Bill Bruford in surround!

[jimfisheye]

Pause here. *You're* saying that...and you're saying it's because AC3 is inherently 'screwed'. So much so that it turns recordings 'muddy', every time.
Yes. And you've assumed what you haven't proved.

That's correct. I came to that assumption as every example I've heard in a release that included AC3 along with lossless sounded that way.
(You'd be wise to ask qualifying questions rather than make assumptions as well about any detail I might miss including. eg. Checking and normalizing volume for any A/B test.)

Now it's true that in those examples I didn't have access to the master files from the mix engineer to compare ALL production copies with. Hence an assumption that I can't prove. But there are additional factors. I might ask why would someone release lossless files if the lossy was truly imperceptible from them (even on a reference system). The only answer would be marketing bait and switch. Seems like a stretch. While the easy explanation for including AC3 is compatibility with legacy systems. The very same companies spent time and money creating the newer lossless versions of these formats. I don't think they'd do that for no reason beyond marketing either. Talk is cheap. They'd just do that.

You really missed me calling DTS 2496 lossy? And thought a different label would change my opinion? No you didn't... You pick strange battles to me my good sir!

I would very much like to hear an example of a release that includes both a lossless 5.1 mix in 24/96 resolution and also an AC3 copy where they truly sound identical or even very very close (normalizing for any level differences inherent in the formats or whatever the cause). Even kinda close (since the examples I've heard so far aren't even that). Obviously I don't think such an example exists or is possible with the format. Prove me wrong! I'd honestly buy into it and take advantage of the smaller file space needed.

The premise that even somewhat stepped on sound vs. not being able to play the format with older equipment is fair enough.
Some of us believe it crosses the line to the point of the stereo mix being more immersive and enjoyable than the Dolby'd surround mix.

Not to beat this over the head (too late, sorry) but you made a pretty bold claim there that flies in the face of the industry. And I see other things you write that prove you can hear nuanced things. So prove all of us wrong with an example.

As a consumer I'm interested in the master audio copy of any album I buy. Just because. It's like preferring better seats at a show. I might make exceptions of course but that's my preference. When something is released in lossy format only and the master is held back it comes across as a greedy attempt to set up the customer for a 2nd purchase down the road when the upgrade comes out. Makes me less happy to spend money. That this is going on for this release like this just makes me sad.

Or I'm about to be proven wrong and about to start apologizing and running out and buying all the AC3 discs that aren't the corrupted ones!
Oh right, we'll have to start discussing why/how the corrupted ones got that way when it gets proven that the format can do better! Until then I'm skipping this one.


Well that was fun. But I would like to see an example that changes my opinion!

 

[ssully]

Yikes!!! Well, yeah... we all try to justify buying it. I'm not feeling too bad about it really. I admit, that it openly sounds flat. As someone mentioned, playing it loud helps...but honestly, the volume probably covers up the flaws. Oh well.

It makes sense that cranking it up a little could help, as a DD (AC3) encode will typically play back at a overall volume level several dB lower (like, 4-5dB in the case of this set and most other AC3 releases, movies included) than the same thing encoded as DTS or lossless. So if most of your listening is to DTS or lossless, AC3 playback could sound 'worse' unless you turn the volume up to regain those lost dB.

But matching the levels to other formats doesn't change the *actual* EQ (all the frequencies are still in the same balance) or *actual* mix (ditto all the instruments), of course, only the *perceived*. And I suspect the problem is the *actual* EQ and and mix

 

[ssully]

That's correct. I came to that assumption as every example I've heard in a release that included AC3 along with lossless sounded that way.
(You'd be wise to ask qualifying questions rather than make assumptions as well about any detail I might miss including. eg. Checking and normalizing volume for any A/B test.)

Now it's true that in those examples I didn't have access to the master files from the mix engineer to compare ALL production copies with. Hence an assumption that I can't prove. But there are additional factors. I might ask why would someone release lossless files if the lossy was truly imperceptible from them (even on a reference system). The only answer would be marketing bait and switch.

One legit reason back in the day was, fitting lots of content -- audio and video -- onto one (DVD) disc.

Seems like a stretch. While the easy explanation for including AC3 is compatibility with legacy systems. The very same companies spent time and money creating the newer lossless versions of these formats. I don't think they'd do that for no reason beyond marketing either. Talk is cheap. They'd just do that.

I don't know why DD was chosen over DTS or lossless for the Bruford set. We here at QQ know it was sure to turn off people like you here at QQ. Though it may be that people like you and me don't matter to them? You'll have to ask the producer.

You really missed me calling DTS 2496 lossy? And thought a different label would change my opinion? No you didn't... You pick strange battles to me my good sir!

Okey doke (I'm not even sure what you mean here, but I doubt it matters)

I would very much like to hear an example of a release that includes both a lossless 5.1 mix in 24/96 resolution and also an AC3 copy where they truly sound identical or even very very close (normalizing for any level differences inherent in the formats or whatever the cause). Even kinda close (since the examples I've heard so far aren't even that). Obviously I don't think such an example exists or is possible with the format. Prove me wrong! I'd honestly buy into it and take advantage of the smaller file space needed.

I own several and probably you do too (DVD-A with DD + lossless versions of same mix; I don't recall any offhand with a third, DTS option , too). But since we both know no independently proctored, level-matched ABX is likely to happen, 'proof' is unlikely to be forthcoming. But if it does ever happen, I'll take your testable claim to be that DD and lossless are obviously, not subtly, different, every time, and thus easily distinguishable (by you).

The premise that even somewhat stepped on sound vs. not being able to play the format with older equipment is fair enough.
Some of us believe it crosses the line to the point of the stereo mix being more immersive and enjoyable than the Dolby'd surround mix.

Doesn't surprise me. I've heard lots of crazy things from 'some'.

Not to beat this over the head (too late, sorry) but you made a pretty bold claim there that flies in the face of the industry. And I see other things you write that prove you can hear nuanced things. So prove all of us wrong with an example.

"The industry" makes lots of bold, and absurd claims, going way back to Edison's day. The old marketing bait an switch? Have you heard this new thing called MQA? It's better than everything.

As a consumer I'm interested in the master audio copy of any album I buy. Just because. It's like preferring better seats at a show. I might make exceptions of course but that's my preference. When something is released in lossy format only and the master is held back it comes across as a greedy attempt to set up the customer for a 2nd purchase down the road when the upgrade comes out. Makes me less happy to spend money. That this is going on for this release like this just makes me sad.

it could be, it could be....but frankly I'm *far* more disappointed in the actual 5.1 *mix*, which I doubt will ever be 'upgraded' in any format. But here's to hoping.!

Or I'm about to be proven wrong and about to start apologizing and running out and buying all the AC3 discs that aren't the corrupted ones!
Oh right, we'll have to start discussing why/how the corrupted ones got that way when it gets proven that the format can do better! Until then I'm skipping this one.


Well that was fun. But I would like to see an example that changes my opinion!

Again, how can I or anyone 'prove' you wrong with mere words suggesting 'examples', if you've decided AC3 is the devil? How many times have I had to bring up the concept of 'perceptual bias' and 'bias-controlled listening comparison' on this forum?

 

[quicksrt]

This set was done on an ultra-low budget. There was not enough money for more encode licenses. A friend of mine was offered the art gig for this set, putting all the graphics together for the printers and box sssembly. When he heard what the budget for this set was, he was forced to turn down the work.

Be grateful they were able to get this one off the ground at all.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The fact that they're charging $120 list price for this massive set should've included a BD~A/V with both albums in 5.1 on the one disc.

Why go to the expense of commissioning 5.1 remasters and then slap them on 2 LOSSY DD 5.1 DVDs?.........BRAINLESS!

And yes, DD 5.1 can sound excellent: my recent RPWL: WANTED DD 5.1 remaster was actually incredible and most of our cable [FIOS] transmissions ALL sport DD 5.1 and does sound rather nice.

I admire Bruford's work but not enough to buy all those RBCDs which accompany this set just to get the questionable 5.1 content.

 

[rtbluray]

I would never expect this kind of box set to have the budget that the King Crimson and Yes releases have, but still, what I don't understand is how could Eddie Jobson (Bruford's UK bandmate) manage to release a box set with 4 Blu-Ray Audio discs but yet this box can't even include 2 DVDA-V discs.
From what I know, authoring DVDA-V discs is a little more expensive than authoring DVD-V discs, but the difference is not that great at all, and it sure is a heck of a lot cheaper than authoring Blu-ray Discs.
Did the team putting this box set together even bother to see what Neil Wilkes would have charged to author these two DVDs as DVDA-V discs?

I'm still disappointed with how this all turned out, but it's becoming more and more of a moot point for me since my box set will be on its way to another lucky owner very soon, so at least I'm reclaiming most of the money I spent on this.

 

[bangdrum6]

Being a HUGE Bruford fan is the reason I wanted it. I do feel it is way too expensive I have bootlegs nearly as good as the live show included here. As far as the so called 4th album rehearsal tracks... after listening to the first four I had to turn it off... Feeling let down

 

[kap'n krunch]

I would never expect this kind of box set to have the budget that the King Crimson and Yes releases have, but still, what I don't understand is how could Eddie Jobson (Bruford's UK bandmate) manage to release a box set with 4 Blu-Ray Audio discs but yet this box can't even include 2 DVDA-V discs.
From what I know, authoring DVDA-V discs is a little more expensive than authoring DVD-V discs, but the difference is not that great at all, and it sure is a heck of a lot cheaper than authoring Blu-ray Discs.
Did the team putting this box set together even bother to see what Neil Wilkes would have charged to author these two DVDs as DVDA-V discs?

I'm still disappointed with how this all turned out, but it's becoming more and more of a moot point for me since my box set will be on its way to another lucky owner very soon, so at least I'm reclaiming most of the money I spent on this.

Sorry to hear that , rt...I'm sure that if they had contacted NW he'd have NOT let it go anywhere else!!!!

It IS quite unbelievable that someone from the KC camp would have released something like this...either he did not consult anyone or his team was clueless...

 

[JediJoker]

It makes sense that cranking it up a little could help, as a DD (AC3) encode will typically play back at a overall volume level several dB lower (like, 4-5dB in the case of this set and most other AC3 releases, movies included) than the same thing encoded as DTS or lossless. So if most of your listening is to DTS or lossless, AC3 playback could sound 'worse' unless you turn the volume up to regain those lost dB.

I think most players these days allow the user to defeat the dialnorm, and I imagine most on here turn it off when listening to music. Therefore, the level should be comparable assuming a lossless and lossy encode were created from the same master without level changes.

 

[jimfisheye]

Again, how can I or anyone 'prove' you wrong with mere words suggesting 'examples', if you've decided AC3 is the devil? How many times have I had to bring up the concept of 'perceptual bias' and 'bias-controlled listening comparison' on this forum?

Probably every time anyone has tried to take you seriously and asked for an example of one your claims when you just want to try to prove someone wrong about something rather than engage in a discussion. Figured you would come up empty handed. Yeah, that's it. My perception bias is so strong that when I level match two sources within .1db I'm just not able to do it. And all my tools lie. And everyone else in the industry... their tools lie to them too. There's just really no one else out there besides you that has any clue about any of this.

Hey, want to share one of your 5.1 mixes you've engineered (or point me to something for purchase) and just school me? Sounds like I could learn a lot!


PS. Don't worry. I'll refrain from any further conversations.

 

[jimfisheye]

This set was done on an ultra-low budget. There was not enough money for more encode licenses. A friend of mine was offered the art gig for this set, putting all the graphics together for the printers and box sssembly. When he heard what the budget for this set was, he was forced to turn down the work.

Be grateful they were able to get this one off the ground at all.

There's no "encoding license" of any kind required for LPCM content. Only for dolby or dts. If they ran out of money in production for software licenses maybe they should have avoided the dolby?

Sorry to hear that , rt...I'm sure that if they had contacted NW he'd have NOT let it go anywhere else!!!!

It IS quite unbelievable that someone from the KC camp would have released something like this...either he did not consult anyone or his team was clueless...

They are not clueless. They work with engineers that understand the technology from front to back. The label obviously gets to make any final release format decisions. Tin ear marketing guys that seem annoyed by music treat everything like widgets. Of course if they release a reduced version first, that gives them the opportunity to re-release it in better quality later. It's not like technology is ever going to improve or anyone is ever going to record any more music so you have to milk this for all it's worth!

I mean, I don't know if I really believe that. More of a thought experiment. Trying to give people the benefit of doubt that the engineers involved are not clueless to how this technology or how their tools work. I've never been privy to any back room conversations like this in the industry. But I have worked for a company as a manufacturing engineer that sold a lesser model of the product that used the same motherboard (control board) as the higher end product and the extended features (which this lower end model was fully capable of) were switched off with software to spoof that more expense was required. I had to write field service documentation that included warnings to the field service engineer to never let the customer see certain things in the software during a service call because of it. This mindset is everywhere.

 

[quicksrt]

There's no "encoding license" of any kind required for LPCM content. Only for dolby or dts. If they ran out of money in production for software licenses maybe they should have avoided the dolby?

5.1 LPCM does not work on the specs for DVD-V, does it? Unless there has been a change.

 

[timbre4]

5.1 LPCM does not work on the specs for DVD-V, does it? Unless there has been a change.

Spec still requires Inclusion of DD and or DTS for compatibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quicksrt]

Spec still requires Inclusion of DD and or DTS for compatibility.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You did not address the issue. But here's another twist, does DVD-A require a license in addition?

 

[timbre4]

You did not address the issue. But here's another twist, does DVD-A require a license in addition?

Excuse me for misreading the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[quicksrt]

Excuse me for misreading the question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your comment was relevant to jimfisheye's post, just not to mine.

 

[DuncanS]

Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the issue is where does one find Professional DVD-A authoring software, which is maintainable with updates and runs under the latest Windows/Apple OS. I don't think there is any. I thought the companies doing DVD-A authoring use 'old' non-maintainable software. So if they go to a DVD authoring company (apart from Opus!) they'll only be able to produce DD & DTS. No real excuse not to have DTS on the discs though, but it could be 2 license payments are due then, don't know.

I've burnt my own DVD-As from files using Circlina HD-Audio Solo Ultra, and its hobbyist software, and a bit 'clunky'.

You did not address the issue. But here's another twist, does DVD-A require a license in addition?

 

[François]

5.1 LPCM does not work on the specs for DVD-V, does it? Unless there has been a change.

You can’t even do 5.1 LPCM on a DVD-A ! The DVD technology doesn’t provide enough bandwidth for that. Lossless 5.1 on a DVD-A is encoded with MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing), an audio data compression algorithm much like FLAC.

 

[Robert van Diggele]

It would be a good move if flac files would be made available to buyers of this set.

 

[fredblue]

You can’t even do 5.1 LPCM on a DVD-A ! The DVD technology doesn’t provide enough bandwidth for that. Lossless 5.1 on a DVD-A is encoded with MLP (Meridian Lossless Packing), an audio data compression algorithm much like FLAC.

i think there may have been at least one DVD-Audio release where the 5.1 Adv'd Res was encoded as LPCM rather than PPCM/MLP (Al Green Greatest Hits) but i'd need to double check so don't quote me on that until its verified!