Discussion in 'Digital Sources' started by Bigerik, Jan 3, 2013.
They must have "fixed" it - CD+Bluray is now "unavailable" ...
Stupid question time...
I don't see the point to Blu-Ray audio. All the stuff (other than SACD) is just PCM, if it's in stereo. So, all Blu-Ray gets you is more storage space. A double sided, dual layer DVD has the potential to hold 16.8 GB of data. That seems like plenty of space to hold a stereo mix of an album in 24/96 or even 24/192 and a complete surround mix in some lossless format on the same disc.
Please feel free to correct me and enlighten me if I am wrong.
TBH, I am way more concerned about dynamic compression than I am hi-res formats. Unless they make these hi-res albums with much quieter masters, I don't think you're going to be impressed with the sound quality.
I think DVD has the stigma of being a "dead" format. Especially DVD-Audio, which never went anywhere except for those "glory years" about a dozen years ago. It may also have to do with the way BluRay is authored. DVD-Audio used to store files in the AUDIO_TS folder, whereas video was in the VIDEO_TS folder. Yet there can also be audio DVD discs that use the top resolution of 24-bit/96kHz of a standard DVD player (24/48 on older players), so, that further confuses the format. (The packaging would need to say, "Plays in all DVD players.") Classic Records released some in that format. For multichannel in high-res, also, you would need to use MLP, a form of lossless compression (Meridian Lossless Packing, if I'm not mistaken), since the bitrate would be too much for the DVD-Audio format. (This is something you would notice only in the authoring software--to an end user, it makes no difference since the end product plays the way it should but from a technical standpoint, multichannel high-res exceeded the bitrate spec for DVD. There may be a better explanation out there for this issue.) BluRay probably is able to sidestep that bitrate issue as well, due to improved player electronics and the space to store full-blown high-res surround files without having to do any compression.
Most of us who are into high-res can definitely hear the difference in resolution--I know I can. But like any format, a lot has to do with the mastering and the source tape used. That is probably best discussed in a separate thread though.
To be clear, do you mean that you hear better resolution from a Blu-ray audio disc than from a 24-bit/96Hz DVD-A? What player?
That is definitely a topic for another discussion. But you have to also realize a lot of "hi-res" releases are different masters, so of course you're going to hear a difference.
DVD-Audio can handle linear PCM in 5.1 surround in 24/96. I never really understood how Meridian got their hooks into DVD-Audio and made MLP part of the spec. There are plenty of DVD-A releases that use LPCM that is not encoded in MLP.
MLP is just a lossless codec. It's no different from FLAC/ALAC/WAV/Wavpack/APE/OptiFROG.
I just bought the SACD of I Robot by The Alan Parsons Project, and, my god, is it a treat for the ears. But it's a completely new remaster, and that's what makes the difference. The CD layer sounds just as good as the SACD layer.
Shocker, I have a question; not a challenge. I would love to save money by being able to buy redbooks or download iTunes or MP3 files.
So in the case of Radttle that Lock. I had a CD, a DVD-A and a Blu-ray audio all at the same time. Three listeners including myself; but only two at a time. The system is an Oppo BDP-95 connected via WireWorld Luna 7 RCA IC from stereo analog out to analog in of Rotel RX-1052 playing through Canton Ergo 1002 DCs.
None of the three hear a difference between the CD and DVD-A. All three hear more detail and air, deeper bass extension, and wider, higher soundstage from the Blu-ray.
Is it safe to believe that all 3 discs originate from the same master? If so, why the difference? Does the player handle the formats differently, or is it safe to conclude that Blu-ray is a superior format. What would you expect from a SACD made from the same master?
Does anyone know of any SACDs mastered in DSD?
Well, if you want to do a valid test, you need to take the Blu Ray audio and find a way to rip it. I don't know what's involved in ripping a BDA. Not sure if there is DRM there. But once you rip it, you would then use something like Foobar 2000 to convert it down to 16/44.1 lossless with dithering (which is technically lossy, since you're removing data). Once you have that, you can convert that FLAC to the lossy format of your choice, be it MP3, AAC, Ogg Vorbis etc. Then you can use those files to properly test.
And, if you really want to do it right with a blind test, you would take the 16/44.1 file and upconvert it back to the same bit depth and sample rate as the original file. The extra hi-res data is already gone. You really just need to upconvert to have the sample rates match, cause when you switch sample rates, sometime it can give away which file is which. If you're not going to blind test, then you don't need to bother with this step.
Unless you do the conversion yourself, you can never be sure what was done to the file. Does the Blu Ray have EQ applied to it prior to pressing? Is it even the same master?
In the end, though. If it sounds good to you, then enjoy listening to it. Even if they mess with the Blu Ray in some way to make it sound better (EQ, different master, etc.), that's the only way you're going to get that specific master.
Something else to watch out for is greedy record labels. Especially when you're buying from HDTracks. I will point out up front, this IS NOT HDTracks fault. There have been a number of "hi-res" releases on HDTracks that were later pulled and monies refunded, because HDTracks was selling a 24/96 and 24/192 FLAC of an album from the mid 80s that was recorded in 16/44.1, using the available digital recording equipment of the time. The one that stands out in my head is Dire Straits album "Brothers in Arms." I have been told by others that HDTracks used to sell Phil Collins early albums in h-res from 16/44.1 masters. In HDTracks defense, they sell what the record labels give them. They have no prior knowledge of these files or how they were made.
Funny thing is, Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs recently released a new remaster of Brothers in Arms on SACD. I'm sure it sounds great, since MFSL has great mastering engineers, but the "master tapes" are still 16/44.1 files.
SACDs from Analogue Productions, Mobile Fidelity, Audio Fidelity. BMG's Living Stereo classical SACDs were mastered at Soundmirror, Inc. from original 2- or 3-channel tapes. And it's likely that many of the US Sony discs from the 2000s as they co-developed DSD to be an archival digital format for their own use.
And I'm bowing out--this is a "review" thread. Hi-res can be debated separately in its own thread. (Maybe the mods can split these posts out on their own?)
Well, then let's continue with the reviews.
I highly recommend the new MFSL SACD of I Robot by The Alan Parsons Project. I own all but one version of this album. The one to get was always the DVD-A version that was issued by Classic Records back in 2003. I think this version beats it, hands down. The detail in this version is just amazing.
The CD and SACD layer are the same master. So, I ripped the CD layer and scanned ReplayGain.value of +2.32, showing this disc is most definitely NOT dynamically squashed.
Apologies for digressing and for mis-typing. I meant RECORDED in DSD. I do agree that most of the MoFi SACDs I own are great. The few that aren't is simply due to the content not being very detailed or having a lot of dynamic range to begin with.
Thanks for showing your audio chain. I am searching AK to see what different chains people are using. Whether it is better to get a dedicated high resolution audio player be hand held or a desktop unit. It seems that we are relying pretty heavily on our laptops while having spent a lot of money over the years on our systems.
Separate names with a comma.