH*). So in conclusion 2 great albums with 2 great mixes, which actually sound pretty good despite DD, I'll be keeping mine.

 

[GOS]

Many of the comments I've heard....I too agree with. There are times when the overall sound just seems a bit....covered up. You know, not bright. Very, very middle of the road sounding. Mix is adequate IMO. Maybe it's the fidelity that seems a bit off. But, I only skimmed through it very fast and only listened to one of the titles (can't even remember which one)

Do I sound sort of non-committal? Maybe so. Basically it means that it didn't jump off the speakers on first listen. But, I'll give it a good amount of time this weekend before I do any sort of voting. In fact, it may take me a while to dissect the overall sound.

But - I can promise that I will indeed turn it up and give it a proper volume as I too believe that at lower volumes it does not impress too much.

 

[Which_One_Is_Pink]

Many of the comments I've heard....I too agree with. There are times when the overall sound just seems a bit....covered up. Y

It definitely is not up to KC-Yes-XTC surround fidelity standards to be sure but the veil does seems to lift a little as the volume increases, not as muddy a little more snap and punch to the drums, more bass, and I actually like the guitars, not perfect but I think it will grow on me, after all I have always loved these albums and never would have expected to ever have them in 5.1 of any stripe so I will take what I can get, almost as big of a surprise as INXS - Kick in 5.1 :yikes did not see that coming. Who knows what else may be waiting in the shadows to jump out at us

 

[jimfisheye]

The surround mix is lossy Dolby only???!!!

For the love of... Wow, thanks folks. Glad I noticed that here! Another bait and switch box... Absolutely refuse.

The mix comments so far describe what every Jakko mix I've heard so far save KC Thrak sounds like to me. Ambitious, right direction, seems to truly care, but awkwardly unfinished. And then muddied with Dolby?! Yeesh (I'm thinking he must have been the assistant to Fripp and not the other way around on Thrak.)

How are the original stereo mixes? True flat transfers with no stepping on (as far as one can tell)?

Seems a bit unfair with Wilson setting the bar with the Crimson and Yes mixes of Bill's kit I should add. But at the end of the day I refuse to by any Dolby release. There's absolutely no excuse for that. Jeeze, a murky Jakko mix and then slathered in Dolby. That's just insulting to everyone involved! Of course it's going to be muddy.

 

[jimfisheye]

It definitely is not up to KC-Yes-XTC surround fidelity standards to be sure but the veil does seems to lift a little as the volume increases, not as muddy a little more snap and punch to the drums...

Points for that. This is one of the things I'm talking about when I say his mixes are trying to be ambitions and pointed in the right direction. This isn't trivial either. More people need to learn how to use their freakin' volume controls with unsquished music! DD (Dolby Destruction) is unforgivable though. As far as I'm concerned that makes these surround mixes truly unreleased at present.

 

[ssully]

The surround mix is lossy Dolby only???!!!

For the first two albums, the surround mix and the remastered original album (2.0) are both AC3-only. Which doesn't really have to matter, audiophile superstition notwithstanding. Unless the team that made this screwed up Dolby encoding in some fashion I can't fathom, AC3 is not the issue. (The bitrate is standard 448, the original sample rate is 48kHz, and I checked the dialnorm setting...it's the standard -27 , i.e., 5dB of overall volume attenuation (31 - 27) , so yeah, if you could directly compare it to a DTS or PCM version, you'd have to volume adjust one or the other for a fair level match. But that's pretty much always true.)

For the love of... Wow, thanks folks. Glad I noticed that here! Another bait and switch box... Absolutely refuse.

The mix comments so far describe what every Jakko mix I've heard so far save KC Thrak sounds like to me. Ambitious, right direction, seems to truly care, but awkwardly unfinished. And then muddied with Dolby?! Yeesh (I'm thinking he must have been the assistant to Fripp and not the other way around on Thrak.)

Dolby is not muddying this mix, nor any other mix. Why do you persist in this idea that AC3 encoding turns the EQ to 'mud'?

How are the original stereo mixes? True flat transfers with no stepping on (as far as one can tell)?

No 'visible' (waveform) evidence of compression on the (decoded) 5.1 or the (decoded) remaster of One of a Kind. I haven't checked out the 2.0 remix, which is the only native, lossless PCM audio version provided for that album. I do notice that the '48 kHz' sampled AC3 files appear to have no content significant above 20 kHz.

As for flat, there is of course no way to tell if a transfer is 'flat' without hearing the original tapes...so we rely on producer testimony for that. I don't see any such claims in the literature accompanying this set, so I can't say. I haven't gotten to actually *listen* to the remaster (or the 2.0 remix) yet of my favorite Bruford album....

Seems a bit unfair with Wilson setting the bar with the Crimson and Yes mixes of Bill's kit I should add. But at the end of the day I refuse to by any Dolby release. There's absolutely no excuse for that. Jeeze, a murky Jakko mix and then slathered in Dolby. That's just insulting to everyone involved! Of course it's going to be muddy.

Steve Wilson made a terrific sounding AC3-only 5.1 mix of In The Land of Grey and Pink. Nothing sounds 'slathered' or 'muddy' about it. And I could encode any of your favorite PCM/DTS 5.1 mixes to AC3 and they would not become 'muddy'. You should get over your prejudice. It's ridiculous. The issue seems likely to be mix/EQ choices, not encoding choices. (And to be fair, Steve Wilson has made his share of curious mix/EQ choices for remixes classics too, to my ears. )

 

[jimfisheye]

So you're saying that every AC3 encoded recording I've ever heard was screwed up in mastering/authoring and not the fault of Dolby? (Not being sarcastic.) Sadly that wouldn't surprise me! I have yet to hear anything encoded to lossy Dolby that sounds 1:1 in my travels. If such corruption is A. possible and B. so widespread, I'm still really not interested in purchasing lossy music. And this is sure looking like the cheap version of this release to me with all this.

Or is this a corrupt decoding issue? Similar to how not fully decoded DTS2496 takes a hit? I can't tell the difference between the original and a proper decode of DTS2496 but I sure can hear a core-only decode. Are there bs Dolby decoder apps to watch out for?

 

[ssully]

So you're saying that every AC3 encoded recording I've ever heard was screwed up

Pause here. *You're* saying that...and you're saying it's because AC3 is inherently 'screwed'. So much so that it turns recordings 'muddy', every time.

in mastering/authoring and not the fault of Dolby? (Not being sarcastic.)

Yes. And you've assumed what you haven't proved.

Sadly that wouldn't surprise me! I have yet to hear anything encoded to lossy Dolby that sounds 1:1 in my travels. If such corruption is A. possible and B. so widespread, I'm still really not interested in purchasing lossy music. And this is sure looking like the cheap version of this release to me with all this..

Or is this a corrupt decoding issue? Similar to how not fully decoded DTS2496 takes a hit? I can't tell the difference between the original and a proper decode of DTS2496 but I sure can hear a core-only decode. Are there bs Dolby decoder apps to watch out for?

DTS 96/24 is still lossy...as I'm sure you know? If not, I hope this doesn't ruin it for you.

And if I had a penny for every time a golden ear, amateur or pro, had claimed they 'sure could hear' this or that difference....

Fact: psychoacoustics-based lossy compression works. DTS and Dolby Digital use well-tuned codecs. It's not *impossible* to tell them from lossless -- not *guaranteed* to be transparent under all conditions -- but it's not *easy* either. It's not a smack-you-in-the-ears difference. It's something you would have to look for. Training might eb necessary. And comparison done in a properly level-matched (remember: dialnorm!), blind way , of course. (Side note: if the difference is claimed to be*that* apparent, then I'd stipulate that the DBT scores have to be be very good indeed, and achieved easily and rapidly, not after laborious searching for a 'tell' in fadeout tails or some such. 'Muddy' versus ' clean' should be *easy*). On top of which, differences are often *harder* to discern in 5.1, than in mono or stereo (cf Floyd Toole in his book).

As for what the issue is...DTS24/96 decoding as core DTS isn't 'corruption', it's part of the design (a built-in default for when the system only has a 'core' DTS decoder). To believe it really makes a difference it to believe that 1) adding back ultrasonic content does and/or 2) 96 kHz sampling vs 48kHz sampling of the source *prior to encoding*, does. But in neither case is there *ANY* evidence of the grandiose claims of difference audiophiles make for them.

Last but not least, you haven't actually even heard the set.

Anyway, I hope *no one* reading along declines to buy the Bruford set simply because of the AC3 encoding. If I had to bet money, my main bet would be that what I am hearing is due to Jakko J's choices, and it's just what he wants us to hear, or something went wrong between his final mix and the mastering and encoding (which I still hope explains the horrendous botch that is his 'Karn Evil 9 Pt 3") . Maybe something to do with the center channel (where most of the drums and guitar seem to be placed, on "Hell's Bells' at least). My side bet would be, my own system -- 5 identical speakers + sub -- has gone out of calibration .. and I will check that, especially the center channel. But reports from others here suggest they're hearing something similar.

 

[rtbluray]

So, as it turns out, when I opened up my package from Burning Shed to take pictures of the set (for selling on eBay) I noticed that the box was not shrink wrapped so I decided to pop the DVDs in and give each one a quick preview listen.
Well, what I heard did not impress me at all. Is it because of the Dolby Digital encoding? Is it because of Jakko’s mixing decisions? I think it’s probably a bit of both, but what I do know is that these are some piss poor DVDs, probably some of the worst released since 2011. Fidelity is terrible, authoring is bad, and the mixing is not the best.
I’m glad I’m selling this set off, and I only wish I never would have bought it in the first place.
(BTW, if I cast a vote for either of these DVDs in a poll thread, my vote would probably be a ‘3’)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ssully]

Still the best site on DTS vs AC3

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp

 

[GOS]

So, as it turns out, when I opened up my package from Burning Shed to take pictures of the set (for selling on eBay) I noticed that the box was not shrink wrapped so I decided to pop the DVDs in and give each one a quick preview listen.
Well, what I heard did not impress me at all. Is it because of the Dolby Digital encoding? Is it because of Jakko’s mixing decisions? I think it’s probably a bit of both, but what I do know is that these are some piss poor DVDs, probably some of the worst released since 2011. Fidelity is terrible, authoring is bad, and the mixing is not the best.
I’m glad I’m selling this set off, and I only wish I never would have bought it in the first place.
(BTW, if I cast a vote for either of these DVDs in a poll thread, my vote would probably be a ‘3’)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yikes!!! Well, yeah... we all try to justify buying it. I'm not feeling too bad about it really. I admit, that it openly sounds flat. As someone mentioned, playing it loud helps...but honestly, the volume probably covers up the flaws. Oh well.

 

[GOS]

I played a few tunes at a high volume and it really did sort of help. I mean, it's got loads of warmth and bass. It's just missing some pristine fidelity and upper end. I'd say it's one of the more "neutral/flat sounding mixes I've heard in a while. Odd.....