[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif unbelievable...you guys... seriously... READ what i wrote i said that if you go back and remaster old material when you get better at your craft is understandable! but as he was making THIS album THIS PAST YEAR, he made it to the best of his CURRENT ability. you guys are suggesting he sat at the controls and mixed a 5.1 mix of an album BADLY with the intent of re releasing it again a few monthes later after making it better. this doesn't make sense to me... you must imagine steve wilson as a stove-pipe-hat-wearing, moustache-twirling villain... he's been nominated for a grammy for his 5.1 mixes. he's known for being a killer producer. why on earth would he do this? it's his reputation he'd be screwing with...

Killer producer is all relative.... just because The Incident has better sound quality than the likes of Death Magnetic doesn't mean that it's sound quality is on the level of Dark Side of the Moon. Or most of the 70's albums before the loudness war started.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif you two aren't listening to what i'm saying. i realize the guy has remastered things he did ages ago, because he's gotten better at his craft. but to sit at the console while working on your music, and consciously twist the knobs to a point where you're making the stuff 85% great on purpose, only to go back in and do it again and go the extra 15% makes no sense.

I hate to break it to you, but since you put so much faith in SW's ability, you also have to cede the point that all releases (and associated quality) are deliberate. And since this is the case, you either do not have both the DVD-Video and DVD-Audio releases and are talking out of your bum, or you cannot hear the differences. With the former, you might want to get your facts straight by getting both. With the latter, I suggest you open any audio editor and look at the wavforms. Just because you cannot hear the differences (I easily can) does not mean that they are not there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif the guy has become quite good. if he releases something, he puts it out at the current best of his ability. understand? i'm talking about the dvd version. it's higher resolution than the cd. i know cd's are mastered differently. but if you have the dvd, you have heard the version that's coming... nobody mixes something bad on purpose...

Again, you need to get your facts straight. DVD-Video codecs are more often than not either DTS (good lossy) or Dolby (so-so lossy), but they are not as good as lossless redbook. That is a fact. Now, DVD-Video can also have LPCM tracks, but that is very rare, and no PT album has those, so your point is very incorrect.

The DVD-Audio releases, on the other hand, are lossless and sound astounding. It has to be said though that even in those releases, SW still goes overboard with the volume, especially in In Absentia (the front right and left levels are a joke).

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif unbelievable...you guys... seriously... READ what i wrote i said that if you go back and remaster old material when you get better at your craft is understandable! but as he was making THIS album THIS PAST YEAR, he made it to the best of his CURRENT ability. you guys are suggesting he sat at the controls and mixed a 5.1 mix of an album BADLY with the intent of re releasing it again a few monthes later after making it better.

Right back at you. I answered your observation, but you have yet to answer mine, so I will post it again for you to chew on:

Looks like you are new to Porcupine Tree's release history. Yes, their regular releases are brickwalled crap, but their DVD-Audios are some of the best of the format.

You are forgetting their targeted audiences...

CD/DVD-Video = iPod crowd

DVD-Audio = People that care about sound quality

So yes, it does make absolutely perfect sense to mess with the volume adjustments with each release. I doubt that the actual 5.1 mix (speaker roles and panning effects) has been altered much if at all though.

I care not about your speculation. I want you to show me where you are right, and we are wrong.

 

[antiman]

i have, at every point in this exchange, been referring to the dvd! i have said on numerous occasions that i understand cd's and dvd's differ. i realize there is a difference between dvd and dvda... i am baffled as to why it keeps coming up that cd's are for the ipod crowd and dvd is for the audiophile crowd... i know this, and it doesn't need to be stated again. i was never arguing this point.

i also have a great deal of cd's and the same release on dvda. i can tell the difference in sound quality. i do know what i'm talking about. i have the incident special edition, and i think it sounds great, again, not their best material, but still good.

for the last time, what i am responding to is the fact that i asked the crowd if you guys think sw purposely put out something he himself wouldn't be proud of, in order to later release in perfect form and everyone seemed to say 'yes, that's exactly right' and to that i respond nonsense. THAT is ALL i'm referring to... you guys have stated he's a 'sellout' and that he purposely released a product that was advertised as audiophile copy for the audiophile wannabe's that was inferior as a cheap way to rip off his fans... again... i say hogwash...

 

[Moontan13]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... you guys have stated he's a 'sellout' and that he purposely released a product that was advertised as audiophile copy for the audiophile wannabe's that was inferior as a cheap way to rip off his fans... again... i say hogwash...

I have to agree with you. I have have the CE version, and due to this thread, did and A/B/C comparison between the CD, and the 5.1 and 24 bit stereo versions on the DVD. In short, I didn't find anything wrong with the CD.

 

[scytheavatar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by antiman /img/forum/go_quote.gif i have, at every point in this exchange, been referring to the dvd! i have said on numerous occasions that i understand cd's and dvd's differ. i realize there is a difference between dvd and dvda... i am baffled as to why it keeps coming up that cd's are for the ipod crowd and dvd is for the audiophile crowd... i know this, and it doesn't need to be stated again. i was never arguing this point. i also have a great deal of cd's and the same release on dvda. i can tell the difference in sound quality. i do know what i'm talking about. i have the incident special edition, and i think it sounds great, again, not their best material, but still good. for the last time, what i am responding to is the fact that i asked the crowd if you guys think sw purposely put out something he himself wouldn't be proud of, in order to later release in perfect form and everyone seemed to say 'yes, that's exactly right' and to that i respond nonsense. THAT is ALL i'm referring to... you guys have stated he's a 'sellout' and that he purposely released a product that was advertised as audiophile copy for the audiophile wannabe's that was inferior as a cheap way to rip off his fans... again... i say hogwash...

And for the last time, we are asking you to prove that it's hogwash. Is your evidence limited to statements like "Steve Wilson is a cool dude, he wouldn't rip off his fan"? You said that the CD and DVD The Incident is different, do you honestly think that the CD has been mixed to its maximum potential? And that the differences are only because of the format? Audacity disagrees with you.

 

[non-entity]

Wow, what's going on here?

First of all: I only have the CD-DA version of 'The Incident', so I don't know about this other version that was released. I don't even know if it was DVD-V or DVD-A, but I can say one thing regarding The Incident: I wasn't blown away by its sound quality.

Lately I bought several Porcupine Tree albums on DVD-A and I have to say that I was a little disappointed after listening to them. They were not overly bad, but just not what I expected. First, in my opinion there's too much dynamic compression; I think many people would agree with this. Secondly, and this is controversial, I'm disappointed that I didn't get the whole range of it. Especially with 'In Absentia' ... It is a damn DVD-A disc and I paid for it, so why do I only get a 48 khz stereo mix with 16 bits per sample? (Or am I mistaken? Maybe I screwed it up while I extracted it, but this is kinda unlikely.) I know that I possibly couldn't ABX the difference, but still, as a purist, I'd like to have at least something that physically (REALLY) differs from the average CD-DA! And well, like I said, it's controversial. Some of the best sounding (digital) releases I heard so far were 'only' redbook-CDs, so normally I don't really care about the physical level as long as it is PCM. Still, it's just a little shame, isn't it? Why do so many DVD-A releases only come with 48 khz? If they put this out another time in the future with 'higher resolution' I don't know what I would think about this ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Again, you need to get your facts straight. DVD-Video codecs are more often than not either DTS (good lossy) or Dolby (so-so lossy), but they are not as good as lossless redbook. That is a fact. Now, DVD-Video can also have LPCM tracks, but that is very rare, and no PT album has those, so your point is very incorrect. The DVD-Audio releases, on the other hand, are lossless and sound astounding. It has to be said though that even in those releases, SW still goes overboard with the volume, especially in In Absentia (the front right and left levels are a joke).

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about the DVD-V part. Their 'Arriving Somewhere...' release came with LPCM stereo.

A little analogy I'd like to mention before posting this: I think releasing such DVD-A-releases (with no 'real high resolution'-audio) is like handing a huge box of candies to a kid and making it smile, but knowing that it only contains more air than candies. Well, at least this is what I felt like. I do know that mostly the mastering stage is the cause for audible differences, but it still annoys me that one of my favorite bands puts out such ... well, I don't even know how to name it.

After reading the last passage again I felt like writing something more to clarify ... I do think that their albums sound good, but not as good as they could. That's sad! Hmmmm, why do I think about Steve Albini right now?

(hell, did anyone listen to 'At Action Park' by Shellac? THAT'S GOOD QUALITY!)

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif Wow, what's going on here? First of all: I only have the CD-DA version of 'The Incident', so I don't know about this other version that was released. I don't even know if it was DVD-V or DVD-A, but I can say one thing regarding The Incident: I wasn't blown away by its sound quality. Lately I bought several Porcupine Tree albums on DVD-A and I have to say that I was a little disappointed after listening to them. They were not overly bad, but just not what I expected. First, in my opinion there's too much dynamic compression; I think many people would agree with this. Secondly, and this is controversial, I'm disappointed that I didn't get the whole range of it. Especially with 'In Absentia' ... It is a damn DVD-A disc and I paid for it, so why do I only get a 48 khz stereo mix with 16 bits per sample? (Or am I mistaken? Maybe I screwed it up while I extracted it, but this is kinda unlikely.) I know that I possibly couldn't ABX the difference, but still, as a purist, I'd like to have at least something that physically (REALLY) differs from the average CD-DA! And well, like I said, it's controversial. Some of the best sounding (digital) releases I heard so far were 'only' redbook-CDs, so normally I don't really care about the physical level as long as it is PCM. Still, it's just a little shame, isn't it? Why do so many DVD-A releases only come with 48 khz? If they put this out another time in the future with 'higher resolution' I don't know what I would think about this ...

Yeah, I tend to agree with you in that the technology to record music with truly mind-blowing sound quality is there, but 99% of the time, it is not being used to its fullest potential. With that in mind, I agree with you that Porcupine Tree could sound better overall, and I was not particularly thrilled with only 16 bit stereo on the In Absentia DVD-Audio.

BUT...

Porcupine Tree has only earns the accolades it has with regards to sound quality if one bases their impression purely on their 5.1 24bit/48kHz MLP tracks in my opinion. I only rip those to my HD and downmix them manually. That is the only way I care to listen to them, because it is those tracks that Steve Wilson really takes the time to get more or less "right" (volume [most of the time] and spaciousness of the music).



Quote:

Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong about the DVD-V part. Their 'Arriving Somewhere...' release came with LPCM stereo.

Yeah, you are right. I forgot about that one. It is nice to get a DVD-Video with LPCM, as that is the only DVD codec that is used that is as good as redbook based on bitrate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif A little analogy I'd like to mention before posting this: I think releasing such DVD-A-releases (with no 'real high resolution'-audio) is like handing a huge box of candies to a kid and making it smile, but knowing that it only contains more air than candies. Well, at least this is what I felt like. I do know that mostly the mastering stage is the cause for audible differences, but it still annoys me that one of my favorite bands puts out such ... well, I don't even know how to name it. After reading the last passage again I felt like writing something more to clarify ... I do think that their albums sound good, but not as good as they could. That's sad! Hmmmm, why do I think about Steve Albini right now? (hell, did anyone listen to 'At Action Park' by Shellac? THAT'S GOOD QUALITY!)

I do not know why they do not have 24/96 either. I read that Lightbulb Sun and Stupid Dream was recorded at 48kHz, so that is understandable, but the more modern releases should be 24/96 if nothing more than to have the same bitrate as the master files.

 

[non-entity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yeah, I tend to agree with you in that the technology to record music with truly mind-blowing sound quality is there, but 99% of the time, it is not being used to its fullest potential. With that in mind, I agree with you that Porcupine Tree could sound better overall, and I was not particularly thrilled with only 16 bit stereo on the In Absentia DVD-Audio. BUT... Porcupine Tree has only earns the accolades it has with regards to sound quality if one bases their impression purely on their 5.1 24bit/48kHz MLP tracks in my opinion. I only rip those to my HD and downmix them manually. That is the only way I care to listen to them, because it is those tracks that Steve Wilson really takes the time to get more or less "right" (volume [most of the time] and spaciousness of the music).

I think you're totally right about mind-blowing sound quality. Some time ago I used to just listen to music casually and I didn't care at all about the sonic quality, nor did I really know anything about it. I just downloaded my stuff somewhere (haha, frankly these files were mostly 128k mp3-files that were encoded several times in the worst case) and listened to them through more or less cheap headphones. There are even prolific musicians, or let's say talented musicians I know who do it this way, and this is kinda surprising to me. What I want to say: it's simply a fact that most people out there don't really care about the quality as long as the music is 'touching' and enjoyable.

Once I considered to downmix the 5.1 mixes as well, but I thought that this would sound different, so I did not do it. Now that you wrote this I thought that I should try it and so I did, but I just didn't like the outcome. It sounds different and I think it doesn't sound like it's supposed to sound. In the 5.1 mix there is a lot of space in mind and it sounds dull to me when so many channels are downmixed to just two. It got even worse to me when I enabled the crossfeed feature, but I have to write one more thing about this: It's still tempting to have this album in 24 bit resolution, even though one isn't really able to hear a difference (well, between 16 bit and 24 bit coming from the same master). Sometimes I wish that I could put away this perfectionism, at times it really seems like a disease to me ...

Quote:

Yeah, you are right. I forgot about that one. It is nice to get a DVD-Video with LPCM, as that is the only DVD codec that is used that is as good as redbook based on bitrate. I do not know why they do not have 24/96 either. I read that Lightbulb Sun and Stupid Dream was recorded at 48kHz, so that is understandable, but the more modern releases should be 24/96 if nothing more than to have the same bitrate as the master files.

I just noticed that there is 24/48 sound on the DVD-Video part of the 'Stupid Dream'-DVD-A as well. When I put it in for the first time I was like 'Apparently it was a stupid dream to hope for a stereo mix', but after being disappointed for a minute or two I found the 'proper' stereo mix on the DVD-V part of the disc. Then I just ripped it with DVD Decrypter.

Hey, I did not know that 'Lightbulb Sun' and 'Stupid Dream' were recorded using 48kHz technology; that's interesting! Lately I read a lot and after reading so much I kinda dislike digital audio in the studio ... Sure, there is the thing about convenience using DAW's and so on, but I just don't like the idea that the produced audio was 'not whole' from the start. I don't mind zeros and ones as transport medium, actually I don't REALLY mind it in the studio as well, but just the thought of quantized audio in the studio is not really appealing to me. Also, I don't like the fact that software like Pro Tools changed music so much. Since I know this I wonder EVERY TIME when I hear something impressive in a modern record if the sound that impressed me was a result of talent or a result of Pro Tools and the like ...

That's exactly why I started to like Steve Albini so much. I know his name for quite a while now since he's a big man in this business, but only some time ago I realized that he's involved in so many records I truly like. Long story short in case somebody doesn't know him: he is the head of a renowned recording studio and everything he works on is being produced using the good old tape. There's mostly no digital gear involved and the way he mics sound is just downright impressive. Even though the CDs are digital I still feel like records being produced like this sound better. Not a big surprise though, since the chain looks so different before the last link which is the CD. Also, these discs are mastered to please the ear, not to just catch your attention.

 

[LFF]

DVD-A doesn't automatically equate to better sound quality. I have seen certain albums released on DVD-A and they are indeed higher resolution but they are still as brickwalled as their CD counterparts. The loudness wars and bad mastering have translated very well onto other formats unfortunately.

It's sad.

 

[non-entity]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFF /img/forum/go_quote.gif DVD-A doesn't automatically equate to better sound quality. I have seen certain albums released on DVD-A and they are indeed higher resolution but they are still as brickwalled as their CD counterparts. The loudness wars and bad mastering have translated very well onto other formats unfortunately. It's sad.

You're right about this. Of course there's a big physical difference when one compares 16 bit/44.100 kHz PCM with 24 bit/96 or even 192 kHz PCM, but this is just like a 'container' and there is no sense in filling up a huge bottle with just half the water that fits in, so like you wrote: DVD-A is not necessarily a indicator for better sound quality.

Well, in a market (sad but true: I'm talking about the 'mass market' and not 'underground' productions, and the saddest part is that even some indie labels choose this route) like this that is affected by the internet so much it is kind of no big surprise that the only thing they really seem to crave for is attention, since there are so many artists that want to be heard ...

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif Once I considered to downmix the 5.1 mixes as well, but I thought that this would sound different, so I did not do it. Now that you wrote this I thought that I should try it and so I did, but I just didn't like the outcome. It sounds different and I think it doesn't sound like it's supposed to sound. In the 5.1 mix there is a lot of space in mind and it sounds dull to me when so many channels are downmixed to just two. It got even worse to me when I enabled the crossfeed feature, but I have to write one more thing about this: It's still tempting to have this album in 24 bit resolution, even though one isn't really able to hear a difference (well, between 16 bit and 24 bit coming from the same master). Sometimes I wish that I could put away this perfectionism, at times it really seems like a disease to me ...

Yeah, the downmixes are a bit different sounding, but you have control over their sound much more than the stereo mix. The great thing about having 24 bit files is when downmixing, there is less fear about having clipping by taking a 5.1 mix and creating a 2.0 mix. I downmix the entire album at once and make sure that the loudest part of the entire album hits 0db. The resulting wavform looks like one from the 1980's complete with full dynamics. Unfortunately, that is an overall wavform, so if one channel is maxed out on the DVD-A by default, nothing can be done to help that (as in the case of In Absentia front left and right channels).

I quite like the downmixes, but then again, I am not all that thrilled with any of Porcupine Tree's stereo mixes (even the 24 bit ones). They are way too congested and/or brickwalled. Even if the resulting 5.1 downmix os not exactly reference regarding sound mix, I could care less, as I like what i like

Quote:

Originally Posted by non-entity /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, I did not know that 'Lightbulb Sun' and 'Stupid Dream' were recorded using 48kHz technology; that's interesting! Lately I read a lot and after reading so much I kinda dislike digital audio in the studio ... Sure, there is the thing about convenience using DAW's and so on, but I just don't like the idea that the produced audio was 'not whole' from the start. I don't mind zeros and ones as transport medium, actually I don't REALLY mind it in the studio as well, but just the thought of quantized audio in the studio is not really appealing to me. Also, I don't like the fact that software like Pro Tools changed music so much. Since I know this I wonder EVERY TIME when I hear something impressive in a modern record if the sound that impressed me was a result of talent or a result of Pro Tools and the like ... That's exactly why I started to like Steve Albini so much. I know his name for quite a while now since he's a big man in this business, but only some time ago I realized that he's involved in so many records I truly like. Long story short in case somebody doesn't know him: he is the head of a renowned recording studio and everything he works on is being produced using the good old tape. There's mostly no digital gear involved and the way he mics sound is just downright impressive. Even though the CDs are digital I still feel like records being produced like this sound better. Not a big surprise though, since the chain looks so different before the last link which is the CD. Also, these discs are mastered to please the ear, not to just catch your attention.

Based on what I have read regarding analog and digital, if one takes the time to actually put out an all digital album that has been carefully crafted, the sound quality can be every bit as good or better as the best analog recordings. Both can sound phenomenal, but digital is just so much easier to ruin than analog, because of the fact that any moron can create music using it. Analog was at its peak when people cared about sound quality and did not have to pander to the DAP crowd.

 

[feverfive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif [snip] Based on what I have read regarding analog and digital, if one takes the time to actually put out an all digital album that has been carefully crafted, the sound quality can be every bit as good or better as the best analog recordings. Both can sound phenomenal, but digital is just so much easier to ruin than analog, because of the fact that any moron can create music using it. Analog was at its peak when people cared about sound quality and did not have to pander to the DAP crowd.

I'm part of the said DAP crowd, but what I don't get is why DAP use & SQ have to be treated as mutually exclusive... It boggles my mind. Just b/c music is listened to via a DAP music needs to be compressed to the point of being unlistenable; do most of those people not like good SQ?

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feverfive /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm part of the said DAP crowd, but what I don't get is why DAP use & SQ have to be treated as mutually exclusive... It boggles my mind. Just b/c music is listened to via a DAP music needs to be compressed to the point of being unlistenable; do most of those people not like good SQ?

Unless you sit in a quiet room or use a great IEM, DAP and outstanding sound quality are mutually exclusive. I will be upfront: I do not mean this as a slam at all. In fact, I would not want to listen to an exquisitely dynamic album on the go at all. The reason being is that I could not hear the quiet parts very well unless I have an IEM that shuts out all outside noise. Since most people do not have that, it is preferable to have music that is easily heard above the ambient. That means dynamic compression.

Having said that, it has been taken WAY too far in the compression department for two reasons: lack of current and voltage drive in DAPs (thus necessitating more consistent music volume-wise) and "loud = getting noticed over other bands on the radio". The volumes that some of my students DAPs is unreal. I can hear their iBuds from across the room!

 

[feverfive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadtonowhere08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Unless you sit in a quiet room or use a great IEM, DAP and outstanding sound quality are mutually exclusive. I will be upfront: I do not mean this as a slam at all. In fact, I would not want to listen to an exquisitely dynamic album on the go at all. The reason being is that I could not hear the quiet parts very well unless I have an IEM that shuts out all outside noise. Since most people do not have that, it is preferable to have music that is easily heard above the ambient. That means dynamic compression. Having said that, it has been taken WAY too far in the compression department for two reasons: lack of current and voltage drive in DAPs (thus necessitating more consistent music volume-wise) and "loud = getting noticed over other bands on the radio". The volumes that some of my students DAPs is unreal. I can hear their iBuds from across the room!

Yes, you're right, of course. I guess I did a poor job of simply saying even when using a DAP, I do care about getting the best sound quality I can given what I use. It just bugs me that the music itself, even if ripped to a lossless codec, is often a major hurdle... I accept the tradeoffs when it comes to the equipment (e.g. DAPs)...but it annoys me to no end I have to also scrutinize quality of the recording as well.

 

[roadtonowhere08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feverfive /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, you're right, of course. I guess I did a poor job of simply saying even when using a DAP, I do care about getting the best sound quality I can given what I use. It just bugs me that the music itself, even if ripped to a lossless codec, is often a major hurdle... I accept the tradeoffs when it comes to the equipment (e.g. DAPs)...but it annoys me to no end I have to also scrutinize quality of the recording as well.

I am totally with you on that. I would rather have the good recording and dynamically compress it myself if I wanted to make it "mobile", but that would be too much to ask for the masses, so that is why it is done for us