King Crimson DVD-A Discussion

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Guys, guys, you're scaring the new guy, we're friendly here....
Once and for all, there are some of us who DO notice a difference in sound between 48 and 96 , that's it.
It seems that the 48 "camp" is more obsessed about convincing the 96 "camp" that we just "believe" we can hear the difference.
Maybe it is so, but please respect our views and stop trying to argue that 48 is the same as 96. It is not. ( and here I thought you, Neil , of all people would be of the 96 camp)
My guess ¡s that the 48 camp really want to be able to hear the difference(YES . IT'S THERE) and are trying to convince yourselves by "crushing dissent"....
Well, cool, but..can' we all just...get along?
I myself never thought I'd hear the difference , but ,as I mentioned earlier, it was working in conversions for myself and consequently this Forum's other members, that I heard a MAJOR difference between 48 and 96.
And I have Tinnitus Perenne!!! How can I explain that? Sonic hallucinations? Don't think so.
As it is, why then are the Stereo mixes in 96/24 if 48 is the same as 96? That's why we think that the main meat on the releases are the STereo track, not the 5.1.
It is the difference between cd quality sound and Vinyl quality sound, plain and simple.
 
hard to say about advancement but obviously the range 96/24 won't hurt our ears :)
 
2lvcobc.jpg
[/IMG]


Comments?
 
It seems that the 48 "camp" is more obsessed about convincing the 96 "camp" that we just "believe" we can hear the difference.
Maybe it is so, but please respect our views and stop trying to argue that 48 is the same as 96.

No, my problem is mainly that the "96 camp" is complaining over DVD-A editions, not because of what they sound like, but because of some numbers printed on the cover. And because there might be a risk that some readers will start to believe that using 48 kHz (or 44.1) "corrupts the music", I will take every opportunity to retort.


I myself never thought I'd hear the difference , but ,as I mentioned earlier, it was working in conversions for myself and consequently this Forum's other members, that I heard a MAJOR difference between 48 and 96.

Please eliminate all possible error sources (there are numerous) and repeat this experiment. Everyone will be very interested, since all other controlled listening experiments I have seen come to the conclusion that the sampling rate in itself is not possible to hear. There might be other effects (the upper frequency limit, type of filters, etc.), but when these are eliminiated...

It is the difference between cd quality sound and Vinyl quality sound, plain and simple.

OMG... :mad:@:
 
Last edited:
No, my problem is mainly that the "96 camp" is complaining over DVD-A editions, not because of what they sound like, but because of the some numbers printed on the cover. And because there might be a risk that some readers will start to believe that using 48 kHz (or 44.1) "corrupts the music", I will take every opportunity to retort.

Please do not put words in my mouth.


Please eliminate all possible error sources (there are numerous) and repeat this experiment. Everyone will be very interested, since all other controlled listening experiments I have seen come to the conclusion that the sampling rate in itself is not possible to hear. There might be other effects (the upper frequency limit, type of filters, etc.), but when these are eliminiated...

I know what I hear ,, if you can't, well use some Q-tips...
BTW, what conversions have you done ?


OMG... :mad:@:
OMG yourself , mister


OK Almen , you win...
I don't know my ass from a hole in the ground and I am imagining things and 44 is the same as 96 and ALL of us who "think we hear a difference" are a bunch of liars and we're stupid.
YOU ARE RIGHT
There, feel better?
Geez!!!
 
Curiously you did not discuss the givaway answer in the whole question:
The STEREO is 96/24 and the 5.1 is 48/24.
This tells me that what interest the makers and the meat of the release is the Stereo Version, while the Surround is for freaks like us who probably won't notice it's 48.
So the makers THINK that there's a better resolution that is auduble...But then the makers are wrong sometimes.
Then ..if 96 and 48 are the same, why did they bother with the Stereo in 96???
 
kap'n krunch, plase get your quotations right.

My OMG was specifically about you comparing going from 48 to 96 with going from vinyl to CD. That just does not have anything to do with something.
 
..if 96 and 48 are the same, why did they bother with the Stereo in 96???

Because they can? I am not against 96 kHz, it's just that it is not necessary, especially for material this old.

But what the heck, when storage is free, bandwidth unlimited, and we only download files, why not go for 24 bits 96 kHz? One less conversion in the production.
 
perhaps 24/48/5.1 is a limitation of the DVD-A format; if the discs were on Blu-ray they could be 24/192/7.1
 
Because they can? I am not against 96 kHz, it's just that it is not necessary, especially for material this old.

But what the heck, when storage is free, bandwidth unlimited, and we only download files, why not go for 24 bits 96 kHz? One less conversion in the production.

This is a good point. On both "Red" and "ItCotCK" it had been necessary to remove some of the extras in order to fit in 96/24 surround PCM. I would personally have preferred that but it's just my 2 cents. Now, and idea comes to my mind: what if DGM offered us "believers" :D a 96/24 download?
 
ok sorry to chime in on this but definite audio difference the higher the sample rate. some of the early 24/192 mixes were phenomonal sonically, they just were not surround, which I think we all can agree is the holy grail. so like the previous writer states it has everything to do with disc space and what you are willing to sacrifice. My opinion comes sonically speaking I would prefer the higher sampling rate w 5.1. lose the rotating pictures, lose the lame extra mixes, lose the stereo mixes, and in one case I can remember they even included mono mix, whooa, drop all the extra videos, and just gimmme the music!!

OR, we can just all pull out our I-pods and trade mp-3's
 
Islands and Beat have been announced by CDJapan with a 4/21 release date. No details about the extras, tho.
 
Hi Guys.
It's time to stick my 0.02 worth in here as things seem to have gotten a bit heated.
The whole 96 or 48 thing is being blown right out of proportion I think, and it is time to clarify a few things.

Firstly, there is no thought at all about the 5.1 being at 48k because surround fans do not care.
We did create 96k versions of the 5.1 mixes for these titles, but as nobody could tell the difference in testing, we went with 48k to fit on the stuff we did ast the resolutions we used.
The stereo versions arriving at 96k was a surprise at the time, but it all just fitted.

For the next releases, we will be using 96k for the 2010 stereo & surround mixes, and probably not much else.
If we can the original versions will be in 96k, but all bonus material will probably be in 16/48 to maker it all fit.
If I can use 24-bit, then I will. No guarantees on the bonus content at all.

96 or 48 is a contentious thing at the best of times. It is certainly true that for some people 96k sounds better than 48k.
What we need to ask ourselves is why this is. It certainly has nothing to do with extended frequency response for 4 very good reasons.
1 - There are no microphones that existed when these were recorded that were capable of capturing anything much above 18kHz. Some went lower, some scraped in at 20k.
2 - The PreAmps and analogue consoles of the day could not handle anything above 20kHz, and most still cannot.
3 - Home HiFi rarely has response above 22kHz at very best. Amplifiers rarely - if ever - do, and loudspeakers certainly do not unless you buy special active ones (which is still the best way to make a loudspeaker, as it avoids all manner of nasty problems)
4 - This is the match winner. Nobody can hear anything above 23kHz at the very, very highest & this degenerates with age. This has been proved many, many times.

So what is going on? There is no denying that some people definitely get better quality from 96 over 48.
It is not due to extended frequencies. Therefore something else must be going on, and it turns out the most likely place is the filter design of the DAC units.
A theoretically "perfect" filter cannot be built, fortunately. The steepr the slope, the worse the artifacts get.
My wager is that all improvements heard in 96k streams are caused by elimination of filtering artifacts - indeed, AES researcher Peter Craven has shown very convincingly that adding in a gentke slope filter anywhere in the reproduction or recording chain can eliminate all pre-ringing artifacts caused by our nemesis "aliasing".
All perceived deficiencies in 48k streams against 96k equivalents are almost certainly caused by poor DAC filter design.

See Bob Katz excellent book "Mastering Audio", particularly the chapter on High Sample Rates.
He goes into significantly more detail than I do, although I will be happy to elaborate and/or expand upon this.
 
Thanks Neil for your enlightening post. I have allways wondered about this, because I am one of those that think it sounds better at 96k, though I have to really be paying attention to notice. What specs do I need to look for to determine the quality of the DAC filter design?

See Bob Katz excellent book "Mastering Audio", particularly the chapter on High Sample Rates.
He goes into significantly more detail than I do, although I will be happy to elaborate and/or expand upon this.

I picked up this book on your earlier recommendation and it is excellent. Highly recommended even for the layman (me.)
 
My wager is that all improvements heard in 96k streams are caused by elimination of filtering artifacts - indeed, AES researcher Peter Craven has shown very convincingly that adding in a gentke slope filter anywhere in the reproduction or recording chain can eliminate all pre-ringing artifacts caused by our nemesis "aliasing".
All perceived deficiencies in 48k streams against 96k equivalents are almost certainly caused by poor DAC filter design.

That, and poor test design. :) Thanks for giving your point of view, Neil.

See Bob Katz excellent book "Mastering Audio", particularly the chapter on High Sample Rates.
He goes into significantly more detail than I do, although I will be happy to elaborate and/or expand upon this.
Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely look it up.
 
Back
Top