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

[trurl]

Bit depth (the 24 vs. 16 part of the equation) is far more important than the sample rate in my opinion. There's a legitimate question as to whether the extra "cost" of high sample rates in terms of data use and processing power is worth it. Personally I feel 88.2 is the logical rate. It allows for frequencies up to 44Khz under the Nyquist theorem and down-converts to a redbook cd with a simple no bs divide by 2 re-sampling. I do think Bob Katz is the man and I trust his opinions (I have his book, too) but this is an interesting argument. I've posted it before so apologies to those who have seen it...

http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-s...c-sound-worse/

There is some interesting discussion and rebuttal after the article and comments as well.

[JeffCarney]

Bit depth (the 24 vs. 16 part of the equation) is far more important than the sample rate in my opinion. There's a legitimate question as to whether the extra "cost" of high sample rates in terms of data use and processing power is worth it. Personally I feel 88.2 is the logical rate. It allows for frequencies up to 44Khz under the Nyquist theorem and down-converts to a redbook cd with a simple no bs divide by 2 re-sampling. I do think Bob Katz is the man and I trust his opinions (I have his book, too) but this is an interesting argument. I've posted it before so apologies to those who have seen it...

http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-s...c-sound-worse/

There is some interesting discussion and rebuttal after the article and comments as well.

I read this some time ago and found it interesting, but his tests really only involve himself and are too limited in scope to form any overall opinion. In addition, his premise is really based on faulty setup and/or equipment capabilities at the end user stage.

I do enjoy Ian Shephard's writing and found his tests of DR Meter's inability to accurately score digitally sourced vinyl to be fascinating.

[luvyesmusic]

I've found soaking c.d.s in Dawn Dishwashing Detergent and then allowing them to air-dry really brings back the old sound that my older c.d.s were lacking. When I listen to Steven Wilson's new blue-ray productions, my "Dawned" c.d.s made his sound like Heaven and Earth.

Do not allow to soak in anything stronger than an 8% solution of liquid soap to water and a twenty minute soaking is the threshhold. Anything longer, you may lose some of the higher frequencies.

[rcarlberg]

As I've said, repeatedly, the amount of evidence that 16/44 does not capture all of the information on analog tape is ginormous.

And yet, you have been unable to provide even one link as proof.

Remember, it must be factual -- not merely opinion.

Mr. Katz's piece is opinion -- he does not back up his feelings with a single measurement. Incidentally if you read the whole piece -- as I did -- his comments are bit more measured:

Doing analog audio in the sixties and seventies was hell. Analog requires constant vigilance to sound good. In addition, you can't copy an analog tape. The second generation just falls apart; it's a pale replica of the first. Many people have argued that digital audio recording is more accurate than analog, saying the accuracy of digital is why we're noticing hardness and edginess in our recordings, and have regressed to tube and vintage microphones. That's only a half-truth. A lot has changed since I first wrote this article in 1997. Coincident with the demise of the tape-based multitrack and 2-track have come better converters and higher sample rates. "Bad Digital" has largely gone away and been replaced with ranges from "just acceptable" to "very good". Digital recording is considered to be "accurate," but each of its specs must be considered carefully. Consider its linear frequency response. With bad digital technology, linearity of frequency response can turn from virtue into a defect [or rather a microscope]. We can no longer tolerate the distortion and brightness of some solid-state equipment (including poor A/D converters, microphones and audio consoles) because digital recording doesn't compress (mellow out) high frequencies as does low speed (15 IPS) analog tape. To summarize: digital recording can sound edgy for two reasons. One is linear frequency response, which reveals non-linearities in the rest of the chain. The other is built-in distortions in the A/D/A conversion process.

In other words, digital is so accurate it reveals flaws in the rest of the electronic chain. Analog mastering canbe used to mask the effects of "poor microphones and consoles." So why not use good quality equipment to begin with, and get the stunning clarity of pure digital?

I believe [without proof] that a finely-tuned 30 IPS 1/2" tape recorder is more accurate, better resolved, has better space, depth, purity of tone and transparency than many [not all] digital systems available today.

But how many of us have 30 IPS 1/2" tape recorders in our homes? Where are the vendors selling content? If you can't buy the original studio master tapes -- which cannot be duplicated (see above) -- what would you use to get as close as possible to that master? Something so accurate that nothing stands in the way? Or something that masks defects with slushy analog distortion?

It can also be argued [without scientific merit] 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.

There isn't a tape recorder, pro- or consumer-grade on the market that advertises response out to 30 KHz. Why? Because this response is not usable. If it exists, it's a flaw in the design. Now I KNOW that tape recorders will record above 20 KHz because I have recorded music at 15 IPS (never owned a 30 IPS machine...) and then played it back at 7-1/2 IPS. Is there content up there? Yes. What is it? Noise. Tape hiss. Lots of lovely hiss. Do you need to reproduce it to "properly convert to digital"? Well you can "argue" it all you want but the facts say No.

But don't be fooled by the numbers; there's still some "magic" in the coloration of analog tape that we have not yet been able to reproduce in an all-digital recording, especially for popular music forms that often crave the sound of tape saturation. However, digital recording has finally gotten good enough so that in acoustic music formats like classical and folk, some engineers are preferring digital recording's transparency over analog's warmth.

Personally, I don't see what the style of music has to do with preferring transparency, hearing exactly what the musicians played instead of having it masked.

If you can't afford high-quality external A/Ds (and large hard drives), be careful of using too many tube bandaids. Tubes can cover up the evils of the cheap A/D/A's and processors, resulting in a warm, fuzzy sound, but that's preferable [in some peoples' minds] to a hard and edgy one. In other words, good digital is expensive and probably the best you can get from bad digital with bandaids is "warm and fuzzy!

Good digital is expensive. So is good analog.

To get good analog sound that's perhaps better than the most expensive digital [geez I'd love to see this quantified!], practice your alignment techniques, don't bounce tracks, use wider track widths and higher speeds than you did before. Cost-wise, analog tape recording has finally exceeded that of even world-class AD/DA converters due to the extreme cost of tape.

So I guess analog costs MORE than "world class digital" now? Shocker!

If you're not doing analog tape, try to get the very best converters and minimize mixdown passes through low-resolution processing and plugins.

Duh.

So yes, Katz has a point -- cheap digital sounds like crap, as does cheap analog. The very best analog sounds very good, as does the very best digital. That's hardly rocket science, and I wouldn't (and initially didn't) spend much time parsing the article because it's grade school stupid: $ = good sound. Once again, the article you have chosen as your proof ends up saying the exact opposite of what you thought it did.

So let's get back to you.

* You said, "I bet I can cite a hundred times this many articles about vinyl having better resolution than CD" and you said "It [SACD] has also has what many believe to be better frequency extension, which is something CD audio has lacked compared to vinyl"-- then you followed up with "I'm really not discussing vinyl vs. CD and all of the clichéd ("Analog adds distortion, boo hoo hoo ...") analog vs digital nonsense. But the point really wasn't about vinyl. Forget vinyl vs. CD." So I guess it's not about vinyl vs CD? (...And you have yet to cite a single one of these hundreds of scientific studies!)

* You said, "Redbook CD has a low noise floor, silence (no "pops and clicks") and convenience. It has nowhere near the frequency extension of 1/4" tape. Nyquist advocates will argue that humans can't hear those frequencies anyway, but whether or not this is true there can be no doubt that redbook is not even close to analog in terms of resolution and this is measurable." You also said, "The reason SACD exists in terms of reissuing older recordings is because it can capture upper register frequencies off tape which go missing on CD. Simple as that, for the most part." You followed this up with "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." So I guess it's not about ultrasonics either? I admit the 20-30 KHz range was chosen by me to spare you the embarrassment of what you actually claimed, that "frequency extension" out to 122 KHz is somehow beneficial. (Sorry for trying to let you save face in public.)

So what I REALLY want to ask you is this.

* You said, "Have you ever heard 1/4" tape? Because that's really a part of the reason why Blu-Ray Audio even exists. It's trying to capture what redbook cannot of that medium. Same with SACD and DVD-A. Redbook often can't handle the higher resolution" and "Not only could 1/4" tape sound fantastic, the digital world had to come up with ways to even capture all the resolution it could contain" and "there is information on many recordings done to tape which isn't captured by redbook " and "this information which is often on analog tape and which 16/44 cannot capture" and "we can (presumably) agree upon is that there is information which analog tape captures which is beyond the scope of 16/44's capabilities."

If this information isn't ultrasonics -- frequencies above the range of human hearing -- and if it isn't "frequency extension" (which you couldn't define, but since you ruled out ultrasonics it must be sub-sonics (frequencies below the range of human hearing) -- then WHAT IN THE WORLD isn't being captured? Afterall, the articles YOU CITED already stated digital is more accurate and more transparent than analog.

Is it transient response? Something in the middle audible frequencies, what, isn't being sampled fast enough, because, uh, the digital waveforms are too accurate?

Is it dynamic range? The bit-rate isn't high enough to capture analog dynamics because, uh, the dynamic range of CDs, which is 2 to the 10th power (30 dB vs. 90 dB) greater than analog tape or LPs or any other analog source, and, uh, because of that...

Is it something else? I mean, seriously? What's missing???

Then again, you DID say, "Most CDs I own are doing nothing but recording what they can of old tape anyway" so maybe you've never heard a DDD production?



[Edited to take out the "crazy internet person" colors... ]

[rcarlberg]

http://productionadvice.co.uk/high-s...c-sound-worse/

Yes, I read that earlier. Thanks for re-posting. The author seems to be, uh, how shall I put this, "unafraid to pass pronouncements outside his sphere of expertise." His sphere may be huge, but his science is shaky...at best.

[rcarlberg]

Listen Jeff, I'll make it easy for you.

Since you can't win the analog vs. digital debate, let's narrow it down to Red Book digital (16/44) vs. hi-res (24/96 or above) digital. You find me ONE scientific article that proves hi-res provides an audible difference and I'll concede. You don't even have to define "what's missing in 16/44." ANY quantifiable difference will do.

"Scientific" means one of two things:
1. A double-blind listening test, where neither the listener nor the tester knows which source is which,

--or--

2. Quantifiable measurements.

Simple, no? Good luck.

[JeffCarney]

Look Robert, I hate to break it you, but much of the stuff we're discussing is opinion so we'll just go round and round here ...

I trust Bob Katz's opinion and he references specific testing which you are ignoring. I don't trust your opinion enough to even read any more of your posts. I'm sure you can live with that. I've spent far too much time on this already and I can see that it hasn't impacted your thinking one iota. I can't convince you that 16/44 isn't the end all of recording quality. I hereby give up on what I should have more quickly realized was one strange endeavor.

You'll have to play with yourself from here on out.

I suspect that'll be familiar territory ...

[rcarlberg]

At last, an admission of failure. Congrats. Good luck on your recovery.

Frankly, I don't blame you -- I looked online for what I asked you to provide, and every double blind test proved me right. You had no choice but to concede.

[Plasmatopia]

These online religious arguments rarely turn out well.

[rcarlberg]

[Firth]

[There is no real advantage to SACD, DVD-A or Blu-ray Audio, other than how your system performs in terms of bass management and decoding.

That quote is taken out of context. The point is that these 3 formats when talking about their high res tracks are equivalent.

Ultimately, the best audio experience is directly from the instrument to the ear. That is an analog experience. If one believes that analog recording and playback is superior, and you don't have a huge amount of cash, then for you the Bluray recordings of needle drops are for you. Since I have compared this to high res digital, my opinion is that it doesn't stand up to the clarity of high res digital tracks.

[JeffCarney]

At last, an admission of failure. Congrats. Good luck on your recovery.

Frankly, I don't blame you -- I looked online for what I asked you to provide, and every double blind test proved me right. You had no choice but to concede.

A final recap, Robert.

You're asking us to believe that there is no information on analog tape which isn't captured by 16/44 recording.

This means that thousands of SACD titles from rock to classical to jazz are a complete scam. Companies like Sony and Universal are pulling a fast one on the public. Steven Wilson's 24/96 mixes are a scam. Engineers transferring analog tape to 24/96 are frauds ...

It's a "conspiracy" of epic proportion. Thousands upon thousands are in on it.

[rcarlberg]

It's a "conspiracy" of epic proportion.

No no no.

According to the helpful links I provided -- which I guess you might've missed? -- remixes can bring out additional details in the source tapes. The extra care taken with SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Disc Audio releases often make them sound substantially better than unremixed CDs. That is not disputed.

What is disputed -- or actually proven, if you believe in double blind tests -- is that the SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Disc Audio formats are not necessary to display these remixes. Those remixes fit just fine on standard CDs (indeed, that's how most of them are released). Given the same content on both hi-res and standard discs, listeners, even professional audiophiles, cannot tell the difference.

Those hi-res formats are undoubtedly capable of holding more content. But the 16/44 Red Book specifications already exceed the limits of human hearing, so all that extra capacity is essentially "entertaining the dog." Or it can be used to provide multi-channel, which is a whole different discussion and reason for hi-res formats.

Don't mix up remastering with media capacity.

[Garyhead]

....and some of you poo-pooed #7 in my Top Ten Reasons for Listening To Progressive music........

[Birdy]

....and some of you poo-pooed #7 in my Top Ten Reasons for Listening To Progressive music........

Nah, I agree wholeheartedly with your post! What a windbag.

[Klonk]

All I can add is that to my ears and on my system the audio from Blu Ray discs is as good as it gets. It works for me so I'm sticking' with it!

[Firth]

No no no.

According to the helpful links I provided -- which I guess you might've missed? -- remixes can bring out additional details in the source tapes. The extra care taken with SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Disc Audio releases often make them sound substantially better than unremixed CDs. That is not disputed.

What is disputed -- or actually proven, if you believe in double blind tests -- is that the SACD, DVD-A and Blu-ray Disc Audio formats are not necessary to display these remixes. Those remixes fit just fine on standard CDs (indeed, that's how most of them are released). Given the same content on both hi-res and standard discs, listeners, even professional audiophiles, cannot tell the difference.

Those hi-res formats are undoubtedly capable of holding more content. But the 16/44 Red Book specifications already exceed the limits of human hearing, so all that extra capacity is essentially "entertaining the dog." Or it can be used to provide multi-channel, which is a whole different discussion and reason for hi-res formats.

Don't mix up remastering with media capacity.

Remixes are almost never released solely on CD. Typically they are paired with the high res on a DVD or a Bluray. The CDs are provided in this case so that people can burn these to an Itunes library. Let's also consider HDCD which when decoded gives 20 bit resolution. The remasters to HDCD sound great even if the decoding isn't present, however it's not as clear as high res. All that's been debated here is the frequency response, and yet the best improvement comes from pulling the compression off. And it may turn out that when the remixes are done, individual channel compression is bypassed. In particular, percussion may be compressed prior to a mix in order to not screw the whole mix to just compress the drums (and bass). The original mixes were targeting small dynamic range vinyl. Remixing that dynamic range to 5.1 channels is the least complex, since the big power goes to it's own channel. In fact, I now have 6 amplifiers taking the load that only 2 were doing in the past.

[JeffCarney]

The original mixes were targeting small dynamic range vinyl.

Vinyl typically has 55-65 dB of dynamic range and high quality pressings can go as high as 70db. Considering that even a concert hall would yield a maximum dynamic range of about 80db, I don't think we can describe vinyl's dynamic range as "small."

In fact, other than classical music, it can probably accommodate the full dynamic range of every CD you have.

[Firth]

Vinyl typically has 55-65 dB of dynamic range and high quality pressings can go as high as 70db. Considering that even a concert hall would yield a maximum dynamic range of about 80db, I don't think we can describe vinyl's dynamic range as "small."

In fact, other than classical music, it can probably accommodate the full dynamic range of every CD you have.

I had a top quality vinyl that tried to represent the cannons in the 1812 orchestra. The needle jumped across the record.

[JeffCarney]

I had a top quality vinyl that tried to represent the cannons in the 1812 orchestra. The needle jumped across the record.

Right. As I said ... some classical music.

But we still can't describe vinyl's dynamic range as "small."

[rcarlberg]

I don't think we can describe vinyl's dynamic range as "small."

The dynamic range of digital audio systems can exceed that of analog audio systems. Typically, a 16 bit analog-to-digital converter may have a dynamic range of between 90 to 95 dB (Metzler 2005:132), whereas the signal-to-noise ratio (roughly the equivalent of dynamic range, noting the absence of quantization noise but presence of tape hiss) of a professional reel-to-reel 1/4 inch tape recorder would be between 60 and 70 dB at the recorder's rated output (Metzler 2005:111).

Source

The maximum dynamic range we can put on a vinyl record is around 60 dB.

CD (16bit), on the other hand, can achieve 96 dB dynamic range.

The dynamic range of human hearing is roughly 140 dB.

There really isn't really any music in existance that has 140 dB of dynamics. I don't think vinyl is good enough though because a noise floor of -60 dB still has noise that affects playback listenability, especially on classical recordings. Plus, the signal to noise ratio of most amplifiers really doesn't exceded that of the CD, rendering anything above 16 bit quantization pretty much useless unless you have a good enough amplifier. So it's not just the format you're listening to, it's the effective Signal to Noise ratio your system produces from the beginning of the signal path to the end.

Source

Bear in mind that every 6 dB of SPL is a doubling of volume. But you're right, it's a rare recording (digital only) that reaches 80 dB dynamic range.

[rcarlberg]

Source Sound = Pressure Level (dB)

Threshold of Hearing
Quietest audible sound for persons with excellent hearing under laboratory conditions = 0
Quietest audible sound for persons under normal conditions
Virtual silence, Audiometric test room = 10
Rustling leaves = 20
Noticeably Quiet
Quiet whisper (1 m) = 30
Home, Quiet room = 40
Moderate
Quiet street, Whispered speech = 50
Loud
Voice conversation (1 m) = 60
Voice conversation (0.3 m) = 70
Inside a passenger Car at 80 km/h = 70
Vacuum cleaner (3 m) = 70
Freight Train (30 m) = 70
Loud singing = 75
Loud - Intolerable for Phone Use
Automobile (10 m) = 80
Maximum allowable sound up to 8 hour (OSHA criteria - hearing conservation program) = 80
Pneumatic tools (15 m) = 80
Buses, diesel trucks, motorcycles (15 m) = 80
Road with busy traffic = 80
Motorcycle (10 m) = 88
Food blender (1 m) = 90
Jackhammer (15 m) = 90
Bulldozer (15 m) = 90
Noisy factory = 90
Newspaper press = 90
Subway (inside) = 94
Very Loud
Diesel truck (10 m) = 100
Motor horns at distance of 7 m = 100
Lawn mower (1 m) = 107
Pneumatic riveter (1 m) = 115
Threshold of Discomfort
Large aircraft (150 m over head) = 110
Chainsaw (1 m) = 117
Very noisy work - boilermakers workshop, etc. = 117
Deafening, Human pain limit
Amplified Hard Rock (2 m) = 120
Siren (30 m) = 120
Pneumatic chipper = 120
Jet plane (30 m) = 130
Artillery Fire (3 m) = 130
Upper limit for unprotected ear for impulses 140
Short exposure can cause hearing loss
Military Jet Take-off (30 meter) = 150
Large military weapons = 180
Source

[Firth]

Source Sound = Pressure Level (dB)

Threshold of Hearing
Quietest audible sound for persons with excellent hearing under laboratory conditions = 0
Quietest audible sound for persons under normal conditions
Virtual silence, Audiometric test room = 10
Rustling leaves = 20
Noticeably Quiet
Quiet whisper (1 m) = 30
Home, Quiet room = 40
Moderate
Quiet street, Whispered speech = 50
Loud
Voice conversation (1 m) = 60
Voice conversation (0.3 m) = 70
Inside a passenger Car at 80 km/h = 70
Vacuum cleaner (3 m) = 70
Freight Train (30 m) = 70
Loud singing = 75
Loud - Intolerable for Phone Use
Automobile (10 m) = 80
Maximum allowable sound up to 8 hour (OSHA criteria - hearing conservation program) = 80
Pneumatic tools (15 m) = 80
Buses, diesel trucks, motorcycles (15 m) = 80
Road with busy traffic = 80
Motorcycle (10 m) = 88
Food blender (1 m) = 90
Jackhammer (15 m) = 90
Bulldozer (15 m) = 90
Noisy factory = 90
Newspaper press = 90
Subway (inside) = 94
Very Loud
Diesel truck (10 m) = 100
Motor horns at distance of 7 m = 100
Lawn mower (1 m) = 107
Pneumatic riveter (1 m) = 115
Threshold of Discomfort
Large aircraft (150 m over head) = 110
Chainsaw (1 m) = 117
Very noisy work - boilermakers workshop, etc. = 117
Deafening, Human pain limit
Amplified Hard Rock (2 m) = 120
Siren (30 m) = 120
Pneumatic chipper = 120
Jet plane (30 m) = 130
Artillery Fire (3 m) = 130
Upper limit for unprotected ear for impulses 140
Short exposure can cause hearing loss
Military Jet Take-off (30 meter) = 150
Large military weapons = 180
Source

The driver in musical dynamic range is bass, and bass drum. And if you are listening to Canns and Brahms on the Yes Fragile DVD-A it's the organ note at the end which is mighty. The ear can take a lot of subsonic power because it's roll off, but the effect is incredible. Like the strong bass keys on the Genesis SACDs. SACD has a 120 dB dynamic range. Instantaneous peaks from bass may not be a lot of average power which is what SPL measurements are about, but I need my audio system to support the instantaneous without compression. What's really neat is the time domain picture of the impulse response of an SACD, it's perfect.