High-Definition CDs?

[monkeyjb1988]

Do you think the technollogies used for Blu-Rays can be applied to music CDs so that they have lossless audio? I'm a big musical nerd (listening to the Wizard of Oz soundtrack typing this) and I would love to hear some of my favorite musicals in the same quaility as the sound from my favorite Blu-Rays. So what do you guys think?

[fighthefutureofhd]

hate it. i don't see what the big deal about this is. cd is the standard for music and should stay that. let me give you an example. i just bought cure's wish on cd. now aside from a remastering, which is due soon, i don't see any way this can be improved. and not even on blu-ray. it's a fantastic cd and doesn't need to be tampered with on some blu-ray audio format. i don't watch music. i listen to it. and there just isn't any way blu-ray's can beat cd's.

[Woody]

Originally Posted by monkeyjb1988

Do you think the technollogies used for Blu-Rays can be applied to music CDs so that they have lossless audio? I'm a big musical nerd (listening to the Wizard of Oz soundtrack typing this) and I would love to hear some of my favorite musicals in the same quaility as the sound from my favorite Blu-Rays. So what do you guys think?

Cd's utilize lossless audio.

[Anthony P]

CDs are 2ch 16bit 44.1khz, so yes you are right there is a lot of room for improvement and they could use DTHD or DTS-MA to change those limits. But my question is why stick with CD. If you are building a new audio format that has much better sound then why not just upgrade the whole thing. That is why I voted I don't care for HDCD. Give me BD-A

[Bobby Henderson]

Using blu laser technology to create music CDs might be fine, but I'm not going to pay extra for it. Music CDs are already arguably expensive for being a largely bare bones music only product. I'm not going to go from spending upwards of $20 on a CD to spending $25 or $30. I might consider it if the disc was a true, high resolution CD. But 16-bit 44.1kHz isn't high resolution, not even if it's written with a blue laser.

Blu-ray has a LOT more capability on delivering music than CD or DVD could ever manage. 24-bit audio in 96kHz or 192kHz sample rates is perfectly feasible. In addition, high definition video content (music videos, concert footage, band interviews, etc.) can be included. Bonus View and BD Live add even more capability -like allowing the listener to download lossy versions of the music for use on his iPod.

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

cd is the standard for music and should stay that.

Music CD is one choice of formats for recorded music. It's not necessarily "the standard" when so many people are buying music tracks one at a time from iTunes and other such services. There's lots of low end, lossy compressed choices for buying music. Blu-ray can deliver a high end alternative.

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

i just bought cure's wish on cd. now aside from a remastering, which is due soon, i don't see any way this can be improved. and not even on blu-ray.

That depends on how the music was originally recorded. If it was recorded in the digital realm in mere 16-bit 44.1kHz resolution then I would agree there is no point in doing anything further with it.

Lots of music made throughout the 1980s and into 1990s was recorded using analog tape -typically 2" tape run at 30" per second. Some masters feature Dolby SR noise reduction. Red book music CD does not have the capability of reproducing all of the audio detail from those tapes. A 24-bit 96kHz or 24-bit 192kHz version would come much closer.

Newer music is typically recorded and edited in the digital realm, but often at resolutions well above what music CD can deliver. Unfortunately, a lot of rock and pop music is recorded in a very over-driven manner to make the track sound loud. Lots of peaks in the wave forms get badly clipped. That practice needs to come to a stop before high resolution audio can become a common alternative when it comes to buying popular music.

[Chevypower]

I would be interested to hear a good recording and master in 24/192khz and try to hear the difference between 16/44.1khz - 4 times as many samples per second... will I notice it? I know a lot of raw recordings are done in 16/48. it seems fairly standardized for professional recordings. I should add to that so many people on this forum are so caught up in specs, they are sure they will like something so much more, without even experiencing if there is a difference.

[Midnightsailor]

I think you'll be surprised to find out how technology can progress...even for cd's.

I've already heard SACD's. Huge difference.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by fighthefutureofhd

i just bought cure's wish on cd. now aside from a remastering, which is due soon, i don't see any way this can be improved. and not even on blu-ray.

That is absurd. The Cure most definately recorded the album at higher than CD quality. I love The Cure and the Wish album. I have heard many DVD-Audio and SACD albums, and it can make a world of difference. On REM's Automatic For The People DVD-Audio I could hear whole instrumental elements that were nowhere to be heard on the "old school" CD. The Cure's albums would be brillaint on Blu-ray, and I would welcome the increased fidelity that BD can offer.

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by Midnightsailor

I think you'll be surprised to find out how technology can progress...even for cd's.

I've already heard SACD's. Huge difference.

I don't doubt that technology can progress... But, is there an AUDIBLE difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 uncompressed. If the same instruments, same microphones same studio, same speakers. (Assuming they are of high quality of course). When the only difference is the recording sample rate.

[blu2]

Maybe you should refer to this thread/poll:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=58797

[Bobby Henderson]

But, is there an AUDIBLE difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 uncompressed. If the same instruments, same microphones same studio, same speakers. (Assuming they are of high quality of course). When the only difference is the recording sample rate.

There's more differences than the sample rate. The bit depth (16-bit versus 24-bit) is also pretty significant. It's a 50% increase in bits per sample. People also hear in the frequency domain, not the time domain. The trick with 24/96 or 24/192 audio is having a sound system good enough to show off those differences. Some little $300 home theater in a box isn't going to have the oomph to deliver that.

[Anthony P]

But, is there an AUDIBLE difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 uncompressed. If the same instruments, same microphones same studio, same speakers. (Assuming they are of high quality of course). When the only difference is the recording sample rate.

simple answer YES there is an audible difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 now if it was 24/96 to 24/192 it would be harder and maybe not, but 16/44 for sure it loses the richness of the sound

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by Hep

That is absurd. The Cure most definately recorded the album at higher than CD quality. I love The Cure and the Wish album. I have heard many DVD-Audio and SACD albums, and it can make a world of difference. On REM's Automatic For The People DVD-Audio I could hear whole instrumental elements that were nowhere to be heard on the "old school" CD. The Cure's albums would be brillaint on Blu-ray, and I would welcome the increased fidelity that BD can offer.

i heard the automatic for the people dvd-a as well and i thought it sucked. it was lacking a whole, whole lot. i thought it was the weakest of the r.e.m. dvd-a's. and the content was very impossible to get off the dvd onto the zune so in the end it was a bit of a waste.

[ozzman]

Rob Halford is putting out a blu-ray C.D
I think he's the first one thats doing this if iam not mistaken

http://www.robhalford.com/quorum/sho....php?p=1616608

[Static]

Originally Posted by Chevypower

I don't doubt that technology can progress... But, is there an AUDIBLE difference between 16/44.1 and 24/192 uncompressed. If the same instruments, same microphones same studio, same speakers. (Assuming they are of high quality of course). When the only difference is the recording sample rate.

For the general public there will be an improvement, but not a huge one. Some people may not even notice it, It all depends on the hardware. Most people think they have good speakers and hardware but simply dont. Heavy speakers tend to be too slow to play all the detail in these tracks (with a few exceptions...... some of those companies are just good) Personally I run on component hardware and electrostatic speakers, so something like this would be a dream come true. I hate paying 12-20 dollars for a crappy sounding recording. I say they may as well upgrade from CD's finally because players can downsample for those with standard hardware and it will sound just like CD, but you can not upsample and make it sound just like the original master. They might as well finally make recordings pretty much future-proof. At least untill the recording standards change.

[Bobby Henderson]

Rob Halford is putting out a blu-ray C.D
I think he's the first one thats doing this if iam not mistaken

Nine Inch Nails did a special Blu-ray release of the Ghosts I-IV instrumental album. The disc featured 24/96 audio and other goodies.

[Wreck]

Its gets as good as it gets when its remastered ... thats is what gives you that clarity crisp sound to your recording (I used to produce) A good mix and then a good master ...

if it sounds like crap, well its not recorded right, not mixed right, or not mastered right ... so if it is subpar, screw it being on a BD... get it remixed and mastered and it would be better then it could be on a BD. Thats how you change the sound element.

Hence why you hear some DVDs or blus saying "restored and remastered" = visual and audio done over.

I wont be checking back on this thread, so, if u quote me, PM me.

[Chevypower]

I say lets bring on 96 or 192/24 stereo then. I am not a big fan of multi-channel, I have heard SACD, and unless it's a live recording, I want stereo. I wonder if the iPod and iTunes can handle high bit rate. I might do a little recording with my Sennheiser 416 mic, sample it at 24/192 WAV or AIFF - or both, and bring it in to iTunes. Even if it couldn't I am sure it only takes a software update.

[ckent22]

I'd say figure out how to put lossless audio on digital music downloads.

[Mr. Cinema]

Not worth pursuing. The majority of people didn't care about SACD or DVD-Audio. They won't care about this.