IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
DVDA best format, multiple formats to choose from.
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 21:06
Post #1





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



Sitting in front of me is the 40th Anniversary re-issue of "In the Court of the Crimson King".
-I have the CD1 and DVD shown in THIS article.

So, The first CD contains normal CD audio.

and the DVD contains:
"2009 remix, stereo, in 24/48 LPCM and 24/96 MLP".

My question is: Is there notable difference between the DVD sound quality and the CD quality when ripped to a lossless format? If the DVD is better, which format is better? The LPCM or the MLP?

I am trying to get the best stereo version I can.

Thanks,
Ozzdog


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 21:09
Post #2





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 21:13
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 22:09) *


are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 18 2011, 21:19
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 4972
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 16:13) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 22:09) *


are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?


Its going to come down to whichever one is mastered better. If they're identical masters just downmixed to different final sample rates and sample sizes, then yes I would not expect there to be any difference. All of those formats are good enough that they don't matter. But they're probably not the same master. I suggest listening if possible.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 21:26
Post #5





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 13:13) *
are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?

I'm trying to tell you that you should base your decision from objective listening.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 21:28
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (saratoga @ Oct 18 2011, 22:19) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 16:13) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 22:09) *


are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?


Its going to come down to whichever one is mastered better. If they're identical masters just downmixed to different final sample rates and sample sizes, then yes I would not expect there to be any difference. All of those formats are good enough that they don't matter. But they're probably not the same master. I suggest listening if possible.


The CD contains the 2009 version "Remixed from the original multitrack master tapes".

The DVD contains the
1. "2009 stereo album mix"
2. "Original album mix (2004 master edition)"


(I personally like the remixed version better, so the original mix is out of the question)

You mean to say (assuming that the masters "2009 stereo album mix" = 2009 version "Remixed from the original multitrack master tapes".), there should be no audible difference?


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 21:32
Post #7





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 22:26) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 13:13) *
are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?

I'm trying to tell you that you should base your decision from objective listening.


Sure, I agree with you. However, since I am already using lossless audio files as my preferred music format (and can hear a difference from V0 mp3s), why not just get the best possible version while I'm at it?

If there are no differences, fine, that's what I'm asking.

This post has been edited by Ozzdog: Oct 18 2011, 21:33


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 18 2011, 21:38
Post #8





Group: Members
Posts: 4972
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 16:28) *
You mean to say (assuming that the masters "2009 stereo album mix" = 2009 version "Remixed from the original multitrack master tapes".), there should be no audible difference?


If they're identical masters just downmixed to different final sample rates and sample sizes, then yes I would not expect there to be any difference.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 18 2011, 21:39
Post #9





Group: Members
Posts: 3407
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 16:32) *
Sure, I agree with you. However, since I am already using lossless audio files as my preferred music format (and can hear a difference from V0 mp3s), why not just get the best possible version while I'm at it?

Could you provide some ABX logs to support that claim?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 22:45
Post #10





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (pdq @ Oct 18 2011, 22:39) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 16:32) *
Sure, I agree with you. However, since I am already using lossless audio files as my preferred music format (and can hear a difference from V0 mp3s), why not just get the best possible version while I'm at it?

Could you provide some ABX logs to support that claim?

Sorry I'm new here. What is an acceptable score for this forum (and out of how many trials?), and how many separate comparisons (different samples)?


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 22:51
Post #11





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



I have a feeling he just wants to be sure you have read and understand the link I gave you earlier (in addition to TOS #8).


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 23:12
Post #12





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 23:51) *
I have a feeling he just wants to be sure you have read and understand the link I gave you earlier (in addition to TOS #8).


Well my question has been answered well enough from what I understand, so I won't make to much of a fuss here. I just think it is silly that you have to provide logs to prove your "listening capabilities". I mean I guess it depends on the context, but I feel like my statement isn't extreme enough to warrant "investigation".


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
DVDdoug
post Oct 18 2011, 23:38
Post #13





Group: Members
Posts: 2599
Joined: 24-August 07
From: Silicon Valley
Member No.: 46454



QUOTE
I just think it is silly that you have to provide logs to prove your "listening capabilities". I mean I guess it depends on the context, but I feel like my statement isn't extreme enough to warrant "investigation".


The problem is... The "other side" is even more silly!!!! wink.gif There's a lot of nonsense in the "audiophile" community... Expensive speaker cables, or even expensive power cables or audiophile power outlets, and audiophile ethernet cables. biggrin.gif These guys often hear "night and day" differences (in non-blind listening tests).

We try to avoid the nonsense here and only talk about things we can really hear! And, that means we have to hear a difference not only in a sighted test, but in a scientific blind test.

Your statement isn't "extreme" and we aren't questioning your hearing. But, but most music is transparent at V0.

This post has been edited by DVDdoug: Oct 18 2011, 23:59
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 23:40
Post #14





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



We get people here all the time asking about stuff that is subjective in the sense that they want people to make suggestions about what is best for ears that don't belong to them. It is also not unusual for these individuals to claim to have extremely acute hearing, though they have often never actually performed an objective test in order to determine this.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 19 2011, 01:36
Reason for edit: spelling


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 18 2011, 23:45
Post #15





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



Personally, I don't care whether or not I could actually hear a difference. I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible. You may say that is irrational, but JUST YOU wait! Come 2069, when bio-audio upgrades are available, I'll be the one laughing! laugh.gif


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 23:46
Post #16





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (DVDdoug @ Oct 18 2011, 15:38) *
But, but most music is transparent at V0.

This largely (perhaps almost always) depends on the listener and perhaps to a greater extent than it does on the music. Mp3s containing drums, cymbals and/or anything else with hard transients in virtually every type of music can routinely be detected by some people.

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 18 2011, 23:59


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Oct 18 2011, 23:49
Post #17





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 15:45) *
I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible.

What if it turns out the 24/96 is just up-converted from the 24/48?

This post has been edited by greynol: Oct 18 2011, 23:50


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
saratoga
post Oct 18 2011, 23:58
Post #18





Group: Members
Posts: 4972
Joined: 2-September 02
Member No.: 3264



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 18:12) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 23:51) *
I have a feeling he just wants to be sure you have read and understand the link I gave you earlier (in addition to TOS #8).


Well my question has been answered well enough from what I understand, so I won't make to much of a fuss here. I just think it is silly that you have to provide logs to prove your "listening capabilities". I mean I guess it depends on the context, but I feel like my statement isn't extreme enough to warrant "investigation".


Its to discourage people from wasting our time by claiming things are true that they don't know to be true.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ozzdog
post Oct 19 2011, 00:16
Post #19





Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 25-January 10
From: Quebec
Member No.: 77511



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 19 2011, 00:49) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 15:45) *
I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible.

What if it turns out the 24/96 is just up-converted from the 24/48?

Is there a way to tell, other than having an above perfect ear, some magic software program from Russia perhaps?


--------------------
F*ck the police.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vasilis
post Oct 19 2011, 00:18
Post #20





Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 16-October 11
Member No.: 94436



QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 18 2011, 23:49) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 15:45) *
I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible.

What if it turns out the 24/96 is just up-converted from the 24/48?


You cannot really tell between 24/48 and 24/96 but there is audible deference between 16 and 24 bit (even in blind tests). Still a spectral analysis could show whether a file is upsampled.

ozzdog,

As pointed out your ears are the best tool for the job
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Oct 19 2011, 01:20
Post #21





Group: Members
Posts: 3407
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



QUOTE (Vasilis @ Oct 18 2011, 19:18) *
You cannot really tell between 24/48 and 24/96 but there is audible deference between 16 and 24 bit (even in blind tests). Still a spectral analysis could show whether a file is upsampled.

Link please?


This post has been edited by pdq: Oct 19 2011, 01:21
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
probedb
post Oct 19 2011, 09:45
Post #22





Group: Members
Posts: 1238
Joined: 6-September 04
Member No.: 16817



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 23:45) *
Personally, I don't care whether or not I could actually hear a difference. I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible. You may say that is irrational, but JUST YOU wait! Come 2069, when bio-audio upgrades are available, I'll be the one laughing! laugh.gif


Then you original post makes no sense since you don't care rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 20 2011, 06:51
Post #23





Group: Members
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 19:16) *
QUOTE (greynol @ Oct 19 2011, 00:49) *
QUOTE (Ozzdog @ Oct 18 2011, 15:45) *
I am a perfectionist, and would like the best possible.

What if it turns out the 24/96 is just up-converted from the 24/48?

Is there a way to tell, other than having an above perfect ear, some magic software program from Russia perhaps?


It's easy to tell 'true' 96khz from upsampled 48kHz using not 'magic' software from Russia, but fairly mundane and well-known commercial software and even freeware. Adobe Audition, Audacity, etc...any software that can do a spectral display or frequency analysis will show whether there is a cuttoff of frequencies at 24 kHz (which indicates an initial 48 kHz sample rate, regardless of the 'delivery' sample rate on the disc)

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 20 2011, 06:53
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
alexeysp
post Oct 20 2011, 09:11
Post #24





Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 3-April 09
Member No.: 68627



QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 20 2011, 08:51) *
any software that can do a spectral display or frequency analysis will show whether there is a cuttoff of frequencies at 24 kHz (which indicates an initial 48 kHz sample rate, regardless of the 'delivery' sample rate on the disc)


- There are chances that the original record did not have anything above 24 kHz in the first place;
- there are chances that the high-frequency content was added, either intentionally or unintentionally, during upsampling and/or accompanying processing.

So in the end, it will be only a guess. Of course if the cutoff is very prominent you can call it an educated guess, but still.

This post has been edited by alexeysp: Oct 20 2011, 09:16
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
krabapple
post Oct 20 2011, 09:42
Post #25





Group: Members
Posts: 2274
Joined: 18-December 03
Member No.: 10538



QUOTE (alexeysp @ Oct 20 2011, 04:11) *
QUOTE (krabapple @ Oct 20 2011, 08:51) *
any software that can do a spectral display or frequency analysis will show whether there is a cuttoff of frequencies at 24 kHz (which indicates an initial 48 kHz sample rate, regardless of the 'delivery' sample rate on the disc)


- There are chances that the original record did not have anything above 24 kHz in the first place;


Certainly. But it is unlikely that a recording has a sharp cutoff at 24 kHz without a 48kHz sampling somewhere in the chain.


QUOTE
- there are chances that the high-frequency content was added, either intentionally or unintentionally, during upsampling and/or accompanying processing.


Yes, but there are ways to make 'educated guesses' about this too, e.g., if only occasional 'spikes' are seen above the original band limit.

In neither case does it require 'magic Russian software'.

This post has been edited by krabapple: Oct 20 2011, 09:46
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd September 2014 - 11:48