Bruce,
What correlation exists, if any, between the width of the parallel lines in the middle image and 'zero crossings'
As you'd observed in a later post, only DSP 3 appears to mimic the original.
Thanks.
Bogus Downloads!
- Thread starter Bruce B
- Start date
Bruce,
What correlation exists, if any, between the width of the parallel lines in the middle image and 'zero crossings'
As you'd observed in a later post, only DSP 3 appears to mimic the original.
Thanks.
I've done a number of tests of FLAC and also have always come up with identical files, whether using md5, ffp or File Compare for analysis, even when the WAV>FLAC>WAV conversion is performed 100 times. Others have done this and had similar results even when the conversion was performed 1000 time or more.
What's more germane to this topics OP is well illustrated by one of HDTracks new offerings this week: Jethro Tull's Aqualung, remixed by Steven Wilson in 2011 and released on Bluray. It turns out that the Bluray had an additional mastering step(s) after SW's remix, resulting in about 3 dB lost dynamic range off the peaks!! The new HDTracks offers the "true" remix without the additional "mastering" (i.e., compression); unfortunately, only the original album is so offered, not the bonus tracks from the 2011 Bluray.
What's more germane to this topics OP is well illustrated by one of HDTracks new offerings this week: Jethro Tull's Aqualung, remixed by Steven Wilson in 2011 and released on Bluray. It turns out that the Bluray had an additional mastering step(s) after SW's remix, resulting in about 3 dB lost dynamic range off the peaks!! The new HDTracks offers the "true" remix without the additional "mastering" (i.e., compression); unfortunately, only the original album is so offered, not the bonus tracks from the 2011 Bluray.
Bruce,
What correlation exists, if any, between the width of the parallel lines in the middle image and 'zero crossings'
As you'd observed in a later post, only DSP 3 appears to mimic the original.
Thanks.
Well a complete sine wave starts on zero, goes up, then back down, crosses zero, continues down and then back up to "zero" or Infinity. Every time the signal crosses "zero", that is a "zero crossing". I don't know how the hell they are so different.
The parallel lines indicate amplitude. The higher the signal goes, the louder it gets.
Well that's a relief! I just picked up HDTracks' Aqualung a few days back (had a 20% off to use)...
It would be interesting to compare a FLAC file that an end-user gets for his purchased download with the file (in the same sampling rate and bit depth) that Bruce made. There are some reasons why they might be different.
1. Bruce might have shipped WAV instead of FLAC
2. The FLAC files can be created at different FLAC compression levels.
3. The meta-data may be different.
4. The audio samples in the customer file may be different than the audio samples in Bruce's file.
The first three reasons would not be any cause for alarm. It's only the last reason that matters. This can be verified by converting the two files being compared to WAV. The WAV files can then be compared by nulling with an editor, etc...
It would be interesting to see what the differences actually are. It would also be interesting to see the distribution chain from Bruce downstream, e.g. Bruce to Label to Distributor to Server to Customer. I can imagine a number of reasons for data getting corrupted, as I do all of these stages of post production and distribution for a web site that I maintain and I have made various mistakes over the years, etc... Depending on the specific details it may be possible to make an educated guess at the cause of any differences.
1. Bruce might have shipped WAV instead of FLAC
2. The FLAC files can be created at different FLAC compression levels.
3. The meta-data may be different.
4. The audio samples in the customer file may be different than the audio samples in Bruce's file.
The first three reasons would not be any cause for alarm. It's only the last reason that matters. This can be verified by converting the two files being compared to WAV. The WAV files can then be compared by nulling with an editor, etc...
It would be interesting to see what the differences actually are. It would also be interesting to see the distribution chain from Bruce downstream, e.g. Bruce to Label to Distributor to Server to Customer. I can imagine a number of reasons for data getting corrupted, as I do all of these stages of post production and distribution for a web site that I maintain and I have made various mistakes over the years, etc... Depending on the specific details it may be possible to make an educated guess at the cause of any differences.
Hi Tony,
1. The files were delivered to Naxos in 2 formats, DSD64fs (as .dff) files and 176.4 FLAC files.
2. I agree, but why would they do that? I was getting files smaller AND LARGER than what I sent.
3. The meta-data may have been different... but not over 100MB different! I can see a few (1-3MB) difference because of artwork or something.
4. The audio samples WERE different on 2 examples as shown.
5. Still can't account for one of the tracks to actually be corrupted (a couple of silent places), unless they somehow manipulated the data.
I can certainly send you all the file data that I downloaded and let you compare them.
1. The files were delivered to Naxos in 2 formats, DSD64fs (as .dff) files and 176.4 FLAC files.
2. I agree, but why would they do that? I was getting files smaller AND LARGER than what I sent.
3. The meta-data may have been different... but not over 100MB different! I can see a few (1-3MB) difference because of artwork or something.
4. The audio samples WERE different on 2 examples as shown.
5. Still can't account for one of the tracks to actually be corrupted (a couple of silent places), unless they somehow manipulated the data.
I can certainly send you all the file data that I downloaded and let you compare them.
Why don't you send me a pair of FLAC files, one as you sent and one that you downloaded that was garbled. I will look at them, and perhaps I will be able to shed some light as to what is going on. (Or not, we will see...)
Hi rbbert,
Actually, I never said the CD masters I created were flat transfers - because they weren't.
*Others* (including a well-known colleague) have called them flat transfers and that made me smile because when I EQ, I always seek to avoid having the results sound EQd. Better to add some "bite" to a guitar solo and have the guitar solo sound like it has more bite than sound like a change was made at x Hz.
As I see it, the original CDs have two problems:
1. They were created with early A-D converters.
2. They sound too much like the tapes I was given to work with (to my knowledge primarily 1:1 copies, except for the last two which were "EQd copies" created during vinyl mastering to contain the same changes as made for vinyl.
I say they sound too much like the source tapes because those tapes needed help. Let's face it: The recordings and the mixes were not exactly like something from Keith Johnson. ;-} I did my usual bypass of everything in the room, connecting directly from the output of the analog playback deck (using my own cables rather than the studio's) to the input of the A-D converters, with only the equalizer in the path. No switches, patch bays, consoles, studio cables, or other signal degrading items.
I applied EQ but in retrospect, not enough. If I did them again today, my approach would still be exactly the same but I'd be more liberal about the application of EQ. (As always, the dynamics of the source are left intact 100%. No compression or limiting is allowed in the room. ;-})
Of course the converters (and EQ) I have today are orders of magnitude beyond what was available when I created those early CD masters. Still, I don't believe the old converters were the weakest link. As I always say, in my experience 90-95% or more of a recording's ultimate sonic quality ceiling has already been determined by the time the signals are leaving the mics.
Everything after that (cables, preamps, AC power, recording devices, signal path, mix, mastering, etc.) only determines how much we get to hear out of what was original captured.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Barry; the Page/Marino CDs sound limited/compressed within my system, even being one of my all time favorite bands, they are not worth the listen.
Your CD's sound far more open ...
Example: your LZ3 CD, only 1 instance of clipping exist on the entire CD. (celebration day)...
Typical recorded tracks (ie: since i've been loving you) offer plenty headroom...
I don't have the Page/Marino LZ3, but the following are the first 3 cuts from Page/Marino's LZ4 CD ...
black dog...
r&r...
the battle of evermore ...
Last edited:
Hi TBone,
It will probably be difficult for most folks today to grok but the meters on the Sony 1630--or was this back with the 1610?--did *not* have a peak hold. (Actually, as it has been a bunch of decades, perhaps I'm not remembering correctly. If they did have a peak hold, the resolution was still nothing like what we have today.)
I had to keep my eyes on the meters for the duration of the album!
I must have blinked.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hehehe ... that's funny ... missed the days of graceful tape saturation ... when I first recorded to digital I used a recorder w/non-peak average type meters, they ended up being so slow as to be near useless. When recording everything looked fine, after, all my peaks would be clipped (arghh).
Anyway, thanks for your time and effort with these early recordings, as someone who has a pretty decent collection of LZ pressings, I can honestly say it's been difficult finding really open good sounding non-compressed LZ copies. Another example, I have two Bob Marley Greatest Hits LP/CDs, the version you mastered, which sound stellar on both LP & CD, the other versions are just more examples of limiting/compression.
Last edited:
That's one of the advantages of recording in DSD; +6dB of headroom. It's not like tape saturation, which I don't believe is all that graceful, but is the difference between 50% modulation (established as 0dB in the early development stages of DSD/SACD), and 100% modulation (+6dB). The distortion and modulation artifacts increase markedly as 100% modulation is approached, but for short music transients, is not perceivable.
No problem with headroom on Redbook if 0 vu is set at -20 dbFS, like it was originally. Of course then the touted "perfect sound" has only a 70 dB S/N ratio, something that pretty much matches what one gets on a clean vinyl setup...
Hi TBone,
Do you mean "Legend" and "Rebel Music"?
I had a great time mastering the 13 original Marley albums for CD. (As always, no compression or limiting was allowed in the room.)
Did they credit me on the vinyl too? While I've done vinyl mastering too, I did not master any Marley vinyl. Perhaps they used the CD masters when they cut the vinyl. I don't know who did the cut though.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Legend, and no, you're not credited on my vinyl copy, no mention of who mastered my LP pressing. The CD is clearly marked "REMASTERED FROM THE ORIGINAL TAPES BY BARRY DIAMENT". It's been a while since I listened to Legend LP, but if memory serves me well, my pressing was compressed by comparison.
edit2: According to discogs, you are credited on a few LP pressings under the Tuff Gong label, such as ...
http://www.discogs.com/Bob-Marley-And-The-Wailers-Legend-The-Best-Of-Bob-Marley-And-The-Wailers/release/5179060
edit: I thought I had, or seen, a Legend LP pressing with your name credited, maybe confused with Bob Marley & The Wailers LIVE LP which apparently had you name on it?
Last edited:
Barry, the Marley catalog you remastered were the first really, really good sounding CDs I purchased. I went in hard and heavy after that. I was sold.
Thanks for being one of those pros who help set the standard going forward, along with folks like Dan Hirsch, Vic Anesin, Suha Gur, Bill Inglot, Bob Ludwig, and others.
Thank you Andre.
Those are among my all-time favorites of all the albums I've mastered.
They also marked (for me) the first project where I felt I'd finally learned how to make EQ "disappear." Strange as it may sound, it took me 15 years of being a pro to get to that point. (All to often, when I listen to records, I can hear the EQ.)
Thank you again for your kindness.
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Hi rbbert,
Every monolithic A-D converter of which I'm aware will exhibit lower distortion if the maximum peak is at -6 (or -10 or -12 or lower) instead of higher. With this in mind, I always record leaving lots of headroom. With 24-bits, I'd much prefer a maximum peak level of -20 than one of -2. Final levels will be adjusted digitally, later in the mastering room. (Final levels are set so the maximum peak is *below* 0 dBFS, sometimes at -0.3, sometimes lower depending on the program material. Nowadays, I think of 0 as an overload because peaks in the reconstructed analog signal may exceed the value of the adjacent samples.)
Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.soundkeeperrecordings.wordpress.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |