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
The Last Starfighter (Blu-ray)
$6.96
Big (Blu-ray)
$7.99
Frozen Planet (Blu-ray)
$14.99
Hugo (Blu-ray)
$4.99
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (Blu-ray)
$6.98
The Spectacular Spider-Man: The Complete Series (Blu-ray)
$24.99
Beyond Outrage (Blu-ray)
$12.96
Slap Shot (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Seven (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Devil's Due (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Grease (Blu-ray)
$4.99
Somewhere in Time (Blu-ray)
$10.49
Here Comes the Devil (Blu-ray)
$14.96
Fairy Tail: Part 8 (Blu-ray)
$26.99
Uncle Buck (Blu-ray)
$6.96
Mallrats (Blu-ray)
$9.96
Godzilla (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Hannibal: Season One (Blu-ray)
$19.99
Bullet to the Head (Blu-ray)
$8.85
Old 02-26-2014, 09:24 PM   #1061
BIslander BIslander is offline
Blu-ray Samurai
 
BIslander's Avatar
 
Sep 2008
Bainbridge Island, WA
Default

Multichannel will certainly sound different than stereo. The issue here is whether the same mix sounds different between Redbook and high res.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2014, 09:37 PM   #1062
Louisville Slugger Louisville Slugger is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
Louisville Slugger's Avatar
 
Oct 2007
Shrewsbury, MA
50
618
3
Default

I was looking at Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab's gold-plated "Ultradisc" series. Are they better? I thought garbage in-garbage out. It didn't matter if it was gold.

I saw Aja is on gold.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:10 AM   #1063
ZoetMB ZoetMB is online now
Blu-ray Guru
 
May 2009
New York
153
24
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatifan View Post
The other thing I would say doesn't have anything to do with SACD but Hi-Rez in general... When I record my own LPs to digital on my equipment, for sure 24-bit sounds way better than 16-bit when I do an A/B comparison between the original LP and one of the digital versions.
That's interesting because for many years I've used an Alessis Masterlink 9600 standalone CD-R. One of the reasons I bought it was because in addition to Redbook, you could record up to 96/24 and I was so excited about that capability. But when I ran tests transferring LPs, I couldn't hear any difference whatsoever. And neither could anyone else who ever listened including some kids whose hearing hasn't been destroyed yet.

And in fact, if I play the LP back in sync with the CD-R at either resolution and switch between them, no one can tell the difference either.
loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

A Guide to Spelling and Punctuation
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:21 AM   #1064
ZoetMB ZoetMB is online now
Blu-ray Guru
 
May 2009
New York
153
24
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWgrayhawk View Post
But bottom line, it stated that the Nyquist theorem, on which redbook sampling and freq rates are based, is the best for encoding digital sound. This stance is taken by many who are knowledgeable in the math and theories of digital sound reproduction. They are the same ones who claim that hearing differences are the result of listener bias, a type of placebo effect, i.e. it sounds better b/c we expect it to sound better. They also claim that in a true double-blind experiment, no one has ever been (or will ever be) able to distinguish between hi-rez and redbook of the same master.
The Nyquist Theorem is not a digital encoding process. The Nyquist Theorem simply states that the sampling rate must be twice the highest frequency you wish to reproduce.

So in the case of standard Redbook audio, a sampling rate of 44.1KHz was chosen so that the highest reproducible frequency is 22KHz (the .1 was to provide a margin of safety). If you sample at 96KHz, you can reproduce frequencies up to 48KHz, but why attempt to do so if there's no program material in that range? If you're mastering an old analog tape master, if you pick up anything in that range, it's likely to be the tape bias (which you don't want).

Human hearing is generally about 20 to 20KHz. Most people in their 20s, especially those who either live in cities, attend clubs or rock concerts or use earbuds, already aren't hearing much about 18KHz. Middle-aged adults don't generally hear much about 15KHz and older adults, even those who aren't considered to have hearing loss, don't hear above 10 to 13KHz. (It's not they don't hear the frequency - it's that they only hear it, if at all, at a very high threshold. As you age, you lose threshold.)

Unlike what some people in this forum believe (and if the paper you referred to is the one I'm thinking of, in agreement with that), you can exactly reproduce an analog waveform by sampling at twice the highest desired frequency.
loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

A Guide to Spelling and Punctuation

Last edited by Josh; 02-27-2014 at 11:42 AM. Reason: Removed unneeded arrogance.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:55 AM   #1065
GenPion GenPion is offline
Special Member
 
GenPion's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
480
3
61
Default

I've done way more reading on it than I wish I had, on some level, but analog/vinyl taps out at at a lower bit range than even standard CD. Yet the frequency responses can be better than CD in some instances because of the way it is transferred from a 'direct' source. So when people say they like vinyl better - that it sounds better than CD - they may be partially correct in saying so. Yet CD can also sound better than vinyl because of the bit-depth, digital mastering, and other factors. It depends on the source and the way the audio was mastered beforehand to some degree.

When it comes to 24 bit downloads, SACD, DVD-Audio, and Blu-ray Audio, there is no contest though. Music should be released with a higher bit-depth, better bit-rates and sampling rate when possible as the presentation is much smoother and more impressive. With a good dynamic range as well, the experience is all the better...

I wish CD had been invented with a standard of 24 bit and with a larger storage capacity. Maybe then record labels and professionals in the industry would have released music with better standards to begin with and we wouldn't even have so much debating amongst music fans about what method of listening is best or whether or not HD/Hi-Res music is even worthwhile.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 01:21 AM   #1066
ZoetMB ZoetMB is online now
Blu-ray Guru
 
May 2009
New York
153
24
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenPion View Post
I've done way more reading on it than I wish I had, on some level, but analog/vinyl taps out at at a lower bit range than even standard CD. Yet the frequency responses can be better than CD in some instances because of the way it is transferred from a 'direct' source. So when people say they like vinyl better - that it sounds better than CD - they may be partially correct in saying so. Yet CD can also sound better than vinyl because of the bit-depth, digital mastering, and other factors. It depends on the source and the way the audio was mastered beforehand to some degree.
There is no such thing as bit range for analog. Bit range is about the number of voltage levels available for quantization - the conversion of an analog voltage at a specific time to a voltage which is then translated to a binary number.

You are correct that it's theoretically possible (although unlikely) that a vinyl LP (or another analog source) can record and playback a higher frequency than a CD. Here's why: in digital, due to the Nyquist Theorem I mentioned a few posts up, you absolutely cannot exceed a frequency that is more than half the sampling rate. That's what the digital filters are for: to prevent that. The system will absolutely not work if you exceed that.

But in analog, everything can be tweaked. so by using better vinyl, better mastering techniques, better cutting techniques on the lathe, more accurate tonearms, etc., it is possible to get a higher frequency out of the system. But in practice, on a typical system (not an esoteric system) an LP will generally sound inferior to its CD counterpart in spite of claims to the contrary (and I am a fan of vinyl and have 500 LPs sitting in my living room).

While other people claim the opposite, I can't tell you the number of times I've put on a new CD of a vintage album and thought, "this sounds like complete crap. The original LP sounded far better." Then I pull out the vintage LP, put it on and it sounds far worse than the CD. Our memories play tricks on us and our perception of sound tends to be comparative. So since the LP was the best commercial mass-market medium in its day, we remember that being the best, but it actually isn't. I laugh about all the hype about vinyl quality when I remember how much we complained about crappy sounding vinyl (at least in the U.S.) before the advent of the CD. That's why we would seek out quality pressings from Europe or Japan (while the Brits would seek out American pressings in spite of the poor quality because U.S. pressings tended to be recorded hotter and with distortion, which the Brit rockers liked. That's why the Rolling Stones when to Chess Records to record - they liked how dirty the records sounded.)

The other factor is that even though CD has a possible dynamic range of about 95db compared to the LPs dynamic range of only about 35db, most modern recordings on CD actually have less dynamic range than the way LPs were recorded through the 1970s. That has nothing to do with limitations of the CD, rather it's the insistence of artists and record producers that they all want their recordings to sound "the loudest". That's why so much music today sounds like crap and is tedious to listen to.

CD sounds better because being a digital medium, as long as the reproducer can read the lands and valleys on the disc correctly and translate those to 1s and 0s accurately, you're always reproducing the exact original waveform. Aside from scratches that go beyond the ability of the playback system to error-correct, it can't wear out. Furthermore, there is no noise inherent in the digital recording system (such as tape hiss or vinyl surface noise.)

In analog, every time the medium is played, it changes as you're wearing it out. Each stage in the recording and playback process is in inferior copy of the previous phase, like making a copy of a copy on a Xerox machine.

Bit-depth has nothing to do with it because bit-depth is not an analog concept.
loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

A Guide to Spelling and Punctuation
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 03:05 AM   #1067
GenPion GenPion is offline
Special Member
 
GenPion's Avatar
 
Feb 2009
480
3
61
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoetMB View Post
There is no such thing as bit range for analog. Bit range is about the number of voltage levels available for quantization - the conversion of an analog voltage at a specific time to a voltage which is then translated to a binary number.

You are correct that it's theoretically possible (although unlikely) that a vinyl LP (or another analog source) can record and playback a higher frequency than a CD. Here's why: in digital, due to the Nyquist Theorem I mentioned a few posts up, you absolutely cannot exceed a frequency that is more than half the sampling rate. That's what the digital filters are for: to prevent that. The system will absolutely not work if you exceed that.

But in analog, everything can be tweaked. so by using better vinyl, better mastering techniques, better cutting techniques on the lathe, more accurate tonearms, etc., it is possible to get a higher frequency out of the system. But in practice, on a typical system (not an esoteric system) an LP will generally sound inferior to its CD counterpart in spite of claims to the contrary (and I am a fan of vinyl and have 500 LPs sitting in my living room).

While other people claim the opposite, I can't tell you the number of times I've put on a new CD of a vintage album and thought, "this sounds like complete crap. The original LP sounded far better." Then I pull out the vintage LP, put it on and it sounds far worse than the CD. Our memories play tricks on us and our perception of sound tends to be comparative. So since the LP was the best commercial mass-market medium in its day, we remember that being the best, but it actually isn't. I laugh about all the hype about vinyl quality when I remember how much we complained about crappy sounding vinyl (at least in the U.S.) before the advent of the CD. That's why we would seek out quality pressings from Europe or Japan (while the Brits would seek out American pressings in spite of the poor quality because U.S. pressings tended to be recorded hotter and with distortion, which the Brit rockers liked. That's why the Rolling Stones when to Chess Records to record - they liked how dirty the records sounded.)

The other factor is that even though CD has a possible dynamic range of about 95db compared to the LPs dynamic range of only about 35db, most modern recordings on CD actually have less dynamic range than the way LPs were recorded through the 1970s. That has nothing to do with limitations of the CD, rather it's the insistence of artists and record producers that they all want their recordings to sound "the loudest". That's why so much music today sounds like crap and is tedious to listen to.

CD sounds better because being a digital medium, as long as the reproducer can read the lands and valleys on the disc correctly and translate those to 1s and 0s accurately, you're always reproducing the exact original waveform. Aside from scratches that go beyond the ability of the playback system to error-correct, it can't wear out. Furthermore, there is no noise inherent in the digital recording system (such as tape hiss or vinyl surface noise.)

In analog, every time the medium is played, it changes as you're wearing it out. Each stage in the recording and playback process is in inferior copy of the previous phase, like making a copy of a copy on a Xerox machine.

Bit-depth has nothing to do with it because bit-depth is not an analog concept.
By bit-range I was talking about bit depth. I don't see how bit-depth could have nothing to do with it. I've read from several sources that it taps out with lower depth than what CD's can contain.

FYI, I agree with most of what you have posted. Especially about production and the loudness issue (i.e. the loudness wars).
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 11:58 AM   #1068
Josh Josh is offline
Super Moderator
 
Josh's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
25
366
15
33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoetMB View Post
Human hearing is generally about 20 to 20KHz. Most people in their 20s, especially those who either live in cities, attend clubs or rock concerts or use earbuds, already aren't hearing much about 18KHz. Middle-aged adults don't generally hear much about 15KHz and older adults, even those who aren't considered to have hearing loss, don't hear above 10 to 13KHz. (It's not they don't hear the frequency - it's that they only hear it, if at all, at a very high threshold. As you age, you lose threshold.)
Generally is the key word here, because the 20/20 hearing "rule" is based on averages, at best. There are those that can hear better than 20/20, and those who never had the ability to hear with that much dynamic range (no including those with hearing impairments). And I disagree that you lose threshold, but rather lose sensitivity to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoetMB
Unlike what some people in this forum believe (and if the paper you referred to is the one I'm thinking of, in agreement with that), you can exactly reproduce an analog waveform by sampling at twice the highest desired frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZoetMB View Post
CD sounds better because being a digital medium, as long as the reproducer can read the lands and valleys on the disc correctly and translate those to 1s and 0s accurately, you're always reproducing the exact original waveform. Aside from scratches that go beyond the ability of the playback system to error-correct, it can't wear out.
You should caveat that by saying digital can never reproduce an analog signal "exactly" (the same way an analog signal can never reproduce a digital signal exactly). Going from 16b to 24b gets you closer, but you would have to have infinite bits (or sample infinitely) to replicate an analog waveform "exactly". I think what you wanted to say was, "reproduce the exact original waveform to the extend an average human could detect a difference".
SUPER POWER NINJA TURBO NEO ULTRA HYPER MEGA MULTI ALPHA META EXTRA UBER PREFIX COMBO!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2014, 12:14 PM   #1069
dobyblue dobyblue is offline
Super Moderator
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Jul 2006
Gilead
31
476
7
Default

Isn't that why we love SACD?

  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 05:35 AM   #1070
Solo man Solo man is offline
Active Member
 
Solo man's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Toronto, Ontario
72
251
285
1
Default

There are bad cds, bad sacd, bad hi res downloads and bad vinyl recordings. There is good recordings in all those formats above as well.

IMO, I wish people would stop bashing a certain format by saying something,"sounds like crap" and be happy with their own preference. There is great music recordings to be found in whichever format you choose. I still listen to CDs and still collect them.

Anyways, back to the thread, looking forward to Crime of the Century and can't wait till it's out on SHM SACD.
Love 3D technology and am addicted to it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 11:49 AM   #1071
Josh Josh is offline
Super Moderator
 
Josh's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
25
366
15
33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
Isn't that why we love SACD?

I do find myself leaning towards SACD versions of albums that I own. I just like the sound.
SUPER POWER NINJA TURBO NEO ULTRA HYPER MEGA MULTI ALPHA META EXTRA UBER PREFIX COMBO!
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 11:58 AM   #1072
BluRayFred BluRayFred is offline
Blu-ray Guru
 
BluRayFred's Avatar
 
Mar 2008
NOLA
104
141
6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
Isn't that why we love SACD?

Interesting graph.
When The Levee Breaks Momma You Gotta Move
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2014, 03:11 PM   #1073
ZoetMB ZoetMB is online now
Blu-ray Guru
 
May 2009
New York
153
24
3
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh View Post
Generally is the key word here, because the 20/20 hearing "rule" is based on averages, at best. There are those that can hear better than 20/20, and those who never had the ability to hear with that much dynamic range (no including those with hearing impairments). And I disagree that you lose threshold, but rather lose sensitivity to it.
By threshold, what I mean is, let's say that when you're young, you can begin to hear 20KHz at -20db. When you're older or after your hearing has been damaged, you might not begin to hear 20KHz until -10db or -5db. That's what I mean by losing threshold and it's also the basis of all standard hearing tests: it's the lowest level at which you can begin to hear a given frequency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh View Post
You should caveat that by saying digital can never reproduce an analog signal "exactly" (the same way an analog signal can never reproduce a digital signal exactly). Going from 16b to 24b gets you closer, but you would have to have infinite bits (or sample infinitely) to replicate an analog waveform "exactly". I think what you wanted to say was, "reproduce the exact original waveform to the extend an average human could detect a difference".
When I said that digital can reproduce the original waveform, I wasn't referring to the original analog waveform in that context, but the fact that there should be no difference between the digital master and the CD digital copy.

As far as reproducing the original analog waveform (and I realize you probably know this already), it does in the frequency domain up until 20KHz (and providing decent filters are used in the recording and playback system) in Redbook systems. Where it doesn't is in the level (voltage) domain. When an analog waveform is quantized, it must be quantized to a whole number. In a 16-bit system, there are 65,535 possible values. In a 24-bit system, there are over 16.7 million possible values. If a number falls between the possible values, it is averaged to the next lower or next higher number. This is called "quantization error".

IMO, the bit-depth difference is what makes the big difference in 96/24 recording, not the sampling rate, but that's just my personal opinion.

Having said that, one can make the case that today's recordings are so over level-compressed that quantization error is going to have absolutely no audible effect anyway. And as I've posted before, when I've made copies of LPs or other original material to a 96/24 format and compared it to a 44.1/16 format, there was no audible difference that I could hear and others who have listened could not detect any audible difference either. I was really disappointed with that.
loose="not tight", lose="can't find it, doesn't have anymore" or the opposite of "win".
their="belongs to", there="place", they're="they are", there's = "there is"
it's="it is", for everything else use "its"
then="after", than="compared with"
"a lot" not "alot"

A Guide to Spelling and Punctuation
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2014, 10:03 PM   #1074
mspar009 mspar009 is online now
Senior Member
 
mspar009's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Coconut Grove, FL
20
350
19
38
Default

Have an extra authentic copy of A Swingin' Affair MOFI Hybrid Release.

PM me if interested.
I sell Classic Blu-ray films at great prices (link is below):

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....76#post9106176
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 12:28 AM   #1075
Clark Kent Clark Kent is offline
Blu-ray Count
 
Clark Kent's Avatar
 
Oct 2007
Metropolis
2
92
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mspar009 View Post
Have an extra authentic copy of A Swingin' Affair MOFI Hybrid Release.

PM me if interested.
It sounds great.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 04:19 AM   #1076
mspar009 mspar009 is online now
Senior Member
 
mspar009's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Coconut Grove, FL
20
350
19
38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Kent View Post
It sounds great.
I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, finally played Songs For Swingin' Lovers tonight - on par with the other Sinatra SACD releases from MOFI.
I sell Classic Blu-ray films at great prices (link is below):

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....76#post9106176
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 03:55 PM   #1077
WiWavelength WiWavelength is offline
Active Member
 
Dec 2009
238
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post
Isn't that why we love SACD?

The problem is that most readers here see that graph and jump to conclusions. But they lack the engineering chops to understand why a FIR digital filter causes the impulse response to model a sinc function. They do not realize that any "ringing" in the 44.1 kHz impulse response is at 22.05 kHz and that even 44.1 kHz can produce an "analog like" impulse response if the digital filter is removed.



http://www.stereophile.com/content/p...r-measurements

AJ
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014, 05:24 AM   #1078
mspar009 mspar009 is online now
Senior Member
 
mspar009's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Coconut Grove, FL
20
350
19
38
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WiWavelength View Post
The problem is that most readers here see that graph and jump to conclusions. But they lack the engineering chops to understand why a FIR digital filter causes the impulse response to model a sinc function. They do not realize that any "ringing" in the 44.1 kHz impulse response is at 22.05 kHz and that even 44.1 kHz can produce an "analog like" impulse response if the digital filter is removed.



http://www.stereophile.com/content/p...r-measurements

AJ
Are you an EE? I am a 3rd year student and I can attest that one needs a strong background to better understand the graphs you posted .
I sell Classic Blu-ray films at great prices (link is below):

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....76#post9106176
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2014, 05:27 AM   #1079
mspar009 mspar009 is online now
Senior Member
 
mspar009's Avatar
 
Jan 2013
Coconut Grove, FL
20
350
19
38
Default

a Swingin' Affair SACD Hybrid/Mono, MOFI - brand new. I can ship it same day ... $29 shipped. PMif interested.
I sell Classic Blu-ray films at great prices (link is below):

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....76#post9106176
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 01:01 AM   #1080
Josh Josh is offline
Super Moderator
 
Josh's Avatar
 
Sep 2006
25
366
15
33
Default

I just pre-ordered Eric Clapton - Behind the Sun, which is sitting at about $23 right now on Amazon. It it turns out well, I'll be getting Journeyman from them as well, which comes out in May.
SUPER POWER NINJA TURBO NEO ULTRA HYPER MEGA MULTI ALPHA META EXTRA UBER PREFIX COMBO!
  Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Blu-ray Forum > Audio > Music / Audiophiles > Blu-ray Music and High Quality Music


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 12:03 AM.