[murrays]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moontan13 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The DVD that came with the c/e has that. It plays on any DVD player. Don't know why anyone would want it on DVD-A.

What is the "c/e"? As far as I understand, the original limited edition set came with a surround-sound 5.1 DVD. That is not high-res lossless as on the new DVD-A. The DVD-A is supposed to have 24-bit lossless audio.

 

[ozone42]

I ended up taking the 96khz, stereo tracks off the dvd and making flac as well as 320 cbr mp3s.

 

[IPodPJ]

Ok, well after a lot more listening and comparing the DVD-A to the CD I have concluded that the DVD-A has a bit more detail than the CD, and in some areas it's quite significant. The CD is muddier for sure. The DVD-A still doesn't have the bass impact or texture I'm looking for, and the drums are more subdued than they should be; some tracks you can hear drum detail well and on some tracks not much at all – this should not be the case, as it does not sound intentional but rather a result of poor mastering. The dynamics of the album are in some ways better than previous albums, but with those two key instruments getting lost in the music it's all for naught.

 

[murrays]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPodPJ /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok, well after a lot more listening and comparing the DVD-A to the CD I have concluded that the DVD-A has a bit more detail than the CD, and in some areas it's quite significant. The CD is muddier for sure. The DVD-A still doesn't have the bass impact or texture I'm looking for, and the drums are more subdued than they should be; some tracks you can hear drum detail well and on some tracks not much at all – this should not be the case, as it does not sound intentional but rather a result of poor mastering. The dynamics of the album are in some ways better than previous albums, but with those two key instruments getting lost in the music it's all for naught.

Thanks for that. I agree about the drums - that's what I notice lacking the most from the CD. I am curious enough now to give the DVD-A a try, now that I have practiced getting the tracks converted for the Squeezebox. IpodPJ, have you been listening to the stereo mix? Did you have to downsample to 48kHz?

 

[IPodPJ]

Yes, it is the hi-res stereo on the DVD-A. No, I do not downsample anything. I have the Transporter connected to my Audio-gd Reference 7. I use DVD-A Explorer and extract the files as a WAV in their native format which is 24 bit, 96kHz, 4608kbps.

 

[SnooP_WiggleS]

Keep in mind the 24bit/96khz stereo mix has a pretty much identical spectrum to cd release - nothing above 22khz other than a small blip at 46khz or so.

 

[Vkamicht]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnooP_WiggleS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Keep in mind the 24bit/96khz stereo mix has a pretty much identical spectrum to cd release - nothing above 22khz other than a small blip at 46khz or so.

I was wondering about something like this as Steven Wilson has said before that he records directly to 48khz... and until now, no PT DVD-A has gone above that. So I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL if this is an upsample.

Even the King Crimson 40th anniversary versions, which I did check the spectrum myself... both the 96khz "30th anniversary master" (which was done by someone else, I can't recall at the moment) and the 96khz 40th REMIX done by Wilson seem to stop dead at 24khz.

Oh well. I'm not saying that the information past that point means anything to me at all (as I can't hear it), but it's an indication of "fake" sampling rates sometimes. And sample rate is more than just frequency response.

 

[murrays]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnooP_WiggleS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Keep in mind the 24bit/96khz stereo mix has a pretty much identical spectrum to cd release - nothing above 22khz other than a small blip at 46khz or so.

My Squeezebox will only go up to 48 kHz anyway. But rather than the higher sampling rates (I can't even hear 20 kHz any more), it's more about the increased bit depth: 24 bit gives a lot more potential for detail and dynamic range than 16 bit. However, as mentioned here many times, it's entirely up to the recording people as to whether the range is fully exploited.

I will leave it up to the dogs and bats to argue about what is or isn't present above 22 khz.

 

[Vkamicht]

Quote:

Originally Posted by murrays /img/forum/go_quote.gif But rather than the higher sampling rates (I can't even hear 20 kHz any more), it's more about the increased bit depth: 24 bit gives a lot more potential for detail and dynamic range than 16 bit.

Aha, but bit depth can't be properly "exploited" without a high enough sample rate 65,536 values (16-bit) for 44,100 samples/sec is already enough, right? It's once you get to 96,000 samples that the sample rate surpasses the bit depth, and a little extra is needed. Supposedly. Not to derail the thread or anything.

 

[murrays]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vkamicht /img/forum/go_quote.gif Aha, but bit depth can't be properly "exploited" without a high enough sample rate 65,536 values (16-bit) for 44,100 samples/sec is already enough, right? It's once you get to 96,000 samples that the sample rate surpasses the bit depth, and a little extra is needed. Supposedly. Not to derail the thread or anything.

I really don't understand that one

. That's the first time I have seen any interdependency claimed between those 2 completely disparate dimensions (sample rate vs bit depth). What formula must you use to calculate the optimum bit-depth? How does the number of channels affect this? Can you please point me to a reference on this subject?