Oct 08, 2017
TIM: “Of course, the pro decoder would best honor original intentions. Yes on all of that!”
LARRY: “Are you working with Inner Knot or DGM doing QC on the Crimson mixes before release?”
TIM: “They are the end point for sales; the QC product goes back to DGM, Panegyric or other label the authoring house we are doing this for.”
LARRY: “Very cool. And which might cause you to reject a submitted project? What are the common screw-ups? I’m trying to make sure that doesn’t happen with my planned projects.
My thoughts on using old versus new QS decoders: As an archivist and preservationist, the pro-decoder is doing things like bandwidth-separating out sonic elements such as sub channels and center channels that didn’t exist in the original mix. So that’s not technically an accurate recreation of the way the original mix was put together. I would argue for doing an historically accurate 1975 quad digital capture only routed to the original 4 speakers. And then a separate full-featured 2017-2018, 5.1 mix using all we can do now with the extra channels and no forbidden pan placements or other restrictions we had mixing under the totalitarian analog encoding methods. Not to mention the terrible channel separation limitations of the old system. And without quad phase encoding the mix won’t do frustrating and weird things with the EMT echo chambers. Anyway, that’s just me.”
TIM: “Wonderful to be reading this in such detail. Perhaps I should clarify the Surround Master in QS mode is a 4.0 output, which is why I mentioned that with the QSD1 version for comparison.
Flaws list: misspelled titles in menus, incorrect track labeling, incorrect timing of track marks, assortment of navigation through elements, track slide element sizes, audio glitches, etc.”
LARRY: “Whew. Usual “proofreading” flaws in text content and menu authoring. Got it.”
TIM: “Correct. We make a few of these intense passes and then have a release candidate result from that.”
LARRY: “Curious about preferred 0-level standard for surround mixes you’ve encountered. I’ve done plenty of stereo CD mastering and have the appropriate tools for getting solid perceived levels onto disc (-12=0 reference) without falling prey to the loudness wars. Some of the Blu-Rays I’ve encountered feel a little unnecessarily ‘timid’. In TV broadcast I have to take into account both FCC modulation regs and the CALM act. I’d prefer to push the envelope on non-broadcast consumer content. It is rock and roll, after all.”
TIM: “Good call! Good clean non-overcompressed material we can crank up without fatigue is the collective goal.
Today I discovered your extensive notes inside Synergy Semi-Conductor release 2, going to read these ASAP.”
LARRY: “I should re-read them, myself sometime. Got to get on to some other things this evening. Thanks for sharing comments and answering questions. More to come, I'm sure. Please stay in touch.“
TIM: “Of course, the pro decoder would best honor original intentions. Yes on all of that!”
LARRY: “Are you working with Inner Knot or DGM doing QC on the Crimson mixes before release?”
TIM: “They are the end point for sales; the QC product goes back to DGM, Panegyric or other label the authoring house we are doing this for.”
LARRY: “Very cool. And which might cause you to reject a submitted project? What are the common screw-ups? I’m trying to make sure that doesn’t happen with my planned projects.
My thoughts on using old versus new QS decoders: As an archivist and preservationist, the pro-decoder is doing things like bandwidth-separating out sonic elements such as sub channels and center channels that didn’t exist in the original mix. So that’s not technically an accurate recreation of the way the original mix was put together. I would argue for doing an historically accurate 1975 quad digital capture only routed to the original 4 speakers. And then a separate full-featured 2017-2018, 5.1 mix using all we can do now with the extra channels and no forbidden pan placements or other restrictions we had mixing under the totalitarian analog encoding methods. Not to mention the terrible channel separation limitations of the old system. And without quad phase encoding the mix won’t do frustrating and weird things with the EMT echo chambers. Anyway, that’s just me.”
TIM: “Wonderful to be reading this in such detail. Perhaps I should clarify the Surround Master in QS mode is a 4.0 output, which is why I mentioned that with the QSD1 version for comparison.
Flaws list: misspelled titles in menus, incorrect track labeling, incorrect timing of track marks, assortment of navigation through elements, track slide element sizes, audio glitches, etc.”
LARRY: “Whew. Usual “proofreading” flaws in text content and menu authoring. Got it.”
TIM: “Correct. We make a few of these intense passes and then have a release candidate result from that.”
LARRY: “Curious about preferred 0-level standard for surround mixes you’ve encountered. I’ve done plenty of stereo CD mastering and have the appropriate tools for getting solid perceived levels onto disc (-12=0 reference) without falling prey to the loudness wars. Some of the Blu-Rays I’ve encountered feel a little unnecessarily ‘timid’. In TV broadcast I have to take into account both FCC modulation regs and the CALM act. I’d prefer to push the envelope on non-broadcast consumer content. It is rock and roll, after all.”
TIM: “Good call! Good clean non-overcompressed material we can crank up without fatigue is the collective goal.
Today I discovered your extensive notes inside Synergy Semi-Conductor release 2, going to read these ASAP.”
LARRY: “I should re-read them, myself sometime. Got to get on to some other things this evening. Thanks for sharing comments and answering questions. More to come, I'm sure. Please stay in touch.“
