HiRez Poll Lennon, John - GIMME SOME TRUTH (The Ultimate Remixes) [Blu-Ray Audio]

[perzon57]

That's what I'm telling you, yes.

I could try to be really fair. Put the clues and evidence aside (the raw mix in the dd stream that is). Based just on listening like you're supposed to do.

It is loud but the initial impression is of high fidelity and there's nothing overtly harsh. It doesn't sound like a volume war CD outright.

The crushed 5.1 mix sounds like a ho hum front heavy surround-ish mix at first listen. Again, with hi-fi and not overtly harsh. It insidiously sounds legit and pro but just not that good of a mix ultimately. I'm repeating that first impression to illustrate how much the actual mix was altered and damaged. Because the raw mix in the dd stream is full fidelity, big and warm, discrete and with rears every bit as active as the fronts. Just very well done. The mix engineer would be right to be furious if he heard the mastering error.

My point there is that I would expect the stereo version to be every bit as compromised. We don't have a copy of the unmolested stereo to compare with.


It's still worth considering this set for only the 5.1 mix in the dd stream. It's a really good mix! "only"... You don't get stuff like this every day. And how many times have we reached further for even more damaged copies? Especially the old formats that people share to their best ability.

Still a humiliating defeat of a release!
Recall and collector's item?

And I ask you again,do you have a Atmos setup?

 

[jimfisheye]

And I ask you again,do you have a Atmos setup?

Not yet. Still looking for the decoder codec. I have interface channels and amps/speakers if something lures me to setting up more channels.

My comments on the 7.1 core of the Atmos are from previewing those channels on my 5.1 array. I qualified what I said earlier. The part where that 7.1 core (those 8 channels of audio) comes as is. It is not a derived and constructed on the fly file. Leading to the point that the audio in the 7.1 core looks to be delivered without any decoder corruption from operator error. It has the same sonic "treatment" that the dts ma 5.1 and the stereo stream have.

 

[Frogmort]

Comparing the Atmos vs the 5.1DD on my 7.1 setup (non-Atmos but TrueHD 7.1), the Atmos sounds so much better in every way. Way better fidelity, clarity, even surround presence by quite a bit. I've compared listening to Atmos straight from the source on my 7.1 TrueHD setup compared to the summed-down 7.1 FLAC, and something is definitely lost in translation.

 

[albertop]

Comparing the Atmos vs the 5.1DD on my 7.1 setup (non-Atmos but TrueHD 7.1), the Atmos sounds so much better in every way. Way better fidelity, clarity, even surround presence by quite a bit. I've compared listening to Atmos straight from the source on my 7.1 TrueHD setup compared to the summed-down 7.1 FLAC, and something is definitely lost in translation.

Agree 100%, even though on my 5-speaker system I still prefer the dedicated 5.1 mix. I'm sure the Atmos stream sounds good on an Atmos system, with ceiling speakers.
The DD 5.1 mix is nothing special and I wouldn't recommend it unless you can't playback the other lossless streams.

 

[ssully]

Isn't the DD 5.1 mix the 'dedicated 5.1 mix'?

From what I read, it's not a fold-down.

 

[albertop]

Isn't the DD 5.1 mix the 'dedicated 5.1 mix'?

From what I read, it's not a fold-down.

Well, first of all, the DD has no limiting and is much lower in volume. It’s roughly 6 to 10dB quieter than the TrueHD core of the Atmos mix. The rear channels of the DD are different than a 5.1 fold-down of the 7.1. From my tests, it seems a matter of volume but not placement of instruments. In terms of EQ, differences are minimal and probably due to having a lossy vs lossless encoder. Going back to listening, I think that the limiting applied on the 5.1 mix is not that audible. At least, I wouldn’t call it a butchered mix. For now, I’m still convinced the lossless streams are the way to go. I can’t experience atmos but the dedicated DTS 5.1 sounds great on my system while the 7.1 is a bit unbalanced. It’s easy to notice that the rear channels are correct on the DTS 5.1. There are at least two reasons. The first is that the 2018 mixes from Imagine were similar if not the same. Second, listen to the end of Cold Turkey, where there’s a panning from front to rear. That’s one of the spots where I notice the balance between front and rear is okay. Come together live is another good example. #9 Dream is a third example, where the balance between front and rear channels can be appreciated in the DTS 5.1 mix. Steel and Glass has also a lot of discrete elements in the rear channels and I don’t think they should be any louder. All the songs from Double Fantasy are also good. Having more stuff from the rear channels does not necessarily mean the mix is better. This compilation was mixed conservatively, so we can’t transform it into a better mix by simply raising the volume of the rear speakers. Bless you is probably the most obvious lost occasion of the bunch. It could have been a great surround track but it’s not. Just my opinion.

 

[albertop]

My vote is based on the DTS-MA 5.1 mix:

30% SURROUND MIX: 6*0.3=1.8. Overall, this is a conservative mix, but it’s nonetheless enjoyable. The surround experience gets better in the second half of the compilation. All the tracks from Double Fantasy sound great.

30% AUDIO FIDELITY - 8*0.3=2.4. Impressive fidelity, especially for the tracks from the early albums. In terms of sound quality, the tracks from Plastic Ono Band, Imagine and Walls and Bridges are revelatory. I’m marking this down to 8 because I would prefer a more relaxed mastering. Also, I think the bass is overdone, even though it’s not bloated. 8 is still a high mark.

30% CONTENT - 10*0.3=3. I’m voting 10 for the music. I keep going back to John Lennon’s work on a regular basis, and I’m enjoying this compilation a lot, despite the flaws.

10% OVERALL PACKAGE - 10*0.1=1. I love the format, the graphics. The book is great, a very nice surprise.

TOTAL: 8.2, rounded down to 8. I hope I’ll be able to listen to the Atmos mix in the future. For the moment, my thoughts are based on the DTS-MA 5.1 mix.

 

[perzon57]

I gave it 9 based on listening to the Atmos mix.Love the music,the mix even though some track are heavy on the bass and some of the earlier tracks are a little weak in the surrounds.Very nice book too.

 

[ssully]

Well, first of all, the DD has no limiting and is much lower in volume. It’s roughly 6 to 10dB quieter than the TrueHD core of the Atmos mix. The rear channels of the DD are different than a 5.1 fold-down of the 7.1. From my tests, it seems a matter of volume but not placement of instruments. In terms of EQ, differences are minimal and probably due to having a lossy vs lossless encoder. Going back to listening, I think that the limiting applied on the 5.1 mix is not that audible. At least, I wouldn’t call it a butchered mix. For now, I’m still convinced the lossless streams are the way to go. I can’t experience atmos but the dedicated DTS 5.1 sounds great on my system while the 7.1 is a bit unbalanced. It’s easy to notice that the rear channels are correct on the DTS 5.1. There are at least two reasons. The first is that the 2018 mixes from Imagine were similar if not the same. Second, listen to the end of Cold Turkey, where there’s a panning from front to rear. That’s one of the spots where I notice the balance between front and rear is okay. Come together live is another good example. #9 Dream is a third example, where the balance between front and rear channels can be appreciated in the DTS 5.1 mix. Steel and Glass has also a lot of discrete elements in the rear channels and I don’t think they should be any louder. All the songs from Double Fantasy are also good. Having more stuff from the rear channels does not necessarily mean the mix is better. This compilation was mixed conservatively, so we can’t transform it into a better mix by simply raising the volume of the rear speakers. Bless you is probably the most obvious lost occasion of the bunch. It could have been a great surround track but it’s not. Just my opinion.

Your argument here jumps around quite a bit.

I know what the DD. 5.1 and DTS 5.1 look like. JonUrban has kindly provided many waveforms of those.

You said you 'prefer the dedicated 5.1 mix' The DD 5.1 apparently is a dedicated 5.1 mix, i.e. it is not derived from/reprocessed from another mix. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.

As for it vs the DTS 5.1, I have not seen reported evidence that the mix per se -- i.e., the placement of vocals and instruments in left/center/right, front/back space -- differs between the two. Thus if anything the DTS 5.1 seems to be a highly processed version of the DD 5.1 -- though not a case of simple compression applied across the board.

Two different dedicated 5.1 mixes for the two formats , DD and DTS , would be extremely unusual.


As for DD 5.1 vs 5.1 fold down of 7.1, that would be an apples to oranges comparison... unless you reported that the two were the *same*. In which case you could argue that the DD 5.1 is simply the fold-down of the 7.1, presented separately. But clearly they are not and it is not.


Can you (or has someone already) post waveforms of the TrueHD core of the Atmos mix? If it is 6-10dB louder than the DD in all channels, I suspect it is rather compressed?

 

[albertop]

Your argument here jumps around quite a bit.

I wrote two or three comments, plus an explanation of my vote (8), with no reference to the DD 5.1 mix. Compared to what I've been reading about this release being faulty, I've been pretty quiet! I'm just saying my opinion like you all do.

I know what the DD. 5.1 and DTS 5.1 look like. JonUrban has kindly provided many waveforms of those.

JonUrban has done a meticulous job, no doubt. But at the end of the day what matters is: have you heard the different surround mixes? The only fair comparison would be by level-matching different mixes and A/B them. That's what I've done before writing my comments.

You said you 'prefer the dedicated 5.1 mix' The DD 5.1 apparently is a dedicated 5.1 mix, i.e. it is not derived from/reprocessed from another mix. You haven't presented any evidence to the contrary.

You are right. All of these mixes should be dedicated mixes. By 'dedicated 5.1 mix' I was referring to the DTS-MA 5.1 mix. For me, the only way to access the DD 5.1 is through ripping the disc, otherwise, my player will playback the DolbyTrue 7.1 mix (downmixed to 5.1 by my AVR).

As for it vs the DTS 5.1, I have not seen reported evidence that the mix per se -- i.e., the placement of vocals and instruments in left/center/right, front/back space -- differs between the two. Thus if anything the DTS 5.1 seems to be a highly processed version of the DD 5.1 -- though not a case of simple compression applied across the board.

Two different dedicated 5.1 mixes for the two formats , DD and DTS , would be extremely unusual.

From my limited comparisons, I couldn't detect differences in the placement of instruments, so I also agree with you here. They are probably the same mix, but when the rear channels are higher in volume than the mix is by definition different. Certain instruments move towards the centre of the room, if not behind your ears. One mix has 2/3dB limiting, the other has full dynamics. So, I think it's fair to say they are different.

As for DD 5.1 vs 5.1 fold down of 7.1, that would be an apples to oranges comparison... unless you reported that the two were the *same*. In which case you could argue that the DD 5.1 is simply the fold-down of the 7.1, presented separately. But clearly they are not and it is not.

Can you (or has someone already) post waveforms of the TrueHD core of the Atmos mix? If it is 6-10dB louder than the DD in all channels, I suspect it is rather compressed?

All of these comparisons are a little bit of the 'apples and oranges' style. They all present different levels for the rear channels and they are all different from one another. As long as one states the terms of the comparison I think there is no problem. The DD 5.1 stream is embedded in the Atmos stream, and will only be played if your player cannot playback the DolbyTrueHD core. So I guess it's fair to compare that to its bigger brother, the lossless 7.1 core. Others have done that, and have also reported back, either in this or another thread.

The DD is 6/10dB quieter (roughly) than the other mixes. Having said that, it doesn't peak above -6/7dB. So, limiting on the lossless tracks is limited to 2/3dB.

 

[HomerJAU]

This is the Dolby TrueHD core of the Atmos mix and it's the only part MakeMKV can see per the design of the system and MakeMKV not being updated with the Atmos codec.

MakeMKV rips the Atmos stream but it hasn’t been updated to show the Atmos/TrueHD stream as that codec. If you check the MakeMKV MKV file with the latest (updated) MediaInfo app it shows it as Atmos (16 channel etc). Ffmpeg converts the core TrueHD 7.1 mix as it can’t decode Atmos.

 

[albertop]

As for it vs the DTS 5.1, I have not seen reported evidence that the mix per se -- i.e., the placement of vocals and instruments in left/center/right, front/back space -- differs between the two. Thus if anything the DTS 5.1 seems to be a highly processed version of the DD 5.1 -- though not a case of simple compression applied across the board.

Since you asked, I'have done another round of comparisons. I can't say whether the DTS 5.1 is a highly-processed version of the DD 5.1 They are different tough, and I find easier to compare the mixes by isolating the front channels and compare the two (like I would do for comparing two stereo tracks).

This is below is Instant Karma! Front channels: the DTS 5.1, top, the DD 5.1, bottom. I've level matched them by referring to the RMS values. The difference is 13.67dB. But that's not the only difference. When John sings "we all shine on", it's loud and clear on the DTS, while it's quite on the DD 5.1 (vocals might be louder on the centre channel?). Claps are very low in volume on the DD 5.1, while they are loud and clear on the DTS (the stereo image is also bigger). Anyway, the volume isn't the only difference, that's for sure. There are internal differences in the balance between channels...



Now, let's have a look at the rear channels. Same song, DTS on top, DD on the bottom. I've used the same level-matching strategy (so the difference was 13.67dB). They are indeed different. What I'm hearing is mainly ambience and reverb on the DTS mix, with vocals and back vocals prominent during "we all shine on". A little bit of drums and the bass is present. On the DD 5.1 I'm hearing drums and bass since the beginning, they are heavier. However, I can also hear John's voice throughout. I don't know whether that's a deliberate choice, but makes the mix sound unbalanced to me. Loud vocals throughout on the rear channels? I don't like it, sorry, despite the better dynamics.

 

[albertop]

This one is Woman, front channels only. The volume difference here was 9.58dB. DD, top and DTS, bottom (you can see that because of peak limiting). Again I don't like the DD 5.1. The kick drum and the snare drum are too punchy, the mix is bass heavy. The DTS is better, maybe less dynamic?



Here's the rear channels (level-matched based on the front speakers RMS, so 9.58dB). As usual, the DD is louder than the DTS on the rear channels. Similarly to Instant Karma, I hear drums, bass and John's vocals throughout the song. It's unbalanced for me, it shouldn't be that loud. The DTS is better, with reverb/ambience and backing vocals louder than the other bits.

The curious thing is that these are not identical even when they are played back at the same volume (to do so, I had to raise the DTS by another 4.9dB). So there are still more drums and bass on the DD when the rear channels are played back at the same volume.



I don't have time now to compare more tracks, but I think that breaking down the front and rear channels helped me understand what happens in each mix. In a way, it confirms what I'm hearing in 5.1. I don't mind the rear channels being louder, it's good, but they shouldn't have so much vocals, drums and bass, otherwise what's the difference between front and rear channels? I stand with my previous comments. The DTS 5.1 is the way to go for me, even though it's mixed conservatively for the first half of the compilation. I think the second half is much better. I'm not even sure there is consensus on which one is better. Hope this helps.

 

[albertop]

Now I can't stop comparing the DTS 5.1 and the DD 5.1 . Another couple of notes, without waveforms.

Working Class Hero. It's not a track to demo your surround system, but in the DTS 5.1 John's voice is clear and focussed in the centre. I can't say the same about the DD. The voice is spread across speakers (especially the front ones). I don't personally like that effect.

Bless you. I think this is one that sounds better in the DD 5.1. No matter how much you raise the rear channels of the DTS 5.1, you'll never get the same effect. Some percussions and piano are clearly heard in the rear channels in the DD, I can't say the same in the DTS. It's mostly in front, with some piano and percussions floating a little bit. There's a moment at the 2:30 min mark, with a trumpet on the FR that is then panned RR/RL on the DTS 5.1. In the DD 5.1, the trumpet is on the RR from the beginning. The more I compare the more I'm confident that there are differences between the two mixes that go beyond simple volume imbalances between front and rear channels.

 

[jimfisheye]

MakeMKV rips the Atmos stream but it hasn’t been updated to show the Atmos/TrueHD stream as that codec. If you check the MakeMKV MKV file with the latest (updated) MediaInfo app it shows it as Atmos (16 channel etc). Ffmpeg converts the core TrueHD 7.1 mix as it can’t decode Atmos.

I looked at it with MediaInfo and I see the same thing. (Forgot I had that app!)

Do you think the 7.1 file is derived and created by MakeMKV? A few other people are suggesting that. Not directly suggesting in so many words, but implying.

The tech I've read states that a 7.1 core comes as delivered. It's the height and object channels that scale to fewer channels for anyone without the full height and object array. The Atmos codec reads the available output channels and scales accordingly. For the example of a 7.1 system with no height or object channels, the media player is to fold the height and objects into the available 7.1 array as well as possible. Not actually create and write a new 7.1 file!

Actually deriving and writing a unique file by a ripping app is really a stretch I think. Nothing else works this way and none of the documentation agrees. (And how would hardware players do such a thing, right?)

I think the 7.1 core as available to any of us (Atmos codec having or not) is as delivered. The fact that the "mastering" matches the other "mastered" streams in sonic character and channel level profile can only mean it's intentional and as delivered. The premise that the 7.1 file is derived and created on the fly, and this will happen incorrectly when MakeMKV doesn't see a media player with the Atmos codec in the system, and that result could match the sonic and level character of the other "mastered" streams exactly has to be fully impossible.

I'm beating a dead horse I suppose. But I don't want to dismiss anyone's premise outright without explanation. So, there it is. If the interest is in actually hearing the mix as intended and not just settling for sounds coming from multiple speakers loudly... Like I said, I was trying not to assume that or just be dismissive.

Is my premise about the 7.1 core of the Atmos mix incorrect?
I'm going to suggest that even if the 7.1 is derived on the fly, then it followed "mastered" program and used that data to create the file. Again, there's more alteration than just levels or peak limiting and the sonic character of the "mastering" is in the 7.1 Atmos core file.


Now I have to wonder if the customer (Yoko?) requested this though! After reading all the reviewers that seem to like the spanked version. Maybe the client did as well and it was requested. We might very well see a corrected reissue with the dd stream getting the "mastered" mix instead of the other way around! That feels like a stretch to me but obviously others listening to this have different opinions. And it seems reasonable to blame Yoko I suppose.

No longer any response from the horse...

 

[himey]

I looked at it with MediaInfo and I see the same thing. (Forgot I had that app!)

Do you think the 7.1 file is derived and created by MakeMKV? A few other people are suggesting that. Not directly suggesting in so many words, but implying.

The tech I've read states that a 7.1 core comes as delivered. It's the height and object channels that scale to fewer channels for anyone without the full height and object array. The Atmos codec reads the available output channels and scales accordingly. For the example of a 7.1 system with no height or object channels, the media player is to fold the height and objects into the available 7.1 array as well as possible. Not actually create and write a new 7.1 file!

Actually deriving and writing a unique file by a ripping app is really a stretch I think. Nothing else works this way and none of the documentation agrees. (And how would hardware players do such a thing, right?)

I think the 7.1 core as available to any of us (Atmos codec having or not) is as delivered. The fact that the "mastering" matches the other "mastered" streams in sonic character and channel level profile can only mean it's intentional and as delivered. The premise that the 7.1 file is derived and created on the fly, and this will happen incorrectly when MakeMKV doesn't see a media player with the Atmos codec in the system, and that result could match the sonic and level character of the other "mastered" streams exactly has to be fully impossible.

I'm beating a dead horse I suppose. But I don't want to dismiss anyone's premise outright without explanation. So, there it is. If the interest is in actually hearing the mix as intended and not just settling for sounds coming from multiple speakers loudly... Like I said, I was trying not to assume that or just be dismissive.

Is my premise about the 7.1 core of the Atmos mix incorrect?
I'm going to suggest that even if the 7.1 is derived on the fly, then it followed "mastered" program and used that data to create the file. Again, there's more alteration than just levels or peak limiting and the sonic character of the "mastering" is in the 7.1 Atmos core file.


Now I have to wonder if the customer (Yoko?) requested this though! After reading all the reviewers that seem to like the spanked version. Maybe the client did as well and it was requested. We might very well see a corrected reissue with the dd stream getting the "mastered" mix instead of the other way around! That feels like a stretch to me but obviously others listening to this have different opinions. And it seems reasonable to blame Yoko I suppose.

No longer any response from the horse...

The bed, or core as you put it, 7.1 remains static on any non-Atmos device, the same as a 5.1 TrueHD track would be. It is only when the metadata is read by an Atmos processor that any "folding" or "derivering" is done.

 

[HomerJAU]

I looked at it with MediaInfo and I see the same thing. (Forgot I had that app!)

What version of MediaInfo do you have? (20.10 is latest).

Do you think the 7.1 file is derived and created by MakeMKV?

No. MakeMKV copies the selected audio and video streams. It does not do any conversions. If the selected TrueHD audio stream has Atmos then Atmos extensions get copied along with TrueHD. It’s the same stream, no conversion.

 

[jimfisheye]

What version of MediaInfo do you have? (20.10 is latest).



No. MakeMKV copies the selected audio and video streams. It does not do any conversions. If the selected TrueHD audio stream has Atmos then Atmos extensions get copied along with TrueHD. It’s the same stream, no conversion.

Looks like I have 20.03
It has the identical report on the mkv file as someone else posted.

Yeah, all the documentation states the 7.1 portion of the Atmos comes delivered. It follows current practices, etc etc. I'm going to suggest than anyone who wants to claim the 7.1 core gets altered if you don't have the Atmos playback codec needs to back that up with hard evidence. That in response to the claim that my lack of an Atmos playback codec has corrupted my audition of the 7.1 bed track.

The Atmos codec is supposed to scan the system outputs in order to deliver the object channels properly. Now when you have, for example, only a 7.1 array in total, the result is supposed to be the 7.1 bed with the height and object channels mixed in as properly as possible (with respect to the mix on a full system). The signals coming out your 7.1 outputs are a composite. But the raw 7.1 bed itself as delivered in the file is still as delivered. The point being that it's free for anyone to listen to and critique and the Atmos codec doesn't alter that.

The suggestion in the other thread that I'm making up the entirety of what I've written... Seriously?
Please engage and debunk something I've said if you have knowledge I don't. Strong claims like that require strong evidence IMHO. I've backed up my claims ad nauseam.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

The Atmos codec is supposed to scan the system outputs in order to deliver the object channels properly. Now when you have, for example, only a 7.1 array in total, the result is supposed to be the 7.1 bed with the height and object channels mixed in as properly as possible (with respect to the mix on a full system). The signals coming out your 7.1 outputs are a composite. But the raw 7.1 bed itself as delivered in the file is still as delivered. The point being that it's free for anyone to listen to and critique and the Atmos codec doesn't alter that.

I always thought it worked the other way around. The 7.1 already has the object info imbedded in it. Running it through an Atmos decoder takes that info and routes it to the additional height channels and suppresses it (to whatever degree the mixer specifies) in the 7.1 bed. Kind of like a digital version of a matrix encode. Is this incorrect?

 

[ssully]

If the 7.1 is a 'core' component in a Dolby Atmos file, is not the 5.1 also a core, for legacy purposes? That is, for hardware with pre-Atmos Dolby decoders?

We can extract and analyse cores without Atmos enabled using tools like MakeMKV. Would it be right to say that the only way to objectively analyse Dolby Atmos output in 7.1 (or 5.1?) with Atmos enabled (i.e., with extra channels mixed in to it) would be to record the analog output? Or is there any software yet that does Atmos decoding and can output in multiple channel formats? Because it looks like the comparisons people are interested in include

x.1 core vs x.1 Atmos-enabled
DD vs DTS

Could the DTS cores look so similar yet distinct from DD due to having had Atmos channels mixed in to the DD core before DTS encoding? IOW, the DD 5,1 core + Atmos channels folded in = DTS 5.1 ? This might make sense because you could not get the *Atmos-enabled* DD 5.1/7.1 experience from DTS without doing that .

It would require Atmos-savvy software tools to demonstrate, though.