HiRez Poll John, Elton - GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD [SACD/DVD-A/BDA]

[ssully]

And yeah, that's some loud mastering right there.

 

[Beefalo]

I originally found this to be too hot. Especially the highs. I trust the opinions of this forum. How could it get such high ratings?
I wanted this to be good so I listened very carefully. To my ears the objectionable highs were in the surround channels. I adjusted the surround channels only. Using parametric EQ set at 5K, Q 10 -20db. I like the sound much better. The steep dip doesn't affect mid range or the highest frequencies.
I am a happy man. Really love this album.

 

[bluelightning]

And yeah, that's some loud mastering right there.

Is there any clipping or dynamic range compression compared to the other releases though ?

 

[edisonbaggins]

I find the SACD and DVD-A to be more pleasant then the BD-A, especially on crunchier tracks like Saturday.

 

[ar surround]

I originally found this to be too hot. Especially the highs. I trust the opinions of this forum. How could it get such high ratings?
I wanted this to be good so I listened very carefully. To my ears the objectionable highs were in the surround channels. I adjusted the surround channels only. Using parametric EQ set at 5K, Q 10 -20db. I like the sound much better. The steep dip doesn't affect mid range or the highest frequencies.
I am a happy man. Really love this album.

You are not alone Beefalo. I also mess with the EQ on this SACD...as well as all the other Elton John 5.1's for that matter.

 

[ssully]

Is there any clipping or dynamic range compression compared to the other releases though ?

? the only other multichannel release of GYBR is the BluRay.

The BluRay 5.1 sample (front left channel of "Grey Seal") looks much the same as the DVDA/SACD :



And EQ/frequency profiles are virtually an exact match. Here the DVDA is yellow, the BluRay is red. The two have different amounts of silence leading into the track, so I didn't try a null test.


If you mean, compared to stereo releases, I'm sure there are 2.0 digital versions with far less compression than these have, and different EQ. The album has been remastered several times over the years.

 

[ssully]

so far, the following tracks seem pretty much(*) identical on the BD-A (DTS HD MA 5.1) as on the MCh SACD and do not resemble the changes noticed between Social Disease on the BD-A & the MCh SACD/DVD-A;

I've Seen That Movie Too,
All The Girls Love Alice,
Saturday Night's Alright For Fighting

(* I say pretty much because they don't cancel one another out.. but I say pretty much identical because for one thing the overall gain of the summed 6Ch's of both the BDA & the MCh SACD required to take to the point of clipping equates to less than +/- 0.5dB difference between the two formats on those 3 selections.. a detectable difference is less activity in the LFE channel on the BD-A than the MCh SACD but this may be due to something setup dependent my end as I'm doing laser drops in real time of all of these through the MultiCh Analogue Out of my disc player rather than bit for bit rips, it may be something else going on like DTS decoding versus the conversion of DSD to PCM in the player or something? I don't know but that's something different between the BD-A & MCh SACD on my BDP on those tracks anyway).

I'll check more tracks from the various versions of GYBR in 5.1 later in the week but I suspect the MCh SACD, DVD-A & BD-A are indeed the same after all, with the exception of "Social Disease", for some reason its mastered differently on the BD-A and lacks the faded in intro of the MCh SACD & DVD-A, which more closely resembled the original Stereo mix.. but will have more concrete info down the line (and pics if people require to show the same waveforms across all formats for all songs).

What are we looking at in your images? E.g., from the DVDA, is it a laser drop of a DTS decode, or is it of the lossless layer?

The appearance , and the amount of 'gain until clipping' of laser drops is dependent on recording level. Here is what 'Social Disease' looks like as a direct rip from the BluRay lossless layer, displayed in Audition.




As it happens there isn't room for any more actual gain -- the left channel peaks at 0dbFS circa 2:19. The available 'gain' you are seeing on your images is the effect of your recording level, which for this track was low -- you left yourself a lot of headroom.

 

[bluelightning]

? the only other multichannel release of GYBR is the BluRay.

If you mean, compared to stereo releases, I'm sure there are 2.0 digital versions with far less compression than these have, and different EQ. The album has been remastered several times over the years.

Thanks. You more than answered my question. I meant compared to any of the multichannel releases. Likely all three are using the same mastering/set of files ? If indeed true, it is shame they employed more compression for the multichannel tracks.

 

[ssully]

Thanks. You more than answered my question. I meant compared to any of the multichannel releases. Likely all three are using the same mastering/set of files ?

I suspect so. 'Social Disease' may have had some further processing, as it seems be faded in on most versions but not the 5.1 BluRay. To me that suggests that the fade in needs to be done as a post process (i.e, it's full volume on the master tapes).

If indeed true, it is shame they employed more compression for the multichannel tracks.

I don't know if that's true. I didn't bother to rip the stereo track of any of these.

 

[fredblue]

What are we looking at in your images? E.g., from the DVDA, is it a laser drop of a DTS decode, or is it of the lossless layer?

The appearance , and the amount of 'gain until clipping' of laser drops is dependent on recording level. Here is what 'Social Disease' looks like as a direct rip from the BluRay lossless layer, displayed in Audition.


View attachment 42522

As it happens there isn't room for any more actual gain -- the left channel peaks at 0dbFS circa 2:19. The available 'gain' you are seeing on your images is the effect of your recording level, which for this track was low -- you left yourself a lot of headroom.

all 3 were laserdrops, done at the same time, on the same player, captured at the same levels.

i had thought about doing rips of the MLP of the DVD-A through DVDAE and the BD w/MakeMKV etc (or whatever it's called).. but then considered that might stuff up any comparison since i can't rip SACDs, so did them all in realtime from the multich analogue outs of my BDP into the Motu, no changes to i/o levels on anything between the 3 disc types/formats.

so what's the verdict?
BD worst, DVD-A better, SACD best?

 

[ssully]

all 3 were laserdrops, done at the same time, on the same player, captured at the same levels.

and they are all from lossless versions, not DTS?

i had thought about doing rips of the MLP of the DVD-A through DVDAE and the BD w/MakeMKV etc (or whatever it's called).. but then considered that might stuff up any comparison since i can't rip SACDs, so did them all in realtime from the multich analogue outs of my BDP into the Motu, no changes to i/o levels on anything between the 3 disc types/formats.

so what's the verdict?
BD worst, DVD-A better, SACD best?

I certainly haven't compared every track between the three releases, but for two that I did -- 'Grey Seal' and 'Bennie and the Jets' -- the measurable and predicted audible differences are insignificant.

i.e., 'Same'

 

[fredblue]

and they are all from lossless versions, not DTS?



I certainly haven't compared every track between the three releases, but for two that I did -- 'Grey Seal' and 'Bennie and the Jets' -- the measurable and predicted audible differences are insignificant.

i.e., 'Same'

all lossless, yes.
all captured @96/24 MCh Flac.
the DVD-Audio was the MLP 5.1
(there's no DTS on the disc, the lossy alternative is Dolby Digital in DVD-V playback and i didn't rip that) and there's only one surround option on the SACDs & BD-A.

i found the 5.1 on the BD-A, DVD-A & SACDs so so similar they might as well be the same. the main difference was the lack of fade in on "Social Disease" on the BD-A, fade in present and correct(ish) on the DVD-A & SACDs.

 

[Beefalo]

I originally found this to be too hot. Especially the highs. I trust the opinions of this forum. How could it get such high ratings?
I wanted this to be good so I listed very carefully. To my ears the objectionable highs were in the surround channels. I adjusted the surround Using parametric EQ set at 5K, Q 10 -20db. I like the sound much better. The steep dip doesn't affect mid range or the highest frequencies.
I am a happy man. Really love this album.

This is one of the loudest discs I own. It rivals Genesis S/T. Thought I would give it another try today. As usual I need to tame the excessively hot treble of the surrounds.
Using parametric EQ set at 5K, the Q at 10
I dropped the volume -20db. Then raised the overall level of the surrounds +3db to compensate.
I like this album so much I am determined to get a good sound.
There is also some strange sounding bass on some songs (compressed) ?
Nothing I can do about that.
Anyway I raised my vote one notch. The mix is fantastic but in my book the EQ & mastering just butcher another "could have been great"

 

[himey]

This is one of the loudest discs I own. It rivals Genesis S/T. Thought I would give it another try today. As usual I need to tame the excessively hot treble of the surrounds.
Using parametric EQ set at 5K, the Q at 10
I dropped the volume -20db. Then raised the overall level of the surrounds +3db to compensate.
I like this album so much I am determined to get a good sound.
There is also some strange sounding bass on some songs (compressed) ?
Nothing I can do about that.
Anyway I raised my vote one notch. The mix is fantastic but in my book the EQ & mastering just butcher another "could have been great"

May I ask if you are using bass management along with the eq?

I had a similar take until I dumped my small rears for full range and got rid of bass management/sub.

 

[Beefalo]

May I ask if you are using bass management along with the eq?

I had a similar take until I dumped my small rears for full range and got rid of bass management/sub.

Thank you for the recommendation.
I have the DVDA. I tried it without bass management & dsp. This setting only gutted the bass and didn't improve the loud mastering/hot EQ.

 

[himey]

Thank you for the recommendation.
I have the DVDA. I tried it without bass management & dsp. This setting only gutted the bass and didn't improve the loud mastering/hot EQ.

When I listened with bass management and and bass from the front with small rears, the midrange sounded compressed for lack of a better word. Full range emanating from each rear corner smoothed it out greatly. YMMV.

 

[ssully]

May I ask if you are using bass management along with the eq?

I had a similar take until I dumped my small rears for full range and got rid of bass management/sub.

Perusal of its waveforms shows that the mix/mastering itself is very loud, due to obvious limiting of dynamic range in 5 channels (the LFE is quite loud too, but the compression there if any is not bumping level up against 0dbFS). No change in loudspeaker configuration is gonna fix that.

 

[himey]

Perusal of its waveforms shows that the mix/mastering itself is very loud, due to obvious limiting of dynamic range in 5 channels (the LFE is quite loud too, but the compression there if any is not bumping level up against 0dbFS). No change in loudspeaker configuration is gonna fix that.

I said it sounded smoother because it does. I haven't looked at the waveforms.

 

[ssully]

It sounded loud to me, in every format (DVD-A, SACD, DTS-MA) so I investigated a possible cause. The waveforms are objective evidence of a likely reason for sounding loud. Ears can't do that. Another thing about waveforms is, they don't change. But the sound at your seat will, if , for example, you radically reconfigure your loudspeakers setup. Which is a pretty elaborate way to adjust the in-room EQ to make an aggressive-sounding release sound smoother. It's unlikely to work the same for others in different rooms with different loudspeakers...or even work the same for different albums.

 

[GOS]

I dunno. I just don't find this title offensive. At all. Probably I'm biased by the music, and the great multi-channel piece. Do I notice it being sharp? No. I don't. I have the SACD, and also the Blu.

Right now, listening to the SACD. To me it sounds amazing.