Yes, compression/limiting reduces dynamic range. The level difference between the softest and loudest parts of a sound is reduced.
DVD/DTS Poll Fleetwood Mac - TUSK [DTS DVD]
- Thread starter JonUrban
- Start date
Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:
Yes, compression/limiting reduces dynamic range. The level difference between the softest and loudest parts of a sound is reduced.
I'm playing samples of this "Tusk" DVD in 5.1 right after playing samples of my "Rumours" SACD, and you know how much difference I hear between the two in perceived loudness? None. (And I didn't adjust my volume knob one iota between the two discs.)
I think Jon's frustration with the loudness factor on this disc was particularly exacerbated by the fact that he played it right after playing "Idlewild South", a fully lossless 5.1 surround disc with great mastering, one that doesn't fall for the old syndrome of making it loud just cause it can be.
If this 5.1 surround mix had been released on DVDA as originally planned back in the day with the same mastering we are hearing now, none of us would have batted an eye because we were used to a more compressed sound then. Since that time we have been treated to more dynamics-friendly mixes, especially from Steven Wilson, so hearing an artifact of times gone by is more painful nowadays than it would have been ten or more years ago.
None of this excuses the loudness factor of this disc, but I hope this can bring a little more perspective into what we hearing and how what we hear before or after immediately affects our consciousness. I'm still more pissed off at the lossy factor of this disc, but hey, we all fight certain battles for certain reasons, so as long as it's a noble battle, I say "Fight on, Quad people!"
I think Jon's frustration with the loudness factor on this disc was particularly exacerbated by the fact that he played it right after playing "Idlewild South", a fully lossless 5.1 surround disc with great mastering, one that doesn't fall for the old syndrome of making it loud just cause it can be.
If this 5.1 surround mix had been released on DVDA as originally planned back in the day with the same mastering we are hearing now, none of us would have batted an eye because we were used to a more compressed sound then. Since that time we have been treated to more dynamics-friendly mixes, especially from Steven Wilson, so hearing an artifact of times gone by is more painful nowadays than it would have been ten or more years ago.
None of this excuses the loudness factor of this disc, but I hope this can bring a little more perspective into what we hearing and how what we hear before or after immediately affects our consciousness. I'm still more pissed off at the lossy factor of this disc, but hey, we all fight certain battles for certain reasons, so as long as it's a noble battle, I say "Fight on, Quad people!"
Oh right, thanks for all that!
..its just I've never seen a "normal" (non-futzed with) waveform that so resembles a box hedge like the one in the Front L&R of Jon's screengrab.. from the CDs I put thru Audacity that looked just like those 2 x Front channels they were loud and kinda "flat" sounding, you know... is that just a coincidence?
OH GADZOOKS! IS IT..??? :yikes
I will never play that Rumours 5.1 ever again!
uh oh.. here it comes...
"Don't Stop..
playing 5.1 Rumours,
Don't Stop..
even though its loud!"
Har dee har..
I'm playing samples of this "Tusk" DVD in 5.1 right after playing samples of my "Rumours" SACD, and you know how much difference I hear between the two in perceived loudness? None. (And I didn't adjust my volume knob one iota between the two discs.)
I think Jon's frustration with the loudness factor on this disc was particularly exacerbated by the fact that he played it right after playing "Idlewild South", a fully lossless 5.1 surround disc with great mastering, one that doesn't fall for the old syndrome of making it loud just cause it can be.
If this 5.1 surround mix had been released on DVDA as originally planned back in the day with the same mastering we are hearing now, none of us would have batted an eye because we were used to a more compressed sound then. Since that time we have been treated to more dynamics-friendly mixes, especially from Steven Wilson, so hearing an artifact of times gone by is more painful nowadays than it would have been ten or more years ago.
None of this excuses the loudness factor of this disc, but I hope this can bring a little more perspective into what we hearing and how what we hear before or after immediately affects our consciousness. I'm still more pissed off at the lossy factor of this disc, but hey, we all fight certain battles for certain reasons, so as long as it's a noble battle, I say "Fight on, Quad people!"
So true... I'm such a Luddite I initially put the loudness of this 5.1 down to it being DTS and thought there must be some Dial Norm rubbish going on or something.. I never checked but I automatically suspected it, whereas I'm lulled into a (potentially false) sense of security with the kinds of DVD-A's we see these days, I don't expect those to have issues but with this one I put it on almost expecting it to have some negatives because it was a DVD-V and SHOULD have been a DVD-A and had probably been put together by any old tom or dick or harry, if that makes any sense...? Is that what they call confirmation bias?
...Somedays I think I almost preferred these surround things the less I knew about them.. once you start ripping them apart their flaws and deficiencies can start to get in the way of the enjoyment a tad.. that said is what's happened here really a chronic flaw? Can the problem compression or whatever it is be "undone" at all..?
OH GADZOOKS! IS IT..??? :yikes
I will never play that Rumours 5.1 ever again!
uh oh.. here it comes...
"Don't Stop..
playing 5.1 Rumours,
Don't Stop..
even though its loud!"
Har dee har..
To be fair, that pic was of the stereo mastering on the DVD-A.
But I'll bet the surround mix is 'modernized' that way too.
(It doesn't sound bad. It just makes one wonder what a wide DR mastering would sound like in comparison.)
So true... I'm such a Luddite I initially put the loudness of this 5.1 down to it being DTS and thought there must be some Dial Norm rubbish going on or something.. I never checked but I automatically suspected it, whereas I'm lulled into a (potentially false) sense of security with the kinds of DVD-A's we see these days, I don't expect those to have issues but with this one I put it on almost expecting it to have some negatives because it was a DVD-V and SHOULD have been a DVD-A and had probably been put together by any old tom or dick or harry, if that makes any sense...? Is that what they call confirmation bias?
...Somedays I think I almost preferred these surround things the less I knew about them.. once you start ripping them apart their flaws and deficiencies can start to get in the way of the enjoyment a tad.. that said is what's happened here really a chronic flaw? Can the problem compression or whatever it is be "undone" at all..?
Unfortunately this is a trend that is becoming more frequent...I must admit I get tired of hearing a lot of this...I feel the same way...ignorance would be bliss.....thankfully I usually buy these releases early on and make my own decisions based on LISTENING to the music..I don't need charts and graphs to come to these type of decisions...I won't go further because this is a poll thread and not a "soap box" for my views...suffice it to say that the actual music is forced into a secondary position behind the metrics of the recording process...I'm not so sure that is the way it should be...at least it's not in my world..
I gave this release a 9 out of 10
Ah right.. I'll 'go my own way' and have a gander at the 5.1 in an Audacious way later onnn
"Don't Stop" in 5.1 from the DVD-A..
(afaik the Red lines indicate Front Right channel clips in those places? Order of channels here btw is 1 = FL, 2 = FR, 3 = Centre, 4 = LFE, 5 = SL, 6 = SR.. from top down)
Many albums with modern mastering (stereo or surround) look just like that , when you view the whole album at once. In that view you're basically squeezing the waveform trace like an accordion, in order to fit it horizontally on a screen
I'm sure they sound loud and possibly 'samey' (not much difference between soft and loud). That doesn't necessarily mean they sound clipped.
The sound of Rumours DVDA doesn't bother me. I like the remix a lot. But it did (and does) make me smile at the hype that wants us to think 'high rez' means 'audiophile quality'.
"If everyone was LISTENING enough..." :music
Oh do get off the soap box Clint, I can't see the graphs! :ugham:
A deeply unhip response perhaps but I'm happy to be ignorant in bliss with a lot of this techie stuff.. I am hugely curious to learn more though (without losing anymore sleep over this stuff!)
(adopts John Wayne type stance.. "well,..I know what I like and I like what I know.."
..its when people slag off the compression in the EJ 5.1's I start to roll my sleeves up.. LMAO..
So I'm about to check this Tusk 5.1 out in Audacity.. I'm just gonna grab a stiff drink first.. I may never "play it again", Clint..! :yikes
Oh I like the sound of an accordion being squeezed! Preferably between two nubile thighs.
Waw waw waw..
I will add this to the mix (and then GO.. not only am I wildly off topic in a QQ POLL here.. sorry.. but it probably won't go down well and several people will possibly come baying for my blood as soon as I hit "return"..) there are well-meaning people who earnestly give us Hi-res because they believe it sounds better than a CD.. sadly I reckon a lot of this Hi-Res voodoo is just another cash cow to sell us the same stuff over and over again.. if it wasn't for surround I would probably never have bought an SACD.. of course there are well-mastered Stereo SACDs that sound good, I have one or two.. but for my money they sound good because they were well-mastered as much as any other factor, I suspect - but have no proof, this is all just my "2 cents" - they might well have been great sounding on a regular redbook disc instead.. lately I'm less concerned about formats and Hi-Res in general than ever, the unbridled fun I've had out of Lo-res vinyl in Quad this past year has been an eye-opener (not quite a full-on leg opener but there have been some very exciting revelations personally in 2015 when I learned to stop worrying about the res and love the vinyl bomb!). Right, I'm outta here...!! :walker
(I may risk coming back here to vote in a week or two.. when I've had time to scrutinise some more graphs and charts.. I mean listen to this disc more in surround..
)
I thought I'd have a look at "Monday Morning" Fleetwood Mac's 1975 S/T album track which has thus far only appeared in 5.1 on an Acura DVD-A demo disc from 2008..
As you can see (I hope) Front L & R appear to have had their waveforms clipped like a hedge (I'm not saying they clip as in clip and distort.. ) the other channels "look" alright.. anyway here you go..
(Channels from top down are: 1 = Front Left, 2 = Front Right, 3 = Centre, 4 = LFE, 5 = Rear Left, 6 = Rear Right)
As you can see (I hope) Front L & R appear to have had their waveforms clipped like a hedge (I'm not saying they clip as in clip and distort..
) the other channels "look" alright.. anyway here you go..(Channels from top down are: 1 = Front Left, 2 = Front Right, 3 = Centre, 4 = LFE, 5 = Rear Left, 6 = Rear Right)
"If everyone was LISTENING enough..." :music
Oh do get off the soap box Clint, I can't see the graphs! :ugham:
A deeply unhip response perhaps but I'm happy to be ignorant in bliss with a lot of this techie stuff.. I am hugely curious to learn more though (without losing anymore sleep over this stuff!)
(adopts John Wayne type stance.. "well,..I know what I like and I like what I know.."
..its when people slag off the compression in the EJ 5.1's I start to roll my sleeves up.. LMAO..
So I'm about to check this Tusk 5.1 out in Audacity.. I'm just gonna grab a stiff drink first.. I may never "play it again", Clint..! :yikes
You have the audacity to subject Tusk to this contraption of yours?...suffering suckatash..you have the unmitigated gallstones to perform such a dastardly deed...heavens to murgatroyd:walker
Yo! This is the TUSK poll thread. We can move the compression stuff to another thread.
One note for ssully: The first wav I posted was one song only, so it's spread out and you can still see that the audio is driven to the 0.0 point. It just looks a lot worse when you zoom out and see the entire album. If you really want to compare, look at the scan of "Midnight Rider" in the Idlewild South poll thread. That's nice mastering, IMHO.
Anyway, if you all are happy with the loudness/brickwalling, etc, that's fine with me. I still gave it an 8!! You have your opinions, I have mine, and mine is no more important than yours! :music
One note for ssully: The first wav I posted was one song only, so it's spread out and you can still see that the audio is driven to the 0.0 point. It just looks a lot worse when you zoom out and see the entire album. If you really want to compare, look at the scan of "Midnight Rider" in the Idlewild South poll thread. That's nice mastering, IMHO.
Anyway, if you all are happy with the loudness/brickwalling, etc, that's fine with me. I still gave it an 8!! You have your opinions, I have mine, and mine is no more important than yours! :music
Exactly. I knew you understood this, others perhaps did not.
hafquark
400 Club - QQ All-Star
My first impression of the 5.1 DTS of Tusk -- before seeing the wave forms Jon posted -- is that it was too loud and too bright. At first I thought it was just an over-boosted high end, but several songs into the album I was feeling the listener fatigue and irritation I usually get from brickwalled recordings. This is a major disappointment to me as it has been my favorite Fleetwood Mac album since its release, even though it got the cold shoulder from critics and many Mac fans. Years ago I was thrilled when I read that Tusk would be released on DVD-Audio, and equally crushed when it was shelved after the collapse of the DVD-A format.
One of the things that most impressed me with the Tusk LP was the creamy smooth mid-range and how I could crank it up quite loud with no loss of sound quality. Dynamics, pitch, and duration are the basis of music. Crushing the musical dynamics of Tusk into a flat glassy wall of sound is an audio travesty.
I do like the surround mix. It's immersive and nicely highlights instruments and vocals that are more submerged in the stereo versions I've heard over the years. Still, because of the crushed dynamics I much prefer the 24-bit HDTracks stereo, which is very pleasing to my ears.
This is a favorite album of mine that I've played hundreds of times over the years. It really pains me to give a low rating to this one, but the brickwalled, lossy mix (plus bundling the DTS in a high-priced box set) is too much. A really reluctant "6" from me.
One of the things that most impressed me with the Tusk LP was the creamy smooth mid-range and how I could crank it up quite loud with no loss of sound quality. Dynamics, pitch, and duration are the basis of music. Crushing the musical dynamics of Tusk into a flat glassy wall of sound is an audio travesty.
I do like the surround mix. It's immersive and nicely highlights instruments and vocals that are more submerged in the stereo versions I've heard over the years. Still, because of the crushed dynamics I much prefer the 24-bit HDTracks stereo, which is very pleasing to my ears.
This is a favorite album of mine that I've played hundreds of times over the years. It really pains me to give a low rating to this one, but the brickwalled, lossy mix (plus bundling the DTS in a high-priced box set) is too much. A really reluctant "6" from me.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2013
- Messages
- 25,750
I wonder if enough of us complain, considering the expense of the TUSK boxset, if Warners would order a repressing on BD~A [or MLP DVD~A] with the full tilt 96/24 codec instead of lossy DTS. I think it's a travesty, considering many, like myself, purchased the boxset expressly for the 5.1 remix.
Of course, if the 5.1 remix master tape is compressed.....then, what's the point?
C'mon Ralphie..it's not a travesty..you are too good to fall into the drama queen syndrome
....it's just a dated mix and that's the way it is...this whole price thing is starting to wear on me...IMO the price shouldn't even be a consideration of the score in the polls in the evaluation of these discs...but some people are doing it......in this case $60 for 5 CD's...2 LP's and a DVD isn't a rip off by any standard..and if people that belong to this forum paid more there is little excuse as the source was made available to them and the supply never exhausted...and some people in Canada probably paid more....yes I know WE all have to buy these "sets" to get the one or 2 music discs we want....but that's just reality...and certainly nothing new...it's more of the Steven Wilson effect...we get these remarkable results from his work and we think every project should be like that...not gonna happen...and it must not have been horrible as you voted an 8...I beg of you to get a good breakfast...close your eyes...and get that zen feeling...or as Chevy Chase said in Caddyshack..."be the ball"...yes I sense your frustration..we all want perfect...but sometimes as Dudley Moore found out in the movie 10...perfect is not all it's cracked up to be...I'm injecting this humor so Wavelength doesn't think this is a "rant"...because it's not...and we all know I've had 2 of them lately..so I must spread them out
