HiRez Poll Spears, Britney - IN THE ZONE [DVD-A]

[fredblue]

Perhaps visually NOT ....... but AURALLY ..........YES! The MLP DVD~A 5.1 is a stunner, at least on my system ...... and I own enough DD/DTS dualdiscs to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE!

the waveforms don't tell the whole story but they don't lie; the actual content in each channel of the respective discs is different (please see my additional comments in the edit of my previous message).

edit: sorry Ralph, i don't want to shut down that aspect of the conversation altogether but i feel the "lossy vs lossless" debate is not relevant in this particular instance; the DualDisc multichannel mixes exhibit greater differences than anyone might perceive by taking any old lossless 5.1 mix and encoding it with a lossy codec such as Dolby Digital. if you want i can do just that and "turn" the Britney MLP 5.1 into Dolby Digital 5.1 to illustrate the point (not right now though, i'm away from the computer just grabbing a quick bite of dinner 🍽

edit: upped vote here for the Britney DVD-Audio to an "8" and voted a "5" in Jon's new Britney DualDisc Poll.

 

[sjcorne]

if you want i can do just that and "turn" the Britney MLP 5.1 into Dolby Digital 5.1 to illustrate the point

I've got you covered, did just that using the AC3 encoder in Audacity:

"Toxic" (88.2/24 MLP):


"Toxic" (48/16 Dolby Digital):

For a LOSSY hater like myself, the proof is in the putting those graphs before our eyes to savor the apparent degradation that ensues when a LOSSLESS codec is reduced to DD 5.1...with TOXIC results!

In my experience, encoding something to a lossy format does not alter the visual appearance of waveform. The tamer surround mix and louder mastering on the In The Zone DualDisc were simply choices made by the engineers that worked on it. If it was released in a lossless format, it would be be just as loud and "look" exactly the same.

Also, maybe I'm way off here, but is this really the type of album that would benefit from a hi-rez presentation? And is it really even hi-rez? The frequency response falls of a cliff at around 20k. I suspect the whole album was recorded digitally at CD quality (44.1) then up-sampled to 88.2 for the DVD-A release.



Technical jargon aside, I have to agree with everyone that this is one I hate to enjoy. Awesome surround mix.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I've got you covered, did just that using the AC3 encoder in Audacity:

"Toxic" (88.2/24 MLP):
View attachment 40050

"Toxitc" (48/16 Dolby Digital):
View attachment 40051

Thanks to you and Adam for the waveforms but you are WAY OFF when you assert that 'this type of album' doesn't benefit from the transition to hi res ...... IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES ....VERY DYNAMIC SOUNDING and great use of surrounds.

Adam even upgraded his vote for the MLP DVD~A 5.1 version to an '8' and downgraded the DD 5.1 DUALDISC .... to a '5!'

I ONLY wish more CONTEMPORARY albums would take a similar approach instead of releasing on overly compressed RBCDs .... and calling it a day.

 

[fredblue]

Thanks to you and Adam for the waveforms but you are WAY OFF when you assert that 'this type of album' doesn't benefit from the transition to hi res ...... IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES ....VERY DYNAMIC SOUNDING and great use of surrounds.

Adam even upgraded his vote for the MLP DVD~A 5.1 version to an '8' and downgraded the DD 5.1 DUALDISC .... to a '5!'

I ONLY wish more CONTEMPORARY albums would take a similar approach instead of releasing on overly compressed RBCDs .... and calling it a day.

can of worms 1: i think Jonathan makes a valid point questioning the worth of uprezing music recorded at 44.1/16 to 88.2/24 but i accept it is a bone of contention among audiophile boffins.

can of worms 2: imho the Britney mix would probably be just as dynamic if it were lossy as lossless or whether it were in standard res or hi res.

i upgraded my DVD-A vote from "7" to "8" because having listened to the 5.1 on the DVD-A for the first time in a long time (with 4 fresh ears!) i felt the mix on the DVD-A was so good it warranted an extra point.

i voted a "5" for the DualDisc because i consider the mix and mastering of the 5.1 on the DualDisc to be poorer than on the DVD-A and in its' own right i give the DualDisc a "5".

i did not vote a "5" for the DualDisc on the grounds that the DualDisc sounds worse than the DVD-A purely because the DualDisc is lower resolution than the DVD-A and not losslessly encoded like the DVD-A.

i'm too tired for all this fun and games now, i'll pop back after i've had a wee snooze, ttfn!

 

[4-earredwonder]

can of worms 1: i think Jonathan makes a valid point questioning the worth of uprezing music recorded at 44.1/16 to 88.2/24 but i accept it is a bone of contention among audiophile boffins.

can of worms 2: imho the Britney mix would probably be just as dynamic if it were lossy as lossless or whether it were in standard res or hi res.

i upgraded my DVD-A vote from "7" to "8" because having listened to the 5.1 on the DVD-A for the first time in a long time (with 4 fresh ears!) i felt the mix on the DVD-A was so good it warranted an extra point.

i voted a "5" for the DualDisc because i consider the mix and mastering of the 5.1 on the DualDisc to be poorer than on the DVD-A and in its' own right i give the DualDisc a "5".

i did not vote a "5" for the DualDisc on the grounds that the DualDisc sounds worse than the DVD-A purely because the DualDisc is lower resolution than the DVD-A and not losslessly encoded like the DVD-A.

i'm too tired for all this fun and games now, i'll pop back after i've had a wee snooze, ttfn!

My only disagreement is that PCM 16/44.1 UPREZED [if that's a word] can sound noticeably better if you take into account the BRICKWALL filtering applied by the CD/Player SPEC which was NOT applied to the IN THE ZONE MLP DVD~A 'upgrade.'

Case in point: Analogue Productions recently released THREE Stereo SACDs from PCM 16/44.1 MASTERS [Cowboy Junkies Trinty Sessions, Rob Wasserman's DUETS and Nils Lofgren Acoustic LIVE] and although I don't own the Lofgren CD for comparison ... I do own the RBCDs of DUETS and The Trinty Sessions and IMO and on MY system.....the transfer to SACD sounds amazing ....... and certainly more than worthy of the UPGRADE!

THREE STUNNING EXAMPLES of SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFERRING PCM [DDD] 16/44.1 MASTERS to SACD!

 

[ssully]

The AC3 on the DVDA is identical to the MLP mix (and different from the DualDisc mix). Here it is, decoded to PCM:

 

[ssully]

Thank you, Adam, for doing the research ....... For a LOSSY hater like myself, the proof is in the putting those graphs before our eyes to savor the apparent degradation that ensues when a LOSSLESS codec is reduced to DD 5.1...with TOXIC results!

Wrong. It has nothing to do with lossy vs lossless. The 'proof in the putting' [sic] of that is in what I just posted. The lossy AC3 mix on the DVDA is the same as the MLP mix on the DVDA.

Folks, get it though your heads: simply converting to lossy would *NEVER* *EVER* remix a track (like, create a wholly different Center channel mix , as on the DualDisc). It's just impossible. Nor does it reduce dynamic range, 'shrink the image' or any other audiophile nonsense that gets spread about. If you see differences like that on lossy vs lossless waveforms, it's due to some other mixing choice.

 

[edisonbaggins]

I think, maybe, he doesn't agree or believe that the DVD-A and Dualdisc are two different mixes. I'm not sure why. QQers I trust state that to be the case.

That is the only reason I've never bought a Dualdisc of this. Hope springs eternal for an affordable DVD-A or it, someday.

 

[ssully]

My only disagreement is that PCM 16/44.1 UPREZED [if that's a word] can sound noticeably better if you take into account the BRICKWALL filtering applied by the CD/Player SPEC which was NOT applied to the IN THE ZONE MLP DVD~A 'upgrade.'

In the 88.2 version the filtering simply takes place at a higher frequency (44.1 kHz). And regardless of that, the actual content remains 'brickwalled' at 22 kHz; you haven't regenerated any original content (information) above that. You have only generated extremely low level ultrasonic noise.

And as to what actually matters: None of it. You aren't hearing either filtering process, despite your audiophile belief system telling you otherwise.

[Case in point: Analogue Productions recently released THREE Stereo SACDs from PCM 16/44.1 MASTERS [Cowboy Junkies Trinty Sessions, Rob Wasserman's DUETS and Nils Lofgren Acoustic LIVE] and although I don't own the Lofgren CD for comparison ... I do own the RBCDs of DUETS and The Trinty Sessions and IMO and on MY system.....the transfer to SACD sounds amazing ....... and certainly more than worthy of the UPGRADE!

If the mastering itself (EQ, compression) is different, that explains audible difference without recourse to format difference. After that, consider analog output level difference between CD and SACD, in your setup.

Eliminate both those factors, then compare the releases blind , and you might have an 'SACD is an audible upgrade' story to tell. More likely, you wouldn't.

 

[ssully]

I think, maybe, he doesn't agree or believe that the DVD-A and Dualdisc are two different mixes. I'm not sure why. QQers I trust state that to be the case.

center channel comparison is enough to demonstrate that the mixes are quite different

That is the only reason I've never bought a Dualdisc of this. Hope springs eternal for an affordable DVD-A or it, someday.

I have a NIN dualdisc (Downward Spiral) , and I think my Talking Heads discs might be as well, but I never had a MLP versions to compare them to. Nor reason to suspect they are different.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Not to veer too far off course [Britney POLL, after all], but I've always considered Dire Straits' BROTHERS IN ARMS a classic example of a DDD PCM 16/44.1 MASTER being 'uprezed' to MLP DVD~A 5.1 with extraordinary results.

Conversely, I would love to hear the 'rumored' higher res 5.1 remix of Paul Simon's GRACELAND which was also from DDD PCM 16/44.1 sources.

Ssully, your points are well taken .... and appreciated! But I was always under the impression that BRICKWALL FILTERING of 16/44.1 was a function of the RBCD format itself and consequently the players .... and was NOT extant on the PCM MASTERS ....themselves.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

Not to veer too far off course [Britney POLL, after all], but I've always considered Dire Straits' BROTHERS IN ARMS a classic example of a DDD PCM 16/44.1 MASTER being 'uprezed' to MLP DVD~A 5.1 with extraordinary results.

Conversely, I would love to hear the 'rumored' higher res 5.1 remix of PS' GRACEAND which was also from DDD PCM 16/44.1 sources.

I didn't know that.

 

[ar surround]

Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that a Britney Spears album would get so much attention...to the point where this title has become the epicenter for discussing uprezing and the like.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Never in my wildest imagination would I have thought that a Britney Spears album would get so much attention...to the point where this title has become the epicenter for discussing uprezing and the like.

As the ole saying goes, ar, ya can't keep a good [?] woman down ..... and as we speak, Britney IS attempting a comeback! Better watch your ***, Taylor!

 

[JonUrban]

did we ever get to the bottom of what's on the DVD-Audio Vs the DualDisc?

i racked up both versions to try and see what might have occurred.. it seems it wasn't some minor futzing that went on in the transition from DVD-Audio to DualDisc, looking at the 5.1 MLP on the earlier DVD-Audio mix it seems to me to be much more discrete and better balanced than the Dolby Digital 5.1 on the DualDisc.

here's "Toxic" in 5.1 on the DVD-Audio;

View attachment 40044

..and "Toxic" in 5.1 from the DualDisc;

View attachment 40045

This is a completely different mix. Totally. No doubt about it. You could take that DVD-A file, encode it to AC-3 (DD), then unencode it back to .wav or .flac, and it would look nothing like the 5.1 wav file above from the DualDisc.

 

[edisonbaggins]

This is a completely different mix. Totally. No doubt about it. You could take that DVD-A file, encode it to AC-3 (DD), then unencode it back to .wav or .flac, and it would look nothing like the 5.1 wav file above from the DualDisc.

I love how you put a big red X through the dualdisc picture in the OP!

 

[fredblue]

I have a NIN dualdisc (Downward Spiral) , and I think my Talking Heads discs might be as well, but I never had a MLP versions to compare them to. Nor reason to suspect they are different.

fwiw NIN's "The Downward Spiral" DualDisc & all Talking Heads DualDiscs have MLP encoded DVD-Audio option iirc.

 

[fredblue]

This is a completely different mix. Totally. No doubt about it. You could take that DVD-A file, encode it to AC-3 (DD), then unencode it back to .wav or .flac, and it would look nothing like the 5.1 wav file above from the DualDisc.

there you go Ralphie, from Jon's lips to your 4 wondrous ears!

 

[JonUrban]

there you go Ralphie, from Jon's lips to your 4 wondrous ears!

Oooops. You did it again!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Oooops. You did it again!

Is that why my 4 ears were tingling, Jon?