DVD-Audiobahn New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.

---

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ DVD-Audiobahn ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

RE: How many DVD-A have bad Mastering?

Posted by antoneb (A) on May 8, 2010 at 20:41:47

In Reply to: RE: How many DVD-A have bad Mastering? posted by jimby on May 8, 2010 at 18:52:54:

When was the Gaucho Stereo master done on the 3M machine?? Gaucho is from 1980 I'm assuming the primary tracks are analog? Or did they have access to all digital? I have a lot of respect for the amount of pre and post production that went into Gaucho.

The software in question that I have been using to edit my DVD - A are cubase and Adobe Audition. I used DVD-Audio Explorer to extract. I also use FFT.

I use no gain modification when I rip tracks. Its obvious that the RED-Book Gaucho from the early 90's release and the DVD-A version have been handled differently. Its also obvious that the DVD-A stereo version is an up conversion I don't know why they wouldn't go the extra mile to do an analog to 24/96 stereo mix except that it was convenient.

Now I'm not saying that using some of the modern Maximizing and limiting tools is terrible thing. I think its fine to sacrifice a few transients for the good of the mix.

In fact I think even with the maximizing/limiting on the DVD-A stereo version of Gaucho is very restrained compared to what most modern CD's are doing. And Babylon Sistas has a huge almost unheard of dynamic range for a pop fusion album, something like 32dB. It is generous and commendable it speaks volumes to the engineers and the band.

Still maximizing and limiting was used on the DVD-A release yes its not an direct up convert the 50kHz (48kHz?) masters?? Personally I think having access to graphical DAW tools has contributed to the abuse of audio tracks more than improve the quality, since people will master with their eyes and their ears and eventually something like "Death Magnetic" plops out.

I use the tools to try and confirm what I'm hearing and experiencing. All that said when using 24/96 why bother using the maximizing/limiting tools to squeeze the NTH degree of headroom out of the tracks. Whats the point?

I doubt that my Audio editing tools are giving me erroneous representation of the tracks unless my source material is somehow corrupt. And I can see the effects of maximizing and limiting. In the case of Steely Dan I believe that they are almost imperceivable, because its not extreme, but lets face it many modern masters sound cloudy and grainy, unpleasant and fatiguing because they are abusing the wave forms so badly and introducing all sorts of distortions. I've become increasingly frustrated with most modern CD masters, the technology has improved and we end up with a worse sounding product.

You have some very impressive credits to your name. Did you work on the Diana Krall look of love??

I love the stereo master on the DVD-A, It sounds amazing I would like to know more about it.

I know you appear to be against the visual evaluation of the audio waveforms. But since you are in the business perhaps you can answer me this.

On the Diana Krall,
The Stereo master on S'Wonderful is appears to have been mixed so through the entire song there is one obvious dominant peak, that actually looks to hit 0dB for a moment.

In the Surround Rf and Lf tracks they are limited to a hair bellow -1dB. Just wondering why the stereo would be treated with a more of a hands off approach where that track is basically normalized to its most unruly peak, where the surround tracks have been symmetrically sawed off at this level? Instead of being mixed to where the track is just normalized to -1.3dB or whatever the level is?

Again there is nothing gross or abusive about how Diana's tracks where approached but it would seem that they where approached quite differently.

Probably the worst multi-track I've examined to date... Flaming lips Soft Bulletin The surround mix does not translate from the Stereo Just all channels balls to the wall.

Again I don't think a terrible injustice has been done with these DVD-A's though A fresh 24/96 Stereo Master mix would have been nice. I don't see the reason why maximizing/limiting was even necessary since the bit bucket is nice and deep compared to 44/16. Using such tools on a HD product seems to go against the idea of having a superior dynamic range, and up-converting from a redbook master that is brick wall filtered at 20kHz also seems to go against the concept of HD audio.

Unfortunately HD formats are more or less a failure as a commercial product. The audience isn't listening.

Sonically I find the surround tracks for Gaucho Superior.
On the up converted version I can actually hear the chorus clip when they sing the line "SHAKE IT". So did it suffer from how it was treated on this DVD A.... UHHHM YES! It doesn't sound near as open as the surround tracks (which I have to crash down to stereo since I don't have a surround configuration at the moment).

I have not worked in the industry much so to speak. I have worked a bit with designing surround systems that are installed at sky walker and ILM (speaker's passive x-overs audio processors b-chain). I am a trained electronic technican, who has studied basic audio engineering, done a bit of live audio, moving on the to the study of Engineering (Physics kind not audio).

I do understand that how it sounds is what is the most important, but I also know that using visual tools can help describe much of what you're hearing if you know what your looking at.

Industry conspiracy?? you mean the loudness war is coincidental?

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Sonic Craft

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---