COLLECT WATCH TRACK RATE REVIEW APP
Manage your own movie collection and always keep it with you with our Apps. Price track movies and get price drop notifications instantly. Become a member to take full advantage of all site features.
GET STARTED

Best Blu-ray Deals

Best Blu-ray Deals, See All the Deals »
Top deals | Price drops  
 All countries United States United Kingdom Canada Germany France Spain Italy Japan
Sleeping Beauty (Blu-ray)
$19.99
The Vincent Price Collection (Blu-ray)
$39.49
Saw: The Complete Movie Collection (Blu-ray)
$18.99
South Park: The Complete Seventeenth Season (Blu-ray)
$19.99
In the Mouth of Madness (Blu-ray)
$9.49
The Haunting (Blu-ray)
$9.49
Prisoners (Blu-ray)
$9.99
Game of Thrones: The Complete Fourth Season (Blu-ray)
$39.96
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Blu-ray)
$64.99
Kundo (Blu-ray)
$17.98
Doctor Who: The Complete Eighth Series (Blu-ray)
$64.96
Leprechaun: The Complete Movie Collection (Blu-ray)
$29.49
The Amityville Horror Trilogy (Blu-ray)
$33.49
A Nightmare on Elm Street Collection (Blu-ray)
$29.99
The Dick Van Dyke Show: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$57.99
Dragon Ball Z: Season 9 (Blu-ray)
$24.99
Halloween: The Complete Collection (Blu-ray)
$106.88
American Horror Story: Coven (Blu-ray)
$32.99
24: Live Another Day (Blu-ray)
$29.99

Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Audio > Audio Theory and Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-27-2013, 10:27 PM   #21
BLindsay BLindsay is offline
Power Member
 
Aug 2008
NH
44
517
11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
actually downloading a song would take you a bit longer than you are thinking as megabits per second is not the same as megabytes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
geesh, what kind of speed do you have?? Id love to be able to download 6MB in under 2 seconds!

Im jealous.
70/12 sometimes it dips a bit but it stays above 60


Display: 120" Elitescreen + Epson 5030UB
Power: Emotiva UMC-200, XPA-3, 2x UPA-1
Fronts: Polk LSi15s (Upgraded crossovers and woofers)
Rears: Polk LSi7s
Center: Polk LSiC (Upgraded crossover)
Sub: DIY JL 12W7 w/Behringer EPX-2800
Blu-ray: OPPO BDP-103
Headphones: Sennheiser HD558
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:33 PM   #22
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLindsay View Post
70/12 sometimes it dips a bit but it stays above 60
sure rub it in.

But for the average internet user, those kinds of speeds are not achievable.

So even to download a 6 MB song could take some people a little time, then to try an download a single 40 MB uncompressed song? This would be time consuming for some internet speeds (and some ISP cap data limits).
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:43 PM   #23
prerich prerich is online now
Moderator
 
prerich's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
41
1
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
This is the majority of my MP3 music listening, while driving.
Yep, same here. I use .ape which is a lossless compression, .wav or flac when I'm listening on my system.
Klipsch Cornwall L/R, Klipsch Heresy center, Definitive Technology BP2's (x4) rear, Wharfedale sw380 Subs (x2), SVS 16-46 CS (X2) 2-8 inch transmission line Subs (rear), Yamaha power Amps mx830 (x2), Adcom 5503 3 channel power amp, Behringer EP4000 Power amp, BD HTPC, Xonar Essence ST/H6 modified Burson Supreme Discreet Opamps, Da-lite 16:9 106" Screen, BenQ 3D Projector, LG 55 inch LED TV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 10:44 PM   #24
BLindsay BLindsay is offline
Power Member
 
Aug 2008
NH
44
517
11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
sure rub it in.

But for the average internet user, those kinds of speeds are not achievable.

So even to download a 6 MB song could take some people a little time, then to try an download a single 40 MB uncompressed song? This would be time consuming for some internet speeds (and some ISP cap data limits).


crazy thing is I think FIOS offers up to 300mbps and google fiber is 1000mbps

Even on my old 3mbps connection it would be 15seconds for the 6MB file and just under 2 minutes for the 40MB file. I remember when I was happy to download 20MB in an hr lol.
Display: 120" Elitescreen + Epson 5030UB
Power: Emotiva UMC-200, XPA-3, 2x UPA-1
Fronts: Polk LSi15s (Upgraded crossovers and woofers)
Rears: Polk LSi7s
Center: Polk LSiC (Upgraded crossover)
Sub: DIY JL 12W7 w/Behringer EPX-2800
Blu-ray: OPPO BDP-103
Headphones: Sennheiser HD558
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:29 PM   #25
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLindsay View Post
Even on my old 3mbps connection it would be 15seconds
Yeah, Im kinda stuck at 5 Mbps at the moment.

Would be awesome to see your kind of speed. But I live in rural area, probably will never see that speed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:38 PM   #26
BLindsay BLindsay is offline
Power Member
 
Aug 2008
NH
44
517
11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
Yeah, Im kinda stuck at 5 Mbps at the moment.

Would be awesome to see your kind of speed. But I live in rural area, probably will never see that speed.
You are on DSL though right? Generally DSL is slower, can you get cable internet?
Display: 120" Elitescreen + Epson 5030UB
Power: Emotiva UMC-200, XPA-3, 2x UPA-1
Fronts: Polk LSi15s (Upgraded crossovers and woofers)
Rears: Polk LSi7s
Center: Polk LSiC (Upgraded crossover)
Sub: DIY JL 12W7 w/Behringer EPX-2800
Blu-ray: OPPO BDP-103
Headphones: Sennheiser HD558
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2013, 11:45 PM   #27
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLindsay View Post
You are on DSL though right? Generally DSL is slower, can you get cable internet?
No cable internet in my area...only satellite. So by default I am forced to use Verizon DSL. (but at least Im not data capped)

For my basic needs, 5 Mbps is ok. It gets a decent Netflix quality. (does 5 Mbps Netflix and "decent" belong in same sentence? )
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 12:54 AM   #28
richteer richteer is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
richteer's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
Kelowna, BC
1
Send a message via AIM to richteer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
For my basic needs, 5 Mbps is ok. It gets a decent Netflix quality. (does 5 Mbps Netflix and "decent" belong in same sentence? )
It depends on how holier than thou one's opinion is.
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine
www.vinylphilemag.com

My vinyl, tube, and electrostatic speaker stereo system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2013, 12:55 AM   #29
richteer richteer is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
richteer's Avatar
 
Jun 2007
Kelowna, BC
1
Send a message via AIM to richteer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crackinhedz View Post
You missed the point. The end user can do as they please with it. If I take my lossless audio and convert/compress to whatever I choose, that's my prerogative.
Agreed, but I was under the impression that this thread was about commercially available downloads, not what one makes for oneself. In the latter case, I'm right with you.
Rich Teer, Publisher
Vinylphile Magazine
www.vinylphilemag.com

My vinyl, tube, and electrostatic speaker stereo system.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2013, 01:12 AM   #30
BLindsay BLindsay is offline
Power Member
 
Aug 2008
NH
44
517
11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richteer View Post
Agreed, but I was under the impression that this thread was about commercially available downloads, not what one makes for oneself. In the latter case, I'm right with you.
yeah my thread was about commercially available downloads, I don't care what someone does with the file after
Display: 120" Elitescreen + Epson 5030UB
Power: Emotiva UMC-200, XPA-3, 2x UPA-1
Fronts: Polk LSi15s (Upgraded crossovers and woofers)
Rears: Polk LSi7s
Center: Polk LSiC (Upgraded crossover)
Sub: DIY JL 12W7 w/Behringer EPX-2800
Blu-ray: OPPO BDP-103
Headphones: Sennheiser HD558
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 03:15 AM   #31
singhcr singhcr is offline
Power Member
 
singhcr's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Apple Valley, MN
11
4
4
8
Default

There really isn't any good reason to have only lossy audio available for music but as 99% of people out there are perfectly happy with MP3's the music studios don't seem to care enough about sound quality to offer anything better.

BTW, there are two types of compression.

Lossy compression is like going from PCM to MP3. You've lost information in exchange for the smaller file size.

Lossless compression is like a ZIP file. A DTS-HD MA or TrueHD file is smaller than the PCM master recording but it is bit-for-bit identical to the larger PCM source.

Formats like FLAC can reduce file sizes by around 40% in many cases. I rip my records to 192 KHz/24 bit WAV and the FLAC files are about 40% smaller and retain the same quality. You can fit an entire 40 minute album in about 2 GB for FLAC. So that means that a Blu-ray audio disk would take about the same amount of space, or DVD-Audio as it uses TrueHD for lossless compression but it is called MLP. For many people, 2 GB is not much to download and that's at 192/24. Even at 96/24 which is the standard sample rate for professional recordings you could get a whole album to fit in about 1.5-2 GB or so, and probably 500 MB for a losslessly compressed album at CD quality. There's no excuse other than laziness and apathy. If people are happy with MP3's that's fine with me (although people are really missing out on what music can really sound like) but studios really should also offer high quality audio. Hopefully with Neil Young's PONO player we might finally achieve this.

Last edited by singhcr; 01-30-2013 at 03:18 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 03:45 AM   #32
WiWavelength WiWavelength is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2009
238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by singhcr View Post
If people are happy with MP3's that's fine with me (although people are really missing out on what music can really sound like...
Just curious, what is your rebuttal to this study that suggests people cannot reliably tell the difference between high sample rate/bit depth LPCM or DSD and bog standard CD quality 16 bit 44.1 kHz LPCM?

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

AJ
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 02:07 PM   #33
prerich prerich is online now
Moderator
 
prerich's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
41
1
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post
Just curious, what is your rebuttal to this study that suggests people cannot reliably tell the difference between high sample rate/bit depth LPCM or DSD and bog standard CD quality 16 bit 44.1 kHz LPCM?

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

AJ
Their desired reliablity rate was 95% of the time....That's a pretty high rate...almost 100%. As you have stated before annomilies and differences in a mix can constitue a change. It was noted that at 14db above reference 2 people did score 100% (but most users can't listen to music that loud...I won't). However - if a person is pleased with only being able to tell 70% of the time the difference between the two...its worth it ...for that person. If they can tell the difference greater than 50% of the time it's worth it...for that person. So your argument still comes down to the defining factor...the user, and that my friend has proven to be subjective even by this study...just because it couldn't be reliably (95%) doesn't mean it can't be done at all - a fact proven by the study itself. Also factors such as hearing fatiuge and mental situations such as stress are not factored in because they are abstract to the study).

Science is great - but what is even greater about listening - its still in the subjective ears of the listener. Science can say that I can hear to 20khz, but if I'm deaf - science means nothing in that situation. The study proved that they could not hear differences consistantly (95%) which is true, but ...if I heard a difference once...it would be nice to maybe hear it again. This is part of being human - the Vulcans haven't landed yet.
Klipsch Cornwall L/R, Klipsch Heresy center, Definitive Technology BP2's (x4) rear, Wharfedale sw380 Subs (x2), SVS 16-46 CS (X2) 2-8 inch transmission line Subs (rear), Yamaha power Amps mx830 (x2), Adcom 5503 3 channel power amp, Behringer EP4000 Power amp, BD HTPC, Xonar Essence ST/H6 modified Burson Supreme Discreet Opamps, Da-lite 16:9 106" Screen, BenQ 3D Projector, LG 55 inch LED TV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:26 PM   #34
WiWavelength WiWavelength is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2009
238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by prerich View Post
As you have stated before annomilies and differences in a mix can constitue a change.
No, you misunderstand the methodology of the study. There could be no differences in the mixes because the source was always the same SACD or DVD-A.

In this ABX test, the "A" was an SACD or DVD-A played with a straight signal path. The "B" was the same SACD or DVD-A played with a signal path routed through a 16 bit 44.1 kHz A/D/A chain.

In other words, the "B" was redigitized at CD quality. Levels were precisely matched, and participants had a very difficult time reliably telling the difference between high resolution audio and CD quality audio.

Thus, the results of the study suggest that the praise many shower over high resolution audio is due not to bit depth and/or sample rate but to other factors, such as better mastering and, yes, the placebo effect.

AJ
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 04:55 PM   #35
BIslander BIslander is online now
Blu-ray Samurai
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Bainbridge Island, WA
Default

I think this shows the difference between perception and reality.

The small amount of rigorous testing that's been done strongly suggests it is difficult to tell the difference between CD and higher resolution outputs when the source material is the same. If that's the case, why do so many people claim they can clearly tell the difference? While a few golden ears may actually be able to distinguish between the two, for the others, it's almost certainly because they think high res should be better. If most of those people were put in a proper test environment, the evidence suggests they would be unable to tell which is which.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 05:12 PM   #36
crackinhedz crackinhedz is offline
Super Moderator
 
crackinhedz's Avatar
 
Feb 2007
Lynchburg,VA
10
8
19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
If that's the case, why do so many people claim they can clearly tell the difference?
Kind of reminds me of the HDMI cable & Speaker wire debates.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 05:29 PM   #37
prerich prerich is online now
Moderator
 
prerich's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
41
1
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wiwavelength View Post
no, you misunderstand the methodology of the study. There could be no differences in the mixes because the source was always the same sacd or dvd-a.

In this abx test, the "a" was an sacd or dvd-a played with a straight signal path. The "b" was the same sacd or dvd-a played with a signal path routed through a 16 bit 44.1 khz a/d/a chain.

In other words, the "b" was redigitized at cd quality. Levels were precisely matched, and participants had a very difficult time reliably telling the difference between high resolution audio and cd quality audio.

Thus, the results of the study suggest that the praise many shower over high resolution audio is due not to bit depth and/or sample rate but to other factors, such as better mastering and, yes, the placebo effect.

Aj
10-4
Klipsch Cornwall L/R, Klipsch Heresy center, Definitive Technology BP2's (x4) rear, Wharfedale sw380 Subs (x2), SVS 16-46 CS (X2) 2-8 inch transmission line Subs (rear), Yamaha power Amps mx830 (x2), Adcom 5503 3 channel power amp, Behringer EP4000 Power amp, BD HTPC, Xonar Essence ST/H6 modified Burson Supreme Discreet Opamps, Da-lite 16:9 106" Screen, BenQ 3D Projector, LG 55 inch LED TV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 05:39 PM   #38
WiWavelength WiWavelength is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2009
238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
I think this shows the difference between perception and reality.
The most interesting aspect of the study to me is not just the reduction in bit depth and sample rate but the imposition of additional A/D/A conversions on the "B" sample. That is generally a no-no, yet participants still could not reliably tell a difference unless the gain was unnaturally cranked to reveal the change in digital noise floor.

I want to believe in high resolution audio, but the scientist in me cannot get past the mounting evidence that 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio when done right is already audibly transparent.

AJ
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 05:49 PM   #39
prerich prerich is online now
Moderator
 
prerich's Avatar
 
Dec 2007
41
1
2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
I think this shows the difference between perception and reality.

The small amount of rigorous testing that's been done strongly suggests it is difficult to tell the difference between CD and higher resolution outputs when the source material is the same. If that's the case, why do so many people claim they can clearly tell the difference? While a few golden ears may actually be able to distinguish between the two, for the others, it's almost certainly because they think high res should be better. If most of those people were put in a proper test environment, the evidence suggests they would be unable to tell which is which.
Agreed. Most people, but as in the test results, if there is a segment that can tell the difference 70% of the time....game on. That segment (that can hear it 70% of the time) would benifit...70% of the time. As wiwavelength has stated, better mastering has a lot to do with it, more so than bit rate. However - to each is own.

Decreasing quality to the common denominator is not what this hobby is about, it's about enjoying the recorded medium...as one likes to enjoy it. It's kinda like my older brother and sisters fixing my lunch when I was a kid. They knew I hated mayo, they loved it...they would try to sneak mayo on my sandwiches. I found mayo on the sandwich and told. Next the tried to put a thin layer on it and soak it into the bread so it would appear on the meat...I could still tell. Eventually I started throwing my sandwiches away automatically becasue I didn't trust my brother or sisters....because they wanted me to be like everyone else. I like my sandwiches without mayo...please don't force me to eat it - even if you got past me 30% of the time.
Klipsch Cornwall L/R, Klipsch Heresy center, Definitive Technology BP2's (x4) rear, Wharfedale sw380 Subs (x2), SVS 16-46 CS (X2) 2-8 inch transmission line Subs (rear), Yamaha power Amps mx830 (x2), Adcom 5503 3 channel power amp, Behringer EP4000 Power amp, BD HTPC, Xonar Essence ST/H6 modified Burson Supreme Discreet Opamps, Da-lite 16:9 106" Screen, BenQ 3D Projector, LG 55 inch LED TV.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2013, 07:32 PM   #40
singhcr singhcr is offline
Power Member
 
singhcr's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Apple Valley, MN
11
4
4
8
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post
Just curious, what is your rebuttal to this study that suggests people cannot reliably tell the difference between high sample rate/bit depth LPCM or DSD and bog standard CD quality 16 bit 44.1 kHz LPCM?

http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf

AJ
I'm sure the study is valid, but to me the difference is night and day especially after you listen to high fidelity audio exclusively and try to listen to a CD or MP3 afterwards. All of the people that I've had listen to my records state that there's an incredible difference in sound quality over what they were used to in terms of MP3 quality or even CD.

As the study mentions at the end, many CD recordings are very over-processed and have their dynamic range severely reduced to the point where you'd not notice as much of a difference in sound quality going from CD to DSD or LP.

If you take a well-mastered piece of music like a good 1970s rock recording or something really well recorded like a jazz piece and A/B the two you'd really notice a difference. The mastering is just as if not more important than the recording quality.

For example, using a modern recording like the latest Katy Perry single won't yield as much of a difference as the music is heavily electronically processed and compressed so there's not much of a difference between the quietest and loudest sounds. Having a lack of natural sounds like a guitar also doesn't help as you really notice improvements in complex sounds like a guitar string or piano note.

If you took something that was much better recorded like Hotel California or a Duke Ellington LP or SACD and compared it to CD you would find a much more noticeable difference. And once you get used to the higher quality audio, it's very, very hard to listen to anything else.
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Audio > Audio Theory and Discussion


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28 PM.