Warning Do Not buy DVD Audio on Silverline Label

[hershon]

I was a fool and should have used common sense and not bought any DVD Audio's by this company. I originally bought the Searchers (UK 60's group) greatest hits DVD-A on the Silverline Label and it was a total ripoff. It looks like this album wasn't remixed but just had the two channels transferred to more channels at different volumes. English related companies have a habit of thinking the consumer is a fool and propulgate this crap. They have the nerve to write stunning surround sound on the back of this! In this case I was the fool because I just bought an a DVD Audio of the 60's jazz rock group Colosseum on this label and I was suspicious when I didn't see anything pertaining to a remix on the back of this. So I strongly advise anyone not to buy any DVD-Audios on this label which has quite alot of titles out. I'd also recommend not being a DVD Audio unless you see the words remixed by on the back.

[Woochifer]

This is probably more a consequence of the original recording more than anything having to do with Silverline specifically.

Depending on how many tracks were used in the original recording and how the original sound elements were arranged, there might not be a whole lot of improvement that a 5.1 repurposing can accomplish. In the 60s, it was common to use only four to eight tracks in the original recordings, which doesn't leave a lot for a 5.1 remix to work off of. However, all DVD-As and SACDs also contain high resolution two-channel tracks, most of which offer up audible improvements in sound quality over the CD version, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

The main improvements that a DVD-A or SACD transfer/remix can accomplish are:

1) remastering a two-channel recording to two-channel DVD-A or SACD can yield better audio quality by improving upon the CD transfer; there are plenty of two-channel DVD-A and SACD discs out there;

2) by going back to the original multitracked masters, you can now have much better audio quality because the mixdown using higher res digital equipment is no affected by the sonic degradations of older analog recorders, and

3) you can now repurpose and rearrange the tracks for a more solid and well defined stereo image, depending on how the original recording was done.

Keep in mind that a lot of older classical recordings were originally recorded live to three-channels with a discrete center channel, which is what Bell Labs' research found to better image a live recording than two-channel back in the 30s. For those types of recordings, a multichannel DVD-A would actually be a more ideal representation of the original session, because the center channel is now discrete rather than mixed down to two-channels. The only reason why two-channel wound up as the consumer playback of choice is because the dominant vinyl medium was only capable of two channels. It's only now with higher res formats like DVD-A and SACD that the bitrates are sufficient to support uncompressed high quality playback with more than two discrete channels.

If you're not using an actual DVD-A player and only listening to the DD or DTS track, then you're missing half of the purported improvement that the format offers -- namely the higher resolution.

[hershon]

I'm assuming I am listening through a DVD-A player. To quote myself in another thread, "It looks like my DVD/Reciever definately plays DVD-A's correct. The front cover of the instruction manual says it plays DVD-A and so do a bunch of other pages. The following lights up on my DVD player when I'm playing DVD-A, the DVD-A button lights up, I then get the writing PPCM (for when DVD Audio Packed PCM signals go on whatever that means), LFE (low frequency effect atteuator, whatever that means) and something called B.S.P. (I have no idea what that is whatsoever) & the words digital auto auto surround sound on my receiver." Assuming I am then listening to this properly, my expectation were that everything on DVD-A should sound like Yes's "Fragile". Instead as you said, because of limitations, abscence of original multitrack masters, etc., there is a limitation of what can be done with these type of albums on DVD-A. That would be fine but these DVD-A's should say that as I never would have bought these DVD-A's if I knew there wasn't going to be a night and day difference between that and the regular CD. To me it reminds me of a practice done in the 60's called reprocessed stereo which basically wasn't stereo at all and another act of defrauding the ignorant public.


This is probably more a consequence of the original recording more than anything having to do with Silverline specifically.

Depending on how many tracks were used in the original recording and how the original sound elements were arranged, there might not be a whole lot of improvement that a 5.1 repurposing can accomplish. In the 60s, it was common to use only four to eight tracks in the original recordings, which doesn't leave a lot for a 5.1 remix to work off of. However, all DVD-As and SACDs also contain high resolution two-channel tracks, most of which offer up audible improvements in sound quality over the CD version, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

The main improvements that a DVD-A or SACD transfer/remix can accomplish are:

1) remastering a two-channel recording to two-channel DVD-A or SACD can yield better audio quality by improving upon the CD transfer; there are plenty of two-channel DVD-A and SACD discs out there;

2) by going back to the original multitracked masters, you can now have much better audio quality because the mixdown using higher res digital equipment is no affected by the sonic degradations of older analog recorders, and

3) you can now repurpose and rearrange the tracks for a more solid and well defined stereo image, depending on how the original recording was done.

Keep in mind that a lot of older classical recordings were originally recorded live to three-channels with a discrete center channel, which is what Bell Labs' research found to better image a live recording than two-channel back in the 30s. For those types of recordings, a multichannel DVD-A would actually be a more ideal representation of the original session, because the center channel is now discrete rather than mixed down to two-channels. The only reason why two-channel wound up as the consumer playback of choice is because the dominant vinyl medium was only capable of two channels. It's only now with higher res formats like DVD-A and SACD that the bitrates are sufficient to support uncompressed high quality playback with more than two discrete channels.

If you're not using an actual DVD-A player and only listening to the DD or DTS track, then you're missing half of the purported improvement that the format offers -- namely the higher resolution.

[N. Abstentia]

Yeah like Woochifer said if the recording is not done good in the first place, DVD-A sure isn't going to fix it.

I have Queensryche's Tribe on Silverline DVD-A, it's outstanding. You can't lump all Silverline releases together as bad just because of one recording that was done 40 years ago.

[hershon]

Some of the recordings I've been talking about actually do sound good as regular CD's. The problem is that if I buy a DVD-A I expect to here music jumping out in all 4 channels like Yes's Fragile but in the case of my Silverline releases (according to NAbsentia they do put out some good DVD-A's though I haven't experienced that) while the sound as good and maybe even slightly better than the regular Cd, the music doesn't jump at you from 4 speakers which is what I'm looking for.
Yeah like Woochifer said if the recording is not done good in the first place, DVD-A sure isn't going to fix it.

I have Queensryche's Tribe on Silverline DVD-A, it's outstanding. You can't lump all Silverline releases together as bad just because of one recording that was done 40 years ago.

[N. Abstentia]

On a side note, I just realized that the Bruce Dickinson Balls to Picasso DVD-A that I've been pi$$ing and moaning about for days because it sounds so crappy is in fact a Silverline release!

How can they take something so good and screw it up so bad?

[Woochifer]

Some of the recordings I've been talking about actually do sound good as regular CD's. The problem is that if I buy a DVD-A I expect to here music jumping out in all 4 channels like Yes's Fragile but in the case of my Silverline releases (according to NAbsentia they do put out some good DVD-A's though I haven't experienced that) while the sound as good and maybe even slightly better than the regular Cd, the music doesn't jump at you from 4 speakers which is what I'm looking for.

The thing about music jumping out from all speakers is that it's the engineer/producer/musician's discretion as to how the 5.1 remix distributes the channels. Some surround music discs aim more for the "seat in the audience" type of sound where the recording is intended to sound like a live performance with the musicians solidly up front and the surrounds only used to convey the acoustics of the concert venue. Among the discs I've heard from Chesky, DMP, and Telarc, this is how they do their mixes, and I understand that it's also the preferred approach with a lot of other classical and jazz music labels.

Other discs try to put you in the middle of the stage with the instruments literally surrounding you. It's like the live audience approach, except that instead of the middle of the audience, you're now up on stage with the musicians. This type of approach has more surround activity, but still maintains the imaging of a live performance.

The other type of approach is to create a completely different sonic environment. Some would call this the "artistic" approach to mixing surround music. A lot of these recordings will try to immerse you inside of a piano or purposely put different instruments behind you, etc.

In the case of your DVD-As, it completely depends on the source material available. If the original session masters were only four track tapes, then there's not a lot that can be done to add to that in a 5.1 mix.

If you want music to jump out at you from all channels, then you need to look for newer music that was originally recorded after 24, 32, and/or 48 track consoles became more widely available. At least there, the engineer has more material to steer into the surround channels, without it sounding ridiculous.