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

[fredblue]

You are not aloud to say that. You will get called a troll. You have to say it sounds great 10/10.

Umm.. who says you're not allowed to say its loud..!? Last I checked you can pretty much say what you like around here within reason (unlike so many other boards).

After you went on and on about it, I asked you more than once if you had actually heard the Blu-ray - I'm still waiting for an answer to a perfectly valid question.

You stated as fact your opinion that the BD is exactly the same as the SACD/DVD-A.

They are seemingly not identical, according to several people on here who have both the SACD/DVD-A and the BD.

You then proceeded to post waveforms of the DVD-A.. and it's been SFA since ( that's Sweet F-A, not the Super Furry Animals btw!).. you went all quiet when other members chimed in to try and engage you on your waveform findings.

I'll say it again - are you saying all these people on here are wrong/deaf/idiots because they don't agree with your opinion?

You blurt stuff out without thinking.. curt, tactless behaviour = that's what I'm guessing people here have objected to.

We're a friendly, polite bunch around here and it doesn't go down well when people with no manners start rocking the boat.. beyond that I don't see anyone actively censuring you.

 

[fredblue]

DR doesn't tell you the story of a 5.1 mix. The fronts can be compressed to death with very dynamic rears. There are plenty of examples of that unfortunately. As far as the EQ, i think it is OK.

I still give YBR 7.5/10.

It is a shame these Blu Ray audios are not remastered to be as dynamic as possible. Really lazy and cheap job by Universal, just using previous masters. I was listening to Titanic SACD just now and the mastering is brilliant, you have to crank the music right up, very dynamic in parts.

true enough and two wrongs don't make a right.. but if GYBR was discovered to be the one and only 5.1 with front channels louder than the rears I'd eat my entire collection of hats!!

it is a shame.. the Titanic SACD unfortunately has great dynamic range but an absolutely bloody TERRIBLE Surround mix..!!!!

Titanic SACD = Great mastering, Poor surround mix

VS.

GYBR SACD/DVDA = Average mastering, Great surround mix

I know which I'd rather have.

 

[keenly]

Umm.. who says you're not allowed to say its loud..!? Last I checked you can pretty much say what you like around here within reason (unlike so many other boards).

After you went on and on about it, I asked you more than once if you had actually heard the Blu-ray - I'm still waiting for an answer to a perfectly valid question.

You stated as fact your opinion that the BD is exactly the same as the SACD/DVD-A.

They are seemingly not identical, according to several people on here who have both the SACD/DVD-A and the BD.

You then proceeded to post waveforms of the DVD-A.. and it's been SFA since ( that's Sweet F-A, not the Super Furry Animals btw!).. you went all quiet when other members chimed in to try and engage you on your waveform findings.

I'll say it again - are you saying all these people on here are wrong/deaf/idiots because they don't agree with your opinion?

You blurt stuff out without thinking.. curt, tactless behaviour = that's what I'm guessing people here have objected to.

We're a friendly, polite bunch around here and it doesn't go down well when people with no manners start rocking the boat.. beyond that I don't see anyone actively censuring you.

Chill i am not serious.

Friendly? Uptight as well. Relax.

 

[keenly]

true enough and two wrongs don't make a right.. but if GYBR was discovered to be the one and only 5.1 with front channels louder than the rears I'd eat my entire collection of hats!!

it is a shame.. the Titanic SACD unfortunately has great dynamic range but an absolutely bloody TERRIBLE Surround mix..!!!!

Titanic SACD = Great mastering, Poor surround mix

VS.

GYBR SACD/DVDA = Average mastering, Great surround mix

I know which I'd rather have.

You are right, i can agree with you on something :}

 

[ssully]

The 5.1 has a DR average of 11, it's not wildly DRC'd compared to the flat transfer SHM-SACD (which is about as good as you're gonna get from the tapes on this album) which has a DR average of 13...and is a lot better than the 2014 Stereo remaster with a DR avg of 9.. but the 5.1 is a bit loud & bright.

Still, a great Surround mix though eh

You can't just draw a single 'DR'* number for a 5.1 mix , because typically (and unlike 2.0 mixes) some channels are *drastically* different in terms of DR than the others. For a 2.0 mix it's a safe approximation to average the 'DR's of each channel, for a 5.1 mix, it is not. It *might* make sense to use a single 'DR' metric, an average of all channels, to compare two 5.1 mixes, but it's not right for comparing 5.1 to 2.0.

DR is also influenced by EQ choices -- a bassier mix will tend to have a lower 'dynamic range'.

(*what we all call DR is really 'crest factor', the difference between peak and average level)

[EDIT -- , I see now that keenly made the same point! But I'll leave this here for emphasis]

 

[keenly]

You can't just draw a single 'DR'* number for a 5.1 mix , because typically (and unlike 2.0 mixes) some channels are *drastically* different in terms of DR than the others. For a 2.0 mix it's a safe approximation to average the 'DR's of each channel, for a 5.1 mix, it is not.

DR is also influenced by EQ choices -- a bassier mix will tend to have a lower 'dynamic range'.

(*what we all call DR is really 'crest factor', the difference between peak and average level)

Indeed, my point exactly.
Done with now let's leave it at that. At least the EJ 5.1 albums are not frequently clipping like Staind 14 shades or Flaming lips Video collection etc. I would love Staind to have the same mastering as EJ discs. That one is truly awful. YBR is still great to listen to.

 

[fredblue]

Chill i am not serious.

Friendly? Uptight as well. Relax.

Bleedin' 'ell.. @: I'm so laid back I'm horizontal most of the time! Uptight? Come on.. keenly.. give it a rest! You're not doing yourself any favours. If you think I've got a problem with you, you're wrong, I agree with a lot of what you have to say.

fwiw, I'm one of the pussycats online, I don't go onto boards to get into spats.. I'm here, there and everywhere online to have fun and chat about this stuff with like-minded people when its nigh-on impossible to do so in real life. Isn't that why we're all on here!?

I accept 100% we can't all agree, it'd be a pretty poor discussion if that was the case. I just can't abide unnecessary rudeness round here when it is a genuinely friendly welcoming place. You can't deny you have a habit of coming out with some contentious stuff and you must know the way it's done is bound to piss people off more than what you've got to say?

when people start spouting opinion like its a matter of fact, that's when I can't just sit by and bite my lip. The EJ's aren't perfect but to say they're very compressed is just not true.. and when you say stuff like that it could well put people off hearing some truly excellent examples of surround music.. a bit of balance wouldn't go amiss

 

[fredblue]

You are right, i can agree with you on something :}

Alleluia!

 

[fredblue]

You can't just draw a single 'DR'* number for a 5.1 mix , because typically (and unlike 2.0 mixes) some channels are *drastically* different in terms of DR than the others. For a 2.0 mix it's a safe approximation to average the 'DR's of each channel, for a 5.1 mix, it is not. It *might* make sense to use a single 'DR' metric, an average of all channels, to compare two 5.1 mixes, but it's not right for comparing 5.1 to 2.0.

DR is also influenced by EQ choices -- a bassier mix will tend to have a lower 'dynamic range'.

(*what we all call DR is really 'crest factor', the difference between peak and average level)

[EDIT -- , I see now that keenly made the same point! But I'll leave this here for emphasis]

As Bill Withers said.. "I know, I know, I know, I know, I know..!" Still, the 'crest factors' are pretty respectable! As a counterpoint, in fairness, how many 5.1 mixes have compressed fronts? Shedloads! Is it good practice? No way! ..the EJ's do suffer from this but are they any more compressed than almost any other above average "modern-day" remasters? Nope - and certainly a lot less compressed than the Stereo on those SACDs (yuck!)..

..goin' around in circles.. a bit like Ray's tambourine in All The Girls Love Alice! FABULOUSSSSSS!!!! :banana:

 

[fredblue]

Indeed, my point exactly.
Done with now let's leave it at that. At least the EJ 5.1 albums are not frequently clipping like Staind 14 shades or Flaming lips Video collection etc. I would love Staind to have the same mastering as EJ discs. That one is truly awful. YBR is still great to listen to.

Oh god.. I had to give that Staind DVD-A away (pretty sure it's now the only Warner DVD-A I don't own!) it sounded abysmal :howl

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

The 5.1 has a DR average of 11, it's not wildly DRC'd compared to the flat transfer SHM-SACD (which is about as good as you're gonna get from the tapes on this album) which has a DR average of 13...and is a lot better than the 2014 Stereo remaster with a DR avg of 9.. but the 5.1 is a bit loud & bright.

Still, a great Surround mix though eh

Wow, if the BD is compressed, I can't tell. Though, it does sound louder than the SACD by about 6 dB.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

oh and fwiw, the 2014 Stereo may be only a 9 DR avg but it still sounds great.. compression isn't everything, EQ plays a big part and Bob Ludwig dialled down the treble and pushed up the mid and bass, so his remaster while loud sounds warm and mid-rangey lovely. Pleasant surprise. I wish GP & co had similarly held back on the top end when they were doing the 5.1 but they sadly didn't and we're left with a very adventurous surround mix that's a bit bright and can't be cranked much. a shame but seeing as there never was a Quad mix back in the day and the 5.1 in itself is so brilliantly put together, its hard to be too hard on it. well, for me and it would seem a lot of others here and elsewhere too at any rate.

Huh?! I play it real loud. Isn't this the only way to listen to this classic?

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Lack of dynamics? Not on my system. It could be I'm using ICEpower and it may be replacing the loss of dynamics.

 

[fredblue]

Wow, if the BD is compressed, I can't tell. Though, it does sound louder than the SACD by about 6 dB.

I guess just about every digital version of the album must be compressed to some extent.. stereo, 5.1, SACD, DVD-A, BD-A.. you name it..!?

the only versions I have where I'm on the fence about just how much compression has been used, if any (beyond what's inherent in the original recording, of course) are the original 80's DJM CDs, the MFSL CD and the SHM-SACD.. they all sound different but they all sound V.nice to me.. my preference being for the old DJM CDs in the fatbox but its a personal thing, I know fans who love the MFSL Ultradisc (which is said to be the sound of the tapes, yet doesn't sound the same as the DJMs or SHM to me..) and others who prefer the SHM-SACD (which is apparently a flat transfer of the Stereo mixdown master).

Fwiw, all 3 of those Stereo CDs that sound less 'futzed-with' than any other version I have all have different DR from one another.. and there's no pesky 5.1 to get in the way of the crests there.. so it's all up for grabs as to exactly what's going on, imho..!!

 

[fredblue]

Lack of dynamics? Not on my system. It could be I'm using ICEpower and it may be replacing the loss of dynamics.

Could well be, Class-D is very snappy.. but even on my humble Yammy with A/B amps pretty much any which way I play GYBR its a dynamic powerhouse!! :yikes

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

The only formats of GYBR I have in digital form are the BD and SACD. So, I have nothing to compare them to, digitally. I used to be all about dynamic range values and lately, I have conceded (yes, I am, a bit) and have opened up to DR values as low as 9 if the mix was done properly.

 

[Jeffrey Michael]

Could well be, Class-D is very snappy.. but even on my humble Yammy with A/B amps pretty much any which way I play GYBR its a dynamic powerhouse!! :yikes

Okay, so it's not just me then. Whew! I thought, I might have been the only one that was GOING CRAAAAZY!!!:banana: Is that your banana? Or, are you just happy to see me?!

 

[fredblue]

The only formats of GYBR I have in digital form are the BD and SACD. So, I have nothing to compare them to, digitally. I used to be all about dynamic range values and lately, I have conceded (yes, I am, a bit) and have opened up to DR values as low as 9 if the mix was done properly.

the old DJM CDs (they first came out mid-80's but I got them when they were repressed early 90's) are still my fave Stereo for the album.. they aren't what anyone would call "mellow" brick road.. but then the old DJM LPs weren't laid-back either.. one listen to FFAF on the original LP and as soon as the synths kick in its BAM in your face bright.. not being cocky at all but another reason why its a bit, well I'll be totally honest here, tedious, discussing the brightness of the 5.1 on the SACDs/DVD-A/BD-A.. is I know the album inside out and every single way you can think of and it was never anything but bright in the first place...and another thing, one reason I'm a bit suss about the MFSL is it's not as bright as the DJMs or the SHM-SACD, which are probably both straight transfers of the LP master if the other DJMs and a number of the SHM-SACDs are anything to go by.

the DR thing was well explained (imho) by QQ member steelydave one time, the upshot being surround mixes can seemingly stand a certain degree more compression (i.e. loudness) than Stereo.. for reasons I've now forgotten.. it's all technically beyond me and I'm bored with all the discussion about waves and graphs and stuff, I like chatting and listening more (in equal measure!) where were we?!?

 

[fredblue]

Okay, so it's not just me then. Whew! I thought, I might have been the only one that was GOING CRAAAAZY!!!:banana: Is that your banana? Or, are you just happy to see me?!

Oh no.. You are not alone! As the fella says in DSOTM.. "I've been F¥#€ing mad for years!" :ugham:

oops! Hello yellow brick banana! :spot

 

[drphibes]

Chill i am not serious.

Friendly? Uptight as well. Relax.

Dude, this is a classic troll move. Post something inflammatory, make a half-hearted attempt to back it up, and then when people call you on it "geeze, relax guys, wow you're uptight".

I'm pretty sure in about six weeks we'll get another inflammatory post, a lame attempt to justify it, and when that B.S. gets debunked it'll be "wow you guys need to get out more" followed by silence.

Rinse, repeat. It'll get you a lot of attention and allow you to giggle that maybe someone was sore about something you wrote.