DolbyA decoding feedback -- 'feral' examples (yes/no)

[rando]

All of this is quite interesting.  Not least of which is the possibilities with access to all of the details in a recording!   

 

Actually posted a video of Pink Panther theme in the music forum not so entirely long ago.  For my purposes this was well chosen material to develop an ear for what you are removing.  Would like to give it a few more listens over a couple days.  Not sure my input will have any renumerative value for you.

 

The original file brought back memories of questioning if the sound was an artistic decision or a result of very poor decisions that unfortunately got distributed so widely.  Tension, even created by desire to have the song end, building for the main story entrance could be argued as having merit in the case of a theme song.  Even lacking a few touches the improved version really was improved for the act of listening alone.  

 

Yesterday I thought about attempting a discussion elsewhere on the faults of retouching/remastering attempting to sway an audiophile audience instead of furthering the initial recording's intent.  I believe that is a very different discussion, but one that that unexpectedly showed a positive coloration here.  

 

Thanks for digging up such a keen example for me to play around with and posting spectograms you felt well matched your descriptions @John Dyson

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I can do a pure decode -- but they appear to have cut the middle frequencies.  I'll do a totally raw decode with zero modifications other than to EQ the input to the decoder so that there wiil be no other modications.   The decode has to be presented a correct DolbyA signal or really sounds bad.   I have never had access to the before-DolbyA versions -- because they probably don't exist anymore, but I can do a very raw approximation -- and will post it in about an hour.   I'll do 'RingRing' and one other.

 

For me -- the original 'RingRing' is horribly messed up.  I even have an ORIIGNAL vinyl version -- it is as bad or worse than the one that I demoed!!!

 

Listen 'carefull'y to the orginal 'RingRing' -- I have CD versions and ripped versions, they all have that odd sound.  The vinyl version is typical.  The RAW decode is temporally lined up, but still has an overly tight sound to me -- maybe just my own taste.  But what I have included here is as clean and simple as possible.

 

John

 

01. ABBA - Ring Ring-RAWdecode.mp3 2.1 MB · 0 downloads

 

I was thinking of comparing the true original to the encoded, and the a decoded file. Unfortunately, comparing an encoded version to a decoded one doesn’t tell me how close the decode is to the original. Also, MP3 encoded files will not be good for precise phase analysis, as the compression will also mess with phase and frequencies.

[rando]

@pkane2001

Again I feel dumb for making you add mp3 to DW while lightheartedly exploring typical audiophile meandering through a rough patch on the way to betterment.

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I was thinking of comparing the true original to the encoded, and the a decoded file. Unfortunately, comparing an encoded version to a decoded one doesn’t tell me how close the decode is to the original. Also, MP3 encoded files will not be good for precise phase analysis, as the compression will also mess with phase and frequencies.

I can provide full flac versions of the results.

The 'originals' wont' do you much good, unless I give you the DolbyA input.  I can give you those also.

 

Just tell me, and I'll put together a package.   (The source material MUST be corrected to be DolbyA -- very little consumer released material hasn't been damaged in one way or another.)  I do run into pure DolbyA from time to time -- I do have some ABBA that IS pure DolbyA, but it is damaged by generation loss, so what I do is bring the best copies up to the standards of the 'damaged' copies, therefore getting the best quality of each.  (Proper EQ and best sound/least generation loss together.)

 

My process for finding clean material that CAN be corrected is very tedious.   Out of approx 10 CDs of each album, I have picked out the least damaged DolbyA, and then applied the corrections that cause the DolbyA decoder to be maximally happy.   ABBA is the most difficult group because they have purposefully suppressed the midrange, which then makes the DolbyA decoder do weird things.  On most recordings, they do things like a simple 3 or 6dB at 3kHz (sometimes a few variations of that.)   ABBA is NOT like that -- as I have proven by the actual, rough sounding DolbyA copies.

 

John

 

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, rando said:

@pkane2001

Again I feel dumb for making you add mp3 to DW while lightheartedly exploring typical audiophile meandering through a rough patch on the way to betterment.

 

That was a good suggestion, even if I took your suggestion seriously    I’ve added support for a few other formats since then.

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I was thinking of comparing the true original to the encoded, and the a decoded file. Unfortunately, comparing an encoded version to a decoded one doesn’t tell me how close the decode is to the original. Also, MP3 encoded files will not be good for precise phase analysis, as the compression will also mess with phase and frequencies.

Specifically, the original on 'RingRing' is so astoundingly poor -- the improvement in the raw decoded version doesn't need much commentary.  Since I did a RAW decode, and the DolbyA is apparerntly destined for vinyl, it might a good idea to do a 1.5dB cut at 9kHz (q=0.707.)   The results that I posted are totally absolutely not modified (other than as I specified above.)

 

On DolbyA -- phase is pretty much meaningless -- however, the DHNRDS is 100% linear phase except for below 200Hz.  It must be a standard IIR filter at the 74Hz frequency because the Q needs to be 1.070, and it causes a needed peak and phase is important in the 200Hz region and above.

[pkane2001]

1 minute ago, John Dyson said:

I can provide full flac versions of the results.

The 'originals' wont' do you much good, unless I give you the DolbyA input.  I can give you those also.

 

Just tell me, and I'll put together a package.   (The source material MUST be corrected to be DolbyA -- very little consumer released material hasn't been damaged in one way or another.)  I do run into pure DolbyA from time to time -- I do have some ABBA that IS pure DolbyA, but it is damaged by generation loss, so what I do is bring the best copies up to the standards of the 'damaged' copies, therefore getting the best quality of each.  (Proper EQ and best sound/least generation loss together.)

 

My process for finding clean material that CAN be corrected is very tedious.   Out of approx 10 CDs of each album, I have picked out the least damaged DolbyA, and then applied the corrections that cause the DolbyA decoder to be maximally happy.   ABBA is the most difficult group because they have purposefully suppressed the midrange, which then makes the DolbyA decoder do weird things.  On most recordings, they do things like a simple 3 or 6dB at 3kHz (sometimes a few variations of that.)   ABBA is NOT like that -- as I have proven by the actual, rough sounding DolbyA copies.

 

John

 

 

I’m  not sure I can get anything useful from an encoded file compared to the one you decoded. I can measure the differences, but there is no way for me to decide if these changes bring the sound closer to the original or taking it further away.

 

Assuming it’s just a subjective preference test, then yes, I liked some of the latest files you decoded compared to their encoded version. But I tend to not trust that my personal preference will always be for the more transparent, authentic reproduction.

[pkane2001]

6 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Specifically, the original on 'RingRing' is so astoundingly poor -- the improvement in the raw decoded version doesn't need much commentary.  Since I did a RAW decode, and the DolbyA is apparerntly destined for vinyl, it might a good idea to do a 1.5dB cut at 9kHz (q=0.707.)   The results that I posted are totally absolutely not modified (other than as I specified above.)

 

On DolbyA -- phase is pretty much meaningless -- however, the DHNRDS is 100% linear phase except for below 200Hz.  It must be a standard IIR filter at the 74Hz frequency because the Q needs to be 1.070, and it causes a needed peak and phase is important in the 200Hz region and above.

 

If there is variable group delay, then phase change is not linear.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I’m  not sure I can get anything useful from an encoded file compared to the one you decoded. I can measure the differences, but there is no way for me to decide if these changes bring the sound closer to the original or taking it further away.

 

Assuming it’s just a subjective preference test, then yes, I liked some of the latest files you decoded compared to their encoded version. But I tend to not trust that my personal preference will always be for the more transparent, authentic reproduction.

You are stating EXACTLY the problem that I have when dealing with ABBA.

From what I can tell -- ABBA recordings are totally a concoction based upon the 1970's technology and the attempts that Tretow made to overcome the limitations -- also trying to have maximum impact (signal density) in the AM radio frequency response range.

 

Given the ORIGINAL goals, and the fact that I (we all do -- just that I bother to play with it) have access to pretty much the original 2trk master in DolbyA form, I have tried to reverse some of the assumptions about 1970s technology, forget about the desire to sound best on AM radio, and use my taste (however limited it is) to bring ABBA more into the 2000's.

 

I DO belive that my 'remasters' are a little bit too bright sounding -- but that happened as a side effect of bringing the high frequencies back in sync with the lows.   I should probably considering softening the middle highs a little (I have a certain filter sequence that works well on ABBA), where I can make a change to a well defined parameter and soften the sound.

 

Maybe, more than anything, I biased the sound towards brightening the female vocals.   They can be brought down a little while not becoming foggy.   Only a part of what I am doing is directly related to 'frequency response', but it is also phase related.  Getting it into sync is VERY tedious to do correct (esp after all of the work done by Tretow back in the 1970s.)

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

1 minute ago, pkane2001 said:

 

If there is variable group delay, then phase change is not linear.

The goal is to MATCH the DolbyA so that the temporal relationships are maintained.   On a true DolbyA 2.8kHz and 8.8kHz filters are near linear phase, so linear phase FIR filters (carefully crafted to match the response curves) are a valid replacement.   The 74Hz filter is NOT linear phase, and must have a Q of 1.070 to match a DolbyA.   These are one aspect of a DolbyA that I had to replicate, or the results/phases will NOT be correct.   Above about 200Hz, the phases straighten out, and the time relationships are coherent (don't have offsets.)

 

The DHNRDS is totally phase stable and has no unintended delays causing decoding problems -- however, the initial/basic phases must match -- and I did that.

 

The DolbyA DECODING doesn't very accurately match the dynamics of the ENCODING -- so there are weird little phase shifts that wobble all over the place, thereby causing decoding fog.

 

The DHRNDS has no such 'wobbling'.   It is dead-on accurate (really!!!)

 

John

 

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

The goal is to MATCH the DolbyA so that the temporal relationships are maintained.   On a true DolbyA 2.8kHz and 8.8kHz filters are near linear phase, so linear phase FIR filters (carefully crafted to match the response curves) are a valid replacement.   The 74Hz filter is NOT linear phase, and must have a Q of 1.070 to match a DolbyA.   These are one aspect of a DolbyA that I had to replicate, or the results/phases will NOT be correct.   Above about 200Hz, the phases straighten out, and the time relationships are coherent (don't have offsets.)

 

The DHNRDS is totally phase stable and has no unintended delays causing decoding problems -- however, the initial/basic phases must match -- and I did that.

 

The DolbyA DECODING doesn't very accurately match the dynamics of the ENCODING -- so there are weird little phase shifts that wobble all over the place, thereby causing decoding fog.

 

The DHRNDS has no such 'wobbling'.   It is dead-on accurate (really!!!)

 

John

 

 

Got it. Interestingly I’ve seen a phase distortion produced by some DACs and ADCs that appears like an oscillating waveform. Could be some error in the filter implementation or an actual clock being modulated by a frequency. Weird looking!

[fas42]

2 hours ago, John Dyson said:

If you cannot hear the 'mud' in the ripped vinyl version as posted (the CD versions are just as bad) -- and haven't mentioned it -- then your comments are worthless.

Rather than blather -- explain EXACTLY in reasonably technical terms what you dont' like.  Changes can be easily made -- I have access to ALL of the detail in the recordings, unlike what the original distributed versions have.

 

John

 

 

John, note that I stated "Ring Ring- remastered" to distinguish from the vrip versions - these were the names you assigned; I have only have heard the CD versions on decent playback, so that's what I'm comparing with.

 

The ABBA sound is 'notorious' for being highly manipulated; that was the intention, and I've come across plenty of articles describing the various "tricks" that were used - so, the "richness" or "fullness" is what was aimed for, and if that's missing then the listening experience doesn't measure up to what I believe was the intention.

 

With the vocals, it's the overtones of the voices that are subjectively missing; the tonality lacks the harmonic richness, imparted by the mastering techniques that were used. This is not a pure FR thing - if I were to put it in those terms, I would say the treble is lacking.

 

A parallel, though it seems a long way away, is the pipe organ - the organist can select a single voice, for a plaintive quality to the sound; or, "full out all the stops" - layer upon layer of harmonic complexity is introduced, which gives that tremendous, yes, richness to what you hear. The ABBA sound, to me, is a pop version of that type of music making ...

[John Dyson]

20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

John, note that I stated " Ring Ring- remastered" to distinguish from the vrip versions - these were the names you assigned; I have only have heard the CD versions on decent playback, so that's what I'm comparing with.

 

The ABBA sound is 'notorious' for being highly manipulated; that was the intention, and I've come across plenty of articles describing the various "tricks" that were used - so, the "richness" or "fullness" is what was aimed for, and if that's missing then the listening experience doesn't measure up to what I believe was the intention.

 

With the vocals, it's the overtones of the voices that are subjectively missing; the tonality lacks the harmonic richness, imparted by the mastering techniques that were used. This is not a pure FR thing - if I were to to put in those terms, I would say the treble is lacking.

 

A parallel, though it seems a long way away, is the pipe organ - the organist can select a single voice, for a plaintive quality to the sound; or, "full out all the stops" - layer upon layer of harmonic complexity is introduced, which gives that tremendous, yes, richness to what you hear. The ABBA sound, to me, is a pop version of that type of music making ...

I have a LOT of the CDs (only 4-5 of the RingRing CDs) of various sources/distributors.  The original releases (as shown by my vinyl version) tend to have very suppressed highs.  I don't count 'The Complete Studio Recordings' in my collection because the dynamics have been so very compressed as it is 'JUST LOUD'.  TCSR is a bad trip.

 

Also, watch out for a lot of the CDs -- alot are NOT DolbyA decoded -- so they are smushed up with DolbyA compression -- I don't count those as a basis of comparison.  Tretow definitely did not intend those to be released without decoding.  For the Tretow sound, refer to the vinyl.

 

I just checked the Ring Ring original Japanese release CD, and track 1 (Ring Ring) has a boxy sound, not quite as boxy as the vinyl.

Also, the 2001 Remaster also has a very similar boxy sound.  The CDs have LOTS of dynamic range compression.

 

Sadly, the Japanese release only has a crest factor of 4.1, and a very sad peak-RMS of about 12.4dB at best.   The 'complete studio recordings' are just as bad.

 

My 'Ring Ring' remaster (admittedly not perfect) is NOT boxy sounding, has a peak-RMS of about 18dB and a crest factor of about 7.3.

The smushed up undecoded DolbyA versions have a peak-RMS of about 17dB and crest factor of about 6.97 -- but that is what I used for input to the DHNRDS (plus or minus some corrective EQ.)

 

The vinyl version that I submitted has better dynamic range than the CDs, with a little more than 15dB peak-RMS and a crest factor of about 6.0-6.5 or so.

 

So, from a dynamics standpoint -- the Ring Ring created from the DolbyA copy has much wider dynamic range.   Interestingly about the DHNRDS, it produces fewer erroneous peaks than a true DolbyA, so when normalizing -- the signal can often be louder than decoded by a true DolbyA, yet still be legal, not compressed and not clipped.

 

John

 

 

[fas42]

1 hour ago, rando said:

All of this is quite interesting.  Not least of which is the possibilities with access to all of the details in a recording!   

 

Actually posted a video of Pink Panther theme in the music forum not so entirely long ago.  For my purposes this was well chosen material to develop an ear for what you are removing.  Would like to give it a few more listens over a couple days.  Not sure my input will have any renumerative value for you.

 

@John Dyson

 

After this comment by rando, I just now downloaded the Pink Panther, AsDistributed, and the V0.9.7 - the original was far superior: the percussion at the beginning was full of life and space, which was dulled down badly, the elements of the orchestra were very clearly defined; and the big giveaway was the orchestral crescendo at the end - the decoded was heavily, yes, "fogged"; I could also use the word "blurring" to describe the subjective result.

[John Dyson]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

After this comment by rando, I just now downloaded the Pink Panther, AsDistributed, and the V0.9.7 - the original was far superior: the percussion at the beginning was full of life and space, which was dulled down badly, the elements of the orchestra were very clearly defined; and the big giveaway was the orchestral crescendo at the end - the decoded was heavily, yes, "fogged"; I could also use the word "blurring" to describe the subjective result.

I don't normally say things like this -- but I need to ask -- can you hear?

 

John

[fas42]

8 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I don't normally say things like this -- but I need to ask -- can you hear?

 

John

 

I have often had comments about having "very good ears"; and the number of times I have heard audio playback which was shredded with unpleasant distortion, and the "audiophiles" present seemed completely oblivious to the ugliness - you can get used to almost anything, I guess ... .

 

So, you can't hear all the acoustic space surrounding the instruments being played, in the original, I take it?

[John Dyson]

10 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I have often had comments about having "very good ears"; and the number of times I have heard audio playback which was shredded with unpleasant distortion, and the "audiophiles" present seemed completely oblivious to the ugliness - you can get used to almost anything, I guess ... .

 

So, you can't hear all the acoustic space surrounding the instruments being played, in the original, I take it?

You MIGHT be mistaking the 'reveal' of dynamic range compression that manipulates the relative levels in unintended ways.  That is, with dynamic range compression, you are hearing various instruments in the WRONG proportions.   Undecoded DolbyA (esp in the case of the

Pink Panther original example) shows very obvious dynamic range compression, and original incorrect proportion of the levels of the instruments, and then the DHNRDS decoding/recovery of the correct dynamics (mostly within 0.25dB.)

 

The original Panther cut can have errors of 10dB-15dB in the levels of the various components of the material, while the decoded version brings the levels back to normal.

 

Like I have suggested before, if you like compression -- then get a compressor.  It is MUCH better to bring the signal back down to near-zero error (by decoding it), then apply PROPER compression to the signal -- better optimized for the purpose.

 

DolbyA encoding&compression as evidenced by the original is SUBOPTIMAL for a compressed version.  It REALLY seems like you desperately prefer dynamic range compressed audio -- and on low end equipment -- dynamic range compression can be helpful.  For example, in a car audio system -- dynamic range compression can be good.

 

John

 

[sandyk]

3 minutes ago, fas42 said:

So, you can't hear all the acoustic space surrounding the instruments being played, in the original, I take it?

 Frank 

We got that you don't like what John has been doing/ saying several pages ago.

 Please let it go now until you have something better than a Laptop's speakers to properly evaluate them.

 Perhaps save them to USB memory and take them to your Audiophile friend's house ?

 

Alex

 

 

 

[fas42]

29 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Frank 

We got that you don't like what John has been doing/ saying several pages ago.

 Please let it go now until you have something better than a Laptop's speakers to properly evaluate them.

 Perhaps save them to USB memory and take them to your Audiophile friend's house ?

 

Alex

 

 

 

 

Not going to help much ... what we do there is to use recordings to analyse what needs to be done to lift the standard of the playback chain - not the other way round ... .

 

John is doing something that will be valuable to people that don't want to go down the route of improving the replay system - and that makes it worthwhile. I've already mentioned the Satin software tool, as an alternative, for those who wish to 'remaster'. Also note, I have already given a thumbs up on one of the decoded versions, in a post some time ago - these miserable speakers just scrapped things together, that one time, to agree with the pack, .

 

[John Dyson]

5 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Not going to help much ... what we do there is to use recordings to analyse what needs to be done to lift the standard of the playback chain - not the other way round ... .

 

John is doing something that will be valuable to people that don't want to go down the route of improving the replay system - and that makes it worthwhile. I've already mentioned the Satin software tool, as an alternative, for those who wish to remaster. Note, I have already given a thumbs up on one of the decoded versions, in a post some time ago - these miserable speakers just scrapped things together, that one time, to agree with the pack, .

 

First -- my project is oriented to places like (major place one -- major gov't archive) or (major place two -- major recording studio archives) along with various mastering engineers.  It is NOT a consumer product -- frankly -- it is probably too complicated for you to use (not intending to insult -- it is just a fact.)

 

On the other hand, the Satin is not really sufficient for serious mastering.  It is more of a work-around.  We are very familiar with the Satin, and it 'sort of' works, but doesn't really do what an DolbyA was intended to do.   The DHNRDS does so very faithfully.

 

Satin == work-around,  DHNRDS == solution.

Comparing use of Satin to use of DHNRDS is not fair to the capabilities of the DHNRDS.

 

John

 

[fas42]

Except, I'm getting the very strong impression that if it "doesn't sound right" then you will fiddle with the settings until it does ... this sounds very much like subjective evaluation of the quality of the output, and adjusting to suit your preferences - not a robust, 'automated' processing arrangement, which ensures the "technically correct" solution.

[John Dyson]

15 minutes ago, fas42 said:

Except, I'm getting the very strong impression that if it "doesn't sound right" then you will fiddle with the settings until it does ... this sounds very much like subjective evaluation of the quality of the output, and adjusting to suit your preferences - not a robust, 'automated' processing arrangement, which ensures the "technically correct" solution.

On the ABBA stuff -- I have provided pure decodes above.   That isn't fiddling at all.

 

Re-mastering ABBA (which I seldom do) -- IS fiddling. (Frankly, almost all mastering/tweaking of recordings IS fiddling.)

 

The Pink Panther and other 'decodes' are NOT fiddling.

There are certain rules to overcome the damage done to DolbyA material -- certainly not fiddling.

 

You have been confounded no matter if it is a simple decoding operation or mastering or whatever.   The term luddite comes to mind, but not quite sure how...

 

Please refer to my work history and productivity -- sorry to say: you are totally outclassed.  You wouldn't know the difference between development and fiddling if you saw it.

 

Wrt achieving the perfect recording -- EVEN when there are tones, DolbyA units often need to be tweaked in.  Sorry, it goes with the territory.

 

John

[Confused]

This morning I had a listen to some of the various clips that have been posted in thread, generally comparing "raw" versions to the V0.9.7K0 versions.  In many cases I found the difference to be very subtle, and if I am honest I would be equally happy listening to either version.  The example that struck me most was the remastered version of "Please Mr. Postman".  In this case I thought that the "Raw" versions had clearly audible distortions in comparison to the V0.9.7K0 version, which I found particularly noticeable in the backing vocals.

 

Listening to some of the Olivia Newton-John examples, I can hear the same thing, but nowhere near as pronounced.

[John Dyson]

I wanna explain the subtle differences that can be made to a recording -- without making a huge difference in frequency response.  In this case, I am talking about '"08. ABBA - Me And Bobby And Bobby's Brother.flac" and the various derived mp3 or remastered versions.  I have added a 'RAWdecoded'/unmastered version of 'Bobby' -- listen for the lead female vocal --subtle difference in the remastered version.  The lead female vocal is relatively strengthened, but the background chorus is placed slightly in background.

 

I do NOT know if the 'remastered' version would be considered 'better' than the 'RAWdecoded' version -- I am not a mastering expert, even though I understand A LOT of tricks because of my EE/DSP background.

 

Initially, my plan for this comment, was to modify the previous remastered attempt (add another version), but INSTEAD, I decided that it would be A LOT more obvious to demo & compare the RAW decoded version instead.  My original goal for 'remastering'  (and it was very specific) -- to make the primary vocals be more obvious -- but also NOT doing any weird rematrixing or expansion games.  Instead, I changed the timing in the recording, with a very slight associated change in frequency response.   When simply 'decoding' there is not a lot of flexibility, because the DA decoding needs a certain character to the signal, and if modified too much -- then the DA decoder isn't happy.   All of the input source material for the raw decodes have been optimized to make the DA decoder as happy as possible -- that is, make sure that the input to the DHNRDS is as 'standard' DolbyA as possible.   The only significant modifications/mastering can come AFTER the DA decoding.

 

I normally avoid significant modification other than smoothing the frequency response or sibilance mitigation (later versions of the DHNRDS are much less sibilance prone.  Alex kept making me aware of sibilance being a problem, so I eventually found and fixed a very subtle timing bug.)  DolbyA HW units DO have a variant of that bug -- but the design of the original DolbyA HW is limited by the technology - not very many limitations for the DSP techniques in the DHNRDS.

 

-----------

 

The standard/decoded version (RAWdecoded) has no phase/frequency response twisting, and sounds kind of 'flat'.  The vocals don't 'pop forward', and the 'lead' is a little bit buried.  (I just added the RAWdecoded version to the dropbox.)

 

My goal for the original 'remastered' version was to bring the lead vocal(s) more to the front.   Getting that slight additional emphasis is partially based on a difference in the phase response of an almost flat filter along with a slight modification of the L+R.

 

I use similar filter phase/time-delay methods for sibilance correction when needed -- I'd suspect that most people -- if they saw what I was doing would feel a little strange about what I did to the signal.   (I would  have been in that confounded group in the past also.)

 

Listen primarily to the lead female vocal coming in at about 17 seconds in the 'Bobby' cut.  There is an important (but not immediately & consiously noticeable) difference in the positioning/timing/phase.   All of the information originally resided in the recording, but I decided to reorganize it just a little bit.  I wanted the female vocal to have stronger prominance without making extreme changes. * it is very possible that I should have used more or less of the phase twisting -- my choice in these 'remastered' versions was to be conservative.

This 'reorganization was done to all of the remastering attempts (only slight differences from album to album) -- and might be one reason why the vocals might be overly forward sounding.

 

Most important, and a great crutch when doing these little 'mastering' things:

Instead of tweaking for each cut on the album, all cuts were remastered identically.  When doing that kind of thing, it requires careful compromise so that any one cut isn't severely damaged.  It also keeps the modifications well under control -- a minor change on one cut could be disaster for others.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2rg3vatnl18suf5/08. ABBA - Me And Bobby And Bobby's Brother-RAWdecoded.mp3?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wjjr1j00plt1cnl/08. ABBA - Me And Bobby And Bobby's Brother-remastered-0to55.mp3?dl=0

 

Note:  I have also updated the 'complete' & untruncated demo versions to include the 'RAWdecoded' for 'Bobby' also.

 

Anyone who is really interested, if desired, I will privately describe the technique.

[John Dyson]

16 minutes ago, Confused said:

This morning I had a listen to some of the various clips that have been posted in thread, generally comparing "raw" versions to the V0.9.7K0 versions.  In many cases I found the difference to be very subtle, and if I am honest I would be equally happy listening to either version.  The example that struck me most was the remastered version of "Please Mr. Postman".  In this case I thought that the "Raw" versions had clearly audible distortions in comparison to the V0.9.7K0 version, which I found particularly noticeable in the backing vocals.

 

Listening to some of the Olivia Newton-John examples, I can hear the same thing, but nowhere near as pronounced.

 

The results that you have seen/heard are EXACTLY why DolbyA material is getting leaked.   It is NOT a matter of life and death -- in many cases, non-decoded material is still listenable.  Personally, I don't like the sound of compression -- but it isn't totally evil either.  (I designed/wrote HW/SW dynamic range compressors for decades, close to 50yrs -- even though they are often necessary, and have good uses, generally I like to avoid their effects when not needed.)  Truly, some people sometimes PREFER compression -- geesh, if I an listening in my automobile, I don't think that a peak-RMS ratio of 30dB would be all that desirable.  (Most good quality recordings are in the 18->25dB range.)  Dynamic range compression CAN be helpful for listening.

 

In fact, the original reason for DolbyA -- noise reduction -- is less of a problem, even on the last versions of actual analog tape equipment 20+yrs ago.  So, the strong drive to fully decode DolbyA to minimize the hiss (actually, other kinds of noise also -- including -- believe it or not, hum) isn't all that strong anymore.

Nowadays, actually decoding DolbyA material is more of a secondary improvement -- that is the main reason why I don't expect that RichardH and myself will sell very many DHRNDS DA packages.   The market for DHNRDS DA REALLY IS mostly limited to archives and a few real perfectionist mastering/recording engineers who still have DolbyA material in their library.  Please -- all recording engineers in the world -- don't ENCODE recordings with DolbyA anymore -- my goal is to eventually allow new DolbyA encoding to disappear and old archives be decoded.

 

Part of my reason for starting the discussions here -- I am trying to figure out if the audiophile ear 'cares' about the sound quality differences.  The only time that I really get into the judgement game is when I am being judged or inconsistent or imponderable complaints are made.  HOWEVER, I 100% respect and appreciate constructive criticism.  Ask 'sandyk' -- he can be critical (but kind), and I am so very thankful for his input.

 

 

I am happy about anything that I can learn from you or anyone else.

 

John