Jump to content
John Dyson

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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

The simple fact remains that although the differences between the original files and the latest versions will be obvious to most people, the numerous small increments made by John along the way could not have possibly been discerned reliably using the output from a Laptop's tiny speakers  and it's mediocre audio system by Frank .

 

There have been numerous different versions along the way from John, that most of you have not had access to.

I have had some earlier Abba samples from John that go back as far as 16/03 /2019.

John has worked to a very tight schedule for many months with this project, using mainly Abba, because it was the most challenging of all the incorrectly decoded Dolby A recordings.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm investigating strawberry wine and fondue while listening in a dark wood paneled room as an advanced course of study.  To discover how ABBA was meant to sound good on inferior playback equipment.  Disprove my logic on immersion.  x-D

 

After reading through the days posts and giving the latest round a quick listen.  So sure of being outclassed here the option to sit and observe silently is looking increasingly prudent.  

 

Good on @sandyk for taking a seat in front near the podium.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

the numerous small increments made by John along the way could not have possibly been discerned reliably using the output from a Laptop's tiny speakers  and it's mediocre audio system by Frank .

 

Alex, don't make a fool of yourself. You are not entitled to claim that.

Stop your loop.


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Alex, don't make a fool of yourself. You are not entitled to claim that.

Stop your loop.

 Stop my loop ?

 I doubt that most members would disagree with my statement, as Frank has consistently come up with adverse findings to John's samples in this thread.

Frank has also made it abundantly clear that he prefers the original recordings, warts and all , over any of John's provided samples.


How a Digital Audio file sounds, or a Digital Video file looks, is governed to a large extent by the Power Supply area. All that Identical Checksums gives is the possibility of REGENERATING the file to close to that of the original file.

 

PROFILE UPDATED 18-06-2019

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

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?

 

 

As I've mentioned several times now, there's a bell curve in terms of how recordings come across - mastering is usually contrived for the "lowest common denominator", that is, it has to sound good on a typical car radio, low cost audio gear that the vast majority of people listen to - especially in the pop world, :). The recording companies want to make sales, so they "pump up" the mastering so that it sounds good "for the times" - what people expect ... the current pushing everything against the recording wall is done to meet what the market thinks is good. This is the left hand end of the bell curve of "subjective unpleasantness".

 

But the recording engineers are not imbeciles - most of the time, ^_^. They will juice it up, just enough to meet the demands of "those above", without downright wrecking what was captured - they have to sleep at night, too! Unfortunately, the techniques used make the playback "juicy" on low cost gear are demanding on the quality of the playback chain to exactly right, otherwise the "enhanced" mix will trip up much more ambitious rigs - the top of the bell curve - the lower level distortions of those setups will highlight where this sort of mastering is catching them out; they will be, "impossible to listen to!" ... this sort of issue is masked on low cost audio devices, because of their limitations.

 

The answer is to move down the right hand slope of the bell curve - make the rig completely robust in terms of dealing with whatever the mastering throws at it. This is indeed always possible - which is why I use "killer recordings" to test systems - a setup on the top of that bell curve will make, yes, a dog's breakfast of the playback; the very same setup, fully 'debugged', will present that recording as being intense, pleasurable, effortless.

 

The masterings are what they are - a good goal, IMO, is to make the most of them, irrespective of what the audience was - what I've found out over the years is that hearing them at their best is quite marvellous; well worth the effort required to push a system to the necessary, 'robustness'.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeterSt said:

 

Frank, couldn't you stop for a month or so ?

 

Try to stick to the newly posted uploads, listen to them and describe them in a way that people will be able to check and confirm or debunk. Don't make theory-only of it. Please stop posting about your unsurpassed methods. Try to be (for) real.

 

 

 

Peter, I was aiming to do this very thing for John :) - he in fact thanked me for pointing out a sense of 'wrongness' I heard in one download - he knew what the issue was.

 

It started to go off the rails when he didn't like my reaction to some of samples; and got personal quite quickly - there's no point degenerating into Ad hominem posts, if you want artless feedback.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fas42 said:

 

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?

LOL! Your closed end apparatus (laptop) is not highly modified, cannot produce the extended dynamic range of a high end system, and is suspect with most who would consider your replies. I'm not picking on you Frank, I am stating the obvious! You do not have to worry about room interactions, phase, coherence, or anything that resembles a High end system. When putting all the nuts and bolts together, and done right, it smashes your laptop to pieces. That's just facts.

 

Can you please tell me what you hear on the low end of the Davis/Coltrane (1955 - 1965) Some day my Prince will come track from  the 2000 cd? It's pretty distinct.

 

MAK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

As I've mentioned several times now, there's a bell curve in terms of how recordings come across - mastering is usually contrived for the "lowest common denominator", that is, it has to sound good on a typical car radio, low cost audio gear that the vast majority of people listen to - especially in the pop world, :). The recording companies want to make sales, so they "pump up" the mastering so that it sounds good "for the times" - what people expect ... the current pushing everything against the recording wall is done to meet what the market thinks is good. This is the left hand end of the bell curve of "subjective unpleasantness".

 

But the recording engineers are not imbeciles - most of the time, ^_^. They will juice it up, just enough to meet the demands of "those above", without downright wrecking what was captured - they have to sleep at night, too! Unfortunately, the techniques used make the playback "juicy" on low cost gear are demanding on the quality of the playback chain to exactly right, otherwise the "enhanced" mix will trip up much more ambitious rigs - the top of the bell curve - the lower level distortions of those setups will highlight where this sort of mastering is catching them out; they will be, "impossible to listen to!" ... this sort of issue is masked on low cost audio devices, because of their limitations.

 

The answer is to move down the right hand slope of the bell curve - make the rig completely robust in terms of dealing with whatever the mastering throws at it. This is indeed always possible - which is why I use "killer recordings" to test systems - a setup on the top of that bell curve will make, yes, a dog's breakfast of the playback; the very same setup, fully 'debugged', will present that recording as being intense, pleasurable, effortless.

 

The masterings are what they are - a good goal, IMO, is to make the most of them, irrespective of what the audience was - what I've found out over the years is that hearing them at their best is quite marvellous; well worth the effort required to push a system to the necessary, 'robustness'.

 

The fact that both you and your "audiophile friend" appear to be unable to keep your systems in this state of 'robustness' for any extended period of time indicates to me that this goal isn't worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

LOL! Your closed end apparatus (laptop) is not highly modified, cannot produce the extended dynamic range of a high end system, and is suspect with most who would consider your replies. I'm not picking on you Frank, I am stating the obvious! You do not have to worry about room interactions, phase, coherence, or anything that resembles a High end system.

 

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

When putting all the nuts and bolts together, and done right, it smashes your laptop to pieces. That's just facts.

 

Agreed. This laptop is nowhere near high end sound, but it's good enough to pick, many times, where there is an issue, within the restricted FR it presents. For example, it will never vaguely fool anyone with a recording of piano, the volume alone is miles from where it needs to be - but it is trivially easy to hear via the capture by microphone of the playback of a piano recording, on some high end rig, that the system being listened to is getting something wrong.

 

1 minute ago, Racerxnet said:

Can you please tell me what you hear on the low end of the Davis/Coltrane (1955 - 1965) Some day my Prince will come track from  the 2000 cd? It's pretty distinct.

 

MAK

 

If it's low end, below 100Hz info, then of course I won't pick anything ...


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a very logical and mature idea for the naysayers -- what I am doing (along with Alex and other newfound friends -- NONE of us is perfect) is VERY DIFFICULT to do correctly.   In fact, what we are trying to do is VERY DIFFICULT at all, even with all of the resources of a professional recording studio.

 

We have a tool (the DHNRDS DA) that hobbyst audio people have not had access to EVER before.  The availability of this tool (or even a raw DolbyA HW unit, more difficult to use) gives us the possibility for an experiment.   This experiment is to bring the sound quality of a group (that often sounds kinda bad by today's standards) up to the standards possible in the 21st century.   Those who help with the goal will SOMEHOW get the fruits of the project after participating.

 

We don't need any comments like -- this is cr*p or anything like that.  This is difficult stuff for the people who are best in the field, let alone a rag tag group of bright, but definitely not professional mastering people.

 

Maybe it would be polite if those who have some kind of opinionated negative vibe just let us try to do something useful.  The results cannot be worse than the 'The Complete Studio Recordings' released in approx 2005.  In fact, many results so far are generally better than other available materials, and with help, might even end up amazingly good.

 

Most people have conditionally reserved judgement -- some have actually been kindly open minded, and some have helped.  There is no benefit from cranky people trying to rain on the parade...   There is going to be some mega bad karma created for those who want to prematurely destroy something that is possibly very nice.

 

* This project is not life or death for me -- the DHNRDS is a wonderful legacy, and the DA version is a good first step.  I am trying to offer some kind of kindness to the music listening community (and maybe even the artists who had produced the music.)

 

Whomever doesn't like the results or the development process need not listen or participate.  Hint -- I am not going to be lonely, but those who try to destroy probably will be lonely.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

It started to go off the rails when he didn't like my reaction to some of samples; and got personal quite quickly - there's no point degenerating into Ad hominem posts, if you want artless feedback.

 

Hey Frank, I saw the happening a little differently;

 

No matter I agree with you and can dive into your thinking, it didn't work really that you told the tracks did not satisfy you per the argument of by now 1000s of the same. That's why my suggestion to refer to the content explicitly. I know, you did later on, but it was already too late. So you rained on someone's xx-years effort parade by means of now your hourly ("magic") loop. It just does not work and you should stop being so negative. Old fart ... Stop that ever recurring story, for which people should be banned. I hope you recognize that you control this whole damn forum by means of your posts and how you post them. You managed to be right but to be unbelieved for ever.

Not well done.

 

Peter


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Peter, I was aiming to do this very thing for John :) - he in fact thanked me for pointing out a sense of 'wrongness' I heard in one download - he knew what the issue was.

 

It started to go off the rails when he didn't like my reaction to some of samples; and got personal quite quickly - there's no point degenerating into Ad hominem posts, if you want artless feedback.

I think that you are misunderstanding the situation -- for every time that something positive has come from your comments, there has been much confused blather and various comments tantamount to insults in your statements.   You would do good to understand that as someone who has REALLY been an engineer/major project leader at Bell Labs (yes, THE Bell Labs, not the recent 'fake' Bell Labs), and an engineer where the Cruise missile scene matching guidance was developed (co-worker and boss were the patent holders, by the way) -- I do have a powerful engineering background, and expect to be treated at least as a peer to someone who seems to blather incoherently in strange nebulous statements that beg understanding.

 

I respect almost anyone who shows me a modicum of natural mutual respect.   My check-out cashier gets more respect from me than you have given to me.

 

This being said -- I really WANT you to contribute and provide more constructive criticism, but it requires a certain sort of kindness and some signs of respect from you.   It is wrong for someone to bury a half-truth in a midst of insulting and inaccurate commentary -- then claiming it to be 'contribution'.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

No matter I agree with you and can dive into your thinking, it didn't work really that you told the tracks did not satisfy you per the argument of by now 1000s of the same. That's why my suggestion to refer to the content explicitly. I know, you did later on, but it was already too late. So you rained on someone's xx-years effort parade by means of now your hourly ("magic") loop. It just does not work and you should stop being so negative.

 

Peter, are you referring to say, this post?

 

 


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

 

I respect almost anyone who shows me a modicum of natural mutual respect.   My check-out cashier gets more respect from me than you have given to me.

 

This being said -- I really WANT you to contribute and provide more constructive criticism, but it requires a certain sort of kindness and some signs of respect from you.   It is wrong for someone to bury a half-truth in a midst of insulting and inaccurate commentary -- then claiming it to be 'contribution'.

 

John

 

John, the respect thing works both ways ... 

 

 

 


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

I have a very logical and mature idea for the naysayers -- what I am doing (along with Alex and other newfound friends -- NONE of us is perfect) is VERY DIFFICULT to do correctly. 

 

Wrong start.

Don't drag in friends. This is more delicate than you think.


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

John, the respect thing works both ways ... 

 

 

 

Yes -- I finally responded after I have been beat up by someone whose insulting responses show no idea of understanding what I am writing about.

  Amazingly, you keep on beating me up with blather.   I don't do blather, and I only respond negatively after continued insults.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Wrong start.

Don't drag in friends. This is more delicate than you think.

It shouldt be delicate, unless someone has been insulted by a simple project and talking about technical things.  I haven't insulted anyone until I had been beaten up by many recurring insults.

 

AUDIO SHOULD NOT BE A RELIGION!!!   it isn't to me.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Racerxnet said:

Why is this delicate??

It cannot be delicate unless I hit a political third rail somewhere.  It is imponderable to me -- but there seems to be some kind of 'listeners ego' going on, but for the life of me -- I don't see where it was triggered.

 

I see a technical problem, and it needs a technical solution...   I don't see any religion and I don't understand why someone doesn't want more clean sound quality.   Moving from an amplifer with 0.001% distortion across the band to one with 0.0001% distortion is NOT going to improve the problem that I am working on.

 

The problem is very basic and has to do with the material being played as a consumer recording.  It has ZERO to do with someone's headpohones, or even if they are using a laptop or $100K speakers.  The problem is with the technical quality of the recordings.... PERIOD.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Peter, are you referring to say, this post?

 

 

Are you actually sensitive about the poor quality of the ABBA material as distributed to the consumers over the years?   I am trying to HELP ABBA by trying to get help leveraging my technical know-how with other peoples hearing abilities.  Wouldn't it be nice to improve the sound (for example) of the sos-orig version that I demoed above?  (That is from vinyl, by the way, as close to the actual original sound as you can get.)

 

Do you understand the travesty of the 'The Complete Studio Recordings'?  That material is as highly processed as possibly can be -- can you actually imagine a peak-RMS ratio of 10.8dB as measured by SOX?  That is crazy bad...

 

I am not hurting ANYONE -- maybe just trying to raise the standards demanded by consumers...  PERIOD.

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

Peter, are you referring to say, this post?

 

Frank, no, I don't think so. That would be the exact post I understand because it is just so. But you can't suffice with being that general anyway. Not after your other 1000+ posts no matter how hard you announce the "here I am again". Talk about sibilance in Agnetha's voice and how you get an orgasm at each track you hear her voice and that suddenly you're dry for several (remastered) albums. Talk about disappeared smiles. Dead birds in her eyes or whatever. Björn with a dagger. Make every day a new one, as long as what you tell is true because you really heard it.

 

ABBA is happiness. It shouldn't be processed to death. Explain what it ever means. And know in advance that you better not even attempt.

Try to make a point about this processing. *I* can't do it ... (although I should be able to) ...

 

Refer to other similar experiences all with the same result. Dirac or something. Make yourself real.

There's only one following you. Maybe that is not enough.


Lush^2      Blaxius^2      Ethernet^2     HDMI^2

XXHighEnd (developer)

Phasure NOS1 24/768 Async USB DAC (manufacturer)

Phasure Mach III Audio PC with Linear PSU (manufacturer)

Orelino & Orelo MKII Speakers (designer/supplier)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Frank, no, I don't think so. That would be the exact post I understand because it is just so. But you can't suffice with being that general anyway. Not after your other 1000+ posts no matter how hard you announce the "here I am again". Talk about sibilance in Agnetha's voice and how you get an orgasm at each track you hear her voice and that suddenly you're dry for several (remastered) albums. Talk about disappeared smiles. Dead birds in her eyes or whatever. Björn with a dagger. Make every day a new one, as long as what you tell is true because you really heard it.

 

ABBA is happiness. It shouldn't be processed to death. Explain what it ever means. And know in advance that you better not even attempt.

Try to make a point about this processing. *I* can't do it ... (although I should be able to) ...

 

Refer to other similar experiences all with the same result. Dirac or something. Make yourself real.

There's only one following you. Maybe that is not enough.

I think that I see the 'third rail' now.  I thought that Agnetha and Frida were cute back in the day (back when I was cute, in a manly way).  I didn't dislike Bjorn nor Bennie, but felt bad about Agnethas aversion to travel (I don't like travelling either), nor the abuse against Frida and her heritage...  However, I don't know them --but I do respect their work, and think kindly of their music (even though I am tired of listening to ABBA becuase of using for test material for 4yrs.)

 

ABBA IS a special group and it breaks my heart that their recordings were so badly mastered (yes, most of the problem was something wrong with mastering, NOT the recording, and NOT Tretows work per se.)   I wanna help!!!  I can help, especially when others help me also!!!

 

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Talk about sibilance in Agnetha's voice and how you get an orgasm at each track you hear her voice and that suddenly you're dry for several (remastered) albums. Talk about disappeared smiles. Dead birds in her eyes or whatever. Björn with a dagger. Make every day a new one, as long as what you tell is true because you really heard it.

 

Yes ... ... gotta ... be ... more ... poetic ... :D.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, John Dyson said:

Do you understand the travesty of the 'The Complete Studio Recordings'?  That material is as highly processed as possibly can be -- can you actually imagine a peak-RMS ratio of 10.8dB as measured by SOX?  That is crazy bad...

 

I am not hurting ANYONE -- maybe just trying to raise the standards demanded by consumers...  PERIOD.

 

John

 

 

I have in fact borrowed some remasterings of ABBA from the local library - there were indeed grotesque, pumped up bass, squashed treble, a travesty of the early releases I have.


Frank

 

http://artofaudioconjuring.blogspot.com/

 

 

Ahhh, Mankind ... Porsche intellect, Trabant emotions ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...