|
|
Post by ROWUK on Nov 15, 2019 7:11:12 GMT 10
I have given most of the files a fair listen and hear some "common denominators" that could be my "perception", flaws in my system, or maybe indications for further research. Or it could simply be personal preference.
My listening was done at "natural" levels on my office system (Infinity original Modulus system with EMIT tweeter and tweaked xover) as well as my big hybrid horn system.
I have not spent enough time to think about reasons - these are just initial impressions.
In most cases, the reprocessed files do not throw as "deep" an image as my own LPs (Olivia and Carly) or CDs(LR, Carpenters and ABBA). Below 100Hz sounds 3-6dB lower in level than the commercial productions. In the range between 100 and 500Hz at soft to medium volumes, I hear some congestion or compression in the processed files. When the same range but medium loud to loud is sung, things clear up appreciably. When I play back live masters of my concerts, none of these problems are present so I am pretty sure that it is not my system. The 12 string guitar in the ONJ recordings seems to be WAY TOO BRIGHT.
Generally, there seems to be more natural dynamics but I still seem to have most of the the same "annoyances" as with the originals - sybillance, miserable balance between instruments and voices (from the original mix).
So, in certain respects "better" for my ears in certain areas (no audible pumping, less sybillance, voices over 500 Hz much clearer), but other respects (depth/bass/veiled soft sounds in the lower midrange) the warts draw attraction to themselves.
I have some time this weekend. I will get the spectrum analyzer up and make some comparisons to try and quantify some of these impressions.
I was not able to turn analytical mode off while listening.
Was the evaluation for EQ and decompression parameters done on dipole speakers? I seem to remember a similar situation at a production that I did that was mixed on Quad ELS57s.
|
|
sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021)
Global Moderator 
Posts: 226
About Me: Retired ex Principal Telecommunications Technical Officer with 43 years at Telstra (Australia)
I am also a Moderator in Hi Fi Critic Forum
Electronics hobbyist for >65 years with DIY projects including Loudspeakers, Stereo FM tuner, S/W Regen Receiver, Superhet AM ,
Synchrodyne PLL AM tuner (Phase Lock Loop),Stereo Tape Deck, Amplifiers including I.C. types, Class A, Class AB 100W/Ch. (ETI5000) 240W/Ch. Mosfet (AEM6000) ,several DACs , numerous PSUs including VERY low noise (<4uV) types etc.for myself and friends
Audio Industry Affiliation: NIL
|
Post by sandyk (RIP Alex, 1939 - 2021) on Nov 15, 2019 8:16:18 GMT 10
I have given most of the files a fair listen and hear some "common denominators" that could be my "perception", flaws in my system, or maybe indications for further research. Or it could simply be personal preference. My listening was done at "natural" levels on my office system (Infinity original Modulus system with EMIT tweeter and tweaked xover) as well as my big hybrid horn system. I have not spent enough time to think about reasons - these are just initial impressions. In most cases, the reprocessed files do not throw as "deep" an image as my own LPs (Olivia and Carly) or CDs(LR, Carpenters and ABBA). Below 100Hz sounds 3-6dB lower in level than the commercial productions. In the range between 100 and 500Hz at soft to medium volumes, I hear some congestion or compression in the processed files. When I play back live masters of my concerts, none of these problems are present so I am pretty sure that it is not my system. The 12 string guitar in the ONJ recordings seems to be WAY TOO BRIGHT. Generally, there seems to be more natural dynamics but I still seem to have most of the the same "annoyances" as with the originals - sybillance, miserable balance between instruments and voices (from the original mix). So, in certain respects "better" for my ears in certain areas (no audible pumping, less sybillance, voices over 500 Hz much clearer), but other respects (depth/bass/veiled soft sounds in the lower midrange) the warts draw attraction to themselves. I have some time this weekend. I will get the spectrum analyzer up and make some comparisons to try and quantify some of these impressions. I was not able to turn analytical mode off while listening. Was the evaluation for EQ and decompression parameters done on dipole speakers? I seem to remember a similar situation at a production that I did that was mixed on Quad ELS57s. Hi Robin What we need to do here is compare John's corrected versions with the original on CD. Comparing them with LP is not a fair comparison due to the much more careful mastering with LP. Yes, I have fond memories of some of this material on LP too, that on the original CDs , and remasters, sounded very disappointing. One example was a Carly Simon LP of " Come Upstairs" where she sounded like she was actually going up the stairs., yet had no apparent height information or illusion of this with the CD. I remember being very disappointed with that CD purchase. I was even more disappointed with every Crystal Gayle recordings that I purchased in comparison with her lovely voice on LP (IIRC, she is Loretta Lynn's sister ?)
With the most recent ONJ-Soul Kiss example I reported back to John about the backing overshadowing the vocals a little too much. John's reply was " As an afterthought, I do think that there was a bit too much bass (low bass.)" However, John was doing this one as a personal favour, and yes, overall it does sound better than my own copy from the purchased CD.
Incidentally, C.J. intended just saving a few tracks from Carly Simon, but enjoyed them so much " I couldn't resist taking the lot and found a couple of surprise new favourites too."
BTW, are you are using Vacuum Tube electronics in your main system, not what most of us would be listening to these with ? In most cases I am hearing a vastly wider soundstage and more depth and separation than the originals, but my own gear has extremely wide channel separation and depth of image, in part due to it's monoblock type of construction. I am also fortunate in being able to access more CDs of the same artists than John is able too, to compare with what John has available. As an example, John agrees that a sample of my tracks from Linda Ronstadt have different EQ to what his has with the same recording and sounds better. He may use that version in the preparation of his corrected versions. John's corrections can only be as good as the material that he has available permits. Do you have any high quality " needle drops" of any of this material that could help to give John a better perspective than much of this badly executed material that he has available, that rarely even has Test Tones at the start to make life easier? I presume that you found " Fever" to be of extremely high quality, for example ?
Kind Regards Alex
Kind Regards Alex
|
|
|
|
Post by johndyson on Nov 15, 2019 8:55:43 GMT 10
I understand that there will be differences between a raw DolbyA compatible decode of a recording that had been recovered from a molested recording on CD. Also, my results (except for the ABBA stuff) are NOT MASTERED. They are pretty much direct from the DolbyA recording as recovered from the molested (but corrected) CD recording.
So -- while trying to undo whatever 'magic' or 'love' (okay, damage) done when creating the distribution copy of the recording, also I have to massage the signal so that it is as close to a true DolbyA signal for the decoder. When everything is balanced, and doesn't sound too bad --those are the results that I demo. (ABBA is different in this regard.)
My results have NO post-decoding mastering. Faults in the original recording, minor EQ tweaks, etc -- not being done.
I do NOT do mastering -- I am only doing decoding of whatever raw material that can be recovered from the CD.
If you DO want perfection -- I mean, true perfection getting every last detail from a master tape, the DHNRDS DA decoder will extract everything from the tape. The difference between the lowest quality mode on the DHNRDS DA and the highest quality mode is very noticeable. Most importantly, even the lowest quality mode on the DHNRDS DA is more clean that a true DolbyA!!! The DHNRDS DA has all of the capabilities needed to work with standard RF64/BEXT master tape images, and even supports the various tweaks sometimes needed because of level and EQ compatibility problems between machines. (Richard Hess required that the DHNRDS DA give the flexbility of the A301, but much more.)
Most people don't have vinyl. Many people (like me) don't like even -50dB rumble or ticks/pops, vinyl surface noise, etc. Being able to start witih relatively clean material, digitally accurate (modulo the damage that cannot be undone) allows some of us to hear something close to what the master tape sounded like without masterring.
Because 'mastering' is a very delicate art -- I don't even try to do it. In some cases, my results can be more accurate than the vinyl, but accuracy doesn't necessarily mean sound better. In other cases, my results might be notcieably inferior in some ways. My biggest problem is EQ at the low end, and sometimes there are two choices of curve shapes that sound plausible, but I don't have reference material to choose the correction curves (intended to undo the errsatz-decoding.)
As always, we all perceive sound differently -- this is one reason why Alex is so helpful to me. Alex has more patience than anyone else that I know, and has hearing that discerns problems that I cannot initially detect. Sometimes, I totally botch a decode -- sometimes the results are amazing.
When I do have reference material -- so I know what the target sound should be -- as long as the digitlal source isn't severely damaged, and I allow myself to do the same mastering as the vinyl -- there is a huge chance that the results can be very competitive with the vinyl. For example, I have rips of original ABBA vinyl (and newer vinyl also), I doubt that many would think that the rips sound better than the decodes, but I cannot always predict how people hear things...
Any time that you do want a pristine digital copy of something on vinyl, and we can find a source with DolbyA encoding left on it -- I can probably produce very competitive results (maybe better) -- but the mastering (post decoding EQ/compression/etc) are all things that I cannot do very well.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by ROWUK on Nov 17, 2019 7:25:55 GMT 10
Hi Robin What we need to do here is compare John's corrected versions with the original on CD. Comparing them with LP is not a fair comparison due to the much more careful mastering with LP. Yes, I have fond memories of some of this material on LP too, that on the original CDs , and remasters, sounded very disappointing. One example was a Carly Simon LP of " Come Upstairs" where she sounded like she was actually going up the stairs., yet had no apparent height information or illusion of this with the CD. I remember being very disappointed with that CD purchase. I was even more disappointed with every Crystal Gayle recordings that I purchased in comparison with her lovely voice on LP (IIRC, she is Loretta Lynn's sister ?)
With the most recent ONJ-Soul Kiss example I reported back to John about the backing overshadowing the vocals a little too much. John's reply was " As an afterthought, I do think that there was a bit too much bass (low bass.)" However, John was doing this one as a personal favour, and yes, overall it does sound better than my own copy from the purchased CD.
Incidentally, C.J. intended just saving a few tracks from Carly Simon, but enjoyed them so much " I couldn't resist taking the lot and found a couple of surprise new favourites too."
BTW, are you are using Vacuum Tube electronics in your main system, not what most of us would be listening to these with ? In most cases I am hearing a vastly wider soundstage and more depth and separation than the originals, but my own gear has extremely wide channel separation and depth of image, in part due to it's monoblock type of construction. I am also fortunate in being able to access more CDs of the same artists than John is able too, to compare with what John has available. As an example, John agrees that a sample of my tracks from Linda Ronstadt have different EQ to what his has with the same recording and sounds better. He may use that version in the preparation of his corrected versions. John's corrections can only be as good as the material that he has available permits. Do you have any high quality " needle drops" of any of this material that could help to give John a better perspective than much of this badly executed material that he has available, that rarely even has Test Tones at the start to make life easier? I presume that you found " Fever" to be of extremely high quality, for example ?
Kind Regards Alex
Kind Regards Alex
Hi Alex, Yes, Fever is VERY good. I have two systems. The Infinity Modulus with class A SS amplification and my horn system with valve amplification. On my reference material, they are equal in resolution and frequency balance, the horn system allowing me so see deeper into the musical event (not imaging) but also making warts more painful. |
|
|
|
Post by johndyson on Dec 28, 2019 10:21:30 GMT 10
I feel that this might be the best forum topic to show an example of the anti-MD mode of the DHNRDS vs. simply disabling the anti-MD (no anti-MD). Note that a DolbyA tends to sound more like the 'no-anti-MD', but the purpose here is not to discuss differences between DolbyA and DHNRDS. THe purpose is to show that the anti-MD really does work. It doesn't always 'grab you' right away, but after listening - should notice more grain in the no-anti-MD, and details are more obscured by 'something difficult to describe'. I can come up with various other examples -- some might be more obvious, but these seem to show at least some difference. (It is easy to find differences on this kind of material).
The 'anti-MD' terminology probably sounds like gobblty-gook, but the best way to describe is to demostrate. Note that a real DolbyA would sound even grittier, but also leave more of a compressed sound than the DHNRDS DA. This is one of the 'more clean' sounding recordings where there is a realistic sound that can be distinguished. This is from an old Burt Bacharach greatest hits type album set. You might have to listen for the graininess later in the cut -- but the ambiance is also less stable in the no-anti-MD. It has a generally more grainy sound -- yet the FULL anti-MD has a more full sound as the recording engineer might wish. Note that the settings are IDENTICAL, and the only difference is the disabling of the anti-MD and anti-IMD portions of the code. FULL anti-MD: www.dropbox.com/s/yiy1yru9r7fk8rt/08. Twenty Four Hours From Tulsa-FULLantiMD.mp3?dl=0 NO anti-MD, but still some distortion reduction: www.dropbox.com/s/x9xf41e72qfhhxq/08. Twenty Four Hours From Tulsa-noantiMD.mp3?dl=0 John |
|
