DVD/DTS Poll Gentle Giant - Free Hand [DTS 96-24/DD DVD+CD]

[kap'n krunch]

Another 9 from me...
same as Interview, one point is deducted for not being Lossless...
Great music and Mix (for the 70s)....

 

[Plan9]

For me the .1 channel is completely superfluous, plus I think it makes the bass sound too loud and boomy at times.
The mastering is also too compressed for my tastes, I like it more dynamic.
And I prefer the surround experience on In'terview.

So, I only give it a 6.

 

[Plan9]

I have followed LizardKing's advice and swapped the rears on this mix.

Well it sounds much better and discrete. No doubt in my mind that the rear channels are reversed.

Try it.

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

I have to agree that there's something wrong with the channel assignment on this, the vocals on a diagonal is a big hint, and upon further listening, the diagonals just pair up better. However, simply swapping the rights to bring the vocals to the front doesn't fix it, as the clicks at the beginning are now paired diagonally. This leads me to believe that either the front or backs then need to be swapped to get rid of that diagonal action that seems unlikely to be how it was mixed. Upon further analysis, it appears that yes, it's not just the clicks that are made diagonal, so that it does make sense to do that swap as well. To make the quad mix align with the stereo mix (based on the clicks), the following corrections should be made, in my opinion:

Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left

These errors happened often in the quad days, and they will continue to happen time and time again as long as we continue to have a lack of standards in track assignment, and a lack of attention to detail in the process of manufacturing the product. What really gets me is that in theory, someone mastered this. Which means that someone listened to this, with a critical ear, whose job it is to pay attention to detail and fine tune the sound to get the best sound possible out of this. And despite this being his job function, despite him supposedly listening to this critically, he failed to notice the obvious error in channel assignment. I'd like to know who mastered this, because that is one person who should be unemployed.

 

[fredblue]

I have to agree that there's something wrong with the channel assignment on this, the vocals on a diagonal is a big hint, and upon further listening, the diagonals just pair up better. However, simply swapping the rights to bring the vocals to the front doesn't fix it, as the clicks at the beginning are now paired diagonally. This leads me to believe that either the front or backs then need to be swapped to get rid of that diagonal action that seems unlikely to be how it was mixed. Upon further analysis, it appears that yes, it's not just the clicks that are made diagonal, so that it does make sense to do that swap as well. To make the quad mix align with the stereo mix (based on the clicks), the following corrections should be made, in my opinion:

Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left

These errors happened often in the quad days, and they will continue to happen time and time again as long as we continue to have a lack of standards in track assignment, and a lack of attention to detail in the process of manufacturing the product. What really gets me is that in theory, someone mastered this. Which means that someone listened to this, with a critical ear, whose job it is to pay attention to detail and fine tune the sound to get the best sound possible out of this. And despite this being his job function, despite him supposedly listening to this critically, he failed to notice the obvious error in channel assignment. I'd like to know who mastered this, because that is one person who should be unemployed.

wow.. I thought there was something up with this one but..

.. from what you've discovered ArmyOfQuad, that means practically every channel, except rear left, is totally screwed up on this one and needs repurposing..!?

No wonder this mix never got released back in the day..!!

 

[fredblue]

wow.. I thought there was something up with this one but..

.. from what you've discovered ArmyOfQuad, that means practically every channel, except rear left, is totally screwed up on this one and needs repurposing..!?

No wonder this mix never got released back in the day..!!

and as for the mastering on this.. you need not look any further..

it's "The Mewtilator" himself.. yes, our 'old friend' Peter Mew.

 

[fredblue]

thinking on.. I wish EMI would involve QQ and draw on the knowledge and experience of some of our members, consult with people who really know what they're doing with these mixes (I believe DGM have done this before with the K.C. surround mixes.!?) before they come out, to iron out these faults before they're released. I'm mindful of the recent "Ten Years After" 'Audio DVD' + LP reversed-channels fiasco too..

 

[grill]

Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left

Here's the wave form with the marked area which can support your finding:

 

[ArmyOfQuad]

Looking at the waveforms also shows more mastering issues....unnecessary compression. Not the worst, but certainly you can see the waveform has been clipped to make it louder, all the way up to 11. And the "fronts" have been boosted more than the "rears", which means once everything has been corrected, the rights need to come down a tad. Which leaves you with rights that are more clipped off in the dynamics than the lefts.

 

[LizardKing]

How much did you tweak (lower) the fronts (I mean right) channels @:?

I'll give this a go....

 

[grill]

How much did you tweak (lower) the fronts (I mean right) channels @:?

I'll give this a go....

The DR analysis values:

foobar2000 1.1.15 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2013-03-30 20:05:55

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statistics for: 01-
Number of samples: 212042752
Duration: 36:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Channel 5

Peak Value: 0.00 dB --- 0.00 dB --- -6.23 dB --- 0.00 dB --- 0.00 dB
Avg RMS: -11.52 dB --- -11.99 dB --- -25.28 dB --- -13.33 dB --- -12.29 dB
DR channel: 9.20 dB --- 9.38 dB --- 15.02 dB --- 10.84 dB --- 9.75 dB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Official DR Value: DR11

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 5
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 5905 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

The avg. RMS difference between the fronts and the rears is approx. 2 dB.

 

[grill]

Looking at the waveforms also shows more mastering issues....unnecessary compression. Not the worst, but certainly you can see the waveform has been clipped to make it louder, all the way up to 11. And the "fronts" have been boosted more than the "rears", which means once everything has been corrected, the rights need to come down a tad. Which leaves you with rights that are more clipped off in the dynamics than the lefts.

The good news is the fronts are insignificantly clipped:

 

[LizardKing]

The DR analysis values:

foobar2000 1.1.15 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2013-03-30 20:05:55
.........
The avg. RMS difference between the fronts and the rears is approx. 2 dB.

Thanks Grill - I should have remembered about the Dynamic Range Meter in foobar2000... as I've used that before to confirm DR levels...

 

[grill]

So according to my calculation after the channel swap tweak the channels as follows:

FL: 0.77 dB increase
FR: 0.47 dB decrease
SR: 0.30 dB decrease

 

[kap'n krunch]

The good news is the fronts are insignificantly clipped:

View attachment 9993

Whoa, if this is a 96K Freq Spectrum, the DVD could have easily been 48/24!!!
I knew it didn't sound too bright....

 

[grill]

Whoa, if this is a 96K Freq Spectrum, the DVD could have easily been 48/24!!!
I knew it didn't sound too bright....

No, the audio content goes up to 30kHz.

 

[grill]

@ArmyOfQuad, I did a flac conversion with the fixed cannel order that you recommended. The album sounds more consistent to me this way, eg. the lead vocal goes to the fronts in tracks 1 and 5. Thanks again.

 

[LizardKing]

I did a conversion to WAV, & then authored to Blu-ray so I can play this on my Oppo.

Yes - I'd have to say this sounds right...Thanks AOQ...

 

[jdmack]

Yes - I'd have to say this sounds right...Thanks AOQ...

I think this is correct as well. This new configuration shifts the positioning 90 degrees clockwise from how it was by reversing the rears. If one simply reverses the rears, then the first vocal in "On Reflection" enters Left Center, and then the other vocals enter, in sequence, rear center, right center, front center. With the new configuration, the first vocal enters front center and then the other vocals come in left center, rear center, right center, which makes more sense.

J. D.

 

[kap'n krunch]

I have to agree that there's something wrong with the channel assignment on this, the vocals on a diagonal is a big hint, and upon further listening, the diagonals just pair up better. However, simply swapping the rights to bring the vocals to the front doesn't fix it, as the clicks at the beginning are now paired diagonally. This leads me to believe that either the front or backs then need to be swapped to get rid of that diagonal action that seems unlikely to be how it was mixed. Upon further analysis, it appears that yes, it's not just the clicks that are made diagonal, so that it does make sense to do that swap as well. To make the quad mix align with the stereo mix (based on the clicks), the following corrections should be made, in my opinion:

Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left

These errors happened often in the quad days, and they will continue to happen time and time again as long as we continue to have a lack of standards in track assignment, and a lack of attention to detail in the process of manufacturing the product. What really gets me is that in theory, someone mastered this. Which means that someone listened to this, with a critical ear, whose job it is to pay attention to detail and fine tune the sound to get the best sound possible out of this. And despite this being his job function, despite him supposedly listening to this critically, he failed to notice the obvious error in channel assignment. I'd like to know who mastered this, because that is one person who should be unemployed.

Done!
Definitely sounds more "coherent"
Thanks AoQ, you rock!