neilwilkes
Group: Members
Posts: 10
Joined: June 2010 |
 |
Posted: June 30 2010, 08:16 |
 |
| Quote (alejandra @ June 30 2010, 07:11) | | If you keep on saying loud enough that there are "faulty" copies of the Ommadawn DVD because there is a "subliminal message..." etc. etc. without any ACTUAL EVIDENCE time after time it will soon become internet truth though who knows, POSSIBLY, you MIGHT be wrong. Dolby digital may be inferior to DTS, but ...HORRIBLE??? ...don't tell me...(I would have preferred DTS of course). This whole discussion about faulty Ommadawns that turn out to sound exactly the same as the replacement copies some people are being sent is getting on my nerves a little bit. Imagine someone had said that that (IMHO) terrible jangly guitar-dobro-orwhateveritis in the middle of Hergest Ridge part 1 was due to a technical defect in the DVD manufacturing process- then repeat the story again and again and...Hey, "the Hergest Ridge Faulty Discs Urban Legend" has been born... "have you got that faulty copy where the jangly guitar guitar sounds louder than in my copy?". All this is said with a constructive spirit, no offence intended. |
I am NOT saying their are faulty copies around.
Please re-read & try to see what I am saying.
All I am asking is for the person who says he has got a faulty copy to please post the hub number because that will tell us - there is nothing wrong with my copy (apart from DD - more on this in a moment) and a different hub number tells us that a different master was used.
That is all.
FWIW, I agree that alleged "faults" can cause issues - especially when they are non existent. As a DVD author, and surround mixer/mastering engineer myself, I am well aware that 99% of all problems with surround, DVD and players is caused by setup not being right on the player, it's firmware or the amplifier. Every time I put out a title, I get the predictable "it doesn't work properly" mails forwarded to me by the label, and in almost every case it is a setup issue, and where it is not a setup issue it is usually buggy player firmware.
That being said, it can happen that a bad encoding will be replaced in a second edition - quietly. This has happened to me, when a disc that had the Video_TS supplied had a bad encoding in it that went silent 2 minutes before the end. We replaced every faulty copy even though not out fault. So it does happen. There have been at least 4 versions of Queen's 5.1 mix of ANATO. Changes are minor, but they are there.
Dolby Digital is horrible. It sounds nothing like the 24-bit 48kHz files do, the transients are smeared to hell and the top end goes non directional above 15kHz at 448kbps, and at 10kHz with 384kbps bitrates.
In this series - and I bought all 3 so far - who decided that the video needed the bulk of the bitrate? These are classic albums, and they deserve better than having most of the audio data thrown away. 6 channels at 5.1 with a resolution of 24/96 is 13,840kbps. 24/48 is just under 7,000kbps (6910 to be exact) and Dolby Digital is 448 - less than 0.5 compared to the original of 6.91Mbps.
DTS is much, much better - despite the fact that it is also lossy, it can be used at 24/96 and still go on a DVD-V disc using the same bitrate as a stereo LPCM stream at 16/48 resolution. The difference is like night & day.
Dolby is barely acceptable for film work, for music it is unacceptable to my ears. All that happens is that I wonder what the mix engineer thinks when he realises he has wasted his time mixing properly, as the bulk of the work will be tossed out.
|
