The Doors - The Singles (2CD/4.0 Blu-Ray set) coming soon!

[timbre4]

Without starting an official QQShitStorm(R), could the difference be due to the conversion to DSD for the SACD??? :couch

I thought about suggesting this as a reasonable explanation before that odd kerfuffle. Thanks for posting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[steelydave]

The differences in dynamic range between the two formats come down to two things: a flaw in the way the DR meter calculates its findings for quad SACDs, and mastering differences.

I did a thread about it in detail, but in a nutshell it seems that SACDs can't be authored as 4.0 (whereas PCM can) so they're either done as 5.0 (AF SACDs) with a silent center channel, or 5.1 (D-V SACDs) with silent center and LFE.

The way the DR meter gets it's readings is by checking each individual channel and then adding all the results together and dividing by the number of channels. Silent channels come up as 0 (zero) on the DR meter, so they skew the DR meter downward.

Just as a made up example, lets say your quad SACD was DR12 but it had a silent center channel:

FL: 12
FR:12
C: 0
SL: 12
SR: 12

Actual DR: 12
DR Meter rating: (12 + 12 + 0 + 12 + 12) divided by 5 channels = 9.6 (it would round it up to 10)


So if you want to get an accurate DR reading for AF or D-V SACDs, you either have to rip the discs to PCM, delete the silent channels, export to .wav or .flac and then run the DR meter on the resulting files.

The other way, which isn't quite as accurate (but close enough) is to take the DR reading of the SACD, divide by the number of channels actually on the disc and then multiply by 4 (the number of channels with actual sound). So for AF discs you'd do DR rating divided by 5, then times 4. For D-V SACDss, DR divided by 6, times 4.

So GOS reports that the DR rating for the SACD of The Doors GH is DR9 - so you go DR9 x 5 channels (=45) divided by 4 = 11.25

So the actual DR of the SACD is probably in the DR11 - DR12 range. Boosting the bass and treble can easily add 1-2dB to the DR numbers, especially when there are 4 channels in play. I think both versions were sourced from the original quad master and neither one has had any dynamic range compression applied - the EQ differences almost certainly account for the DR meter discrepancy.


The EQ differences would also account for reports of the vocals sounding more recessed on the BR vs. the SACD - the "presence" band for vocals tends to live somewhere between 4kHz and 7kHz (depending on recording/singer) which is basically the upper midrange. As EQ is a relative thing, if you're boosting the bass and treble, the midrange is lowered as a result so you lose some of that presence.

Hoffman's little mastering party trick is to carefully boost that upper midrange to bring out the detail in vocals and instruments (I think he refers to this as "the breath of life"), which is often why the AF masterings can sound either bass or treble shy (depending on your preferences as a result. You'll especially notice it if you're A/B-ing it against another version of the same material mastered differently like people are with this Doors set.

 

[timbre4]

Excellent detailed post Dave!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[whatsmyname4]

I've been comparing both the AF SACD transfer of the quad Best of and the new Bluray transfer from The Singles. I think the audible differences perceived between the AF SACD and the Singles BluRay disc are all down to different mastering approaches. Steve Hoffman probably prefers accenting mids. I feel like I've read him saying as much over at his forum before. It seems to be his mastering approach, accenting the vocals to give them realism. The BluRay mastering is probably geared more towards accentuating bass and treble. i think both mastering approaches can be enjoyable.

I think it's great to have both versions in a hi-rez format to listen to! :teleport:

 

[drphibes]

This arrived today. What a delight. Rhino, you are NAILING IT. More!

ForagingRhino, if you're out there, take more of my money for this kind of thing. Please.

 

[quicksrt]

Without starting an official QQShitStorm(R), could the difference be due to the conversion to DSD for the SACD??? :couch

One person said that they liked the vocal levels in the SH mastering and just about everyone else is saying that the bass and upper frequencies just sizzle in a nicer way on the Singles set, more punch.

The SH post does not say which High-Rez format that master tape was captured to PCM or DSD?

So I think the differences are intentional, Hoffman went for smoother natural vocals, Rhino's went for over-all punch and a more rockin' approach.

PCM to DSD in Colo had minimal effect.

(just my thoughts, before I read post 164)

 

[TheAbsentMind]

Seems Rhino scored a home run in what is HOPEFULLY an early inning during a new game!

One person said that they liked the vocal levels in the SH mastering and just about everyone else is saying that the bass and upper frequencies just sizzle in a nicer way on the Singles set, more punch.

The SH post does not say which High-Rez format that master tape was captured to PCM or DSD?

So I think the differences are intentional, Hoffman went for smoother natural vocals, Rhino's went for over-all punch and a more rockin' approach.

PCM to DSD in Colo had minimal effect.

(just my thoughts, before I read post 164)

I haven't listened yet (ugh, time this week!) but that's my read. Someone posted a graph earlier in this thread and my first thought was a slight comparable "smiley face" EQ. Hoffman is very focused on midrange (where the voice is). To many, that could sound like a slight "frowny face" EQ. By all accounts, there seems to be a lot of positive response to Rhino's tasteful "sweetening" of this quad mix.

On SH.tv, he hasn't chimed in or even hinted about his thoughts on the quad, perhaps as professional courtesy but there have been times where disdain could be inferred (e.g., Sgt. Pepper); not here. In fact, he sounded over the moon about the two discs, even citing specific tracks. Downright enthused. The ONLY hint of criticism was that the $60 hi-res download would not bring worthy sound improvement. Based on that unequivocal post, I personally INFER a tacit "approval" of the whole thing.

 

[JonUrban]

Maybe ForagingRhino will peruse this thread to see what we think and chime in, so by all means let him know in this thread how much you like or dislike it. He can't tell us what might or might not be in the works (so please don't ask him), but he certainly can tell us about this release and any particulars he might want to share about it.

Like he did with the Chicago Quadio.

 

[HomerJAU]

The differences in dynamic range between the two formats come down to two things: a flaw in the way the DR meter calculates its findings for quad SACDs, and mastering differences....

Here's something interesting on DR.

My Denon won't play Quad FLAC so today I added an extra silent silent channel for a recent quad conversion to FLAC (not The Doors Singles as its still on its way from Amazon UK).

Here is DR as measured by Foobar's DR plugin version 1.1.1 for both the Quad and 5.0 version of Quad after silent channel added. Both show same DR values!

It appears Foobar's DR readings don't exhibit the flaw described in SteelyDaves's post. If Foobar was used to measure DR then The Singles BDA does have better DR than the AF SACD!

DR with Original Quad:
Number of tracks: 12
Official DR value: DR13


Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 4
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 5093 kbps
Codec: FLAC

DR with silent center using Quad source (above):
Number of tracks: 12
Official DR value: DR13


Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 5
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 5093 kbps
Codec: FLAC

I will do same comparison for The Singles BDA once it arrives.

 

[steelydave]

I believe the issue may only be present with SACD/DSD sourced tracks, because the silent channels still have the ultrasonic noise inherent in the format. Silent PCM tracks would have absolutely zero digital content, whereas DSD tracks will have the ultrasonic noise - I guess the DR meter knows when a channel is entirely silent and excludes it from the calculation - ie it records it as null rather than DR0. So silent PCM channels would be null whereas silent DSD channels would register as DR0, and then skew the final calcuation as a result. Maybe it's something the DR meter people could address in a future update.

 

[DuncanS]

Being a very technical person I'd be interested to know what equipment was used for the transfer, it just sounds brilliant. I've listened to the Blu-ray 4 times in a week I loved it so much, compared to twice to the SACD in the previous 2 years (and the SACD isn't bad at all, having just listened to it), its just to my ears and on my equipment the Blu-ray sounds brilliant, it breathes.

Maybe ForagingRhino will peruse this thread to see what we think and chime in, so by all means let him know in this thread how much you like or dislike it. He can't tell us what might or might not be in the works (so please don't ask him), but he certainly can tell us about this release and any particulars he might want to share about it.

Like he did with the Chicago Quadio.

 

[GOS]

The differences in dynamic range between the two formats come down to two things: a flaw in the way the DR meter calculates its findings for quad SACDs, and mastering differences.

I did a thread about it in detail, but in a nutshell it seems that SACDs can't be authored as 4.0 (whereas PCM can) so they're either done as 5.0 (AF SACDs) with a silent center channel, or 5.1 (D-V SACDs) with silent center and LFE.

The way the DR meter gets it's readings is by checking each individual channel and then adding all the results together and dividing by the number of channels. Silent channels come up as 0 (zero) on the DR meter, so they skew the DR meter downward.

Just as a made up example, lets say your quad SACD was DR12 but it had a silent center channel:

FL: 12
FR:12
C: 0
SL: 12
SR: 12

Actual DR: 12
DR Meter rating: (12 + 12 + 0 + 12 + 12) divided by 5 channels = 9.6 (it would round it up to 10)


So if you want to get an accurate DR reading for AF or D-V SACDs, you either have to rip the discs to PCM, delete the silent channels, export to .wav or .flac and then run the DR meter on the resulting files.

The other way, which isn't quite as accurate (but close enough) is to take the DR reading of the SACD, divide by the number of channels actually on the disc and then multiply by 4 (the number of channels with actual sound). So for AF discs you'd do DR rating divided by 5, then times 4. For D-V SACDss, DR divided by 6, times 4.

So GOS reports that the DR rating for the SACD of The Doors GH is DR9 - so you go DR9 x 5 channels (=45) divided by 4 = 11.25

So the actual DR of the SACD is probably in the DR11 - DR12 range. Boosting the bass and treble can easily add 1-2dB to the DR numbers, especially when there are 4 channels in play. I think both versions were sourced from the original quad master and neither one has had any dynamic range compression applied - the EQ differences almost certainly account for the DR meter discrepancy.


The EQ differences would also account for reports of the vocals sounding more recessed on the BR vs. the SACD - the "presence" band for vocals tends to live somewhere between 4kHz and 7kHz (depending on recording/singer) which is basically the upper midrange. As EQ is a relative thing, if you're boosting the bass and treble, the midrange is lowered as a result so you lose some of that presence.

Hoffman's little mastering party trick is to carefully boost that upper midrange to bring out the detail in vocals and instruments (I think he refers to this as "the breath of life"), which is often why the AF masterings can sound either bass or treble shy (depending on your preferences as a result. You'll especially notice it if you're A/B-ing it against another version of the same material mastered differently like people are with this Doors set.

I do now remember you explaining this before, and it's fascinating. Thanks for the reminder! My reference to DR of a 9, was for a single song and right now, I don't know what the overall average DR was. But, to your point, the Quad SACD DR is actually higher than the 9 or 10 average.

 

[Quadzilla]

Being a very technical person I'd be interested to know what equipment was used for the transfer, it just sounds brilliant. I've listened to the Blu-ray 4 times in a week I loved it so much, compared to twice to the SACD in the previous 2 years (and the SACD isn't bad at all, having just listened to it), its just to my ears and on my equipment the Blu-ray sounds brilliant, it breathes.

Most so-called 'universal' players are not great SACD players, especially Blu-ray players (and yes, I have had a few different OPPO models). It is quite plausible that the Blu-ray sounds better than the SACD simply because SACD playback was an afterthought on those players, and they do a much better job with Blu-ray disks they were primarily designed to play ... especially if they convert SACDs to PCM. I would be interested to know if the people who prefer the Blu-ray to the SACD are playing both disks on the same player. It might be as simple as that.

 

[GOS]

The first chart is for the SACD, and taking Steely's math, I placed the "correct" DR in parenthesis, then below is the Blu-ray. So, on average, they are similar with DR.


foobar2000 1.3.16 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2017-09-24 07:46:12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: THE DOORS / The Best Of The Doors [SACD Quad]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR9 (11.25) -6.16 dB -23.20 dB 6:41 1/11-Who Do You Love
DR9 (11.25) -5.41 dB -23.29 dB 3:32 2/11-Soul Kitchen
DR10 (12.50) -5.40 dB -21.21 dB 2:25 3/11-Hello, I Love You
DR9 (11.25) -6.57 dB -23.31 dB 2:11 4/11-People Are Strange
DR12 (15.00) -4.72 dB -24.71 dB 7:05 5/11-Riders On The Storm
DR10 (12.50) -6.36 dB -22.61 dB 3:12 6/11-Touch Me
DR10 (12.50) -4.90 dB -21.26 dB 3:22 7/11-Love Her Madly
DR10 (12.50) -4.72 dB -21.82 dB 3:16 8/11-Love Me Two Times
DR9 (11.25) -5.69 dB -21.65 dB 2:16 9/11-Take It As It Comes
DR10 (12.50) -4.37 dB -21.66 dB 3:03 10/11-Moonlight Drive
DR9 (11.25) -5.98 dB -22.35 dB 6:59 11/11-Light My Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 11
Official DR value: DR10 (12.15)

Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 5
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 5179 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

foobar2000 1.3.16 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2017-09-24 07:42:44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: The Doors / The Best of the Doors [Blu-ray Quad Mix]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR12 -0.41 dB -17.24 dB 6:41 01-Who Do You Love
DR12 0.00 dB -15.94 dB 3:32 02-Soul Kitchen
DR13 0.00 dB -14.81 dB 2:25 03-Hello, I Love You
DR13 0.00 dB -16.85 dB 2:11 04-People Are Strange
DR14 0.00 dB -16.75 dB 7:04 05-Riders on the Storm
DR13 -0.47 dB -15.75 dB 3:13 06-Touch Me
DR13 0.00 dB -14.15 dB 3:22 07-Love Her Madly
DR13 0.00 dB -15.50 dB 3:17 08-Love Me Two Times
DR11 0.00 dB -14.54 dB 2:15 09-Take It As It Comes
DR13 0.00 dB -15.40 dB 3:03 10-Moonlight Drive
DR12 0.00 dB -15.32 dB 7:05 11-Light My Fire
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 11
Official DR value: DR13

Samplerate: 192000 Hz
Channels: 4
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 11360 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

 

[GOS]

I had to edit the SACD adjustments, so you may have to refresh your page to see my edit. The average DR is 12.15 (not 13.20 as I initially listed)

 

[timothyemerson]

Maybe ForagingRhino will peruse this thread to see what we think and chime in, so by all means let him know in this thread how much you like or dislike it. He can't tell us what might or might not be in the works (so please don't ask him), but he certainly can tell us about this release and any particulars he might want to share about it.

Like he did with the Chicago Quadio.

I got my BD and listened over the weekend. This is the first Doors in surround I've heard and it's awesome. If more surround Doors gets released on BD, I'll buy.

 

[Bill Mac]

They should be the exact same mix, just different mastering. I saw a comparison that the BR has boosted bass/treble when compared to the SACD, which may account for the differences you are hearing, but the same mix.

I should have said two different versions and not mixes. Definitely aware that the AF SACD and Blu-ray have the same quad mix.

Most so-called 'universal' players are not great SACD players, especially Blu-ray players (and yes, I have had a few different OPPO models). It is quite plausible that the Blu-ray sounds better than the SACD simply because SACD playback was an afterthought on those players, and they do a much better job with Blu-ray disks they were primarily designed to play ... especially if they convert SACDs to PCM. I would be interested to know if the people who prefer the Blu-ray to the SACD are playing both disks on the same player. It might be as simple as that.

I totally disagree with your statement that universal players can not be great SACD players. I did my comparison using a Oppo 103 and 105D that are in the same rack. I used HDMI with both players and there is no way the "quality" of SACD playback is the cause for the SQ differences I heard between the two versions. I would also have to disagree that SACD playback is an "afterthought" on a quality universal players like an Oppo, Marantz, Cambridge Audio, Denon and Pioneer to name a few.

 

[timbre4]

Finally got around to playing the quad off the Blu Ray this evening with the Oppo 93 on the 5.1 system. I'm not always satisfied with quad mixes here as I probably will be with the Marantz 4.0 quad system in another room. I'm lucky I can get away with this. It's exhilarating to hear a quad mix on a setup dedicated to that delivery. Sorry, get carried away.

I'm going to listen on both systems before I finalize vote comments but I can say right now that it lit up the 5.1 system really nice. Whatever the EQ involved, it's just great to me. I've owned this album in at least 6 versions now and this was easily the most involving I've found this material. Lots of air and texture to it (insert travel brochure), has a nice snap to it. What a damn nice bargain package!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bill Mac]

Finally got around to playing the quad off the Blu Ray this evening with the Oppo 93 on the 5.1 system. I'm not always satisfied with quad mixes here as I probably will be with the Marantz 4.0 quad system in another room. I'm lucky I can get away with this. It's exhilarating to hear a quad mix on a setup dedicated to that delivery. Sorry, get carried away.

I'm going to listen on both systems before I finalize vote comments but I can say right now that it lit up the 5.1 system really nice. Whatever the EQ involved, it's just great to me. I've owned this album in at least 6 versions now and this was easily the most involving I've found this material. Lots of air and texture to it (insert travel brochure), has a nice snap to it. What a damn nice bargain package!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Excellent! Do you have the AF SACD version? I'd be curious as to your thoughts between the Bly-ray and SACD versions.

 

[TheAbsentMind]

I can't speak to the hardware issue but I can easily attest to Bill Mac's knowledge. He may be new HERE but he has a strong presence at AVS and SH.tv, where he's among the few (like FredBlue), who carries the multi-channel torch. Of the latter place, he also has a frustratingly faster trigger finger than I do when some deals arise!

From my standpoint I'd put you both on reasonably similar planes (well above me) and would hope all could just move along, agreeing to disagree. Among my favorite things about this board is it's relative lack of drama. I'm glad to see Bill Mac here, even if it's weird not seeing the SACD avatar beside his handle. A great addition to the community.

@Bill, elsewhere you mentioned you were going to A/B the two quad mixes. I hope you post your observations here, too.

Excellent! Do you have the AF SACD version? I'd be curious as to your thoughts between the Bly-ray and SACD versions.