Jump to content

John Dyson

Members
  • Content Count

    689
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About John Dyson

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You hit the nail on the head, even though my position (attempted contribution to the discussion) was more based on intuition and working with unpublished propretary software in the past. Simply answering your statement for acknowledgement -- a true master tape as an unpubished proprietary work is not the same kind of thing as a published work. (Esp when there is a parallel agreement that limits use of the document/code/recording.) JA attempting to be honorable, I just wish he saw/understood the flaws/disadvantages about MQA. Heck, MQA isn't not a life and death argument, but it is kind of 'just wrong' -- you know what I mean? The commercial on TV about taking a shower in a shower stall that is carpeted -- that is just wrong. MQA is 'just wrong'. Why contort the audio when it can be distributed cleanly at DSD or 192/24 (or whatever?) I regularly get 120Mb/sec download speeds, many people have faster connections, and even a 10Mb/sec connection isn't too bad... It doens't take very long to download an album at normal internet speeds nowadays. John
  2. I learned my lesson recently about referring directly to any content that I have under either formal or informal NDA. It is an easy mistake to make, but it does sometimes restrict useful information also. As to motives about voluntarily avoiding the release of information that can be ethically released -- that is just as bad as violating a promise. When I make a claim, and I really do realize that I made a mistake, I will generally be pretty good about rescinding the mistaken claim. Sometimes, the claim is accurate, but the backing information cannot be released - not a good thing, but bad stuffhappens. This whole thing about IP has frustrated me since the years that I started doing OS code on the FreeBSD project (I worked at AT&T Bell Labs -- the originator of Unix, with full access to all of the Unix source code at the time -- but also wrote big parts of the FreeBSD kernel.) I had to be very careful to maintain my integrity and avoid legal problems -- but I did so successfully. It is possible to be honorable, keep your job and keep your friends happy. Sometimes it can be a little tricky. My philosophy at Bell Labs was to inform mgmt about FreeBSD, and I got permission & clearance (with the caveat that I not cause intellectual property problems.) Later on, AT&T sued Berkeley (the originator of the base source code of FreeBSD), and forced FreeBSD to remove all infringing software (I didn't cause infringement -- it was done long before I joined the effort). My subsequent project on FreeBSD was to rewrite the portions of the kernel that were originally infringing. My situation was so very on the clear, that eventually I got an offer from AT&T Bell Labs research board to fund my hobby project on FreeBSD!!! In essense, I worked for the enemy all along, and eventually got the enemy of the project to offer to join it!!! Honesty and integrity are the best policy. I do admit that I have taken some chances and have been lucky :-). John
  3. Oh -- I do believe that properly cleared demonstrations should be done, especially with such unbelievable claims about MQA. Sometimes people get themselves into 'bad' positions that they cannot solve (that is, about the issues of personal honor.) On the other hand, I cannot imagine that very much about MQA shows any respect to the listening public. Support for MQA only shows respect to those who hope to siphon money from that listening public. Everything about MQA and what it represents seems to suck (in my opinon.) John
  4. He did state that his access was for his private use. I have master tape copies whose material is released for distribution, but my HDD/Memory Sticks will be ground up before I release anything directly from them. Trying to be honorable (agreeing that I might be making assumptions) can suck badly. Demoing directly from a true master tape might give my own results more credibility, but I simply cannot do it. Even though I vehemently disagree with his (anyone's) support for MQA, I can respect (if true) that the overriding promise will prevail. John
  5. This is one of the very few times that I would have to back the party with whom I disagree on the MQA matter. I assume that he has to keep certain materials private, even though it might be technically legal to disclose snippets, he should follow any other promises as a more severe constraint. I have been between a rock and a hard place on that kind of matter -- and it is very difficult to resolve. Perhaps I am projecting my own situation(s) and feelings, but once someone gives a promise -- it can be more constraining than the law. This comment is coming from someone (myself) it tends to be too free and loose with material from time to time -- but as soon as there is a specific promise, then the situation can become frustrating and unpleasant for both those who are denied access and those who have conditional access. It is very likely as soon as such material is disclosed, then future access to very propiretary material will not be granted again. For publically released material as long as iit isn't being liberally broadcast -- I tend to be a bit 'loose' with my sharing. If it is a specific promise or technically a kind of 'classified' material, I am rock-solid and non-compromising. I suspect hat JA's situation is similar. I don't even store 'proprietary' materials in the same place as my normal commercially released stuff. Basically -- even though someone might/might not be exceedingly generous -- sometimes there are external constraints that keep sharing from happening. The DHNRDS DA decoder is also that kind of thing, even though I wrote it and fully own it. I made an agreement that my project partner and myself would work together. More than likely, if I didn't get a lot of help doing the DHNRDS, I'd probably just give it away for free use. It can be tricky to try to be honorable. John
  6. I posted something that I shouldn't have ... Had to delete!!! :-).
  7. A first cut remaster of the 'SuperTrouper' album is done for the test site, and I'll upload the snippet examples to the quick review site in a few hours. The SuperTrouper results are pretty good -- esp considering the IMD and MD prone 'SuperTrouper' song. I had to do something cringeworthy -- making me very uncomfortable that I had to do a little EQ. I am still trying to find some way to work around the need to do any serious EQ. I have been restricting changes to adaptations for DolbyA decoding and temporal corrections - SuperTrouper really needed work. However, I fully expect criticism on the SuperTrouper album -- maybe just for the abstract reason that I did do some EQ that I tried to commit to avoid. I did nothing drastic -- not like 'treble boost' but 3dB boost/cut from 5kHz to 8.5kHz or so. I don't like peaky or resonant type parameteric corrections unless there is an overriding reason, so it is just a modification to produce a bit more presence. I might find a a solution to that -- IMO -- HACK -- later on. The SuperTrouper snippet examples like 'SuperTrouper', and a few other interesting songs will be on the 'quick review' site later on (probably in 2-3Hrs.) John
  8. I havent' done a full album DolbyA decode from anything in the Cars for several months. In about 1/2 hour, I plan to listen to a 100% pristine copy of the cars greatest hits from the latest copy of the DHNRDS decoder. I don't listen to music for enjoyment much any more, but I gotta make it through the album... I still think that their videos (however simplistic by todays standards) were totally groundbreaking and still really good. You Might Think was so darned good and quirky given the technology of the day. BTW, Charlex is still doing video/TV graphics -- various cereal commercials -- things like that. 'Magic' had really good clothing/color and actor choices. 'Drive' introduced me to this wonderfully beautiful girl -- too bad Rick got to her first :-). Back in the day, I think I liked their videos more than their music (or maybe a tie), but now I prefer the music. John
  9. The designers of your equipment have to toil very intensively and with great effort to produce those unicorns. Even MIT/Stanford graduate PHds have problems with some of those techniques. Often, the highly advanced institutes in Haiti have to be called upon to do the level of design that supports manifestation of unicorns. I *have* heard that there are some institutes in the southwest US have special resources that they call on that encourage the manifestation of unicorns and other associated sensory experiences. The gov't seems to frown on such advanced technology, but the leading edge has never been simple to deal with. For my own very settled down lifestyle, I prefer the more mundane -- because my days of recreational 'listening' are long long gone... :-). John
  10. Many of the latest decoding attempts are now uploaded to the Dropbox sites. There is a full review version for Arrival&RingRing on the test site. The 'quick review' site has fairly long snippets, unfortunately the snippets are mostly mp3 -- but if there are problems with mp3, just avoid the Dropbox player. I actually tried a first cut of remastering 'Arrival', which has some eccentricities that makes processing difficult to do correctly. It isn't so much 'EQ' as it is dealing with that rubbing grain in 'Dancing Queen'. The Dancing Queen mp3 review copy is SO BAD when playing through the dropbox mp3 player, it really needs to be downloaded to listen to (it swirls all over the place on the Dropbox player.) I think that a FLAC snippet version for Dancing Queen will also be uploaded the review site in a few minutes. MP3 is slightly challenged by the Dancing Queen 'rubbing' sound. The test (alternative) site provides more precision for those might actively help -- and so it is always 16bit flac -- I finally given up on mp3 for the serious collaborative criticism and review. I am keeping mp3 for the cursory review site because it is so very easy to play the examples through the dropbox player (sometimes with some loss of precision.) There has been NO 'creative' enhancement to the remastering copies, only decoding and the needed EQ to bring the signal to DolbyA specs, and a minor correction sometimes needed for DolbyA decodes. There is ZERO artistic modification, serious equalization, anything like that. Any 'artistic' changes will result only from those who comment and tell me what to change (or even people who might want to directly collaborate on the project.) My listening skill is more tuned to finding errors rather than trying to make things 'sound good'. Anything that I try to change to 'sound good' usually ends up 'sounding bad' to everyone else, so I avoid doing it. Probably the biggest difference in sound between the vinyl originals and the remastering attempts -- other than the actual mastering done on the vinyl copies -- is that the DHNRDS enables significantly more transparent detail, when the detail exists. (There is almost zero 'soft focus' in a DHNRDS decoding at high quality levels.) The vinyl copies have much more mastering/modification than the DHNRDS versions. I have tried to keep the decodes/mastering VERY 'vanilla' with minimal changes to produce technical correctness only. Constructive criticism where I can act on the changes are greatly appreciated, and a credits log will be maintained. It would not imply endorsement, but only an attempt at thanks - and will be included in any proper commercial releases if they ever happen. (Sometimes, my hobbies turn into something important, and I almost always collaborate with others --almost always participating a collective effort with mutual respect and acknowledgement.) (The Dropbox locations have already been shared, but I'll provide the locations upon request.) On the ''Pink Panther': The latest 'Pink Panther' is the best that has been decoded so far, it is ONLY a decode, so the only possible changes are for the calibration level or corrective EQ on the input (converting the EQed listenable version to proper DolbyA frequency response.) The only likely needed tweak -- as it is on almost any high quality DolbyA decode EVEN ON DolbyA HW, is a modification of the calibration level. John
  11. I have mentioned 'DolbyA fog' in the past. When doing the 2nd pass (actually first pass done right) Arrival album, I found a pretty obvious case of DolbyA fog. Even though I probably used different parameters for the mastering (actually turned out moderately close to the vinyl) -- there is a difference, between the two, in sound that goes beyond EQ. I have provided two examples, one from the original vinyl, which I used 'DolbyA' in the filename. The other is from the best DolbyA encoded CD that I could find, but used the DHNRDS DA to do the conversion from the DolbyA form to the natural form. I added 'DHNRDS' to the the name of the DHNRDS DA decoded version. When doing the reference comparison -- making sure that the mastering attempt isn't too far in error, I found a pretty obvious case of DolbyA fog, and shows the primary difference in sound between a true DolbyA and the DHNRDS in the high quality mode. In the lower quality modes, the DHNRDS can produce a slight amount of fog -- if needed. On much, less-ABBA-like material, the DHNRDS and DolbyA sound close to identical, except for a bit more precision/clarity -- not enough to complain OR advertise the difference. What to listen for on the fog? there are two primary aspects of fog on this example 1) choral vocals 'smooth out' into a tonal average instead of maintaining as much individuality 2) there is left-over compression in the DolbyA version. This left-over compression-like sound is caused by similar mechanisms as the 'choral' tonal average fog. The 'fog' doesn't always sound bad, even though it sometimes does sound bad -- because other kinds of distortion can be associated & generated by it. In a way, the 'fog' produces a 'ghosty' veil kind of sound -- which can be a valid sound-effect, but it isn't accurate. The DHNRDS has both the advantage and disadvantage of being very, tediously, extremely accurate. Sometimes a little original DolbyA soft-focus is a good thing, but DolbyA wasn't mostly intended as a sound effect. John 01-When I Kissed The Teacher-DolbyA.wav 01-When I Kissed The Teacher-DHNRDS.wav
  12. Yes -- it (RingRing.30s.wav) sounds like DolbyA that has been EQed to be listenable. I cannot judge how people other than myself perceive the sound, so I cannot/will NOT take away other peoples (incl Frank's) enjoyment. Compressed/EQed DolbyA does have a certain character that one can get used to and enjoy, but my project isn't to replicate what is commonly available. The sad thing (for me) is that I am so tired of their wonderful music, but still must complete the (hopefully collaborative) effort of all 8 albums (I misttated 7 albums before -- I forgot to decode one album, and only counted those that I had processed/remastered in my current working area.) The RingRing album demo is complete/ready convert to a final demo format (starts with 96k/24, then I convert to mp3, flac, opus or whatever the most reasonable demo format currently is.) Since Frank provided .wav, I also produced a 16bit/44.1k wav (if that is what people like around here -- I am happy to do it!!!) This is a version that I have ready for review, but haven't posted it (which will be the complete RingRing album -- in snippet or full form, depending on the situation.) I have included a snippet from both the 'remastered' version and also rip from original vinyl done at 96k/24 converted to 44.1k/16. I have another vinyl rip of lower quality with very similar general sound characteristics of the higher quality vinyl rip. I normally like to provide 55secs, but I truncated shorter because the size is adequate.... An EQed DolbyA copy has already been posted. 01. ABBA - Ring Ring.wav 01. ABBA - Ring Ring-vinylrip.wav
  13. Below, I am NOT criticizing your disk AT ALL, rather trying to explain the DolbyA decoding problesm with material which might come from different albums. I just checked -- the Ring Ring on that ABBA disk is not on the original album. For decoding, is critical that the levels be correct. It is more likely that the levels are correct on the original albums. Mastering is often done on an albumb basis like what I am doing -- but splitting the cuts might/might not cause inconsistencies. That is -- if the distributor normalizes the songs on the disk, then I cannot decode it nearly as easily. It is a royal pain in the butt to find the correct calibration levels, and bad enough to do it once for an entire album. It is downright evil-tedious to have to find the calibration for each cut individually!!! (When doing an entire album, one can cross check different cuts for errors -- when doing songs individually, it is so very easy to make mistakes -- I make mistakes ALL of the time when entering things like gains and calibration levels.) On those 'combo' disks, the material might be normalzied, might not be normalized, or the source might just be copied form the source of another album with a different calibration level. When doing a DolbyA decode, it is better to do it on an album basis (as an entire album), or make sure that all of your files come from the same album and have exactly the same calibration. When they have normalized each song, that means that the DolbyA decode must be recalibrated for EACH SONG instead of on an album basis. On top of that (which would be beneficial for you) -- the CD might actually be properly decoded!?!? I don't know!!! The ideal state is if a disk has actually been properly mastered... John
  14. Polydor and Polar are usually very similar. I have often noticed that the best quality releases are from Japan believe it or not!!! Weird, huh? SO, if there is a European and Japanese Polydor, the Japanese version usually technically has fewer flaws, and the European Polydor vs Polar are often (not always) the same (exactly -- within 0.01dB literally.) Discomate and others are also often very good. I might even be using a Japan Discomate for one of my source albums. I check the stats on the CDs very, mega carefully!!! I don't think that I am using Atlantic or any of those right now -- I am not religious to the brand. Also not using any of those 'remastering' brands -- they sometimes seem to have huge generation loss. I do use some of the off-brands for an alternative reference, and my first recognition of DolbyA material was an ABBA Gold CD (1992, Japan.) Of course, no matter what, I do listen to the CD also to make sure that the stats didn't show the whole truth. I have some source material with tape dropouts also. Esp for ABBA and the variability of the releases -- it can be tedious to find the best material. John
  15. Comparing Dolby equivalent units isn't important to me for the ABBA project. No matter what, if the decoder 'decodes' reasonably well, it is better than not decoding at all (well, Satin doesn't make any difference -- it really doesn't sound right as a decoder.) I am trying to make ABBA sound better -- the same formula can be used for ANY decoder, I'll make the mastering steps available, so if someone wants to 'waste' the time and try other units, then they can do it :-). John
×
×
  • Create New...