This thread contains posts from a previous thread that did not concern where the following discussion ended up going. THAT discussion (and further discussions) can continue in THIS thread!
Party on!
Party on!
One thing though, don't get your hopes up for 5.1 mixes. These are ALL remixes presented as bonus tracks. The meat of these DVDA's are the original stereo mixes transfered at 96kHz 24 bit. There were NEVER any quadraphonic mixes of these albums back in the day. The 5.1 remixes are unfortunately pretty typical of remixes; they pale compared to the originals.
The point is that, since we're talking here on the quad forum, these are not any long lost quad mixes but new remixes. Any content on a release beyond the original mixes is a bonus. That's all. The bonus tracks on these discs include 5.1 remixes. Cool! My intention was to point out the positives here. Calling the extra material bonus tracks is no slam; it is what it is. Releasing these albums in 24/96 is a really big deal (I mean, my vinyl copies are actually being retired! Even the MFSL pressing. How often does that happen?) No need for a DVDA? Well, it's the most accessible format* for lossless high res audio (and it's not automatically a 5.1 format even though many feel the need to include 5.1 material just because you can). Which leads me to acknowledging that a great many 5.1 remixes ultimately fall flat. I wanted to point out that pretty much for the first time ever, someone has done better. Again, I'll likely never listen to the original stereo mix for Lizard ever again. I feel this way about many (not all) quad mixes vs. the stereo counterpart as well. Those two live tracks on Red have been in very high rotation.And what does it matter if there weren't any original quad mixes? What is that supposed to prove?
<snip>
* OK, this could start a war... er, thread in itself with the DVD format war in full battle. I believe we must consider playability on the computer which makes DVDA a winner and makes the Blu-ray data format still a niche market. And sorry Sony, but the studios are not replacing their PCM converters and workstations with DSD anytime soon (good concept though) and neither are many consumers so that leaves SACD out.
...unfortunately the 48/24 5.1 sounds like a cd , not a dvda
Er... what? A 5.1 release sounds like a CD? What kind of equipment do you use, man?
Do we have to go through all this again...? @:
Actually blu-ray is very playable on the computer, plus content can be ripped/played back just like for DVD and DVD-Audio. I like both DVD-Audio and Blu-Ray with lots of releases in one or the other, but to be honest DVD-Audio is more niche than Blu-Ray at this point when considering available content, available hardware and format recognition. IMO of course
I could point out studies like this one which suggest that surround sound itself masks whatever tiny differences *might* be audible between high sample rates. And I would question the audiophile logic of advocating lossy 96kHz DTS over lossless 48 kHz MLPCM....
But it won't do any good. Remember the X-Files motto? "I WANT TO BELIEVE"?
I think a great many will agree that there is as significant an increase in sound quality from 48k to 96k as there is from 16 to 24 bit.
Well to be honest, I haven't looked into the Blu-ray format for a few months. Let me be clear about what I'm referring to. A standard Blu-ray DVD is obviously no problem. The data format is the same; audio in the AUDIO_TS folder and video, lossy audio and certain lossless audio in the VIDEO_TS folder. There's a newer data format showing up that Sony refers to as "Blu-ray" itself. With this format you will find BDMV, AACS & CERTIFICATE folders on the disc. This is supposed to support lossless high res PCM audio (up to 8 channels of 24/96). Last time I checked I didn't see any media players or ripping software, so you have my undivided attention at the moment.
Do you know of a media player that has the ability to send 6 channels of 24/96 (5.1 program) to Core Audio and off to an audio interface of my choice (ie. my Apogee)?
Do you know of ripping software that will give me WAV files of the 5.1 or stereo programs (live DVDAExplorer for standard DVDA discs or images)?
<snip>
What I do is demux the DTS HD for a song from a ripped music blu-ray and convert it to multichannel flac (lossless) using eac3to.Anyone seen a software player for DTS HD yet?
Rippers - AnyDVD or DVDFab
Players - Most recent versions of PowerDVD, WinDVD and TMT3; Or even MediaPlayerClassic-HC (MPC-HC) with ffdshow.
Hardware - If you want to send decoded audio (PCM) or undecoded audio (bitstream) to external decoder via HDMI I believe currently you need something like Asus Xonar or the recent 5xxx series of ATI cards (I think the 4xxx cards can do the PCM but not the undecoded bitstream) - eitherway I think the only interface you can do this on now is HDMI.
snip
I'm sorry you are not able to hear the difference. It's like night and day to me. Apparently others as well - look at all the trouble some of us are going to to prevent corruption of our music.I'd say that going from 16 to 24 bits is audible given the right (quite extreme) circumstances, but 48 to 96 kHz... That has yet to be shown in controlled tests.
I'm sorry you are not able to hear the difference. It's like night and day to me. Apparently others as well - look at all the trouble some of us are going to to prevent corruption of our music.
Many things are like night and day to many different people - with and without shakti stones on the amplifier, for example. That doesn't mean that there is a physiologically audible difference.
To call using 48 kHz sampling frequency for a DVD-A release "corruption of our music" is ill-informed at best, ill-willed at worst.
Yikes! I hope this is just miscommunication. I don't want to attack you for your preferences but it really bugs me to see a preference for higher quality spun into "ill-willed" towards lesser formats.
In principle I agree. But I am not talking about "data compression".Honestly, there's really not much need for data compression anymore with storage space and transmission speeds nowadays. I think it worth remembering that the reason for these techniques was to make delivery possible with very limited bandwidth.
Who has said anything about preferring lossy compression because it sounds different? It is the other way around! I don't necessarily prefer higher sampling rate because it does not sound different! Is that so hard to understand?Sample rate reduction, word length reduction and lossy compression were NEVER intended to be a "sound", rather a way to deliver music as well as possible with very limited bandwidth. Now we have folks seeming to "embrace" these lossy techniques* for their "sound" and giving those of us who have moved beyond the snob treatment.
And that "sound" also disappears when listening are performed in double-blind controlled tests.For me (and a great many others from what I have read), 24/96 has reached the point of 99.9999999999999% perfect reproduction. That "sound" or limitation that people call "digital" when they're being negative about it disappears (it's still there at 48k).
I have heard those advocating 192 and higher, and why not, with your reasoning? Why are you now giving them the snob treatment just because you can't hear the difference?A great many studio engineers and audiophiles have agreed that the next jump up to 192k isn't worth the HD space.
Yes, that is your problem. This is exactly what I am talking about - you are prejudiced against a perfectly fine recording because it is "only" 48 kHz! You are staring at the numbers instead of listening to the music, and you are probably also making other people unsure about this.Recorded at 24/96 and then reduced to 24/48 or less? Now we have a problem. I might only ever listen to a certain recording once.
Enter your email address to join: