Blu-CD or SACD? (not the new Blu-spec CD, discussing profile 3.0 BD vs. SACD)

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

There are 6 soundtracks that were not recorded to PCM at all, but rather are straight DSD recordings.
http://sa-cd.net/dsd

I have 3 of those

Cincinnati Pops is not a OST, but a recording of select titles.

Jerry Goldsmith is a compilation that goes back to the Twilight Zone.

I'm not at home right now, so I have to check later, but even on the Telarc homepage there is no mention of a direct DSD recording. Well hit me with a stick if I missed such remarkable bit of information

Originally Posted by dobyblue

A lot of the music is recorded at 24/96 for scores, but because pretty much everything else is recorded at 24/48 (dialogue, gaffing, etc.) you're not likely to ever hear the original 24/96 recording unless it's releases on DVD-A.

Correct.

[Blue]

This thread has surprising remained civil - just. Let's keep it that way. Sample size and rate must almost be up there with religion and politics. There is never going to be an agreement as to which point is the point where no difference can be detected by the human ear. Blu-ray at least has the advantage that there is plenty of room and in pressing costs for a 100KB will cost the same as 24GB, so I guess the bigger the better. Let the civil debate continue - this thread is being watched...

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

Here we go, arguing about 192 vs 96. I don't have a point, I just don't believe in your point. There's no way I'm ever going to believe that 192KHz is not better than 96KHz. If you believe there is no difference between the two, there's something wrong.

It's not really. Beyond 96khz, you are at the point of diminshing returns. Secondly, bass begins to lag and sound dis-associated from the rest of the audio at 192khz. Another effect is that imaging really begins to unnaturally spread at 192khz. These are two effects that I noticed while participating in a DBT for the AES chapter I belong to. 24/96khz just makes sure that there are no losses, but is an overkill in and of itself. 20/60khz would be more optimal, as it would cover all frequencies a half octave over what humans can hear. That's just a pad to prevent any detectable losses. There is no advantage to 192khz, but there are some disadvantages. Only to a point does a higher sampling rate really benefits audio quality.

Bit depth is far more important than sampling rate for PCM. Professional studios nowadays have the ability to record up to 32/384.

32bit is floating point which has the effective resolution of 24bit. 384khz is oversampling, not a direct sample. However you are correct, the ability is there.

A lot of the music is recorded at 24/96 for scores, but because pretty much everything else is recorded at 24/48 (dialogue, gaffing, etc.) you're not likely to ever hear the original 24/96 recording unless it's releases on DVD-A.

Doby, a gaffer is essentially the Chief Lighting technician or head electrician on the set, and is not really associated with audio at all. However you are correct, most scores are recorded in 24/96khz, and dialog and effects can be 24/48 or 16/48khz.

[Galley]

I figured the record industry would've been all over SACD since it's impossible to copy the hi-res audio to a computer.

[Memnoch]

After hearing the quality that NIN: Downward Spiral SACD produced, I started doing research for more SACDs. I couldn't believe how amazing it sounded. Then I found out that there were only a handful of other SACDs that I would actually want. I guess it never really took off at all. And it makes me wonder. Now that entertainment is heading to almost entirely downloadable material, will another HD audio format even come out? Isn't everyone just going to download music and CDs will start to vanish? Won't movies head in this direction soon as well?

[JadedRaverLA]

Ah, the format that could have been...

SACD was such an awesome idea -- but it was far too radical a departure from what everyone was doing. Ditching the PCM standard for DSD may have been a great marketing ploy, but without completely changing the systems in place at recording studios around the world, it was an advancement without a benefit. Very few SA-CD players have true 1-bit D/A converters designed especially for SA-CD. The vast majority convert to PCM internally and then convert to analog. And even the few high-end players that had 1-bit D/As would usually convert to PCM in order to do any kind of sound manipulation (such as turning on speaker distance or volume, etc), again defeating the point of the DSD. And since music continued to be almost exclusively made in the PCM domain, we were recording analog sound to PCM --> converting to DSD --> converting to PCM --> running through a D/A to get analog sound to put out of speakers. It was a way too convoluted system, with quality lost in every conversion, to really produce the results that were promissed.

I hope Blu-ray Profile 3.0 can make up for those mistakes. Go back to PCM, ideally at 24-bit (or higher) and at least 96kHz (whether 192kHz is necessary I realize is up for much contention). Oh, yeah. And how about 10.1 channels or something equally amazing.

Honestly, I don't know if even that would be enough. Given that the masses have decided that mp3's are the new standard in "high-quality" musical reproduction, I don't think people will ever be willing to invest in high quality audio. The real cost of achieving "audiophile-quality" sound is still so ridiculous that even with the best recording format, the percentage of people who could properly appreciate what the format could really do would be incredible small. Just as you can't really appreciate Blu-ray video on a 1970's era television, you can't really appreciate high-end audio on anything but the best audio systems.

[dobyblue]

The vast majority in North America convert to PCM inside the player, but there are plenty of true DSD SACD players in EU that utilize the iLink for DSD direct to any number of receivers.

With HDMI you will start to see more true DSD players in North America too. I do not believe the format has come anywhere near to its last word. There are plenty of true DSD recordings made in the classical and jazz arenas and with over 13 million SACD players on the planet this niche format will hold on with audiophiles for some time to come.

The PS3 gives SonyBMG a huge opportunity to do more with the format in popular music and I believe once Blu-ray wins the HD disc war early next year you may see companies like Universal Music Group and SonyBMG begin to dive a little more into their popular music catalogue for "Deluxe Edition" releases and market it with "Plays in CD players, SACD players and Playstation 3" stickers.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Memnoch

After hearing the quality that NIN: Downward Spiral SACD produced, I started doing research for more SACDs. I couldn't believe how amazing it sounded. Then I found out that there were only a handful of other SACDs that I would actually want. I guess it never really took off at all. And it makes me wonder. Now that entertainment is heading to almost entirely downloadable material, will another HD audio format even come out? Isn't everyone just going to download music and CDs will start to vanish? Won't movies head in this direction soon as well?

The NIN disc is amazing and hopefully when Trent does the Deluxe Edition of The Fragile we will also see it on SACD.

In addition to the TDS disc I was thrilled to get all those B-sides in SACD stereo as well. The "Dead Souls" track's fidelity is miles better than the version on "The Crow" OST.

I thought there might not be much I would want, but my collection has grown substantially. I was never all that keen on Depeche Mode's "Violator" back in 1991, but now I realise how close it was to Pretty Hate Machine and the 5.1 SACD re-issue is fantastic.

All of Elton John's discs are amazing.

www.sa-cd.net is definitely the best site to browse to see if there is anything else you might want - listed by DSD recordings, multi-channel or not, etc.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Doby, a gaffer is essentially the Chief Lighting technician or head electrician on the set, and is not really associated with audio at all. However you are correct, most scores are recorded in 24/96khz, and dialog and effects can be 24/48 or 16/48khz.

I'm sorry I have my terminology wrong. I was referring to the person that watches the movie and adds effects like punches, footsteps, etc. Who is that?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

You can't really appreciate high-end audio on anything but the best audio systems.

This is one statement I do disagree with. It was a system that was not high end that led me to appreciate the benefits of DVD-A and SACD.

My first 5.1 speaker system was the JBL SC145.5 which is available from Best Buy for something low like $249. When I first listened to the DualDisc (I eventually replaced it with the SACD) of Nine Inch Nails' Downward Spiral I was floored by how much better the DVD-A track sounded than the Dolby Digital track on the same disc.

The only thing that led me to look for better speakers was my first stereo only SACD, Peter Gabriel's "Us"

Because I could only listen to it in stereo through the little satellites I realized I wanted better speakers, so I went out and bought a pair of Paradigm Monitor 11v4 speakers - brilliant!!

Then the centre channel sounded weak on movies in between those babies so I bought a CC-370v4 a few months after. 10 months after that (wait mandated by spouse) I bought a Servo15v2 and a pair of Monitor 11v5 and moved the v4's to the rear.

Although I am very chuffed with my system and it is better than any of the systems my friends own, I still don't consider it to be one of the "best" audio systems with what is out there that I could have bought, but it definitely floors everyone who hears it and gives them a better understanding of why mp3's do in fact rot your brain.

As long as there is still good equipment there will be a market for higher end audio.

[Alex Pallas]

when i run spectral analysis on pcm wav ripped from CDs, many times the frequency rate peaks below 44.1, also consider the generations of recording on dats. have any recordings actually utilized the extremely high frequency possible with this format?

[Ender]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I'm sorry I have my terminology wrong. I was referring to the person that watches the movie and adds effects like punches, footsteps, etc. Who is that?

That's the Foley artist.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Alex Pallas

when i run spectral analysis on pcm wav ripped from CDs, many times the frequency rate peaks below 44.1, also consider the generations of recording on dats. have any recordings actually utilized the extremely high frequency possible with this format?

Alex,
Are you referring to the sample rate, or the frequency response? If you do analysis on a frequency sweep, most all of the frequencies will be below below 20khz. You will not find any frequencies above 22.5khz on any CD because of the filters required to prevent aliasing of the digital audio.

I have done several recordings in PCM that had instrument harmonics greater than 20khz utilizing ribbon microphones.

[AlexKx]

People who say that 50gb or whatever is too much space for an album are not conscious of all the things that (not all) but MANY albums have that are for the most part unreleased. These being demos, outtakes, instrumentals, alternative versions, different edits, remixes, short promotional films (which are music videos), recordings of films, making of short promotional films, interviews, documentaries on the project, fan perspectives on the project, and these sorts of things. There are some artists that could literally have HOURS of these things. I have been HELLBENT on the music industry doing this NOW for all c.d.s and DEFINITELY phasing out c.d.s. People are not aware of all of these things that ARE NOT BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE of to their full extent in my opinion. All I know is that the music industry is suffering and no one sees any end in sight of it getting worse and worse. They have the tools in my opinion to raise the interest level in buying these products again and not just the music off of the internet. They could be packaged deals. I don't know how well it would work out on how to sell these packaged deals but it sure as hell seems like a great opportunity to sell the music. Hopefully the sooner the better that this is done so that you can get filmed interviews of people before they pass away.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Ender

That's the Foley artist.

Thank you! The Foley, not the gaffer.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by Blue

This thread has surprising remained civil - just. Let's keep it that way. Sample size and rate must almost be up there with religion and politics. There is never going to be an agreement as to which point is the point where no difference can be detected by the human ear. Blu-ray at least has the advantage that there is plenty of room and in pressing costs for a 100KB will cost the same as 24GB, so I guess the bigger the better. Let the civil debate continue - this thread is being watched...

That's because we all have one thing in common - we are passionate about high-end audio. It's the people who are into MP3 that you've gotta worry about. That's called uncivilised audio.

[frenchglen]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Blu-ray doesn't support 7.1 24/192 for any codec, so you'll never see that.

Wow, I never knew that. I suppose when you work out the PCM bitrate it's 36.8Mbps, way above the assigned bitrate of 24Mbps.

Now - I'm wondering if this limit is only for the video profiles (1.0-2.0) and if the BDA will allow the extra option for 7.1 24/192 in profile 3? If they've bothered to include 5.1 24/192, they obviously think it's a valued option so why not add the extra back two channels for the audio-dominated variant?

I also wonder, since BD over HDMI connection can handle up to around 48Mbps, if it's possible to create an "out of spec" BD 1.0 disc with just 7.1 24/192 audio...?? Could any software do that?

(not that I want to do this, just curious)

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by frenchglen

That's because we all have one thing in common - we are passionate about high-end audio. It's the people who are into MP3 that you've gotta worry about. That's called uncivilised audio.

Which is why I really like this new article on Audioholics

http://www.audioholics.com/news/edit...s-made-me-dumb

It is entitled "MP3's made me dumb"

Originally Posted by frenchglen

Wow, I never knew that. I suppose when you work out the PCM bitrate it's 36.8Mbps, way above the assigned bitrate of 24Mbps.

The maximum is 27.648 Mbps (5.1 24/192)

[Alex Pallas]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Alex,
Are you referring to the sample rate, or the frequency response? If you do analysis on a frequency sweep, most all of the frequencies will be below below 20khz. You will not find any frequencies above 22.5khz on any CD because of the filters required to prevent aliasing of the digital audio.

I have done several recordings in PCM that had instrument harmonics greater than 20khz utilizing ribbon microphones.

okay, i think i understand where i'm getting lost now, yeah, i was talking about sample rate. but i still have to question how many recording masters can actually take advantage of the frequency range available in DSD of the potential blu-ray audio format.

furthermore, from my understanding BR discs are using audio formats from companies such as Dobly, so does creating another format really make sense? and wouldnt there be compatibility issues with players already in circulation?

i must admit i am a bit lost.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Alex Pallas

okay, i think i understand where i'm getting lost now, yeah, i was talking about sample rate. but i still have to question how many recording masters can actually take advantage of the frequency range available in DSD of the potential blu-ray audio format.

furthermore, from my understanding BR discs are using audio formats from companies such as Dobly, so does creating another format really make sense? and wouldnt there be compatibility issues with players already in circulation?

i must admit i am a bit lost.

It's really just a technology that allows you to get as close as possible to the source material--whether that's 50 year old acetate, an early 16-bit/44.8 kHz digital master, or a new 24/96 recording. David Robinson, of Positive Feedback, called DSD "master tapes for the masses".

I have one of the earliest digital recordings, the second album by DiMeola, De Lucia, McLaughlin, on SACD and I have the first DSD recording, Tony Williams--Young at Heart, on SACD...along with about 200 other titles, most of which are master tape to DSD transfers.

The frequency range isn't the advantage, the resolution and realism is the advantage.