Standard vs. Blu Ray Audio- What is the Difference?

[JeffCarney]

No sir. Now you seem to be misunderstanding your own argument.

You said SACD and other hi-def formats capture more content in the 20 kHz-30kHz range, and you claimed (without providing any proof) that analog tape provided that content. You claimed nobody knew why frequencies that humans can't hear provided more "air" in a recording, but they do.

Either you aren't reading what I submit to this thread very attentively or you've just reached the point where you're making stuff up as you go along.

I never used the word "air" and I never cited the 20-30k range. This is not to say that these assertions are irrelevant or incorrect, they just weren't brought up this specifically by me. It's as if you've found some wacko, "Low-Res Digital Is God" site and are pasting in objections here and then answering them. You question whether this high frequency information is even on analog tape (laughable) and then go on to argue that this high frequency information isn't relevant anyway.

But this isn't just about high frequencies. There are numerous factors at play as to why standard 16/44 digital isn't capable of accurately representing recordings made on analog tape.

Also, it doesn't matter what you think about the sound or if the ultra high frequencies can be chopped off without detriment. The point is that redbook cannot even capture them, hence it cannot be stated that it is a superior recording medium. Even if the argument is that what it doesn't capture isn't necessary to capture, this cannot possibly equate to the format being superior.

We should also be careful to keep separate the four parallel discussions we're having. You're starting to conflate them.

Maybe this is where the confusion on your part has come into play.

There is only one discussion I am having. It regards your utterly absurd comment that "CD is so beyond technology of forty years ago." If this were true, we wouldn't have hi-res releases of albums made 40 years ago; period.

I'm really not discussing vinyl vs. CD and all of the clichéd ("Analog adds distortion, boo hoo hoo ...") analog vs digital nonsense which you're apparently fascinated by. I'm arguing one point only: CD is not the "end all" of recording technology. Had you even said that you felt CD was the best overall medium for you and had no interest in Blu-ray, I would have had no comment.

In conclusion, I'm not particularly interested in debating these other topics because I can't even get you to own up to your confusion on one. And some of the new information you've now submitted is plagued by inaccuracies, opinions stated as fact and conflicting anecdotes. Suffice it to say that if you think albums recorded from 1979-1985 had on average a "clearly superior" sound to those recorded prior to 1979, we clearly have vastly different sonic taste.

[Yves]

Happy Birthday Lino! I believe he's 44.

But acts like he's 16!

[Don Arnold]

But acts like he's 16!

Excellent. When I wrote my post I originally had 1644 but thought that was...well...pretentious.

So I went for subtlety instead.

[rcarlberg]

Jeff, thanks for your comments. Thankfully, I don't need your approval to know what the real facts are.

[JeffCarney]

Jeff, thanks for your comments. Thankfully, I don't need to know what the real facts are.

Fixed.

[Firth]

Analog vs digital

Digital still does not accurately model non-linear analog effects which require nearly infinite precision in the representation in digital. That post has some truth, but you can't replace tubes or cutting lathes for nonlinear effects. Bob Carver made a solid state amplifier that double blind tests had difficulty in distinguishing tubes from solid state, but he used analog modeling. These digital effects are crap.

[Library Jon]

Guys, I confess that this debate has gotten way over my head. What are you guys even arguing about? Just sum up the whole debate in a paragraph that would be completely understandable to anyone!! Okay?


Library Jon

[Firth]

Sometimes deluxe CD sets come in two formats of audio: Standard disc audio or Blu Ray audio. What is the difference in sound quality? Does it really matter? Thanks in advance.



Library Jon

Assuming "standard" means CD, then the answer is that Blu-ray audio has the potential of more accurately portraying the original source. Not only in terms of fidelity, but also the number of versions provided. I have seen the following on a Bluray:
The following were all 24 bit 96kHz.
1. Direct transfer of original stereo master tape (pre-RIAA)
2. Direct transfer of original quadraphonic master
3. Needle drop on half speed mastered vinyl
4. Stereo Remix
5. 5.1, up to 7.1 DTS Master Audio or Dolby HD

[Brian Griffin]

Guys, I confess that this debate has gotten way over my head. What are you guys even arguing about? Just sum up the whole debate in a paragraph that would be completely understandable to anyone!! Okay?


Library Jon

Just trust your ears

BG

[trurl]

Just trust your ears

BG

Oh god no, never do that.

[Plasmatopia]

I got tested recently and I'm still flat up to 19.

Me too. Flat deaf.

[rcarlberg]

Guys, I confess that this debate has gotten way over my head. What are you guys even arguing about? Just sum up the whole debate in a paragraph that would be completely understandable to anyone!! Okay?

In the battle of science versus unsupported opinion, he who insults the other until he quits is the winner.

[JeffCarney]

1. Direct transfer of original stereo master tape (pre-RIAA)

Just to point out: There is no such thing as a tape with RIAA.

[JeffCarney]

In the battle of science versus unsupported opinion, he who insults the other until he quits is the winner.

You can take it that way, Robert, but you need to look inward on this one, IMO.

"Science," as you call it, makes it clear the hi-res often captures information from analog tape that 16/44 doesn't. This is verifiable with two minutes on Google. Just because I refused to do your work for you doesn't mean the information isn't there.

In the end, it's you who are trying to work your way around "science" and assert that all hi-res releases are pointless. Anyone who even tries to get you to consider that your perspective might be narrow-minded is not "facing facts." You tend to ignore point after point made but create your own points and then answer them. It's simply not reasonable discourse on any level, IMO.

[nosebone]

analog sounds better

[rcarlberg]

As an aside ... here's an article on MOFI finding an old MCI JHD 1/2" tape machine which was recording information up to 120KHz. And these guys are using a real-time cutting machine which can capture up to 122KHz for playback on 33 1/3rd RPM vinyl!

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue2/mastering.htm

LOL!!!!!

Finally got around to reading this article, because, well, I knew you had to be misinterpreting SOMETHING. Let me point out a couple things to ya, Jeff.

1. The 122kHz signal which showed up on the lacquer was LEAKAGE from the bias voltage of the MCI deck -- not signal recorded on it. This is a design FLAW. A rather serious one because it will interfere with the audible output.

2. The fact that Mobile Fidelity's cutter transcribed this frequency is another serious design FLAW, as the article's author points out. It overheats the lathe, it interferes with the audible sound, and it makes the lacquer unusable. Plus it was cutting at HALF SPEED so it was really "only" 61kHz.

3. Why is this a really really BAD THING? Well, because as the author hints, there isn't a pickup in the world that can track 122kHz.

4. Nor a preamp that'll pass it.

5. Nor an amp that'll pass it.

6. Nor a speaker that'll reproduce it.

7. Nor a human ear that can hear it.

So, an unusable defective piece of crap equipment has you wetting your pants over vinyl frequency response, and you use this to complain that CDs aren't capable of reproducing what, to you, are the crucial ultrasonic bias frequencies? LOL

[Firth]

analog sounds better

And if it does, experience it best on Bluray audio. Like having the best cartridge and turntable, and vinyl, or master tape. Experience Wish You Were Here on Bluray, choose various versions of analog with digital.

[JeffCarney]

LOL!!!!!

Finally got around to reading this article, because, well, I knew you had to be misinterpreting SOMETHING. Let me point out a couple things to ya, Jeff.

1. The 122kHz signal which showed up on the lacquer was LEAKAGE from the bias voltage of the MCI deck -- not signal recorded on it. This is a design FLAW. A rather serious one because it will interfere with the audible output.

2. The fact that Mobile Fidelity's cutter transcribed this frequency is another serious design FLAW, as the article's author points out. It overheats the lathe, it interferes with the audible sound, and it makes the lacquer unusable. Plus it was cutting at HALF SPEED so it was really "only" 61kHz.

3. Why is this a really really BAD THING? Well, because as the author hints, there isn't a pickup in the world that can track 122kHz.

4. Nor a preamp that'll pass it.

5. Nor an amp that'll pass it.

6. Nor a speaker that'll reproduce it.

7. Nor a human ear that can hear it.

So, an unusable defective piece of crap equipment has you wetting your pants over vinyl frequency response, and you use this to complain that CDs aren't capable of reproducing what, to you, are the crucial ultrasonic bias frequencies? LOL

Robert, that article was simply one which I found interesting and thought I'd share. That recorded signal has no real application. It was just interesting that it could even be captured. I even made sure to mention it was just an "aside" and your response is thus thoroughly confused and unnecesarry.

At this point, you're making up your own "battles" and then fighting them.

[rcarlberg]

Not I'm not Jeff. I'm critiquing the one-and-only article you have linked so far to support your argument. Which you completely and utterly misunderstood.

What other proofs do you have for me, big boy?

[Library Jon]

Is there a difference in sound quality between DVD-A and Blu Ray?


Library Jon

[rcarlberg]

Is there a difference in sound quality between DVD-A and Blu Ray?

Probably not, and it would be completely subjective if there was. They're both oversampled at 24/96 aren't they?

The vagaries of mastering would be several orders of magnitude larger than any differences in the media themselves.

[trurl]

OTOH, I know a guy who says his stereo is being affected by the microwaves from DISH and DIRECTV satellites. I think he's on the verge of building his listening room into a Faraday cage. So the question "is X better/different from Y" always depends on who you ask.

[JeffCarney]

Not I'm not Jeff. I'm critiquing the one-and-only article you have linked so far to support your argument. Which you completely and utterly misunderstood.

You just can't quit while you're behind.

Fine. Have it your way and I'll get the belt out again. Jezus ...

As I've said, repeatedly, the amount of evidence that 16/44 does not capture all of the information on analog tape is ginormous. You may well be the only person on the face of the earth who is debating this point. Tests of this nature typically involve 24/96 or 24/192 versus analog recording. The idea that redbook can record everything necessary at optimal sonic values is unfounded and goes against everything we know. Even digital enthusiasts of the highest order understand that recording at 24/96 and downsampling to 16/44 is essential to even have a fair chance of competing with analog.

If you wish to argue that information CD level audio does not capture is irrelevant, then fine. Don't buy any SACDs that are transfers of analog tape. I'm sure we all give a shit.

Do you consider Bob Katz knowledgeable in the field of Digital Audio?

I presume this cannot possibly be answered in any manner but the affirmative. So let me again quote for you what I already pasted (Post #41) and which apparently was flagged as "Adult Content" on your end:

Empirical observations have shown that you need a nominal "24-bit" A/D to capture the low-level resolution of 1/2" 30 IPS (if truth be told, the best converters only approach about 19-20 bit resolution in practice). It can also be argued that 1/2" tape has a greater bandwidth than 44.1 KHz or 48 KHz digital audio, requiring even higher sample rates to properly convert to digital. Listening tests corroborate this. 30 IPS analog tape has useable frequency response to beyond 30 KHz and a gentle (gradual) filter rolls off the frequency response. This translates to more open, transparent sound than any 44.1 kHz/16 bit digital recording I've heard.
-Bob Katz

Now ... enough of this. If you truly are curious about how wrong you are with this utterly stupid "crusade" in which you aim to prove something which totally eludes me, then you can google to your heart's content. You won't find many (any?) claiming that 16/44 is optimal for recording. And if you find someone claiming this, he doesn't know what in the hell is he talking about. So move on, enjoy your digitally recorded, mixed and mastered CDs and give us all a fucking break already.

[Firth]

Is there a difference in sound quality between DVD-A and Blu Ray?


Library Jon

To be complete one has to acknowledge that Blu-ray can contain more information because it holds way more data. So Blu-ray supports 7.1, which maybe a more immersive experience. And as I mentioned there can be more versions which sound better to your ears, or what you are familiar with. A 5.1 24/96 recording on DVD-A and Blu-ray are identical, if the 5.1 source is the same.

[Birdy]

Can't we just cut to the chase and admit that 8-track beats 'em all?

No?