CD vs. Hi-Res

[Joe Schmoe]

A couple of my CD boxed sets (Talking Heads and Bjork) are "DualDiscs" with a surround side. I have listened to them, and they do nothing for me. The stereo side is plenty good enough.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...and the DVD-A sounds far "richer" (for lack of a better word) than the CD and LP, including playing the DVD-A in stereo format only.

But the question then remains is that how good was that 2 ch CD? Was it exactly the same as the hi res, or altered to some extent to make it sound inferior.
I think the paper compared 2ch hi res to itself being degraded to CD res and found none. So, that would mean that the higher sampling and bit depth is not what gives it an advantage but what is mastered to the CD and how well. What am I missing?
If the latter, then there is only the discussion of quality of the mastering which we have seen plenty of pictures posted how badly they are made.

 

[Waveform]

I think the paper compared 2ch hi res to itself being degraded to CD res and found none. So, that would mean that the higher sampling and bit depth is not what gives it an advantage but what is mastered to the CD and how well.

This is it exactly. To quote the article
"Partly because these recordings have not captured alarge portion of the consumer market for music, engineers and producers are being given the freedom to produce recordings that sound as good as they can make them,without having to compress or equalize the signal to suit lesser systems and casual listening conditions. These recordings seem to have been made with great care and manifest affection, by engineers trying to please themselves and their peers. They sound like it, label after label.High-resolution audio discs do not have the overwhelming majority of the program material crammed into the top 20 (or even 10) dB of the available dynamic range, as so many CDs today do. Our test results indicate that all of these recordings could be released on conventional CDs with no audible difference."

However the authors do state that multi-channel hires audio offers something the CD cannot.

 

[mtrycrafts]

However the authors do state that multi-channel hires audio offers something the CD cannot.

Well, I hope 5.1 can offer more than a 2.0

 

[MDS]

The authors left a caveat that a disc that was captured at a high resolution and then played back at that same high resolution may sound better than one captured at a lower resolution. I view that as simply leaving the door open for future listening tests.

The test as described in the paper was to take a high resolution 'master' and resample it at 16/44.1 to see if the increased bit depth or sample rate yields a marked increase in sound quality. Based on the test it did not...which leads to the conclusion that the CD bit depth and sample rate is sufficient for fully capturing the original analog signal.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...The test as described in the paper was to take a high resolution 'master' and resample it at 16/44.1 to see if the increased bit depth or sample rate yields a marked increase in sound quality. Based on the test it did not...which leads to the conclusion that the CD bit depth and sample rate is sufficient for fully capturing the original analog signal.

That is what I gathered from the paper too, so I guess my thinking process captured it correctly.

 

[UFObuster]

Yeah, I've listened to SACD, DVD-Audio, & DTS-CD, and I don't hear any SIGNIFICANT improvement over a high quality CD. Sure, I like the fact that they used all the speakers. But in the end, high quality plain old 2-ch CD still sounds the best to me. That is why SACD, DVD-Audio, and DTS-CD have failed IMO. The difference here is not the same as going from Dolby Digital to Dolby TrueHD 5.1 & Uncompressed PCM 5.1.

How do we know that TrueHD 5.1 and uncompressed PCM .1 actually sounds better than previous hi-def formats? I can't find any direct comparisons. There is more DATA in the bitstreams and I suppose theoretically it should sound better but is it actually an audible difference? Until there is a TrueHD version of a recording also available in 96/24 DTS or SACD, we won't really know.
The point of the article sited is that super hi-def formats are not AUDIBLY better, they just create more bits.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How do we know that TrueHD 5.1 and uncompressed PCM .1 actually sounds better than previous hi-def formats?

Which hi res formats are you trying to compare it to?
I think what they mean is that it is better than their previous DD/DTS as they are lossy, perceptual coding and the new one is CD quality.

I can't find any direct comparisons. There is more DATA in the bitstreams and I suppose theoretically it should sound better but is it actually an audible difference? Until there is a TrueHD version of a recording also available in 96/24 DTS or SACD, we won't really know.
The point of the article sited is that super hi-def formats are not AUDIBLY better, they just create more bits.

That is about it.

 

[mfabien]

How do we know that TrueHD 5.1 and uncompressed PCM .1 actually sounds better than previous hi-def formats? I can't find any direct comparisons. There is more DATA in the bitstreams and I suppose theoretically it should sound better but is it actually an audible difference? Until there is a TrueHD version of a recording also available in 96/24 DTS or SACD, we won't really know.
The point of the article sited is that super hi-def formats are not AUDIBLY better, they just create more bits.

You say

previous hi-def formats

Are you referring to High Resolution? TrueHD is the first high definition codec to be encoded in HD DVD's. The great majority of people listen to TrueHD in PCM via 5.1 analogs or HDMI. Very few have a new a/v receiver to make use of lossless via Bitstream and SPDIF connection.

Yes I can make direct comparison between DTS via Bitstream and DD TrueHD. All I need to do is toggle my 6 CH INPUT button and via SPDIF, DD TrueHD becomes DTS as decoded by the receiver, and via 5.1 analogs, DD TrueHD gets decoded by my HD DVD player and is delivered in PCM format.

First I find 5.1 analogs creates a major difference in sound. I have many concerts in SD DVD and I now play them in my OPPO and there is much more clarity of sound because the analogs provide discrete sound tracks. This comment is also valid for CD and DTS Music disc's.

As for DVD-A and SACD, listening to them requires a universal player that can decode these codecs and delivers the sound via 5.1 multichannel analogs or HDMI with passthrough at the receiver end. My experience is that DVD-A is a match to DTS Music disc but no more. As for SACD, that, in my opinion, compares well with DD TrueHD for fidelity of each individual music instrument.

Now to answer your question, I can best explain my impression of DD TrueHD by saying that the actors conducting a dialog in a movie could be physically present in your room and there would be little difference. The same applies to the sound of a closing door on the side... if you view the movie for the first time, you will turn around to see who's there. In short, DD TrueHD gives the impression that microphones, audio wires and amplifiers have all been replaced by the real thing.

But you cannot have a true sense of what I'm talking about without the proper equipment for audio (not necessarily your case).

 

[davidtwotrees]

It just dawned on me that the article reminded me of college-specifically my roomate's EE textbooks.
The only thing I needed to read was, once again, and refuting acudeftechs assertion that two channel is better than hi res..... from the article.........
"....one trend became obvious very quickly and held up
throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and
DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—
sometimes much better......."

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

How do we know that TrueHD 5.1 and uncompressed PCM .1 actually sounds better than previous hi-def formats? I can't find any direct comparisons. There is more DATA in the bitstreams and I suppose theoretically it should sound better but is it actually an audible difference? Until there is a TrueHD version of a recording also available in 96/24 DTS or SACD, we won't really know.
The point of the article sited is that super hi-def formats are not AUDIBLY better, they just create more bits.

Well, alright. You have a good point. We don't have any double or single blinded tests to prove that TrueHD, PCM, or DTS-HD MA actually sound better than plan DTS or DD.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It just dawned on me that the article reminded me of college-specifically my roomate's EE textbooks.
The only thing I needed to read was, once again, and refuting acudeftechs assertion that two channel is better than hi res..... from the article.........
"....one trend became obvious very quickly and held up
throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and
DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs—
sometimes much better......."

Well, maybe my mind is a little old fashion when it comes to music. Maybe I've been brainwashed all these years to thinking that when it comes to music, there is nothing better than analog 2-channel.
So even when I tried to be objective about SACD & DVD-A, I still cannot get over that mind-block.

The word "better" is subjective. I may hear more information from SACD & DVD-A, but my mind does not think that it is "better" when it comes to music. Brainwashed!

But when it comes to movies, more information is better. That's why I have 4 surround speakers. Man, I am screwed.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

From The Audio Critic:
"Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies."

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1

 

[davidtwotrees]

I'm not talking about two channel.
The whole idea behind the hi rez audio formats was to take advantage of the suround sound set up.
5.1 DVD-A blows away the redbook version............imho.

And if one is truly an analog person, you need a turntable, right?

 

[UFObuster]

I'm not talking about two channel.
The whole idea behind the hi rez audio formats was to take advantage of the suround sound set up.
5.1 DVD-A blows away the redbook version............imho.

And if one is truly an analog person, you need a turntable, right?

Well, I won't go into the CD vs vinyl debate....but yes....the multi-channel experience in my humble opinion is better. But it's not really more ACCURATE when strictly comparing sound quality. I may listen to my old CD of Elton John's 'Tumbleweed Connection' and then put on the SACD version and say...WOW! how better is that!....It IS better because it is in multichannel, but it is NOT a truer representation of the sound that is on the CD. Esthetically, I prefer the multichannel version...but I cannot argue that it is a better recording.

 

[UFObuster]

From The Audio Critic:
"Incontrovertible double-blind listening tests prove that the original 16-bit/44.1-kHz CD standard yields exactly the same two-channel sound quality as the SACD and DVD-A technologies."

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1

Yes, I too, follow that old buzzard's remarks and am hard pressed to argue otherwise. He's saved me a lot of $$$ from chasing dragons in the hi-fi world. I want clean, accurate records and simple hi-performance playback products. What's so hard about that? Industry?...take note...we're not stupid.

 

[mtrycrafts]

What's so hard about that? Industry?...take note...we're not stupid.

Oh, but a good part of it caters to the gullible ones. And, they do buy stuff
And the better part is turning into a computer like product, processing a programming everything.

 

[UFObuster]

Oh, but a good part of it caters to the gullible ones. And, they do buy stuff
And the better part is turning into a computer like product, processing a programming everything.

Sadly, I think you are right....Let's hope there are enough of us around buying uncompressed good 2-channel AND multichannel stuff....as I listen to Chris Botti's Live DVD in 5.1. Ultimately, I hope that the musicians will prevail and dictate the quality of the output.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'm not talking about two channel.
The whole idea behind the hi rez audio formats was to take advantage of the suround sound set up.
5.1 DVD-A blows away the redbook version............imho.

And if one is truly an analog person, you need a turntable, right?

Well, okay semi-analog.
Quasi-analog.
Half-analog.

Okay, the 5.1 DVD-A or SACD was meant to put the listener right in the middle of the action, right?

I read one review about a Vivaldi Four Seasons DVD-A in which the author said that he felt he was sandwiched between the 1st and 2nd orchestra.

And I'm thinking, that's cool and all, but in real life I wouldn't be right in the middle of two orchestras. The sound would just be coming from the front.

So I guess 5.1 Audio is just not for everyone.
Discrete 5.1 music is cool, though. At least it's good for demonstration.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Ultimately, I hope that the musicians will prevail and dictate the quality of the output.

Only when they are their own mastering engineer, producer and distributor of their own music. Otherwise, they are at the mercy of what the market seem to want, highly compressed music.