Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms, Roxy Music, Prince coming to blu-ray Audio Dolby Atmos. Blu-ray: The New Ultimate Standard for Audiophiles?

[NTTY]

It sounds for me as I remember playing the old track on my Philips (with tda1541). I can imagine, that they mastered it the old days for the sounding of the 1541 and this is the reason why some songs perform better on it.

It had no sound, and that was not the only DAC at the time. BTW, it was only a DAC, and required a companion chip for the oversampling and filtering (most being the Philips SAA7220, but not only). And if a sound was to be attributed to the TDA1541, that would have been the one of the oversampling filter, I think (and measured, but failed to hear).

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

Wasn't that the most common chip combination for a warm sound? Perhaps with second-order harmonic distortion that suited the song and was now added? I had the impression that the 2022 version sounded warmer, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Both versions are on Spotify.

 

[NTTY]

Hi,
Warm, no I don’t think. For that you’d need the FR to show significant deviations, and it was not the case.
On a THD perspective, all were low enough (-100dBr or so) to remain hidden into musical content.
Have a look at this review of the Rotel B 266s which was using a TDA1541A in a selected S1 version with its standard SAA7220 filter, and compare it with an interesting implementation of dual TDA1541A in staggered mode fed by a Sony digital filter (CXD1144) in the Sony CDP-337ESD.
The later is interesting because overall performances are very close to what Sony achieved in the CDP-557ESD at the same period, which was also using the CXD1144 filter but with BurrBrown DACs instead of Philips, and these are a little more linear (because of their laser trimming).

 

[EJ3]

Hi,
Warm, no I don’t think. For that you’d need the FR to show significant deviations, and it was not the case.
On a THD perspective, all were low enough (-100dBr or so) to remain hidden into musical content.
Have a look at this review of the Rotel B 266s which was using a TDA1541A in a selected S1 version with its standard SAA7220 filter, and compare it with an interesting implementation of dual TDA1541A in staggered mode fed by a Sony digital filter (CXD1144) in the Sony CDP-337ESD.
The later is interesting because overall performances are very close to what Sony achieved in the CDP-557ESD at the same period, which was also using the CXD1144 filter but with BurrBrown DACs instead of Philips, and these are a little more linear (because of their laser trimming).

There may be intent by a manufacturer on a "house sound". Which likely would be found in the measurements. Same, if there actually was something wrong.
Otherwise, when done right (and the measurement differences are inaudible to the human ear, making the differences imperceptible) and therefore nothing is wrong, one will not sound different than another in double blind (or likely not in even just blind testing but it is not likely that the person doing the switching can NOT infer one over the other).
But their is very likely differences in our "learned" bias if we think that we know ahead of time which unit is which.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

Hi,
Warm, no I don’t think. For that you’d need the FR to show significant deviations, and it was not the case.
On a THD perspective, all were low enough (-100dBr or so) to remain hidden into musical content.
Have a look at this review of the Rotel B 266s which was using a TDA1541A in a selected S1 version with its standard SAA7220 filter, and compare it with an interesting implementation of dual TDA1541A in staggered mode fed by a Sony digital filter (CXD1144) in the Sony CDP-337ESD.
The later is interesting because overall performances are very close to what Sony achieved in the CDP-557ESD at the same period, which was also using the CXD1144 filter but with BurrBrown DACs instead of Philips, and these are a little more linear (because of their laser trimming).

OK! I have now read the reviews and have to admit that -100dB is not perceptible and certainly not warmer. However, the measurement was made at 1kHz. A 50Hz measurement would also be interesting to see if there is a 100Hz harmonic. But I think that's unlikely, because there was nothing special to see in the multitone measurement. Maybe some bass or harmonics have been added to the 2022 version. It sounds better to me. For me, the individual instruments sound more natural and I can distinguish them better.

 

[EJ3]

OK! I have now read the reviews and have to admit that -100dB is not perceptible and certainly not warmer. However, the measurement was made at 1kHz. A 50Hz measurement would also be interesting to see if there is a 100Hz harmonic. But I think that's unlikely, because there was nothing special to see in the multitone measurement. Maybe some bass or harmonics have been added to the 2022 version. It sounds better to me. For me, the individual instruments sound more natural and I can distinguish them better.

I admit that some CD player's seem to sound better to me than others (usually much, much older units and/or very inexpensive ones are the ones sounding pretty bad).
I do not think that I can tell most newer unit's apart by sound (but usually can by quality or the lack there of).
I like my sound to be at a point of sameness at the start, so that I can use the same settings in my processor loop to whatever I am sending through my system. One setting of the EQ's for whatever is coming through & being sent to the amps (it is a tri-amped system, one stereo amp at 4 Ohms for the subs & one amp for each of the mains after the pre-out from the processor loop).
That way, whatever the source, I just play it.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

I admit that some CD player's seem to sound better to me than others (usually much, much older units and/or very inexpensive ones).
I do not think that I can tell most newer unit's apart by sound (but usually can by quality or the lack there of).
I like my sound to be at a point of sameness at the start, so that I can use the same settings in my processor loop to whatever I am sending through my system. One setting of the EQ's for whatever is coming through & being sent to the amps (it is a tri-amped system, one stereo amp at 4 Ohms for the subs & one amp for each of the mains after the pre-out from the processor loop).
That way, whatever the source, I just play it.

I remember hearing the signal of a cheap Bluray player via RCA in my SC-LX57. Very bad, blurred sound, little stage... Then I connected the same one optically and thus used the ESS Sabre32 Ultra of the pioneer. Much better stage available - was fun. Then optically to my Sabaj a20D and then to the Pioneer. I was able to switch directly. A little more detailed. It was as if (compared to a TV picture) the Pioneer had set the contrast slider a little too high. Then (unfortunately without being able to switch quickly) my D5Pro as an amplifier. I had the impression that with intense drums the guitars could be heard better and the bass was even more accentuated.

 

[Matt S]

The reference is the original. Remixes have no intrinsic, historical or artistic value. Just another boring cash grab, milking the poor, worn out, old cash-cow one more time.

These Atmos remixes say goodbye to the loudness wars which ruined the listening experience for so much music.

I too am working my way through the Apple atmos catalogue (so not a cash cow) and have a number of blurays. Dynamics reign supreme and whilst the odd mix is questionable from a surround perspective, this has been my most enjoyable music journey in years.

 

[Matt S]

from the same link the author strongly recommends listening in multichannel and notes that the recent BluRay version has the closest EQ to the original.

injecting some opinion, I find it awfully close minded to suggest the oldest form of a thing is the most pure, from which any deviation is necessarily undesirable. if talented and well resourced mix engineers are given the opportunity to recreate a mix using modern approaches, and the original artists not only have sponsored this effort but given their blessing to the end result, why should we not consider it a legitimate candidate. in this case, everyone who has heard these bluray versions gushes over them.

"Awfully close minded" I completely agree with you. Very audiophile like, eh?!

I've found Steve Wilson's remixes to be generally excellent. I also really enjoyed Ken Scott's work on Bowie's Ziggy Stardust.

Music made specifically for the format stuns - check out some of Max Cooper's work.

Some multichannel music is a bit of experimental fun. Some is pure brilliance. If we dont like it, we can downmix to stereo and generally have a more dynamic version than is available from streaming or even CD, unless you can find older CD albums.

Bloomin' great!

 

[Frank Dernie]

Going back to first principles what is actually recorded in these early recordings?
Certainly not multiple height channels, probably not more than 2 surround channels and what was the ambience they were trying to record?
That of a the recording studio it was made in or a synthesised one?

Whatever it was, apart from actual live recordings at a concert with enough ambience microphones every spatial effect in any Atmos release is synthesised to somebodies taste not real.

I can see that getting dynamic range back to a bit more normal has great attraction but I have mainly early pre-loudness wars CDs so

 

[Matt S]

Going back to first principles what is actually recorded in these early recordings?
Certainly not multiple height channels, probably not more than 2 surround channels and what was the ambience they were trying to record?
That of a the recording studio it was made in or a synthesised one?

Whatever it was, apart from actual live recordings at a concert with enough ambience microphones every spatial effect in any Atmos release is synthesised to somebodies taste not real.

I can see that getting dynamic range back to a bit more normal has great attraction but I have mainly early pre-loudness wars CDs so

Likewise you could argue that stereo heavily restricted what was possible. Mics at every instrument/vocalist - squeezed into a two channel recording, and actually also then mastered to the taste of the engineer. Didn't Bowie (or one of the band) complain that the drums on the original Ziggy Stardust recording sounded like someone hitting a cereal box?

But your point is valid, and some engineers are better than others. We don't need a singers voice coming from behind us, but using additional speakers to widen the soundstage for example, works a treat.

It lends itself very well to live, as you say. The music made specifically for multi channel reproduction is extremely good indeed.

Give it a try if you can.

 

[Matt S]

Hello,


More than a year ago, article titled "Blu-ray “pure” audio: a format for the future?" raised the inquiry regarding whether Blu-ray represents the future format for audio..
When is it today?
View attachment 439287

For a start, announcements of forthcoming releases are on the increase, with flagship albums such as :
Dire Straits - Brothers in Arms
Elton John and Brandi Carlile - Who Believes In Angels
Roxy Music / Avalon
Prince and the Revolution - Purple Rain



In just over a year, more and more albums have been released in Blu-ray format, featuring the Dolby Atmos track in Lossless Dolby Digital TrueHD format.
But also, by offering a stereo track without dynamic compression, as with Tears For Fears' “Songs for a Nervous Planet” or Ultravox's “Lament”, thus proposing an audiophile approach to this medium.
Also worthy of note is the superb Steven Wilson - The overview, a reference in terms of Dolby Atmos mixing.


Often in special, limited editions from SDE, or more and more widely distributed editions (Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stone…).

Just take a look at some of the titles released since June 2023 to see the diversity and the presence of some very well-known singers and bands:

• Pet Shop Boys “Nonetheless”
• With The Pineapple Thief “It Leads To This”, we realized that bluray was the most audiophile medium, offering the best audio quality.
• Pink Floyd “Animals”
• Paul Young “No Parlez”
• Mark Knopfler “One Deep River”
• John Williams "John Williams in Tokyo"
• Alphaville’s “Forever Young”
• David Gilmour “Luck and Strange”
• Steven Wilson “The Harmony Codex”
• Pink Floyd “The Dark Side Of The Moon”
• The Rolling Stones “Hackney Diamonds”
• Peter Gabriel “i/o”
• Mike Oldfield “Tubular Bells”
• Serge Gainsbourg “L’homme à tête de chou”
• The Alan Parsons Project “Pyramid”
• Ultravox “Lament “
• The Cure “Songs of A Lost World”
• Simple Minds “New Gold Dream (81–82–83–84)”
• ...

This is not the case for all albums, but the trend continues.


In parallel, there is also an alternative distribution of the Dolby Atmos track in the Lossless Dolby Digital TrueHD format, with dematerialized music sales sites such as:
https://shop.2l.no, https://immersiveaudioalbum.com, https://www.nativedsd.com
For example
The Tsuyoshi Yamamoto Trio is back with a new album, “A Shade Of Blue”.
Madeleine Peyroux - Let's Walk


The big winner is the Dolby Digital TrueHD Atmos format, and some editions also feature an uncompressed dynamic stereo track, providing the audiophile quality required for stereo and Atmos music reproduction.


We're still a long way from widespread distribution, but we can only hope that the spread of Dolby Atmos in Lossless and stereo without loudness war continues to develop, whether in physical Blu-ray or dematerialized formats.
And who knows, maybe one day a streaming service will be available with the Dolby Atmos TrueHD format. And for stereo with or without loudness war!

Enjoy listening,
Jean-François

A huge thank you Jean-Francois, for your review and detailed analysis of many albums. You very clearly enjoy your hobby from a music and technical perspective.

 

[EJ3]

So now I have to have more gear, so I need to buy a new home with a bigger room, so I can have a place to put it?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
It is a cash grab, no question..
Because they don't do it for gear that most already have, too. I would buy new mixes for what I have (at least of stuff I do not already have that I was interested in. And I have an oPPo 205 UDP.
Sorry, AUDIO INDUSTRY but I refuse to be goaded into buying more for something "better" because you did not do it right to begin with.
I have probably 30 years more life with the audio industry, but my life is arranged that I am NOT spending extra for a new format. It's not the gear itself, but the same biggest problem as QUADRAPHONIC had: Where to put the extra (great quality) speakers to make it happen and the expenses involved in doing that.
If I did not already have my home where I wanted it & sized the way I wanted it, optimized for the way I use it, maybe. But to incorporate this stuff properly: NOT DOING IT. At least not now, in the home that I am in now.
4.2, maybe 5.2 is it. the .something may become more, but that is it for the foreseeable future
Maybe if I win the lottery & can build a new home while tearing the old home down. In the meantime, this ATMOS segment of the hobby just lost an advocate for better sound "THEIR WAY" because of the failings of doing it right to begin with.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Likewise you could argue that stereo heavily restricted what was possible. Mics at every instrument/vocalist - squeezed into a two channel recording, and actually also then mastered to the taste of the engineer. Didn't Bowie (or one of the band) complain that the drums on the original Ziggy Stardust recording sounded like someone hitting a cereal box?

But your point is valid, and some engineers are better than others. We don't need a singers voice coming from behind us, but using additional speakers to widen the soundstage for example, works a treat.

It lends itself very well to live, as you say. The music made specifically for multi channel reproduction is extremely good indeed.

Give it a try if you can.

I started making my amateur recordings in the 1960s on a mono valve tape recorder and learned straight away the thing that made the most difference to SQ was the microphone position.

As I upgraded my equipment and technique the kit got better and I learned more about microphone positioning but only ever recorded with 2 microphones and got the balance and ambience pickup by positioning them.
Some noise pickup is unavoidable but I still rarely, if ever, hear modern multi-track and mixed recordings that are as realistic as the old stuff recorded with 2 or 3 microphones, mine are very amateur but lots of early recordings have natural ambience pickup on a minimal microphone array.
With multi track and loads of microphones noise pickup is easily avoided but any ambience is synthetic. Maybe expectation bias but less convincing?

My son added me to his family Apple account after I cancelled mine due to almost never using it, so I -should- be able to give it a try if I can get passwords right quickly enough not to abandon it exasperated

 

[Matt S]

I started making my amateur recordings in the 1960s on a mono valve tape recorder and learned straight away the thing that made the most difference to SQ was the microphone position.

As I upgraded my equipment and technique the kit got better and I learned more about microphone positioning but only ever recorded with 2 microphones and got the balance and ambience pickup by positioning them.
Some noise pickup is unavoidable but I still rarely, if ever, hear modern multi-track and mixed recordings that are as realistic as the old stuff recorded with 2 or 3 microphones, mine are very amateur but lots of early recordings have natural ambience pickup on a minimal microphone array.
With multi track and loads of microphones noise pickup is easily avoided but any ambience is synthetic. Maybe expectation bias but less convincing?

My son added me to his family Apple account after I cancelled mine due to almost never using it, so I -should- be able to give it a try if I can get passwords right quickly enough not to abandon it exasperated

Do give it a try and be sure you give something like Max Cooper's On Being a go, which he made for multi channel.

 

[Matt S]

So now I have to have more gear, so I need to buy a new home with a bigger room, so I can have a place to put it?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
It is a cash grab, no question..
Because they don't do it for gear that most already have, too. I would buy new mixes for what I have (at least of stuff I do not already have that I was interested in. And I have an oPPo 205 UDP.
Sorry, AUDIO INDUSTRY but I refuse to be goaded into buying more for something "better" because you did not do it right to begin with.
I have probably 30 years more life with the audio industry, but my life is arranged that I am NOT spending extra for a new format. It's not the gear itself, but the same biggest problem as QUADRAPHONIC had: Where to put the extra (great quality) speakers to make it happen and the expenses involved in doing that.
If I did not already have my home where I wanted it & sized the way I wanted it, optimized for the way I use it, maybe. But to incorporate this stuff properly: NOT DOING IT. At least not now, in the home that I am in now.
4.2, maybe 5.2 is it. the .something may become more, but that is it for the foreseeable future
Maybe if I win the lottery & can build a new home while tearing the old home down. In the meantime, this ATMOS segment of the hobby just lost an advocate for better sound "THEIR WAY" because of the failings of doing it right to begin with.

I'm not sure the industry is going trying to force this on anyone and Dolby insisting on certain spec, and effectively sign off, means we are guaranteed good dynamics. I'm happy to see Apple really pushing this, even though their aim is more spatial audio under headphones..

My system is 4.1, Genelec and sits in a small bedroom which doubles as a home office. My outlay was two 8010 speakers for surround and changing my MiniDSP SHD for an HTx.

 

[EJ3]

I'm not sure the industry is going trying to force this on anyone and Dolby insisting on certain spec, and effectively sign off, means we are guaranteed good dynamics. I'm happy to see Apple really pushing this, even though their aim is more spatial audio under headphones..

My system is 4.1, Genelec and sits in a small bedroom which doubles as a home office. My outlay was two 8010 speakers for surround and changing my MiniDSP SHD for an HTx.

My thinking is that with the pushing of the new (and there always is a "Look at this, it's new, better, etc" push. And I am not saying that they should do this like the old way.
But why not do the old way with this sort of attention to detail & quality. A lot of folks, (maybe I'm wrong) I think, would be happy to replace their "LOUDNESS WARS" CD's & LP's with CD's & LP's that has the quality & dynamic range of this.
Then, they could sell that for which we have been clamoring for to us, as well as the new ATMOS stuff to those who have the space (or want to listen on headphones [something that I never WANT to do [although I do some]).
To me, the music is a social experience, on speakers, as the Klipsch folks like to say: loud & proud (one of many reasons why my wife & I have a single house & land). Not usually loud (one has to be able to talk without yelling, usually) but certainly you'll hear the music as you get close to the house.