The Rolling Stones – Hackney Diamonds : Will stereo high resolution be better than Dolby Atmos?

[Jean.Francois]

Hello,
The Rolling Stones are back with their 24th studio album “Hackney Diamonds”, 7 years after “Blue and Lonesome”, which was a covers album, and 18 years after “A Bigger Bang”, which consisted of original songs.

For this album, 3 versions are tested: Amazon Music UltraHD in 24 bits 96kHz, Tidal MAX flac in 24 bits 96 kHz and Tidal Dolby Atmos.
The waveform of the stereo versions is without comment, with significant use of dynamics compression (DR5) as shown in the curve below:

Tidal (or Amazon) Waveform

When you zoom in, as shown in the curve below, you can see that the dynamics compression is not clean and that there are small areas of clipping (red circles):

Zoom in the Tidal Waveform

If we compare with the Atmos version downmixed in stereo (curve below), we can see that the dynamic range has been preserved (DR12):

waveform : Tidal Atmos downmised in 2.0

The Dolby Atmos mix expands the front soundstage by making the most of the side channels in terms of spatialization.

Average spatialization (Atmos 7.1.4)

When you listen to it, on the one hand you have a high-resolution stereo version (24/96) that's rather in-your-face with the dynamics compression, unlike the Dolby Atmos version, which provides much more precision and dynamics, which is noticeable when you increase the volume, the Dolby Atmos version having more impact even in stereo downmix.

You can find the extracts to compare as well as all the measurements here.

Enjoy your listening.
Jean-François

 

[voodooless]

The waveform of the stereo versions is without comment, with significant use of dynamics compression (DR5) as shown in the curve below:
View attachment 320115
Tidal (or Amazon) Waveform

Why do they even bother?

 

[Jean.Francois]

Why do they even bother?

It's always the principle of the volume war: if one track is louder than another, we tend to prefer the louder track. It's a constant trend that we'd like to see reduced or eliminated, like on Steven Wilson's latest album.

 

[voodooless]

It's always the principle of the volume war: if one track is louder than another, we tend to prefer the louder track. It's a constant trend that we'd like to see reduced or eliminated, like on Steven Wilson's latest album.

Yeah, thanks captain obvious

You’d think that by now it would be time to stop this nonsense one and for all? These guys were around long before the “war” started, and don’t need to make an album this way anymore. They are way too old for this.

 

[Jean.Francois]

Yeah, thanks captain obvious

You’d think that by now it would be time to stop this nonsense one and for all? These guys were around long before the “war” started, and don’t need to make an album this way anymore. They are way too old for this.

Sorry for stating the obvious

I've already spoken to sound engineers who've told me that it's the record companies that control the mastering and dictate that it sounds loud. The artist often doesn't validate the result after mastering.

 

[JeremyFife]

What's the betting that the vinyl release, when it comes .. in multiple coloured/marbled/spattered editions at a stupid price ... sounds better than that stereo master! Not that I'll listen to any of them.
It's just a bit sad.

 

[SSS]

Who cares? Rolling Stones music was and is distorted and loud. Thats the way it is. It's only Rock'n'Roll but I like it from my youth on.

 

[GD Fan]

It definitely sounds pretty compressed. Always easy to tell - sounds slightly shrill so you turn it down and still it sounds like it's on full blast. Obviously Metallica is one of the "best" known for this because of Death Magnetic but the worst example I have heard was Gary Clark's Blak and Blu. Even at low volume I couldn't get through a single song.

Hackney may not prove to be a Stones classic but the boys sound good and there are a few good cuts. Glad to have them back!

 

[anmpr1]

Who cares? Rolling Stones music was and is distorted and loud. Thats the way it is. It's only Rock'n'Roll but I like it from my youth on.

I've written this before. Years ago I bought the Sticky Fingers MFSL record. I probably still have it, somewhere. Anyhow, it was the typical full-blown Mobile Fidelity thing. Half speed master, JVC super vinyl, special electronics for mastering, and all of that. On the front of the loose plastic sleeve was a sticker. Paraphrasing, it advised the reader: The distortion you hear on this record is a trademark of the band, and not a flaw in this record!

And to tell you the truth, you could pick out a lot in the mix that you couldn't tell so well in the regular release. But you know what? All that clear and clean made it sound phony. Didn't really sound the way a RS record ought to sound.

 

[SSS]

I've written this before. Years ago I bought the Sticky Fingers MFSL record. I probably still have it, somewhere. Anyhow, it was the typical full-blown Mobile Fidelity thing. Half speed master, JVC super vinyl, special electronics for mastering, and all of that. On the front of the loose plastic sleeve was a sticker. Paraphrasing, it advised the reader: The distortion you hear on this record is a trademark of the band, and not a flaw in this record!

And to tell you the truth, you could pick out a lot in the mix that you couldn't tell so well in the regular release. But you know what? All that clear and clean made it sound phony. Didn't really sound the way a RS record ought to sound.

Yes, and if it is too clear one may hear the non-harmonic notes from Keith.

 

[DSJR]

UK interview with Keith Richards tells us he likes his rock analogue and arguably via LP record!!! he finds 'digital' too clean. I can't remember whether it was a BBC interview -

Keith Richards: Arthritis changed my guitar-playing

The Rolling Stones star on re-learning his instrument, Lady Gaga, and going back on the road.

www.bbc.co.uk

"I like real," says Richards."We actually cut this record primarily for vinyl. It's by far the best sound, if you want to listen to a record properly.
"Digital is toy town. It's synthesizers. And now you have AI, which is even even more superficial and artificial. Vinyl gives you what's real and I prefer to hear it that way."
The last track is the perfect example - just Mick and Keith standing around a microphone, riffing on the Muddy Waters song that gave the band its name, Rolling Stone Blues.

Sad if the two channel digital release has been deliberately hobbled as appears to be

 

[anmpr1]

Yes, and if it is too clear one may hear the non-harmonic notes from Keith.

I recall a story about Charles Ives and his publisher. He sent in one of his scores, and received a query about the notes. Were they 'wrong'? He wrote back, "No, no. They are supposed to be like that. Don't worry."

 

[anmpr1]

Sad if the two channel digital release has been deliberately hobbled as appears to be

Here's the thing. First, you are dealing with 80 year old ears.

Second, with electric music, nothing is going to be 'accurate' or 'reproducible'. An electric guitar played through various pedals (I don't know Richard's board) and whatever amp he is using? That's never going to sound the same way played twice. Who knows how it went down in the studio, and in a 'live' setting it's all going to be different, each time.

And in any case the recording is just a snapshot of whatever went through the mixing board. Wait a few years for the 'remaster'. It's only rock 'n roll, whether you like it.

 

[DVDdoug]

That's sad... Hopefully the music is good and doesn't sound as bad as it looks...

if one track is louder than another, we tend to prefer the louder track.

Who is "we"?

Sometimes I want to like a song or a band and it seems to sound good but it doesn't do anything for me emotionally. Then I wonder if it's because it's over-compressed. Or, maybe it's just because I'm old and I like my old rock & roll!

I've already spoken to sound engineers who've told me that it's the record companies that control the mastering and dictate that it sounds loud. The artist often doesn't validate the result after mastering.

Usually, yes. But I suspect The Rolling Stones have the last word at this point in their career.

"I like real," says Richards."We actually cut this record primarily for vinyl. It's by far the best sound, if you want to listen to a record properly.

I don't give a lot of credibility to what musicians say. Often they are listening to the music rather than the "sound".. Plus, Keith Richard's hearing is probably shot! Personally, I like both... good music through a good sound system. A few years ago it was Neil Young pushing high-resolution.

 

[solderdude]

Poor sound quality... lots of hard clipping (beyond repair even with declipper) and dynamic compression all in an attempt to get it as loud as possible.

Alas...

 

[anmpr1]

Poor sound quality... lots of hard clipping (beyond repair even with declipper) and dynamic compression all in an attempt to get it as loud as possible.

That has always been the Stones sound. To 'repair' it would be to make it something that it is not intended to be.

 

[Timcognito]

Oop-de-do Shattered, Shattered

 

[solderdude]

Loud is O.K.... clipped is not.
Poor mastering there is no excuse for it even when it is to create a sound. Willing to bet live may well be compressed and hitting limiters but not that hard limiters.

 

[levimax]

That has always been the Stones sound. To 'repair' it would be to make it something that it is not intended to be.

Not really, listen to Let it Bleed and Beggars Banquet on the ABCKO SACD's... the sound quality is fine with decent dynamics

 

[mhardy6647]

Not really, listen to Let it Bleed and Beggars Banquet on the ABCKO SACD's... the sound quality is fine with decent dynamics

I was gonna mention that as well. Let it Bleed is, by and large, remarkably fine sounding in those DSD remasters of... when was it? The late '90s? Turn of the century?
Come to think of it, I have Beggars Banquet on SACD that I picked up somewhere... I've actually never even listened to it!