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

[PeterSt]

 

On 8/15/2019 at 8:03 PM, PeterSt said:

Think carefully about this all; you know I carry a warm heart for you.

Peter

 

PS: The main worry should be the LP-like dynamics. You won't get over that IMO.

 

I am trying to get some balance in this thread.

 

I did not really count, but so far two guys with a crappy laptop balance out (sorry Alex, you know it, and I don't even recall that you elaborated of what you heard, contrary to Frank who quite precisely does (that you don't agree doesn't mean that you should not understand what he tells; it is quite easy to understand for me (read back into my post I just quoted from, if necessary)).

 

Then there was this other guy, I think yesterday somewhere. He with the "so-so" differences with no real preference. Not sure where to count him. He is nice.

 

And then of course there's me. And what I think of it is clear. I am on the other side. I also think - and said so - that what happens in/with your decoder is beyond repair. Btw, the problem with me is that I am not as nice as Frank. I am Dutch.

 

Remember that I too said in my best diplomacy that you probably don't hear yourself what is going on. This is today exactly a month ago. Frank hopefully did not listen to me and has his own expressions about this all.

 

Already a few days ago I wanted to jump in again, just on behalf of yourself. I mean that and see quote above. I let it go. But now I can't any more. Frank may make a fool of himself everywhere throughout, but not in this thread he is. You, on the other hand, twist things slightly around by making a fool of him. I suppose you feel supported by the one and only man in here who is capable of making a fool of himself x times more than Frank. Just do a post count.

But Alex knows it plus Alex is a friend. He also knows who tells it. This is way more difficult for Frank, who just received my very first upvote. It was hard to do but I did it with my heart anyway.

 

Having said this, I will listen to your latest because that is what you deserve, John. I am also pretty sure that you don't deserve another round of my critiquing.  So the better solution could be that I'll leave anything further unspoken. You wouldn't even know whether I listened again.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

[John Dyson]

1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

 

I am trying to get some balance in this thread.

 

I did not really count, but so far two guys with a crappy laptop balance out (sorry Alex, you know it, and I don't even recall that you elaborated of what you heard, contrary to Frank who quite precisely does (that you don't agree doesn't mean that you should not understand what he tells; it is quite easy to understand for me (read back into my post I just quoted from, if necessary)).

 

Then there was this other guy, I think yesterday somewhere. He with the "so-so" differences with no real preference. Not sure where to count him. He is nice.

 

And then of course there's me. And what I think of it is clear. I am on the other side. I also think - and said so - that what happens in/with your decoder is beyond repair. Btw, the problem with me is that I am not as nice as Frank. I am Dutch.

 

Remember that I too said in my best diplomacy that you probably don't hear yourself what is going on. This is today exactly a month ago. Frank hopefully did not listen to me and has his own expressions about this all.

 

Already a few days ago I wanted to jump in again, just on behalf of yourself. I mean that and see quote above. I let it go. But now I can't any more. Frank may make a fool of himself everywhere throughout, but not in this thread he is. You, on the other hand, twist things slightly around by making a fool of him. I suppose you feel supported by the one and only man in here who is capable of making a fool of himself x times more than Frank. Just do a post count.

But Alex knows it plus Alex is a friend. He also knows who tells it. This is way more difficult for Frank, who just received my very first upvote. It was hard to do but I did it with my heart anyway.

 

Having said this, I will listen to your latest because that is what you deserve, John. I am also pretty sure that you don't deserve another round of my critiquing.  So the better solution could be that I'll leave anything further unspoken. You wouldn't even know whether I listened again.

 

Kind regards,

Peter

 

Honest critiquiing is okay.

There are two matters, which I have probably mistakenly confused for everyone...

 

1)  The DolbyA equivalent decoding -- that is a foregone conclusion -- it is correct, and it works well.   Not liking the resulting sound of a pure decode simply means that the person prefers the DolbyA compression sound effects.  (Or in MQA paralance, prefers the unfolded version.)   The reversal of the previous ersatz 'decoding', etc -- all very well understood techniques now -- and I can fairly reliably reproduce what was presented to the DolbyA/recording machine during the recording sessions.  This accurate sound is NOT what is provided on many consumer materials sold today (and even in the past), and as recorded in the 1960s through the very early 1990s.

 

2)  The 'remastering' attempt.  Simply, the attempt is to bring the ABBA sound up from the 1970s to the 2000's -- simple as that.  The intent is NOT to create more of the ABBA muck and mire, but to clear up the muck and mire.  (The ABBA muck and mire includes insanely enhanced high end, totally confused temporal effects/phase problems, etc.)  Actually, it appears that some of ABBA (Arrival) might have been processed by the Aphex Exciter -- it has some of the same character of the Aphex -- the ultimate in confused phase and muck and mire.

 

The mistake prone item is #2, and is not a trivial challenge (the DA decoder wasn't trivial either, but it is truly perfect for what it does -- and once in a while gets perfecter :-), has been far better than true DolbyA for at least the last 6months.)

 

Item 1 is a matter of the listeners preference for compression -- not much else.  I am interested in whether people like the LF/HF compression on pop, and additional MF compression on orchestral material -- or like the cleaned-up versions...  I do believe that 'audiophile' tastes have been distorted by poor mastering, and is one reason why those with some remaining hearing abilities desperately attempt to find a preamp/amplifier/etc solution to a problem that a purely linear device cannot remedy.  (Also, there is the search for good material, which DOES remedy the problem -- but only on those recordings purchased has high quality.)   HDtracks type things do NOT guarantee to solve the problem -- pure nor near pure digital recordings have a high probability of doing things correctly.

 

Item 2 is a quest that I am still working on, but have gotten some positive feedback so far (as in -- I like/enjoy ABBA for a change.)  You don't have to 'like' it, and if not -- I need some feedback to improve.

 

Taking a positive approach is in my own nature, and I much prefer that others be grown ups and be polite also.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

I KNEW this would happen -- I am currently updating the ABBA 'remaster' attempts -- it is 15Sep 13:17 USA EST time right now.  It will take me about 3Hrs to complete the update.   After some feedback and review, I am trying again.

 

This 'remastering' is MEGA difficult (not MAGA difficult :-)), not simple like decoding.   I know that I suck at it, but I really want to update ABBA -- I always thought that they sounded really bad.  The recordings aren't that bad, but they screwed them up for some misguided purpose.

 

Give me 3Hrs from now.  Please ignore any downloads of the ABBA demos -- I apologize.  If this happens too often, I might punt.  THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME.

 

John

 

[pkane2001]

2 hours ago, PeterSt said:

Frank may make a fool of himself everywhere throughout, but not in this thread he is. You, on the other hand, twist things slightly around by making a fool of him..

 

This is way more difficult for Frank, who just received my very first upvote. It was hard to do but I did it with my heart anyway.

 

Despite the incessant posts by Frank about his way being the only right way to audio bliss, he has a really good understanding of audio and digital processing. I wouldn't discount out of hand what he hears or finds, even if he is using a laptop.

 

Personally, I heard some improvements on some of John's decoded tracks, and no improvement or even slight worsening on others. In the most recent decodes, I like the decoded result a bit more, but the differences are not that significant for me to say definitively.

 

What concerns me more is that this seems to be an ad-hoc decoding process, with John deciding what sounds good on a track by track basis, when to apply EQ and when not to, etc., rather than having a single, demonstrably accurate decoding mechanism that works on all tracks (likely I'm just misunderstanding the process).

[John Dyson]

17 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Despite the incessant posts by Frank about his way being the only right way to audio bliss, he has a really good understanding of audio and digital processing. I wouldn't discount out of hand what he hears or finds, even if he is using a laptop.

 

Personally, I heard some improvements on some of John's decoded tracks, and no improvement or even slight worsening on others. In the most recent decodes, I like the decoded result a bit more, but the differences are not that significant for me to say definitively.

 

What concerns me more is that this seems to be an ad-hoc decoding process, with John deciding what sounds good on a track by track basis, when to apply EQ and when not to, etc., rather than having a single, demonstrably accurate decoding mechanism that works on all tracks.

Absolutely NO processing is being done on a track by track basis.  That violates the rules.  There is one track that I have been tempted 'Supertrouper/Supertrouper', but I have not demoed it, and I think that I have the  problem solved.  (I feel mildly insulted that it would be even considered that I'd cheat during these efforts...  The attempt is to do it correctly, not to just demo something for ego.)  

 

* The goal: try to bring ABBA up nearly to standards expected in the 2000's.  Fixing one cut doesn't satisfy.

 

* Follow-up comment:  for 'track by track' mastering, listen to almost any ABBA material on vinyl.  They changed mastering parameters from track to track.  I do not have enough accurate information about the recordings to do anything track-by-track, so all modifcations are tested on EVERY track.  If one track fails, the problem is analyzed, and the problem is corrected on an entire album basis....

 

I can do EXACTLY the same thing that I am doing -- if I used a full album .wav file or the individual cuts (I normally keep the cuts split up, but do have the album source if I want to use it.)

 

This is NOT an ad-hoc process -- it is tedious, but not ad-hoc.

 

The decoding is definitely not ad-hoc, however ALL mastering is by-ear.  Frankly, I have a process and a set of algorithms that I use based upon certain problems.  For example,  have phase twisting algorithms/etc, intended to undo the damage of Aphex 'distorter' type messes.   I have vinyl-emulation EQ for material that was mastered for vinyl, but being played on CD -- these are procedures, not so much 'tweaking.'

 

Here is a before/after on ABBA -- and shows the cr*p that I am trying to get rid of...

sos-orig.flac sos-remaster.flac

[pkane2001]

5 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Absolutely NO processing is being done on a track by track basis.  That violates the rules.  There is one track that I have been tempted 'Supertrouper/Supertrouper', but I have not demoed it, and I think that I have the  problem solved.

 

This is NOT an ad-hoc process -- it is tedious, but not ad-hoc.

 

The decoding is definitely not ad-hoc, however ALL mastering is by-ear.  Frankly, I have a process and a set of algorithms that I use based upon certain problems.  For example,  have phase twisting algorithms/etc, intended to undo the damage of Aphex 'distorter' type messes.   I have vinyl-emulation EQ for material that was mastered for vinyl, but being played on CD -- these are procedures, not so much 'tweaking.'

 

Here is a before/after on ABBA -- and shows the cr*p that I am trying to get rid of...

sos-orig.flac 1.56 MB · 0 downloads sos-remaster.flac 1.31 MB · 0 downloads

 

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that was part of the process. I highlighted what I thought was the 'tweaking' part of the process in your previous post:

 

Quote

The biggest skill on using the decoder is understanding the EQ being used to 'fake decode' and to find the correct calibration levels.  Finding the correct calibration levels is a combination of knowing what the typical tape calibration levels are on the DHNRDS scale of measurement and also knowing the problems to listen for.   The 'listening' problem is also an issue with actual DolbyA units.

 

Dolby claimed that 1dB accuracy is all that was needed -- but that isn't really true when trying to get results as desired today.  I have heard significant DolbyA HW decoder surging on commercial material.  Even on a true DolbyA unit, 0.25dB of accuracy seems about correct.  However, since the DolbyA HW doesn't have a super-accurate means for balancing the meter, for the best quality, DolbyA HW DOES require 'tweaking' and listening.

 

So, how much of the process just a mathematical transform, and how much tweaking it until it sounds good to you? I don't mean to push back on this, but I'm pretty much confused by what is being attempted here.

[John Dyson]

13 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Sorry if I misunderstood. I thought that was part of the process. I highlighted what I thought was the 'tweaking' part of the process in your previous post:

 

 

So, how much of the process just a mathematical transform, and how much tweaking it until it sounds good to you? I don't mean to push back on this, but I'm pretty much confused by what is being attempted here.

There is no real criteria that is based upon 'sounds good'.   There IS a judgement call, and the attempt is to remove what 'sounds bad'.

On ABBA, there appear to have been two levels of signal manipulation, and I am only looking at the manipulation that can be reversed with minor temporal shifts (or in really desperate cases, EQ.)

 

In essence, I see my effort as a problem solver, not creative musical talent.

 

Let's do a boost at 6kHz to gets some more presense -- BZZZTT..  That kind of thing AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

 

This is more the process:

I am hearing some strange temporal problems -- well, they are usually at 3kHz or 9kHz (sometimes in between), so maybe a bit of a phase twist will help.  (usually some kind of incorrect arrival of various sound components.)

Or

There is a sibilance problem, lets do a twist at 9kHz and maybe one at 12kHz if it still needs help.  (most people would just do a brutal HF null of some kind, but often it is a temporal problem, not a peak.)  Shortening the sibilance is usually safer, and it doesn't take much.

Or

The vocals have a messed up relations in the vocal tone....  Ahhh -- the ABBA trick of a 'somewhere below 3kHz LF cut' to fake-brighten the sound...

 

Some of these remedies are made possible because the DHNRDS is temporally dead-on accurate, so when there are little errors because of brutal EQ technqiues in the past, they can be corrected without variations from cut to cut.   The little dithers in timing dont' get magnified when using the DHNRDS, but instead there is actually some cancellation of the effects of original DolbyA encoding.  (That is something that I do not advertise, but is evident in the decoding quality.)

 

If using an original DolbyA -- many of the temporal problems are fuzzed away, and then the recording has a bunch of blobs or over-enhanced components because of some kind of sluggish dynamics overshoot.  That kind of thing DOES NOT happen on the DHNRDS.

 

THE SOS EXAMPLE ABOVE shows the extreme sloppiness that I am trying to remedy.

 

 

John

[pkane2001]

7 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

There is no real criteria that is based upon 'sounds good'.   There IS a judgement call, and the attempt is to remove what 'sounds bad'.

On ABBA, there appear to have been two levels of signal manipulation, and I am only looking at the manipulation that can be reversed with minor temporal shifts (or in really desperate cases, EQ.)

 

In essence, I see my effort as a problem solver, not creative musical talent.

 

Let's do a boost at 6kHz to gets some more presense -- BZZZTT..  That kind of thing AINT GONNA HAPPEN.

 

This is more the process:

I am hearing some strange temporal problems -- well, they are usually at 3kHz or 9kHz (sometimes in between), so maybe a bit of a phase twist will help.  (usually some kind of incorrect arrival of various sound components.)

Or

There is a sibilance problem, lets do a twist at 9kHz and maybe one at 12kHz if it still needs help.  (most people would just do a brutal HF null of some kind, but often it is a temporal problem, not a peak.)  Shortening the sibilance is usually safer, and it doesn't take much.

Or

The vocals have a messed up relations in the vocal tone....  Ahhh -- the ABBA trick of a 'somewhere below 3kHz LF cut' to fake-brighten the sound...

 

Some of these remedies are made possible because the DHNRDS is temporally dead-on accurate, so when there are little errors because of brutal EQ technqiues in the past, they can be corrected without variations from cut to cut.   The little dithers in timing dont' get magnified when using the DHNRDS, but instead there is actually some cancellation of the effects of original DolbyA encoding.  (That is something that I do not advertise, but is evident in the decoding quality.)

 

If using an original DolbyA -- many of the temporal problems are fuzzed away, and then the recording has a bunch of blobs or over-enhanced components because of some kind of sluggish dynamics overshoot.  That kind of thing DOES NOT happen on the DHNRDS.

 

THE SOS EXAMPLE ABOVE shows the extreme sloppiness that I am trying to remedy.

 

 

John

 

Alright, John. I still see this as subjectively driven by what you perceive to be some problems in the original track. You may be right that these are real problems, but there is no way for me to know, other than 'it sounds bad without decoding, and sounds better with'. In effect, you are performing a remastering job with the intent to make it sound better. That's fine, but that's different than saying you are correcting some very specific distortions introduced in the original mastering process. For this, you'd need to demonstrate the nature of these distortions and that your correction eliminates them.

[John Dyson]

9 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Alright, John. I still see this as subjectively driven by what you perceive to be some problems in the original track. You may be right that these are real problems, but there is no way for me to know, other than 'it sounds bad without decoding, and sounds better with'. In effect, you are performing a remastering job with the intent to make it sound better. That's fine, but that's different than saying you are correcting some very specific distortions introduced in the original mastering process. For this, you'd need to demonstrate the nature of these distortions and that your correction eliminates them.

 

There will never be an auto-corrector without some kind of amazing AI, and I am not making that representation (yet.)  It would be a good idea, but even an automatic DolbyA detector is something that seems algorithmically impossible to me (and I know everything mathematically -- in DETAIL --  that a DolbyA does.)   Maybe could detect on a restricted kind of signal, but in general, I don't think that any kind of problem like that is ALGORITHMICALLY solvable.  My techniques COULD be documented, but still require listening or the development of tools that could automatically detect the individual impairments.  We aren't THERE yet, as I am learning the various impairments in recordings.

 

Yes -- I am correcting distortions 'somewhere', whether they are from mastering or elsewhere.  Again, PLEASE refer to the flac files that I posted earlier.  My example isn't perfect either, but I tend to focus on correcting problems rather than creating new ones.  That has been a major portion of my career over the last 40+yrs -- correcting/solving problems.

 

It might be hard to understand unless you listen to the discrete example that I provided.  By listening to that -- it will give you a snapshot of my approach.  Information/context free discussion is very difficult (I cannot draw pictures in the sky for everyone reading this message to see.)

 

* Added note -- when listening to the example, refer to the temporally messed-up sibilance in the original.

 

John

[pkane2001]

4 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

There will never be an auto-corrector without some kind of amazing AI, and I am not making that representation (yet.)  It would be a good idea, but even an automatic DolbyA detector is something that seems algorithmically impossible to me (and I know everything mathematically -- in DETAIL --  that a DolbyA does.)   Maybe could detect on a restricted kind of signal, but in general, I don't think that any kind of problem like that is ALGORITHMICALLY solvable.  My techniques COULD be documented, but still require listening or the development of tools that could automatically detect the individual impairments.  We aren't THERE yet, as I am learning the various impairments in recordings.

 

Yes -- I am correcting distortions 'somewhere', whether they are from mastering or elsewhere.  Again, PLEASE refer to the flac files that I posted earlier.  My example isn't perfect either, but I tend to focus on correcting problems rather than creating new ones.  That has been a major portion of my career over the last 40+yrs -- correcting/solving problems.

 

It might be hard to understand unless you listen to the discrete example that I provided.  By listening to that -- it will give you a snapshot of my approach.  Information/context free discussion is very difficult (I cannot draw pictures in the sky for everyone reading this message to see.)

 

John

 

I get it now. It was my misunderstanding that you were trying to detect and/or fix this algorithmically.

[John Dyson]

6 minutes ago, pkane2001 said:

 

I get it now. It was my misunderstanding that you were trying to detect and/or fix this algorithmically.

This is ONLY wrt the mastering, the DECODING is a 100% accurate process.

 

The mastering IS dependent on skill.  Not just anyone can do it, but I can train someone if they want to know.  It isn't any kind of priesthood thing -- I don't ascribe to that kind of thing (and any assumptions about that would be unkind.)  I am the opposite of that, and willing to share what I learn.

 

I have a set of algorithms/methods that are used once an impairment is detected.  For example, a simple phase twist for minor sibilance problem:  -3dB/Q=0.707 +3dB/Q=1.0 or reverse, at required frequency.   I very seldom do anything as brutal as EQ.

 

If you listen the example -- you'll find that even if you boost the HF at 9kHz on my mastered version, it won't have that nasty swirly sound of the original.   My methods work.  if they didn't work WELL, I wouldn't waste my time -- I have other things to do also.

 

John

[John Dyson]

I was just thinking about the skepticism about 'remastering'...   I kind of of think of it like this...  A 'volume control'.   More like a 'big boys' volume control (don't make fun of my weight when talking about 'big' -- I'd rather that some female admire something else instead :-)).

 

If material is playing too loud, most people know that they need to turn down the volume.  It normally requires listening to know to turn down the volume, and then understanding which 'knob' (figuratively or literally) needed to make the change.

 

Many of the kinds of corrections that I am making in my remastering attempts are close to the 'volume control' thing, except I have more volume controls and more kinds of 'volume' that needs to be controlled.

 

If somebody from 1850 hears the music, he/she would be totally confounded about what to do about turning down the volume -- they might not even understand which magic device is producing the music (other than the speakers.)

 

Most of the kinds of corrections that I am making are based upon a figurative 'hearing too much volume' or equivalent, and 'knowing which knob' to correct the figurative level.

 

Of course, we have magical gain control devices nowadays that can provide some automation for volume control, but the idea that the correction of the signal level is totally independent of the listener is rather specious.

 

John

 

[John Dyson]

One more thing about the 'orig' vs 'remaster'.   The 'sos-orig' is one of the normal CD or vinyl releases.  The 'remaster' version is taken from a DolbyA copy and decoded/mastered more correctly.  There might be some desirable variations done to my 'remaster', but the basic 'stuff' is there - maybe a slight 9kHz boost is in order, but I prefer to avoid EQ until really needed.

[PeterSt]

 

I am pretty sure I have the LP somewhere too.

I just listened through it, halfway. Couldn't find much wrong with it.

 

If your "-6dB" version is representative for the base you used ... a totally different thing. But so poor and so stone cold (no bass at all) that it seems hard to imagine that this has been an official release from anywhere.

I read about your 2000 collection source (if I got that right to begin with) and maybe I should look that up too, but why. The base (whatever that really means) is completely wrong.

 

Of course I can send you the track if needed.

 

 

 

 

 

[John Dyson]

11 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I am pretty sure I have the LP somewhere too.

I just listened through it, halfway. Couldn't find much wrong with it.

 

If your "-6dB" version is representative for the base you used ... a totally different thing. But so poor and so stone cold (no bass at all) that it seems hard to imagine that this has been an official release from anywhere.

I read about your 2000 collection source (if I got that right to begin with) and maybe I should look that up too, but why. The base (whatever that really means) is completely wrong.

 

Of course I can send you the track if needed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The -6dB version IS the raw DolbyA.   It is EQed from the version on the CD -- which is DolbyA with EQ.

 

I have another announcement in the next post.  Thanks for 'getting it' -- I am asking for help, and you are responding the way that I am hoping.

 

John

[John Dyson]

I have a plan about both the ABBA effort and the Mancini stuff.

Before reading the below -- my ABBA updates are delayed until tomorrow noon (16Sep 1200, USA EST time.)   There is a method to my madness, and I certainly must be mad.

I am still thinking about Mancini -- my plate is full right now.

 

Maybe I have not been clear about it, maybe too easy for me to make assumptions.   The ABBA remastering effort is not intended to be 'ALL ABOUT ME', even though I do use the pronoun 'I' too often.   Maybe I am crazy, but I have done lots of crazy things in the past that ended up being really cool - from a techie standpoint.

 

I have been trying to get constructive feedback -- then interpret that feedback along with my own perceptive skills and EE/DSP skills to produce the best damned clean copy of ABBAs 7 albums that we can do.   We cannot pass the albums around, but I do believe that we can end up sharing the results  in their entirety & practical way amongst the 'team members' and those who are shadowing/pariticpating.

 

This is an intellectual exercise -- it seems like so many people criticize ABBA for their sound and their music (we cannot do anything about the music), and I think that as a collaborative effort, bringing ABBA to yr2000 can be done.

Each of us has limitations -- I suck badly at artistic things -- I am at the stick-figure level of drawing.   I am brilliant at applying engineering techniques, sometimes way beyond what is considered practical.

 

There are others reading this who are more artistically endowed -- those would be people who could actually go beyond my 'fixit' approach without severely damaging the recordings.   Every time that I move beyond 'fixing something', then I break it.  I need help to complete this project.

 

I don't know how practical this project might be, and we will have problems with the recordings ownership -- we don't own them.  However, I believe that we can work around the issue.  (Interestingly, 'sandyk' came very close to figuring some things that I did -- without any hints -- I was surprised.)  I believe that those interested can find the base CDs that would give them rights to local use of the recordings -- Alex did.

 

No matter what, tomorrow NOON the best second approximation for results will be available.   I want true constructive criticism.  Every substantive contribution will result in a user ID being logged (as a sign of respect), and eventually we will create a credits list.   Those who hate ABBA might just want to 'watch', but those who want to experiment, it just might be fun.

 

My first offering for constructive criticism is coming tomorrow and this is NOT intended to be anything where there is an implication like 'I am great' -- it is more like, maybe we can do something...

 

John

 

 

 

 

[Racerxnet]

John,

The re-mastered flac is definitely better than the original posted. Less high frequency hash to my ears.

 

MAK

[John Dyson]

7 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

John,

The re-mastered flac is definitely better than the original posted. Less high frequency hash to my ears.

 

MAK

That minor example of the 1st attempted remastering is a first step in the process.  I know that my result isn't perfect as it is, but it should be better than the original.  With a bit of cooperative help, it can be better yet.  I do know that a slight boost at 9kHz (perhaps 3dB) for the remastered version would be helpful -- but I am avoiding adhoc changes at this point.

 

When I showed that sos comparision, it was from vinyl.  The vinyl wasn't very good -- however, the more recent 'The Complete Studio Recordings' are totally ludicrious.  The bar is VERY low for the TCSR.   You would not believe the sound of a peak-RMS ratio of 11dB!!!   It is really, really, really compressed.  It sounds like an AM radio, but wider freq response.

 

ABBA can really sound good -- it seems to be the most fertile 'old material' for improvement.

 

John

 

[fas42]

5 hours ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Despite the incessant posts by Frank about his way being the only right way to audio bliss, he has a really good understanding of audio and digital processing. I wouldn't discount out of hand what he hears or finds, even if he is using a laptop.

 

Perhaps incessant , but I wouldn't use the term "the only right way" to describe my methods - getting "audio bliss" has always been available for people who have enough money to throw around, and plenty of time to spend fooling around with all the bits; there have always been accounts of people with "Everest" rigs, that produce magic for the listeners.

 

My interest is in what's going on - because if one understands that, then huge shortcuts to doing the Magical Mystery Tour to "nirvana" are then available; my posts are about the steps, IME, which are highly effective, have excellent cost/benefit ratios, in creating that shortcut.

 

 

 

[pkane2001]

9 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Perhaps incessant , but I wouldn't use the term "the only right way" to describe my methods - getting "audio bliss" has always been available for people who have enough money to throw around, and plenty of time to spend fooling around with all the bits; there have always been accounts of people with "Everest" rigs, that produce magic for the listeners.

 

My interest is in what's going on - because if one understands that, then huge shortcuts to doing the Magical Mystery Tour to "nirvana" are then available; my posts are about the steps, IME, which are highly effective, have excellent cost/benefit ratios, in creating that shortcut.

 

What's your conversion ratio here, on AS, Frank? How many people did you actually convince compared to the number of posts on the subject? Just curious

[fas42]

A primary reason that this thread has got so skewed with the back and forth between John and me is that he was so insistent that his call on what were "poor masterings" was The Truth - it seems impossible for him to consider that the competence of the playback is a major part of the picture, something that I have been attempting to add to the conversation - pointing out that high quality subjective presentation of these recordings is indeed possible.

[fas42]

Just now, pkane2001 said:

 

What's your conversion ratio here, on AS, Frank? How many people did you actually convince compared to the number of posts on the subject? Just curious

 

Zero, of course . A combination of the fact that it took me years to develop all my understanding, step by step - how can I expect someone who has never been exposed to such concepts to soak them up, just like that ... and, that inertia is such a powerful driver for us humans - why rock the boat, why not just go along with the crowd; it's "safer" that way, group energy makes things happen a lot of the time - an individual with "strange ideas" is best ignored, because it could take me out of a nice comfort zone of thinking ...

 

Even N., the audio friend down the road, who was highly motivated, took years to truly catch on to this sort of approach, even with me looking over his shoulder - and he still hankers for "expensive stuff!" to "solve problems" - luckily, he has a friend who is on a frenzied merry-go-round of "buying the stairway to heaven"; and so hears the SQ bouncing around madly, often plummeting sharply after a really pricey acquisition ... a good dose of reality bites! works a treat, .

[kumakuma]

21 minutes ago, fas42 said:

A primary reason that this thread has got so skewed with the back and forth between John and me is that he was so insistent that his call on what were "poor masterings" was The Truth - it seems impossible for him to consider that the competence of the playback is a major part of the picture, something that I have been attempting to add to the conversation - pointing out that high quality subjective presentation of these recordings is indeed possible.

 

It's ironic that you are equally, if not more, insistent on your opinions being the only possible "truth". 

[fas42]

5 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

It's ironic that you are equally, if not more, insistent on your opinions being the only possible "truth". 

 

OK, John's Truth is that ABBA recordings are terrible bits of masterings - because when he listens to them, they sound awful to him - my Truth is that they are difficult for many ambitious system to handle, because the nature of the mastering readily exposes shortcomings in the playback chain integrity; and, I have heard how good they sound when the competence of the replay is of a necessary standard; which is away beyond "being awful", .

 

Which 'Truth' do you think is more likely?

[kumakuma]

Just now, fas42 said:

 

OK, John's Truth is that ABBA recordings are terrible bits of masterings - because when he listens to then they sound awful to him - my Truth is that they are difficult for many ambitious system to handle, because the nature of the mastering readily exposes shortcomings in the playback chain integrity; and, I have heard how good they sound when the competence of the replay is of a necessary standard; which is away beyond "being awful", .

 

Which 'Truth' do you think is more likely?

 

If we assume that you are correct, what is the point of a mastering that only sounds good if the playback system has been "fully debugged" when, as you insist, the vast majority of systems out there are flawed?