Skip to main content

Topic: DVDA best format (Read 4758 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
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.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #1
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #2
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295


are you implying that there is in fact no audible difference to the human ear?
F*ck the police.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #3
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295


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.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #4
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.
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #5
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....showtopic=16295


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.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #6
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.
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 04:33:07 PM by Ozzdog
F*ck the police.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #7
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.

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #8
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?

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #9
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.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #10
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).
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #11
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.

  • DVDdoug
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #12
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!!!!    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.  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.
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 06:59:24 PM by DVDdoug

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #13
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.
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 08:36:42 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #14
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!
F*ck the police.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #15
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.
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 06:59:10 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • greynol
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Global Moderator
DVDA best format
Reply #16
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?
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 06:50:40 PM by greynol
13 February 2016: The world was blessed with the passing of a truly vile and wretched person.

Your eyes cannot hear.

  • saratoga
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #17
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.

  • Ozzdog
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #18
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.

  • Vasilis
  • [*]
DVDA best format
Reply #19
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

  • pdq
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #20
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?
  • Last Edit: 18 October, 2011, 08:21:10 PM by pdq

  • probedb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #21
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!


Then you original post makes no sense since you don't care 

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #22
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)
  • Last Edit: 20 October, 2011, 01:53:08 AM by krabapple

  • alexeysp
  • [*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #23
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.
  • Last Edit: 20 October, 2011, 04:16:04 AM by alexeysp

  • krabapple
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
DVDA best format
Reply #24
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'.
  • Last Edit: 20 October, 2011, 04:46:13 AM by krabapple