DVD/DTS Poll Fleetwood Mac - TUSK [DTS DVD]

fredblue said:

I get all that.... :upthumb

..though we don't get much surround music on the radio round these parts so it seems a bit, unneccessary to compress the beheck out of the 5.1 in this way..?

Click to expand...

Jim the Oldbie said:

Yup. In this case it's just ignorant complacence. "This is how we've been doing it for years now." I can see no other plausible explanation.

Click to expand...

It all has to do with CD remasters trying to compete with newly mixed and mastered CDs.
If you're a mixing and/or mastering engineer working with both stereo and surround mixes, you want the perceived loudness of both mixes to be the same, so if you compress and limit the stereo mix to a great degree, you'll have to do the same to the surround.
And that's probably what happened here. The surround mix on "Tusk" was compressed and limited in such a way to match the perceived loudness of the latest stereo remaster also on the disc.
I don't agree with how loud it is, but then again, they didn't ask for my advice…

Jim the Oldbie said:

..........[EDIT] Just had a look, and it turns out there is a fair amount of good old-fashioned waveform clipping going on in Tusk. It's limited to the brief transient peaks, but it's still depressing to see, since I didn't hear it.

The terrorists win... I'm going to bed.

Click to expand...

If you look at the wav shots I posted above, you can see the little red box above the VU meters for the 2 front channels on that Sound Forge 10 screen. It only goes red when there's clipping. I just feel that for a deluxe box set that sold at a premium price presumably for collectors and the hard core fans of the group, they could do without the overdone compression. I mean, the 5.1 files are not going to be played on a iPod, phone, or digital boom box.

The breakdown of my vote goes like this:

Content: 3/3
Surround Mix: 3/3
Fidelity: 3/3
High-Res Disc: 0/1

(Though in hindsight, I probably could have given this disc a 2/3 for fidelity with the ridiculous amounts of limiting.)

This disc is definitely far from ideal when you take into account the limiting, the lack of high-resolution surround, and the entrapment in a very expensive box set. It's particularly frustrating to me when you see that they had the available space to make this a DVD-A/V disc and didn't, following the same awful trend we witnessed this past year with other releases like "Loaded", "Deliverance/Damnation" and (especially) "Premonitions".
The good news is that the surround mix is just as good as we expected it to be, following "Rumours", which has always been a standout disc for many of us on QQ. When combined with the great music found within, it makes me very happy that this surround mix finally got released after all these years.
I would have just done some other things differently to ensure that we were hearing the surround mix at its finest, with less audio and data compression, please!

I wonder if Tusk 5.1 would benefit from some method or other of clip-fixing.

edisonbaggins said:

I wonder if Tusk 5.1 would benefit from some method or other of clip-fixing.

Click to expand...

I think we ALL know by now, EB, that TUSK would've greatly benefitted from a BD~A 5.1 96/24 release utilizing the DVD~A master prepared for the original and aborted release [unless it was considered sub par by the band, itself).

Messing with a classic is NOT the stuff dreams are made of and since Warners is playing games by releasing all their BD~As with pricey 'anniversary' boxsets makes this 'travesty' all that more appalling.

4-earredwonder said:

I think we ALL know by now, EB, that TUSK would've greatly benefitted from a BD~A 5.1 96/24 release utilizing the DVD~A master prepared for the original and aborted release [unless it was considered sub par by the band, itself).

Messing with a classic is NOT the stuff dreams are made of and since Warners is playing games by releasing all their BD~As with pricey 'anniversary' boxsets makes this 'travesty' all that more appalling.

Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you mean. I get that nothing can compare with a properly (un)mastered release...
However, given that the only thing we have is a highly compressed release, someone could try some kind of clip fix, which could help...

edisonbaggins said:

I wonder if Tusk 5.1 would benefit from some method or other of clip-fixing.

Click to expand...

That's the most demoralizing part of this whole thing for me, EB. I'm already on record praising the clear, clean sound - and that's really how this thing sounds to me. So if I'm being honest with myself, I have to answer "no" to your question. Still, this type of brief transient clipping is more difficult to hear (in my meager defense), and I do wonder if it might sound even better after some clip restoration. Then I remember how I sat and listened to this disc from start to finish late last night, and how it sounded so nice it was almost overwhelming at times; and it makes me realize I should probably calm the f890 down with all this technical stuff and just enjoy the music.

-- Jim

edisonbaggins said:

...someone could try some kind of clip fix, which could help...

Click to expand...

The trouble is, the clipping is only part of the problem, and frankly it might even be the least objectionable part. In addition, there's still evidence of a lot of plain old dynamics compression here. This is what's making the softer songs sound so much louder than they used to, among other effects. This is much more audible (to me at least), and considerably trickier to reverse without just making things worse.

-- Jim

Jim the Oldbie said:

The trouble is, the clipping is only part of the problem, and frankly it might even be the least objectionable part. In addition, there's still evidence of a lot of plain old dynamics compression here. This is what's making the softer songs sound so much louder than they used to, among other effects. This is much more audible (to me at least), and considerably trickier to reverse without just making things worse.

-- Jim

Click to expand...

Is anyone else curious as to what the originally prepared DVD~A 5.1 mix sounded like? It seems to me that the DTS 5.1 DVD~V of TUSK was released without ANY original band member's input. The other FM DVD~A's (Rumours, Say You Will) do not suffer the negative artifacts we seem to be experiencing with TUSK.

IMHO, Warners used to release some of the BEST sounding DVD~A 5.1s on the market......NO compression whatsoever. Akin to the PF DSOTM Immersion Box Set [with the 'astounding' Alan Parsons 4.0 remix], I really wish they had included TUSK in both configurations: the 2015 5.1 remix as well as the originally prepared DVD~A 5.1 mix on a single BD~A. I really could've done without the Vinyl and the RBCDs [seriously].

A 10 from me, because it was one of my top three wishes I had to get a surround mix and it is a really great mix.
Now I only need Steely Dan's Royal Scam and Aja...and I can close my eyes.....
....but wait....there are a lot of other discs I would like to hear in surround....c'mon!

Now that everyone has seen and heard this excessive compression boost, it's harder to un-hear it and forget it is there huh!

4-earredwonder said:

Is anyone else curious as to what the originally prepared DVD~A 5.1 mix sounded like? It seems to me that the DTS 5.1 DVD~V of TUSK was released without ANY original band member's input. The other FM DVD~A's (Rumours, Say You Will) do not suffer the negative artifacts we seem to be experiencing with TUSK.

IMHO, Warners used to release some of the BEST sounding DVD~A 5.1s on the market......NO compression whatsoever. Akin to the PF DSOTM Immersion Box Set [with the 'astounding' Alan Parsons 4.0 remix], I really wish they had included TUSK in both configurations: the 2015 5.1 remix as well as the originally prepared DVD~A 5.1 mix on a single BD~A. I really could've done without the Vinyl and the RBCDs [seriously].

Click to expand...

This is the 5.1 mix originally prepared for DVD-A. Now did they apply additional mastering to it in the intervening years? Maybe, maybe not.
And with all this discussion, I'm going to pull out my "Rumours" SACD and compare its loudness to "Tusk" to see if one really is louder than the other.

rtbluray said:

That comment is insulting to audio engineers. It's recording artists and record labels that have really driven the loudness wars.

Click to expand...

No, the artists and the labels want it louder, the engineer makes it louder. They are the ones looking at the waveform and maxing it out.

quicksrt said:

Now that everyone has seen and heard this excessive compression boost, it's harder to un-hear it and forget it is there huh!

Click to expand...

Well I sure hope all this kerfuffle doesn't spoil anyone's enjoyment of this release; I would feel genuinely bad about that.

For myself, I noticed the dynamics reduction the very first time I heard the disc, before I ever did any 'forensics' on the computer. I won't be able to un-hear that; it is what it is, and I'll just have to live with it. The only thing that really bugs me about the clipped transients is that I didn't hear them before I saw them, but I'll get used to that too. My audiophile ego will heal; besides, it doesn't mean I have zero critical listening skills just because I didn't notice clipping in brief clusters of a few cycles at a time.

Bottom line:

1. Could they have taken more care with this release, especially at this price? Hell, yes!
2. Does it sound terrible? Hell, no!

-- Jim

Actually, this is sort of starting to make sense to me, at least from the POV of the producers. Someone in the chain obviously wanted to goose the "loudness" on this thing. Conventional compression/ limiting facilitates this, but too much also destroys the dynamics of the music. Simply boosting the level is of course an even simpler way to make it louder, but at some point the signal is clipped, creating distortion.

But by upping the level just enough to allow only the brief transients to clip, the amount of compression/ limiting can be reduced, while the distortion is confined to very short, (presumably) imperceptible bursts. Looks to me like this is the balance that was struck here. As rtbluray mentioned earlier, it looks like the engineer was doing the best he could to meet the demands from up the chain, without completely destroying the sound.

Of course NONE of this bullshit was actually NECESSARY! But that's a separate debate I suppose.

-- Jim

Let me ask this question about the compression/clipping. When I first listened to this DVD-V, I went directly to Sara. Besides the very nice surround presentation, the first thing that struck me was the lack of dynamics in the snare drums. Years ago, when my cousin first played this LP for me, he noted that it was recorded on a digital tape machine and we marveled at the snare drum on Sara having some real sharp, dynamic peaks. Could this be due to the compression applied, or is my aural memory just rusty after some 35 years? Ha!

GOS said:

Absolutely no disrespect, or calling out in this post. But my question....

Those who check the loudness levels...whether it's Audiomuxer, or whatever....do you simply listen to the music first and make a rating? Or do you wait till you view the data, then make a rating?

Sorry - but just curious...that all being said. I get it. I mean, the extra loudness is not needed....but are you influenced by the graphs before you vote?

Click to expand...

The Rumours DVD-A is also mastered like this. It seems to have done quite well in its QQ poll.

Here's a waveform view of 'Dreams' from the DVD-A

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/112-s...009384-hi-rez-dvd-sometimes.html#post13424003

fredblue said:

Good heavens.. the fronts look like the fronts on the Station To Station 5.1.. clipping right out of the window...

Click to expand...

1. Such a highly zoomed out view makes the 'clipping' (actually, limiting) look worse

2. Limiting does not necessarily mean 'clipping', which is what happens when an audio signal exceeds the limits of the format (in this case, 0dBFS). To verify clipping visually would require a much higher magnification view than this. Consecutive peaks at 0 dBFS (a 'plateau' or 'flat top') .

3. Clipping is not always audible.

seilerbird said:

It is very simple. Engineers feel like the louder something is the better the chance of being noticed on the radio. I am not saying I approve, but that is why you see so much of it.

Click to expand...

Who's gonna play this 5.1 mix on the radio?

JonUrban said:

If you look at the wav shots I posted above, you can see the little red box above the VU meters for the 2 front channels on that Sound Forge 10 screen. It only goes red when there's clipping. I just feel that for a deluxe box set that sold at a premium price presumably for collectors and the hard core fans of the group, they could do without the overdone compression. I mean, the 5.1 files are not going to be played on a iPod, phone, or digital boom box.

Click to expand...

Does Sound Forge distinguish between single peaks at 0dBFS, versus a series of consecutive peaks at 0dBFS? Only the latter really indicates clipping.