HiRez Poll Pink Floyd - DARK SIDE OF THE MOON [Blu-Ray Audio]

[The Bright Side]

Hey guys, has anybody A/B'd the quad mix on the BluRay and the underground DVD-A bootleg? It sounds like the BluRay blows it outta the water, but I'd still love to know because... Well, it's 100 dollars... And I don't even have room in my apartment for all the junk in that box.

 

[MyCuff]

Where did you read that the bda blows the dvda out of the water? I would have thought them very similar other than a .1 channel on the dvda.

 

[JonUrban]

Jon can you do screenshots with spectral analysis of the waveform?

Here is the 5.1 from the BluRay in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:




Here is the 4.0 from the BluRay in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:




Here is the 4.1 from the DVD-A in Adobe with the Frequency Analysis Display:

 

[0tto]

thanx Jon.
albeit freq. scale in screenshot limited to to 22KHz, from what i see, seems like stream of Parson's
mix on BD is superior to stream on bootleg DVDA release.
looks like during conversion analog to digital there wasn't filtering and signal was captured with
all harmonics above 22KHz. that's realy nice.

 

[winopener]

Frequency analysis display can't go up to 48?

 

[bobou2]

Hey guys, has anybody A/B'd the quad mix on the BluRay and the underground DVD-A bootleg? It sounds like the BluRay blows it outta the water, but I'd still love to know because... Well, it's 100 dollars... And I don't even have room in my apartment for all the junk in that box.

IMHO the blu ray parson mix spanks the boot DVD A. Is it worth 100 bucks just for it.......no. If I paid 60/70 for the box I'd be very happy.

 

[JonUrban]

Frequency analysis display can't go up to 48?

Not sure. That's the default display. I'll see if it can be changed.

 

[ssully]

Seems they got it right: no visible compression or brickwalling.

I see some possible gentle use of compression in the Guthrie mix. Hard to say at this magnification.

Not that I care. Compression is not inherently evil, and I already know this mix sounds fine, from the SACD. And so does the Parson 4.0.

 

[ssully]

"The 4.0 mix has been coverted with LFE track for the sub and center channel"
im confused
so That means it is 4.0mix through 5.1 channels, they simply pit the low low effects in the center and sub?

There was no such thing as 'LFE' or subwoofers when this mix was created. There has been no 'conversion' of .1 or center tracks. Like all 4.0 mixes it was simply intended for four full-range channels. The way to play it now is either through four full-range loudspeakers and no sub, or with a surround system + sub + bass management. In the latter case bass will be rerouted from the four active channels to the sub.

 

[ssully]

thanx Jon.
albeit freq. scale in screenshot limited to to 22KHz, from what i see, seems like stream of Parson's
mix on BD is superior to stream on bootleg DVDA release.
looks like during conversion analog to digital there wasn't filtering and signal was captured with
all harmonics above 22KHz. that's realy nice.

Which likely makes no audible difference whatsoever.

However, what I see that WOULD make a difference is there is signficcant EQ difference between some channels of the BD 4.0 -- the 'blue' channels are treble boosted versus the 'red' channels -- moreso than on the 5.1 and on the 'bootleg' 4.1. So I definitely would expect the two 4.x masterings to sound different, even aside from the presence of .1 content in the 'bootleg'.

 

[ssully]

Jon, consider also viewing the 'logarithmic' display of freq analysis -- this actually mimics what the human ear hears, more than the linear display does.

 

[JonUrban]

Jon, consider also viewing the 'logarithmic' display of freq analysis -- this actually mimics what the human ear hears, more than the linear display does.

krab,

Here you go! Interesting viewing, if I may say so myself!
(This shot was taken during 'Us and Them' from all 3 sources)

 

[0tto]

so far BD shows best quality of audio signal.
5.1 stream is a typical DSD format with limitation to 22KHz but filled up with noise above 22KHz.
so they used same master as for SACD just converted it to PCM.

Which likely makes no audible difference whatsoever.
However, what I see that WOULD make a difference is there is signficcant EQ difference between some channels of the BD 4.0 -- the 'blue' channels are treble boosted versus the 'red' channels -- moreso than on the 5.1 and on the 'bootleg' 4.1. So I definitely would expect the two 4.x masterings to sound different, even aside from the presence of .1 content in the 'bootleg'.

i cannot agree with your first sentence. albeit range above 20KHz considered to be not audible for humans,
in fact it does enriches audible range with harmonic microdistortions, which add liveliness into the sound.
that's why people with sensitive hearing can easily hear the difference in the same sound but in different
freq. range. actually this is main reason why vinyl despite all its shortcomings, still hold its position as an
audiophile's media. the needle, during sliding on vinyl surface, create lots of harmonics which add specific
charm to vinyl's sound.
as for mastering or remastering of the Parson's stream on BD, i can't tell anything as i haven't heard it to
compare to bootleg. spikes of freq. on screen can be only reflection of the particular place of the stream on
which was placed cursor during screenshot.

 

[0tto]

Frequency analysis display can't go up to 48?

that's depend on resolution sound was recorded. Audition will scale to 48KHz (96KHz recording) or 96KHz (192KHz recording)

 

[ChristopherLees]

anybody tried to decode the live concert at wembley 74 into Quad.
The Nov 16 1974 concert was a BBC transmission although when they did it they mixed out the naughty words at the start

 

[Quad Linda]

Otto, I couldn't agree more. So many people think it's strictly academic to go above 20K. Wrong! Those high harmonics add to the realism, as do low TIM (transient intermodulation distortion) and other specs related to amplifier speed, phase linearity, dynamic range and frequency respose. Below 20hz can certainly be felt. As I recall, 28hz is the lowest an organ will go. H/K always touted "Ultrawideband." Most people CAN hear the wider frequency response in an A/B test.

With each system upgrade, I hear things I've never heard on the EXACT same software. It's due to a variety of performance upgrades. Even on the 5.1 Guthrie on the DVD-A/V in my convertible, the decay on the cymbals sounds more real than ever. The Blu-Ray on my main system was better still. When I clearly pick up something new way "back" in the mix, I chalk it up to better harmonics and/or amplifier speed. This is one of the reasons I prefer to sacrifice some separation on SQ over the discrete Q8 (not US DSOTM!) The Q8 can't do those high harmonics. Not to mention wider dynamic range, less noise, etc. Modern advanced res. allows us to have our cake and eat it too. Few, if any, compromises.

I'm still looking for equipment that's flat from DC to light!

Linda

so far BD shows best quality of audio signal.
5.1 stream is a typical DSD format with limitation to 22KHz but filled up with noise above 22KHz.
so they used same master as for SACD just converted it to PCM.


i cannot agree with your first sentence. albeit range above 20KHz considered to be not audible for humans,
in fact it does enriches audible range with harmonic microdistortions, which add liveliness into the sound.
that's why people with sensitive hearing can easily hear the difference in the same sound but in different
freq. range. actually this is main reason why vinyl despite all its shortcomings, still hold its position as an
audiophile's media. the needle, during sliding on vinyl surface, create lots of harmonics which add specific
charm to vinyl's sound.
as for mastering or remastering of the Parson's stream on BD, i can't tell anything as i haven't heard it to
compare to bootleg. spikes of freq. on screen can be only reflection of the particular place of the stream on
which was placed cursor during screenshot.

 

[Guy Robinson]

As I recall, 28hz is the lowest an organ will go.

Linda

I believe that this is 16 hz. The E. Power Biggs SACD of Bach has an extended pedal note that is purported to be 18 hz. With the 2 subs you can feel the music more than anything else in my collection. Most excellent massage.

 

[Quad Linda]

Ol' Ernest does it again! Rockin' da pedals! Petals, too? BTW: he's now worth over $400 on EBay!

Let me know when you get to 0 hz, IF you're still alive.


Linda
I'll bet it hertz!

I believe that this is 16 hz. The E. Power Biggs SACD of Bach has an extended pedal note that is purported to be 18 hz. With the 2 subs you can feel the music more than anything else in my collection. Most excellent massage.

 

[zabble]

anybody tried to decode the live concert at wembley 74 into Quad.
The Nov 16 1974 concert was a BBC transmission although when they did it they mixed out the naughty words at the start

The original BBC mix was possibly a quad encoded recording, however that wouldn't be the case with this official release of the show as the whole concert was remixed from the multi-tracks. Not only that. Several things were fixed in the process. The most obvious is the cash register sounds on "Money" now being in sync with Roger's bass. I've got a really good boot of the show, but I think the remix really does improve on it, even if there were some "repairs " done.

Has anyone noticed that the two voices singing the main verses together on "Time" each sound like that of David Gilmour? I compared it to the original 1974 mix of this show, and confirmed that these two voices are the same used in the new version. I guess I only now noticed it because of the clarity of the new mix. If this really is the case, then the implications are that Gilmour was allowed to was overdub a second voice for the BBC vesion. If they had that kind of post production freedom, then why wouldn't they have fixed the cash register sync for the original airing?

Am I crazy, or does anyone else think that Gilmour is harmonizing with himself on this track?

 

[dabl]

Is the Live in Brighton 1972 mix from this set multichannel or stereo only?