Skip to main content
Topic: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh (Read 1006 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from Vinyl is equivalent t...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #25
I was commenting above based on memory of playing an ABBA track off the Abba Gold album I burned off CD to HD. It was an audio event a few years back and someone requested it. After about 20sec I had to stop the track it was so horrendously bright.
Strangely, I tried streaming a couple tracks off Gold on Spotify last night...and it sounded far more listenable. I'm now going to have to find and connect that hard drive with the CD rip back on the network  and have another listen.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #26
I actually think dsd and tape sounds better, when available.
In my opinion, CD is the media that destroyed the craftmanship of music production, even if there's nothing wrong with the format.
Digital disorder is a well known subset of Audiophile disorder. My condolences and best of luck with it.

p.s. CD didn't create studio idiocy and/or audiophiles. Its not responsible for anything.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban_(audio_processing)
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #27
I'm skeptical towards this custom expander processor. I can't run the x64 binaries to experiment with it, and haven't read all of the many posts documenting its development. If there indeed was undecoded Dolby on some tracks during mixing or mastering, then subsequent decisions with levels and EQ are based on this effect being present, and it is now part of the sound. You'd have to make a series of assumptions in attempt to unwind the processing.
Reading the expander thread back and forth and the explanation what the 19.4kHz tone does for example this whole thing must be more like an attempt to craete a sound jsdyson thinks is good sound.
It may sound ok but i doubt it has much to do with Dolby A decoding.
I can't see how to do it correctly without original reference files. Thinking some ABBA CDs are flat transfers without decoding is a stretch imho.

Is troll-adiposity coming from feederism?
With 24bit music you can listen to silence much louder!

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #28
the majority of CDs sound [...] flat in space and time
-> 8.

Hydrogenaudio is supposed to be an objectively minded community that relies on double-blind testing and relevant methods of comparison in discussion about sound quality. The usual "audiophile" speak of non-audio related terms which are completely subjective and open to redefinition on a whim, are useless for any sort of progression in discussion.

This rule is the very core of Hydrogenaudio, so it is very important that you follow it.
Is 24-bit/192kHz good enough for your lo-fi vinyl, or do you need 32/384?

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #29
I've got Abba Gold and Abba greatest Hits.   I never noticed anything wrong.     (And their music has "grown on me"...  I like it more now than when it was released. ;) )  

It seems to me that CDs are generally brighter than most records, but my perception is that most records sounded somewhat dull.       It was rare to find a "clean", "bright" record, at least in the rock & popular genres that I was listening to.    When the disco era came-along I started hearing a lot more high-end.  Maybe some of those "clean" records had Aphex and maybe there was just some general improvement as technology improved.    Near the end of vinyl, the recordings seemed to get "more consistent" and maybe  that had something to do with digital recording.



Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #30
I listened to the "Gold" compilation, and it is indeed exceptionally bright, and similar to the compression from Dolby encoding. None of the studio albums on CD are so harsh, and I based my opinion on the albums. Another compilation "Thank You for the Music" is described as having boosted treble, but I've not heard that. So that makes 3 exceptions along with "More Gold". It doesn't seem worth processing the compilation if better copies on complete albums are available, except for select non-album tracks. Out of the albums, "Arrival" sounds a slightly dull and soft, like a multi-generation copy. Other albums are fine.

Decoding does seem to make "Gold" bearable, as does turning down the treble, but and I can't say which change is objectively correct. Listening to the whole compilation critically is hard without getting used to it over time. Dealing with standard 15/50 ┬Ás emphasis is much easier, as there are only two choices to try.

 

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #31
I listened to Gold last night and while there is an "edge" and traces of siblance on the voices on some songs, it wasn't as bad as I recalled from memory, so either so much for my current ears...or memory.
Whatever the case, the idea that it has anything to do with CD is vinylphile/digital disorder nonsense.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #32
As far as I know blind tests have already been conducted between DSD and PCM and people couldn't hear a difference, despite the fact that DSD seems to be a broken format according to a paper published by Stanley Lipshitz and James Vanderkooy, which just shows us how forgiving our ears really are.
The faults are typically about 100dB below the music, so never audible. It was more an objection on principle.

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #33
The faults are typically about 100dB below the music, so never audible
...and >20k

cheers,

AJ
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: Undecoded Dolby A: Why People Complain That Digital Sounds Harsh

Reply #34
As far as I know blind tests have already been conducted between DSD and PCM and people couldn't hear a difference, despite the fact that DSD seems to be a broken format according to a paper published by Stanley Lipshitz and James Vanderkooy, which just shows us how forgiving our ears really are.
The faults are typically about 100dB below the music, so never audible. It was more an objection on principle.
Yes, exactly. I don't get positively excited when I see DSD printed somewhere, since I know any difference in format isn't audible. About that paper, though, the errors above 20 kHz were many, so I also got the impression that the paper was simply a demonstration of how DSD actually somewhat destroys the signal rather than improves upon compared to PCM - and hence DSD was just another marketing ploy.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"
- Christopher Hitchens
"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge"
- Sam Harris

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2018