Another 9 from me...
same as Interview, one point is deducted for not being Lossless...
Great music and Mix (for the 70s)....
same as Interview, one point is deducted for not being Lossless...
Great music and Mix (for the 70s)....
I have to agree that there's something wrong with the channel assignment on this, the vocals on a diagonal is a big hint, and upon further listening, the diagonals just pair up better. However, simply swapping the rights to bring the vocals to the front doesn't fix it, as the clicks at the beginning are now paired diagonally. This leads me to believe that either the front or backs then need to be swapped to get rid of that diagonal action that seems unlikely to be how it was mixed. Upon further analysis, it appears that yes, it's not just the clicks that are made diagonal, so that it does make sense to do that swap as well. To make the quad mix align with the stereo mix (based on the clicks), the following corrections should be made, in my opinion:
Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left
These errors happened often in the quad days, and they will continue to happen time and time again as long as we continue to have a lack of standards in track assignment, and a lack of attention to detail in the process of manufacturing the product. What really gets me is that in theory, someone mastered this. Which means that someone listened to this, with a critical ear, whose job it is to pay attention to detail and fine tune the sound to get the best sound possible out of this. And despite this being his job function, despite him supposedly listening to this critically, he failed to notice the obvious error in channel assignment. I'd like to know who mastered this, because that is one person who should be unemployed.
wow.. I thought there was something up with this one but..
.. from what you've discovered ArmyOfQuad, that means practically every channel, except rear left, is totally screwed up on this one and needs repurposing..!?
No wonder this mix never got released back in the day..!!
The DR analysis values:How much did you tweak (lower) the fronts (I mean right) channels @:?
I'll give this a go....
The good news is the fronts are insignificantly clipped:Looking at the waveforms also shows more mastering issues....unnecessary compression. Not the worst, but certainly you can see the waveform has been clipped to make it louder, all the way up to 11. And the "fronts" have been boosted more than the "rears", which means once everything has been corrected, the rights need to come down a tad. Which leaves you with rights that are more clipped off in the dynamics than the lefts.
The DR analysis values:
foobar2000 1.1.15 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2013-03-30 20:05:55
.........
The avg. RMS difference between the fronts and the rears is approx. 2 dB.
No, the audio content goes up to 30kHz.Whoa, if this is a 96K Freq Spectrum, the DVD could have easily been 48/24!!!
I knew it didn't sound too bright....
Yes - I'd have to say this sounds right...Thanks AOQ...
I have to agree that there's something wrong with the channel assignment on this, the vocals on a diagonal is a big hint, and upon further listening, the diagonals just pair up better. However, simply swapping the rights to bring the vocals to the front doesn't fix it, as the clicks at the beginning are now paired diagonally. This leads me to believe that either the front or backs then need to be swapped to get rid of that diagonal action that seems unlikely to be how it was mixed. Upon further analysis, it appears that yes, it's not just the clicks that are made diagonal, so that it does make sense to do that swap as well. To make the quad mix align with the stereo mix (based on the clicks), the following corrections should be made, in my opinion:
Move the front left to front right
Move the front right to rear right
Move the rear right to front left
These errors happened often in the quad days, and they will continue to happen time and time again as long as we continue to have a lack of standards in track assignment, and a lack of attention to detail in the process of manufacturing the product. What really gets me is that in theory, someone mastered this. Which means that someone listened to this, with a critical ear, whose job it is to pay attention to detail and fine tune the sound to get the best sound possible out of this. And despite this being his job function, despite him supposedly listening to this critically, he failed to notice the obvious error in channel assignment. I'd like to know who mastered this, because that is one person who should be unemployed.