Elton John "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" HFPA Blu-Ray Release

[steelydave]

My measurements were done in foobar2000 with the DR plugin and the SACD plugin set to +6dB gain, because that's what makes the SACD levels match the BluRay levels.

I don't think peak or RMS levels have any effect on DR values anyway. As your measurements show, you get the same DR values with and without the +6dB boost applied. I'm not sure why you got DR10 and I got DR11 for track 8, but the DR meter rounds things up/down at will so I guess that track is just on the verge between the two numbers. Otherwise our results are almost identical...maybe we used different settings in our SACD plugins. I used 'Multi-stage (double precision)' rather than any of the modes that do low pass filtering for my DSD2PCM mode because I didn't want to filter out any of the DSD noise for measurement purposes.

 

[LizardKing]

I ran it again with Multi-stage (double precision), but I still get different values...@:

Are you using 88.2/24 bit conversion?

See below:

foobar2000 1.3.1 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-04-06 10:04:02


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Elton John / Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 0.00 dB -13.94 dB 11:08 01-Funeral For A Friend / Love Lies Bleeding
DR12 -0.16 dB -13.96 dB 3:48 02-Candle In The Wind
DR12 -0.43 dB -14.36 dB 5:26 03-Bennie And The Jets
DR13 0.00 dB -14.87 dB 3:14 04-Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
DR12 -0.84 dB -16.66 dB 2:23 05-This Song Has No Title
DR9 0.00 dB -12.08 dB 3:58 06-Grey Seal
DR10 -0.66 dB -11.86 dB 3:40 07-Jamaica Jerk Off
DR10 -0.09 dB -13.45 dB 5:57 08-I've Seen That Movie Too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of tracks: 8
Official DR value: DR11


Samplerate: 2822400 Hz / PCM Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 16934 kbps
Codec: DST64
================================================================================


FYI - DR values from FLAC converted using Weiss Saracon & a peak at -0.01dB:

foobar2000 1.1.11 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-04-06 09:10:32


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Elton John / Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 -0.40 dB -14.73 dB 11:10 01-Funeral For A Friend / Love Lies Bleeding
DR12 -0.76 dB -14.73 dB 3:48 02-Candle In The Wind
DR12 -1.04 dB -15.13 dB 5:26 03-Bennie And The Jets
DR13 -0.01 dB -15.64 dB 3:14 04-Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
DR12 -1.61 dB -17.43 dB 2:23 05-This Song Has No Title
DR9 -0.83 dB -12.85 dB 3:58 06-Grey Seal
DR10 -1.54 dB -12.63 dB 3:40 07-Jamaica Jerk Off
DR10 -0.89 dB -14.22 dB 5:57 08-I've Seen That Movie Too
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Number of tracks: 8
Official DR value: DR11


Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 6
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 8043 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================

 

[ssully]

This is the center channel from 'I've Seen That Movie Too' - I picked this because there are large gaps of silence which make the DSD ultrasonic noise really easy to see. I checked a few other channels on a few other tracks and they're all like this, so I don't think this track is an anomaly. Look at how messy the SACD plot is compared to the BluRay one!

If by the 'mess' you mean the noise that's more than 100dB down in level, I expect it would make exactly zero difference to the listening experience. Ditto the noise above 30kHz, though high-level ultrasonic hash could theoretically do bad things to playback.


I'm also skeptical of single 'DR' readings of 5.1 tracks, where unlike for 2.0 tracks there are often vast differences in RMS level from channel to channel. How are DR values arrived at for a 6-channel mix?

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I was reading a review by this guy over on Amazon and here is what he states with my question regarding the surround difference between the SACD and BD releases. His full review and comments are located at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R4I1C7WA95MNF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detup_redir?_encoding=UTF8&asin=B00I48RA76&cdForum=Fx2XUER107Y01DD&cdPage=1&cdThread=TxWY5MY42CEP28&newContentID=Mx3HCH8W8N4LV7M&newContentNum=5&store=music#Mx3UIQ2GXDQPATR

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2014 10:55:56 AM PDT
Ex-Buyer says:
I have not heard the DVD-A of this recording. I can say that the SACD release is excellent, but it is the identical version/mix used on the blu-ray. I have several DTS/PCM/DTS 5.1 all in one formats on DVD-A (most notably, Depeche Mode) and the sound is remarkable in terms of the mix differences. The blu ray audio does not offer that clear difference in mixes, but to hear the SACD verses the blu ray audio is the major notice. The blu ray audio is far, far sharper than the the SACD audio (whether you use the multi-track or 2-track version). That is the one difference that stands out. I hope this answered the question.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2014 11:45:50 AM PDT
J. Michael says:
You stated the BD multi-channel mix is clearer sounding over the SACD but is the surround mix different as far as the mix itself? I've always found the rear channels on the SACD mix to be too loud and overbearing and heard that the Blu-ray has a more balanced sound. Can you confirm this?

In reply to your post on Apr 16, 2014 11:55:46 AM PDT
Ex-Buyer says:
It is exactly the same mix as the SACD version, no change. I think it might be the BD format which is giving it a "clearer" sound...seriously, I can hear breathing through headphones whihc in the regular SACD I do not.

Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2014 12:34:15 PM PDT
J. Michael says:
Thanks for the quick reply! I'll stick with the SACD for now since I have most of the EJ releases in that format.

 

[fredblue]

Ignore all that. The BD is most certainly not brighter than the SACDs, if that is what they mean. Does it sound less bright yet more defined and detailed? Absolutely.

They do not sound the same and they are absolutely not identical (one listen to Social Disease in 5.1 on the BD will tell you that).

I nearly drove myself nuts comparing the SACDs to the new BDA (all by ear) and my conclusions are the Stereo is a million light years away from the Stereo on the 2003 SACDs and is much much nicer. Also, the 5.1 on the BD is v.similar to the SACDs but not identical and, to my ears, is an improvement.

Don't take my word for it, or that fella on Amazon, try the BD for yourself (its a tenner on Amazon UK from soundcitybeaches) and let your ears be the judge

The only serious drawback of the BDA for me is the absence of the 4 bonus tracks (in neither 2.0 nor 5.1).

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

A tenner would be a twentyer her in the US. I'm thinking about directing this chap over to QQ and this Thread because, frankly, I don't trust either of you! LOL

 

[fredblue]

A tenner would be a twentyer her in the US. I'm thinking about directing this chap over to QQ and this Thread because, frankly, I don't trust either of you! LOL

Fair enough It'll be out over there soon at any rate.

Haha.. I wouldn't trust me if I were me! Please do! Send them my way

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

I invited Thomas over to QQ. Let's see if he joins the discussion so we can have more confusion.

Only joking regarding the confusion.

 

[bangsezmax]

I have the SACD and (now) the Blu-Ray. I like the Blu-Ray better. SACD is just too hot on the high end.

 

[ssully]

I was reading a review by this guy over on Amazon and here is what he states with my question regarding the surround difference between the SACD and BD releases. His full review and comments are located at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R4I1C7...M&newContentNum=5&store=music#Mx3UIQ2GXDQPATR

So the SACD and BD mixes are identical, yet sound different, and that's because BD is 'clearer' (especially when listening through *headphones*).

Oh, audiophiles, the things you say....

How about, someone record (digitize) a few channels (like front or rear L/R) from one track, from the analog out, playing both the SACD and the BD. Record them both at some high rate like 96Hz/24bit just so you don't miss too much all-important ultrasonic content, or any of low level tape hiss between songs. Then compare them with audio analysis software like Audition or Audacity. The differences claimed should be easily visible/quantifiable.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Damn you guys! I just reordered the BD off of Amazon. Now, I'll have to hear the difference for myself. The positive to all this? I no longer have to get up and change the disc to hear the second part.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

So the SACD and BD mixes are identical, yet sound different, and that's because BD is 'clearer' (especially when listening through *headphones*).

Oh, audiophiles, the things you say....

Identical? Yes, they both contain the full length LP.

 

[ssully]

Identical? Yes, they both contain the full length LP.

It's not unusual for remasters (i.e., releases that are identical mixes) to sound different. But to claim that difference due to 'BD format' and not to something more mundane, is where the smiley comes in. And I'm still bemused as to how/why he's comparing surround mixes with headphones....

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

From what I understood is that he was comparing the stereo mixes. It makes sense that the BD and SACD would sound different due to two different (DSD versus PCM) mastering formats. No?

 

[LizardKing]

The Blu-ray is a new (re)mastering by Bob Ludwig isn't it?

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Someone else may want to chime in but I've heard the Stereo version was the new Bob Ludwig mastering.

 

[SMS]

The Blu-ray is a new (re)mastering by Bob Ludwig isn't it?

Only the stereo mix was remastered by Bob Ludwig according to the liner notes.

Actually, the liner notes say :

2014 Remaster by Bob Ludwig at Gateway Studios, Portland Maine
2003 Surround sound mix by Greg Penny at Flower Sounds, Ojai, California

So I guess that doesn't specifically say that the surround mix wasn't remastered, but that is what it implied to me.

 

[ssully]

From what I understood is that he was comparing the stereo mixes. It makes sense that the BD and SACD would sound different due to two different (DSD versus PCM) mastering formats. No?

Not really, no. What do you think the audible difference between those two formats should be?


And as regards stereo vs surround, I was confused because you wrote:

"here is what he states with my question regarding the surround difference between the SACD and BD releases"

 

[ssully]

Only the stereo mix was remastered by Bob Ludwig according to the liner notes.

Actually, the liner notes say :



So I guess that doesn't specifically say that the surround mix wasn't remastered, but that is what it implied to me.

So according those the liner notes the BD mix *is* the old Greg Penny mix. So the suggestion would now seem to be, someone has readjusted the rear-channel levels? Or is it just different EQ?

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Not really, no. What do you think the audible difference between those two formats should be?

It really depends on how it was mastered to the format. I have found PCM to sound better than DSD with similar tracks and vise-versa.

And as regards stereo vs surround, I was confused because you wrote:

"here is what he states with my question regarding the surround difference between the SACD and BD releases"

I was asking if he heard a difference for the surround mix between the two formats. Look, you may need to read the entire comment section off Amazon.