Redbook vs. High Resolution Tests Are Clickbait

[sandyk]

12 hours ago, John Dyson said:

but I rather enjoy what the recording engineer heard before encoding.

 

 Likewise.

[fas42]

John has been quite active on various forums - and I have come across various reactions from people in the industry to what he's saying, before ... I found this thread quite insightful, https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/important-observation-about-abba-the-compete-studio-recordings.754440/.

 

What appears to have happened is that many recording engineers, deliberately, used the Dolby A process itself as an 'enhancement' tool - they wanted the sound to have more punch, and the Dolby manipulation was an easy, extra button for achieving this.

[John Dyson]

26 minutes ago, fas42 said:

John has been quite active on various forums - and I have come across various reactions from people in the industry to what he's saying, before ... I found this thread quite insightful, https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/important-observation-about-abba-the-compete-studio-recordings.754440/.

 

What appears to have happened is that many recording engineers, deliberately, used the Dolby A process itself as an 'enhancement' tool - they wanted the sound to have more punch, and the Dolby manipulation was an easy, extra button for achieving this.

Yes, most of those critical postings are 1yr old or older -- and I know of very few actual big-name people making comments on the forum (while my recording engineer co-hort does have such access, including this guy who has done audio design, name starts with 'M'.)

 

This is not about whose daddy is bigger however, it is about a lot of people listening to bad audio, but still call themselves 'audiophiles'.  I (and others -- not just my project partner) are trying to fix this for YOU.  If you want HF compression, thin stereo image, just general yukky sound -- then I should not change that opinon, right?  The problem is when someone wants to suppress something good because they are stuck in the muck and mire of undecoded material...

 

Once the DHNRDS has gotten credibility, the guffaws have died down.   They have become silent very quickly now.  Please refer to 'gearslutz' for more recent responses (including a few public inquiries which I have responded with test copies.)

 

There HAS been some snakeoil out there -- the audiophile world knows about the snakeoil syndrome, the Satin DolbyA decoder is a good example of something that leaves as much noise as was originally in the on-tape copy.

 

One more comment:  some of the most critical have probably been those who have non-mastered the defective material that is being listened to...  It might be bad for them to be found out, right?

 

*DID THESE 'MASTERING ENGINEERS' represent that they 'mastered' the material when they actually did an incomplete job?

 

Gearslutz:  (other private conversations requesting demo copies, etc.)

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/1265710-about-dolbya-why-seems-lurk-consumer-realm.html

 

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

Here is a quote from someone on Gearslutz.  Later on in that thread (or another of three that discussed these issues), a REAL mastering engineer said that the DolbyA material was indeed being sold on CD.  I am only distributing the decoder to consumers who ask, and will not take money for it (for now.)  This is an example of the astonishment about something that IS really happening:

(I'll add my own interpretation to the quote -- it would take someone who is 'clueless' (more accurate word would be derogatory) to accept the 'defective' product as being ok.)

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with CD, and only severe idiots would ever put a dolby A encoded signal onto a CD. If it happens, it was a mistake/defect. It only makes sense on nonlinear and noisy media, which CD simply isn't. Using dolby A on a CD produces irreversible aliasing and IMD, for absolutely no benefit. On top of this, no consumer would ever be able to decode it anyway.

[John Dyson]

5 hours ago, fas42 said:

 

What appears to have happened is that many recording engineers, deliberately, used the Dolby A process itself as an 'enhancement' tool - they wanted the sound to have more punch, and the Dolby manipulation was an easy, extra button for achieving this.

 

Even though I disagree with many of your sentiments, what you stated was correct about DolbyA being used to enhance vocals during MIXDOWN.  I have also detected the possibility that Taylor Swifts' 'Shake it off' might have been artistically 'enhanced' by using gross compression like what DolbyA can do.  (Can hear lots more details in the music upon passing through a DolbyA decoding pass.)  Probably used DolbyA to help enhance the hyper-compressed sound -- something that we all normally love?

 

Karen Carpenter's vocals were sometimes messed up quite effectively by using DolbyA (the sibilance is all messed up on many of her recordings), but I am not sure if that was better or worse than using the Aphex distorter by Linda R (or was that exciter?) :-).

 

There is also a 'fake' DolbyA emulator being sold -- it only does an approximate 'encode' (compression) side -- such a device would best be CAREFULLY used on vocals only.   In a general sense, I don't think that DolbyA compression doesn't sound very good -- ARTISTIC USE is certainly okay.

 

As you all probably realize -- the tests/verifications (and some pretty nice decoding results) are done on DolbyA as used for noise reduction (like the Simon & Garfunkel example mentioned elsewhere being 'hissy' -- look at the previous spectogram for LOTS of hiss).   I am also pretty sure that the 'Sheffield Labs' Record song by Thelma Houston wasn't blatently encoded with DolbyA for 'Artistic' reasons.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

Here is a part of what I promised WRT DolbyA  'encoded' material.  One of the examples might/might not be -- not sure.  Also, this is NOT a complete list, and I haven't gotten most of the ID numbers since they are sitting in storage right now.  (Everything online now), and I am not really big into documentation.   Most of these are partial dumps from soxi command (plus additional information that I can pull together).

Of course, not including actual master tapes or anything like that -- not important for this discussion.  I have used most of these for testing, with careful review -- no artifacts that would otherwise occur from decoding unecoded material...  I do have some examples of unencoded stuff  -- don't sound very pretty after decoding most of the time.  On trying to decode unencoded material, there is often a too-strong tendancy for the listener to want to  boost the highs, until sibiliance, then it 'takes off' whooosh (worse than any excess sibilance that I have privately demoed.)

So, most (except one) is what I could stake my reputation that it is DolbyA or something fairly adulterated to act like DolbyA material.

 

(Attached -- sorry for relatively incomplete info on many -- but most of the examples are original releases, not re-releases when they just have a raw date, otherwise re-released material is usually noted with a really odd release date for when it was created :-)).

 

THIS IS NOT THE LAST PASS -- JUST GETTING STARTED...  I am still under-the-weather for now...

DAalbums.lst

[Kyhl]

I was thinking you should start a thread over on SH.tv of a running list of albums that have the Dolby A problem.  Similar to the running list of CDs with preemphasis.  Now I wonder how quickly it would be squashed with the AF Best of Bread on the list.

Honestly, the more I read your posts about this problem the more I wondered how many SH remasters have the problem.  Then  you go and post one right off the bat. 

Some of the Intervention Records releases seem like they might land in this wheelhouse.  That makes me wonder too although so far, they sound pretty good to me.

 

So maybe start a thread here meant to be a running list the albums that have this issue.

 

Also, for those of us that have never been in a studio and are not used to hearing the differences, maybe an explanation or tutorial of the differences to listen for.

[John Dyson]

4 hours ago, Kyhl said:

I was thinking you should start a thread over on SH.tv of a running list of albums that have the Dolby A problem.  Similar to the running list of CDs with preemphasis.  Now I wonder how quickly it would be squashed with the AF Best of Bread on the list.

Honestly, the more I read your posts about this problem the more I wondered how many SH remasters have the problem.  Then  you go and post one right off the bat. 

Some of the Intervention Records releases seem like they might land in this wheelhouse.  That makes me wonder too although so far, they sound pretty good to me.

 

So maybe start a thread here meant to be a running list the albums that have this issue.

 

Also, for those of us that have never been in a studio and are not used to hearing the differences, maybe an explanation or tutorial of the differences to listen for.

About some of the feral DolbyA releases sounding okay -- some DO -- if it is a very clean natual recording without much 9-20kHz to begin with, then it tends not to be so irritating (esp after the 3dB cut at 3kHz.)     However, I CAN be wrong from time to time, as I sometimes have troubles finding the correct calibration without tones.   I will create a Bread snippet -- you can decide -- again, I could be wrong from time to time.  I will try to put together a snippet tomorrow.   Where I was still questioning the Nat King Cole A LITTLE BIT, I also had some questions about the Bread one from time to time also.  Most others, I had mostly been consistent.  (The 1970 Carpenters album sometimes worried me a long time ago, but her vocals weren't very enhanced -- therefore less intense highs to be bothersome.)

 

UPDATE:  the comment about Bread worried me enough -- I am including a decoding example -- look up

03. Diary.mp3 on this directory that I use for Audiophilestyle:

(I also added a 03. Diary-v1.mp3 -- see if you like it better.)

BOTH DECODED.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ab9nhtqjforacd8/AABvt7IYgoob7VXxpN0ekK6ra?dl=0

 

John

 

[STC]

On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2019 at 1:52 AM, John Dyson said:

 

 

John, you previously shared Orange Colored decoded track somewhere in this thread unless I am mistaken. I would like to compare the original and the decoded version again with what I listened with PC/HT setup. Do you mind posting the original and decoded version again? Thanx.

Orange Coloured JDyson.wav

[John Dyson]

55 minutes ago, STC said:

 

John, you previously shared Orange Colored decoded track somewhere in this thread unless I am mistaken. I would like to compare the original and the decoded version again with what I listened with PC/HT setup. Do you mind posting the original and decoded version again? Thanx.

Orange Coloured JDyson.wav 9.06 MB · 0 downloads

Yes -- will do it by about 16:00 USA EDT time on 6Sep2019.  (I might be a little delayed, but I am usually 'on time') :-).   I'll make a few non-overlapped 55 second snippets available.

 

(If you need more complete results, just tell me privately, and we can make arrangements.)

 

John

[sandyk]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Yes -- will do it by about 16:00 USA EDT time on 6Sep2019.  (I might be a little delayed, but I am usually 'on time') :-).   I'll make a few non-overlapped 55 second snippets available.

 Hi John

 I will PM ST the original decoded version in .flac. The one that he posted is clearly the other version. j

 

Regards

Alex

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, sandyk said:

 Hi John

 I will PM ST the original decoded version in .flac. The one that he posted is clearly the other version. j

 

Regards

Alex

Remember, anything I decode today is after 3 bugfixes between now and 2wks ago.   (Actually one bugfix which allowed removal of two hacks.)

 

John

[sandyk]

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Remember, anything I decode today is after 3 bugfixes between now and 2wks ago.   (Actually one bugfix which allowed removal of two hacks.)

 

John

 Hi John

 I realise that, but this earlier version is clearly way better than the one that ST posted the link to..

I would love to hear the latest version though.

Regards

Alex

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Duplicate

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

John, you previously shared Orange Colored decoded track somewhere in this thread unless I am mistaken. I would like to compare the original and the decoded version again with what I listened with PC/HT setup. Do you mind posting the original and decoded version again? Thanx.

Orange Coloured JDyson.wav 9.06 MB · 1 download

Oh my -- that seems to have good (peak-RMS and Crest Factor) specs, but it sounds like there is a peak in the upper middle frequency range and an odd ambiance (was this assembled from a multi-channel source?).  I'll try to decode it -- but my initial listening and  a spectogram review doesn't show that it is DolbyA encoded.  I am not seeing the DolbyA noise profile in the spectogram.   SOMETIMES the DHNRDS (especially the DHNRDS DA) can 'process' material and remove noise with minimal artifacts, but the noise on that material isn't all that bad either.  The anti-distortion mechanisms in the DHNRDS DA allow 'extra' noise reduction to be provided -- not a documented feature.  Actually, the DHNRDS doesn't even need an 'attack/release' processing stage to cleanly process audio -- the anti IMD and anti MD processing eliminates the 'grainy' sound from a missing attack/release time.

 

I'll post a decoded snippet from the (AFAIR Audio Productions) version -- it sounds pretty damned good.  I need to go to bed, but will do the specific decode that you asked for tomorrow.  I'll also try Sandyk's version.

 

John

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

(was this assembled from a multi-channel source?).

 

No. Just stereo with my Edifier PC speakers set at 60 degrees. I thought there was some discussion about depth with your decoded files and undeccoded Dolby files .I wanted to find out for myself. My files will magnify the depth. If possible I want both versions of yours. I was working on them for three weeks and now couldn’t find the original folder of your files. 

 

Looking forward to receive your files. Thanx. 

 

ST

[John Dyson]

3 hours ago, STC said:

 

No. Just stereo with my Edifier PC speakers set at 60 degrees. I thought there was some discussion about depth with your decoded files and undeccoded Dolby files .I wanted to find out for myself. My files will magnify the depth. If possible I want both versions of yours. I was working on them for three weeks and now couldn’t find the original folder of your files. 

 

Looking forward to receive your files. Thanx. 

 

ST

I did some decodes and analysis.  Also provided .mp3 for quick listen (of course. flac is definitive.)  The Dropbox links to the recordings near the end of this post.

 

First -- I am attaching both waveform and spectral comparisons between the decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and original attached on your message.

Next --  waveform and spectral comparisons between the decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and RAWundecoded.

Final -- spectogram of decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and RAWundecoded (look at blue haze/noise in background.)

 

The version 'Orange Colored JDyson' attached by ST  has the cancellation/re-enforcement associated with a room kind of frequency response/phase effect -- you can see on the 'Frequency Analysis'.   This would also represent the bands that I saw on the spectogram (not included.)

 

Also, in the dropbox, I have uploaded the 55sec snippets following:

 

'11. Orange Colored Sky-RAWundecoded-snippet.flac'   ---  Direct copy (48k/16bits reduction) from source material

'11. Orange Colored Sky-V0.9.7K-snippet.flac' -- DHNRDS DA decoded copy (48k/16bits reduction)

OrangeFromAS-prob-not-DA-V0.9.7K.flac -- Attempted DA processing from previously attached 'Orange Colored JDyson'.

(I did not include the original 'Orange Colored JDyson' as sent by STC-- it is in the original post.)

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0v4p9071moru6yp/AACNT922ig13VUejLlojqjffa?dl=0

 

 

[STC]

28 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I did some decodes and analysis.  Also provided .mp3 for quick listen (of course. flac is definitive.)  The Dropbox links to the recordings near the end of this post.

 

First -- I am attaching both waveform and spectral comparisons between the decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and original attached on your message.

Next --  waveform and spectral comparisons between the decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and RAWundecoded.

Final -- spectogram of decoded (V0.9.7K-snippet) and RAWundecoded (look at blue haze/noise in background.)

 

The version 'Orange Colored JDyson' attached by ST  has the cancellation/re-enforcement associated with a room kind of frequency response/phase effect -- you can see on the 'Frequency Analysis'.   This would also represent the bands that I saw on the spectogram (not included.)

 

Also, in the dropbox, I have uploaded the 55sec snippets following:

 

'11. Orange Colored Sky-RAWundecoded-snippet.flac'   ---  Direct copy (48k/16bits reduction) from source material

'11. Orange Colored Sky-V0.9.7K-snippet.flac' -- DHNRDS DA decoded copy (48k/16bits reduction)

OrangeFromAS-prob-not-DA-V0.9.7K.flac -- Attempted DA processing from previously attached 'Orange Colored JDyson'.

(I did not include the original 'Orange Colored JDyson' as sent by STC-- it is in the original post.)

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0v4p9071moru6yp/AACNT922ig13VUejLlojqjffa?dl=0

 

 

 

That was quick!  Thanks so much. 

 

There was reference made to the Orange Coloured Sky (OCS) where there was a claim made that your decided version had a better depth. I was curious how they could hear them and decided to go back to standard stereo setup to compare. I have been working on this for about three weeks along my other project until I realized the depth perception was interesting with this track at 60 degrees my own cancellation and wanted to compare and convert the original file to hear the difference.

 

Regarding the images; +1 + (-1) is not Zero when sound is perceived by ears. Which one is correct is determined by listening the original with headphones and my files with speakers at 60 degrees.  But that I will save for another thread as I am still working on it.   

 

Thanks again for the files. 

[John Dyson]

In order to get a more unbiased view of the decoding (benefits OR damage), I have provided some more examples from the same source of Nat King Cole.   The naming conventions are different in these examples, RAWundecoded are still the 55second snippets from the original.  However, I screwed up and simply used '-snippet' instead of the version ID for the decoded copies.  So, -snippets are all decoded.

 

* For space management reasons, I'll probably remove the examples in a week or so.  If it is gone before you get a chance to access it, then just tell me you want the information again, and I'll try to make it available.

 

As usual, I also continued the 'questionable' practice of including .mp3s, but I suspect that a lot of people might be curious, but not really interested enough with doing explicit downloads and file management.  The mp3s are imprecise and do sometimes have a strong phasing sound, but do show the results in a general sense.

 

IMO, the biggest difference when doing the decoding operation  (other than 'taming' the vocals a little bit), is that esp in the old Nat King Cole taped material (probably from early 3 track and DolbyA compression), there is a lot of hiss in the 'RAWundecoded' versions.  You might notice that with so very much hiss in the original, even DolbyA-type decoding will give a sense of noise pumping.  Normally, DolbyA tends to be very good at avoiding noise pumping, but it does rear its ugly head from time to time.  (The newest versions of the DHNRDS are even good at avoiding much pumping on Linda Ronstadts' 'Blue Bayou'.)

 

* The natural ambiance improvement is a little less pronounced on the Nat King Cole material than on other stuff.  However, it still seems to be noticeable.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0v4p9071moru6yp/AACNT922ig13VUejLlojqjffa?dl=0

[STC]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

For space management reasons, I'll probably remove the examples in a week or so.  If it is gone before you get a chance to access it, then just tell me you want the information again, and I'll try to make it available.

 

Just downloaded. Please confirm that this your processed 11. Orange Colored Sky-V0.9.7K-snippet.flac. I will use this and the 11. Orange Colored Sky-RAWundecoded-snippet.flac only. The AS(CA) files were originally in mp3, although I recorded them as wav.

 

Thanks again, John.

[John Dyson]

11 minutes ago, STC said:

 

Just downloaded. Please confirm that this your processed 11. Orange Colored Sky-V0.9.7K-snippet.flac. I will use this and the 11. Orange Colored Sky-RAWundecoded-snippet.flac only. The AS(CA) files were originally in mp3, although I recorded them as wav.

 

Thanks again, John.

Yes, I just double checked -- the '11. Orange Colored Sky-V0.9.7K-snippet.flac' is definitely processed.   I just checked the gain control log for 'Orange Colored Sky' and even though on POP material, the MF band is usually pinned at 'full gain' (effectively 0dB), there are enough dynamics in OCS to cause some dynamic gain control in the MF band.  (MF band usually comes into play on very low level material.)   The other bands -- HF0 is doing the full -10 to 0dB gain change and the HF1 band is doing the -15 to 0dB gain change.  The LF band also bounces around -- but usually has little audible effect.  SO, there is a good amount of dynamic expansion going on during the decoding of OCS.  (Legend:  LF = 0-80Hz, MF = 80 - 3kHz, HF0 = 3k-9kHz/3k-20+kHz,  HF1 = 9k-20+kHz.)  The HF0/HF1 bands have a delicate & precision 'dance' between them or the sound will not be so good.

 

The only caveat -- and the BIG problem when decoding feral material -- I found that the calibration might be slightly in error on this decode (probably about 0.1dB.)  I noticed that the vocal smooths out a LITTLE bit more with a slight decrease in the calibration level.  Without tones and without good provenance on the recording, then decoding can become a 'science project'.  The 'error' is smaller than what a person doing the mastering would likely allow (not worth fixing -- really.)

 

John

 

[fas42]

17 hours ago, John Dyson said:

In order to get a more unbiased view of the decoding (benefits OR damage), I have provided some more examples from the same source of Nat King Cole.   The naming conventions are different in these examples, RAWundecoded are still the 55second snippets from the original.  However, I screwed up and simply used '-snippet' instead of the version ID for the decoded copies.  So, -snippets are all decoded.

 

 

I could live with both RAW and decoded versions - the extra edge with the RAW doesn't bother me; and I did note that I lost the sense of the cymbals work to some degree in the decoded, it was more 'buried' - again, this is purely using laptop with inbuilt speakers, so I would need better replay to be more fussy.

[sandyk]

8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

again, this is purely using laptop with inbuilt speakers, so I would need better replay to be more fussy.

 

  Yes, indeed  !!!

[John Dyson]

55 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I could live with both RAW and decoded versions - the extra edge with the RAW doesn't bother me; and I did note that I lost the sense of the cymbals work to some degree in the decoded, it was more 'buried' - again, this is purely using laptop with inbuilt speakers, so I would need better replay to be more fussy.

Everyone has their own perception -- but the springy HF compressed sound is unnatural to me.  Some people like compression -- I quit the HiFi hobby (back in the 1980s)  because it really irritates me -- CDs mostly had the DolbyA sound, and I didn't know why they sounded so bad at the time.  BTW, I do audio processors as a hobby since the 1970s.  I actually do NOT like the sound of one product of my hobby (even if done well) -- un-artfully applied dynamic range compression.   Especially obnoxious is that 'springy' sound and/or unartistically enhanced ambiance.

 

My attitude is this -- just because some small aspect of the sound cannot be heard as clearly as one would hear when there is compression -- doesn' t mean that the compressed sound is what was intended.

 

On the other hand, people don't always want to listen to the artists-intended sound, but instead they prefer some alteration of it.  The listener is listening for their enjoyment -- not for appreciating artistic intent.

 

I might not feel the 'beauty' of the sound of HF compression (DolbyAs can also be coaxed into apparent MF compression), but I have to respect that a lot of people like the sound of HF compression.  It would be nice if people could control the compression, rather than get the ad-hoc effects of DolbyA (which is totally unartistic.)

 

* Some people might think that I advocate DolbyA -- that is simply not true.  I am trying to fix the damage caused by DolbyA material -- especially that being part of the beginnings of the loudness wars.  People tolerating relatively more nasty sound, eventually becoming used to it -- now we have zero  dynamic range as a norm...

 

 

John

 

[STC]

1 hour ago, John Dyson said:

On the other hand, people don't always want to listen to the artists-intended sound, but instead they prefer some alteration of it.  The listener is listening for their enjoyment -- not for appreciating artistic intent.

 

+1 except audiophiles. 

 

How is it possible to know what the artists or the recording engineers heard?

 

Btw, could you explain further about HF compression in DolbyA? I would appreciate if you could use Orange Coloured Sky as an example. I have been listening and working on these tracks and I sense the difference in depth perception is due to loss of HF in the decoded version. Otherwise, I think there is no change in depth. Still W.I.P.