"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Ferris]

Originally Posted by milou6

In the absence of a comparison most people think DD sounds great. How many people plug their ipods with horribly compressed music into their stereos and don't even notice that it sounds like garbage? My in-laws still get annoyed with me when I go to set-up and change audio tracks (DVD or BD), because those fews seconds of delay for them aren't worth the increase in quality.

My point here is not to disagree but that it comes again to the education of the user.

Very, very well said. There are many folks out there, believe it or not, who have very old receivers, or even none at all. These folks are more than content with the tools they have, even if they're 2 - 3 generations ago. The adage "Ignorance is bliss" comes to mind. Now, I'm not saying the audiophiles should quiet down or stop fighting for the best. What I'm saying is, we should all stop and recognize that not everyone has the supreme new-age THX-certified set-up for audio. So the "everyone knows" thought should really disappear, in my opinion.

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

There is no possible way that LOTR will ship with lossy audio

How confident are you for LOTR that we will get a Blu-ray optimization encode and not a small VC-1 encoded file at 13mbs?

[Woody]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

How confident are you for LOTR that we will get a Blu-ray optimization encode and not a small VC-1 encoded file at 13kbs?

Why wouldn't we? If it isn't Blu-ray optimized, what exactly would it be optimized for?

And I see nothing indicating WB will stop using VC1.

[WickyWoo]

How confident are you for LOTR that we will get a Blu-ray optimization encode and not a small VC-1 encoded file at 13mbs?

Reply hazy, ask again much later and much closer to actual release date (2010ish)

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by Woody

If it isn't Blu-ray optimized, what exactly would it be optimized for?

Uhhh...That was my point. I was using the VC-1 as a typical Warner example it seems these days.

[Mystery Clock]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

I also agree with you guys that, to the casual listener, the differences between lossless and lossy may not immediately be notable. However, as you mentioned, once you educate someone on what to listen for, the differences become fairly easy to pick out. I think this same issue comes up when educating people about video issues-- such as the recent notorious (dare I mention it) DNR "issues". The images look great to the casual viewer, but once you are cued in to the missing details, you can easily pick out the deficiencies of the image.

But there is a downside:

My wife has still not forgiven me for educating her on how to spot "Autotuned" vocals. Now, (almost) every time she listens to some of her country music she can spot it, and it bugs her at some level.

Keep in mind that the use of Autotune here in the Nashville area is about as common as Botox or plastic surgery in LA.

[ Smiling , Frowning , Sleeping , Singing , etc. ]

Sometimes ignorance is bliss for J6P. I still think lossless is best, of course, for many of the reasons you stated.

-John

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mystery Clock

But there is a downside:

My wife has still not forgiven me for educating her on how to spot "Autotuned" vocals. Now, (almost) every time she listens to some of her country music she can spot it, and it bugs her at some level.

Keep in mind that the use of Autotune here in the Nashville area is about as common as Botox or plastic surgery in LA.

[ Smiling , Frowning , Sleeping , Singing , etc. ]

Sometimes ignorance is bliss for J6P. I still think lossless is best, of course, for many of the reasons you stated.

-John

What is "autotune"? Thanks

[WickyWoo]

It's a program that allows sound engineers to correct the pitch of people's singing so they sound good on the record. Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson are both good examples of "artists" that use it extensively.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

It's a program that allows sound engineers to correct the pitch of people's singing so they sound good on the record. Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson are both good examples of "artists" that use it extensively.

Thats just plain WRONG.

How is it identified when listening to a song? If the singer sounds good, how will I know its been altered?

Thanks

[Mystery Clock]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

It's a program that allows sound engineers to correct the pitch of people's singing so they sound good on the record. Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson are both good examples of "artists" that use it extensively.

Virtually all artists use it these days it seems, I kid you not. For my favorite example try either the slow country version or (especially) fast pop version of Faith Hill's "This Kiss" - all the transitions between notes are pure vertical stair-step instead of a nice glissando. And the notes themselves are as flat as a tabletop...a monochrome hard plastic uniformly laminated tabletop. There is no natural micro-variations in pitch, no sense of vocal effort. Just appalling.

It is very much the "LA Face" of vocals treatments. Think super-heavy DNR for voices that results in a smooth, uniform result that ruins the original source... and that assumes the original was worth somethig to begin with.

-John

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mystery Clock

Virtually all artists use it these days it seems, I kid you not. For my favorite example try either the slow country version or (especially) fast pop version of Faith Hill's "This Kiss" - all the transitions between notes are pure vertical stair-step instead of a nice glissando. And the notes themselves are as flat as a tabletop...a monochrome hard plastic uniformly laminated tabletop. There is no natural micro-variations in pitch, no sense of vocal effort. Just appalling.

It is very much the "LA Face" of vocals treatments. Think super-heavy DNR for voices that results in a smooth, uniform result that ruins the original source... and that assumes the original was worth somethig to begin with.

-John

Uh oh. SO...they sound "perfect". From your description, which I totally get, they sound more like robots. Thats too bad, because I really enjoy LIVE albums where you can hear the many many imperfectios...it gives the song its own personality. I think I am going to be like your wife now. I am one of those people, who, when I see or hear a defect (DNR,EE) I become incapable of NOT seeing it, even If I TRY to ignore it.

Thank you for the explanation.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Mystery Clock

Virtually all artists use it these days it seems, I kid you not. For my favorite example try either the slow country version or (especially) fast pop version of Faith Hill's "This Kiss" - all the transitions between notes are pure vertical stair-step instead of a nice glissando. And the notes themselves are as flat as a tabletop...a monochrome hard plastic uniformly laminated tabletop. There is no natural micro-variations in pitch, no sense of vocal effort. Just appalling.

It is very much the "LA Face" of vocals treatments. Think super-heavy DNR for voices that results in a smooth, uniform result that ruins the original source... and that assumes the original was worth somethig to begin with.

-John

It's just odd since Faith can actually sing.

I know she isn't everyone's cup of tea but Christina Aguilera can knock your socks off a cappella .

[Mystery Clock]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's just odd since Faith can actually sing.

I know, and that's as much frustrating for me as anything -- a lot of these guys and gals can really belt it out. But there's the perception that they have to "conform" the releases to a certain standard that J6P wants, and so they're all plasticized to the nines.

Does the structure of that debate seem familiar, wrt. DNR?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I know she isn't everyone's cup of tea but Christina Aguilera can knock your socks off a cappella .

Did you hear hear belt out "Mother" on the Lennon Darfur CD? Wow! And I'm pretty jaded as you can tell, but.... WOW! Right at the end you can hear her reach waaay to the bottom of her boots to hit those big loud notes -- that's talent. And the Jackson Browne track "Oh, My Love" was simply beautiful, fragile and sincere.

And if either of those was Autotuned, I'll eat a raw tomato.

Truly, there is no substitute for talent.

-John

[Mr. Cinema]

This is in regards to the specs announced for L.A. Confidential. For whatever reason, WB has chosen to put this 138 minute feature with TrueHD audio and 90 minutes of extras all on a BD-25.

By comparison, Sony is using BD-50s for both I Know What You Did Last Summer (104 minutes, TrueHD, very few features) and Urban Legend (99 minutes, TrueHD, 10-minute featurette).

Why a BD-25 from WB?

[scott1256ca]

If you don't like things like autotune, do a search on "dynamic range compression" and cd. Here is one example
http://entertainment.timesonline.co....24.ece?pgnum=5

I read a better one a year ago, but it's not popping up.

If I recall that article correctly, after cd was introduced it took a couple of years before a recording was released where the "peak" was hit (either +32767 or -32768, I think).
Within a year or so another was released where the peak was hit more than once. According to that article it is now common for studios to hit the peak for multiple samples in a row (clipping) so that after it is converted back to analog and runs through the (required) lowpass filter in your cd player (or mp3 player), it will cause voltage levels to exceed what would be possible if clipping was avoided. All so it sounds louder than the competition to "distinguish itself". Problem is that it is now common practice.
Whoever the author of the article was claimed it was one reason why so much music that is produced now with the same sound, even though the artists are different. He partly blamed falling cd sales on the practice claiming that since people think it all sounds the same and since very little stands out, there is little reason to invest your money in it.

I haven't purchased a new cd in years, I don't download either, and the last 20 cd's I purchased were probably all classical.

One of the things I'm watching BD for is to see how much music comes out that 'hopefully' won't suffer from this.

Sorry, not really an insider question, but I'm sure Penton will chime in if he wants to.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's just odd since Faith can actually sing.

I know she isn't everyone's cup of tea but Christina Aguilera can knock your socks off a cappella .

Or Björk for that matter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc-bsBVbJEs

(vocals + Spanish guitars)

Britney couldn't sing live to save her life.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

This is in regards to the specs announced for L.A. Confidential. For whatever reason, WB has chosen to put this 138 minute feature with TrueHD audio and 90 minutes of extras all on a BD-25.

By comparison, Sony is using BD-50s for both I Know What You Did Last Summer (104 minutes, TrueHD, very few features) and Urban Legend (99 minutes, TrueHD, 10-minute featurette).

Why a BD-25 from WB?

Only a BD25 for L.A. Confidential? That's insane. I hope it is an error.

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by Mystery Clock

But there is a downside:

My wife has still not forgiven me for educating her on how to spot "Autotuned" vocals. Now, (almost) every time she listens to some of her country music she can spot it, and it bugs her at some level.
...

I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard that Cher tune (don't remember the title, but you know 'Do you believe in life after love...').
Autotune was so obvious I couldn't stand listening to that song.

[Grubert]

Originally Posted by HDJK

I couldn't believe my ears the first time I heard that Cher tune (don't remember the title, but you know 'Do you believe in life after love...').
Autotune was so obvious I couldn't stand listening to that song.

I remember that vividly - that was 'Believe.' Ugh!

I've googled "autotune" and I've found a page that lists some recent titles with Autotune artifacting (with an audio track you can listen to):

http://www.hometracked.com/2008/02/0...c-10-examples/

Ugh, again.

Celebrities' faces are photoshopped for magazine covers. Songs are autotuned. Films are degrained.

What is the world coming to?

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by Grubert

I remember that vividly - that was 'Believe.' Ugh!

I've googled "autotune" and I've found a page that lists some recent titles with Autotune artifacting (with an audio track you can listen to):

http://www.hometracked.com/2008/02/0...c-10-examples/

Ugh, again.

Celebrities' faces are photoshopped for magazine covers. Songs are autotuned. Films are degrained.

What is the world coming to?

If that is the same Cher song that I am remembering, I thought the effect was so extreme that it was intentionally meant to sound artificial.