I bought a Cd of an artist last year and it came with a free dvd of the same
concert. The CD compared with the DVD sound, seems brash to me. Is this
something others have encountered as it is not the first time I've found
this. It suggests on the documentation that the audio sample rate is 96khz,
but of course we all know CD uses 44.1 khz.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

On 7/23/23 18:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I bought a Cd of an artist last year and it came with a free dvd of the same
> concert. The CD compared with the DVD sound, seems brash to me. Is this
> something others have encountered as it is not the first time I've found
> this. It suggests on the documentation that the audio sample rate is 96khz,
> but of course we all know CD uses 44.1 khz.

A DVD in audio is many different things. Bit-rate, Bit-depth, Lossy
Compression, Dynamic range compression, Multi-channel, Surround encoded,
and the DVD-Audio audio only format.

CD is CD (mostly).

--
Adrian C

Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order to impress
the general public that they really know what they are doing.
I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of the dvd was smooth
and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the CD seemed to have a bit of a
hump around 5khz and sounded a bit rough to me. Could be just poor choices
for the audio mix, but one would have thought that since they already had a
good recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more tracks
on the DDVD.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Adrian Caspersz" <email@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:ki6hq0Fsvj8U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 7/23/23 18:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> I bought a Cd of an artist last year and it came with a free dvd of the
>> same
>> concert. The CD compared with the DVD sound, seems brash to me. Is this
>> something others have encountered as it is not the first time I've found
>> this. It suggests on the documentation that the audio sample rate is
>> 96khz,
>> but of course we all know CD uses 44.1 khz.
>
> A DVD in audio is many different things. Bit-rate, Bit-depth, Lossy
> Compression, Dynamic range compression, Multi-channel, Surround encoded,
> and the DVD-Audio audio only format.
>
> CD is CD (mostly).
>
> --
> Adrian C
>

On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:22:59 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order to impress
>the general public that they really know what they are doing.
> I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of the dvd was smooth
>and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the CD seemed to have a bit of a
>hump around 5khz and sounded a bit rough to me. Could be just poor choices
>for the audio mix, but one would have thought that since they already had a
>good recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more tracks
>on the DDVD.
> Brian

If there is a difference it will be down to mastering. There will be
no difference due to the digital formats.

d

On Fri 28/07/2023 12:24, Don Pearce wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:22:59 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order to impress
>> the general public that they really know what they are doing.
>> I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of the dvd was smooth
>> and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the CD seemed to have a bit of a
>> hump around 5khz and sounded a bit rough to me. Could be just poor choices
>> for the audio mix, but one would have thought that since they already had a
>> good recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more tracks
>> on the DDVD.
>> Brian
>
> If there is a difference it will be down to mastering. There will be
> no difference due to the digital formats.
>

I would dispute that. A CD samples at 44100/sec in 16bit, whereas a DVD
typically samples at 96000/second in 24bit. That suggests there is much
more latent bandwidth on a DVD so it must surely sound different/better?

In article <ua0m5c$296v1$1@dont-email.me>,
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Fri 28/07/2023 12:24, Don Pearce wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:22:59 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
> > <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order
> >> to impress the general public that they really know what they
> >> are doing. I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of
> >> the dvd was smooth and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the
> >> CD seemed to have a bit of a hump around 5khz and sounded a bit
> >> rough to me. Could be just poor choices for the audio mix, but
> >> one would have thought that since they already had a good
> >> recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more
> >> tracks on the DDVD. Brian
> >
> > If there is a difference it will be down to mastering. There will
> > be no difference due to the digital formats.
> >

> I would dispute that. A CD samples at 44100/sec in 16bit, whereas a
> DVD typically samples at 96000/second in 24bit. That suggests there
> is much more latent bandwidth on a DVD so it must surely sound
> different/better?

In my experience, once you get to CD quality 44K1 16bit any
improvements above that are extremely subtle indeed.

Bob.

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:16:59 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>On Fri 28/07/2023 12:24, Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:22:59 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order to impress
>>> the general public that they really know what they are doing.
>>> I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of the dvd was smooth
>>> and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the CD seemed to have a bit of a
>>> hump around 5khz and sounded a bit rough to me. Could be just poor choices
>>> for the audio mix, but one would have thought that since they already had a
>>> good recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more tracks
>>> on the DDVD.
>>> Brian
>>
>> If there is a difference it will be down to mastering. There will be
>> no difference due to the digital formats.
>>
>
>I would dispute that. A CD samples at 44100/sec in 16bit, whereas a DVD
>typically samples at 96000/second in 24bit. That suggests there is much
>more latent bandwidth on a DVD so it must surely sound different/better?

No. Once you have encompassed the audible range, which CD does (more
than does for us older chaps) then there is zero extra information in
a higher sample rate. And of course the umber of bits only affects the
level of the noise floor, and in any recording made acoustically that
is a long way below the recorded sound.
So no, 96/24 does not sound any better than 44.1/16

d

Not sure I believe that. The issue one supposes is whether the sample rate
and bit depth are accurate when mastered and replayed. Back at the start of
CDs, the CD 100 sounded better than the Sony first model to my ears.
The difference speck wise was the Philips used dual 14 bit 2 times
oversampling on playback, the Sony used one 16 bit one shared or time sliced
so that there was a very slight phase shift between channels. However as
accuracy increased, although the sound improved, it really could not be
heard past a certain point, until that was DVds came out and the whole thing
became less strained. After all there must be fewer bits to encode at
44.1Khz of hf audio than on 96 bit sampling. That would suggest to me that
the waveform start wuld be less accurate on a CD, Add in the higher 24 bit
systems and in theory, the sound should be less edgy. Of course if you stick
crap in, yyou get crap out, and many modern digital recordings seem to be
the digital equivalent of Phil Spectors wall of sound, no dynamic range but
loud. There is no need for it really, since with a digital signal, if you
need it to sound like that a simple algorithm should do it at playback.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Don Pearce" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:64c41e18.17296453@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:16:59 +0100, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri 28/07/2023 12:24, Don Pearce wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:22:59 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
>>> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes I know, these companies like to big up their part, in order to
>>>> impress
>>>> the general public that they really know what they are doing.
>>>> I have to say though, that the stereo presentation of the dvd was
>>>> smooth
>>>> and pretty much what I'd expect, wheras the CD seemed to have a bit of
>>>> a
>>>> hump around 5khz and sounded a bit rough to me. Could be just poor
>>>> choices
>>>> for the audio mix, but one would have thought that since they already
>>>> had a
>>>> good recording they would use that. plus of course you got three more
>>>> tracks
>>>> on the DDVD.
>>>> Brian
>>>
>>> If there is a difference it will be down to mastering. There will be
>>> no difference due to the digital formats.
>>>
>>
>>I would dispute that. A CD samples at 44100/sec in 16bit, whereas a DVD
>>typically samples at 96000/second in 24bit. That suggests there is much
>>more latent bandwidth on a DVD so it must surely sound different/better?
>
> No. Once you have encompassed the audible range, which CD does (more
> than does for us older chaps) then there is zero extra information in
> a higher sample rate. And of course the umber of bits only affects the
> level of the noise floor, and in any recording made acoustically that
> is a long way below the recorded sound.
> So no, 96/24 does not sound any better than 44.1/16
>
> d

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:16:23 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>Not sure I believe that. The issue one supposes is whether the sample rate
>and bit depth are accurate when mastered and replayed. Back at the start of
>CDs, the CD 100 sounded better than the Sony first model to my ears.
> The difference speck wise was the Philips used dual 14 bit 2 times
>oversampling on playback, the Sony used one 16 bit one shared or time sliced
>so that there was a very slight phase shift between channels. However as
>accuracy increased, although the sound improved, it really could not be
>heard past a certain point, until that was DVds came out and the whole thing
>became less strained. After all there must be fewer bits to encode at
>44.1Khz of hf audio than on 96 bit sampling. That would suggest to me that
>the waveform start wuld be less accurate on a CD, Add in the higher 24 bit
>systems and in theory, the sound should be less edgy. Of course if you stick
>crap in, yyou get crap out, and many modern digital recordings seem to be
>the digital equivalent of Phil Spectors wall of sound, no dynamic range but
>loud. There is no need for it really, since with a digital signal, if you
>need it to sound like that a simple algorithm should do it at playback.
> Brian

Don't use those early players as a model for bit rate and depth. They
had real problems implementing a decent DAC, and many of them truly
did sound bad. But like it or not, harshness is not a property of
44.1/16 andy more than 192/24. It simply doesn't happen. As I said,
all 192 gives you is frequencies outside the audible range. In fact
these are likely to sound worse if they cause intermods in an amp or
speaker. 44.1 is perfect. The same goes for 16 bits. This can't cause
harshness either. It just sets the noise floor. And it sets it
probably 30dB below the analogue noise on a decent recording.

d

OK on another tack. I notice the current crop of digital recorders you can
buy are floating point. I'm just guessing that this must give you much more
dynamic range, and no running out of bits nasty sounding clipping. My mind
boggles at how this is done. as there has to in that case some way to vary
the scaling as you record. What it seems to allow is not worrying about the
level and the ability to have a good recording with low noise and no
clipping, which to me in other than an interview scenario, would equate to a
dynamic range greater than we could actually hear.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Don Pearce" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:64c5618d.43537671@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 12:16:23 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
> <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Not sure I believe that. The issue one supposes is whether the sample rate
>>and bit depth are accurate when mastered and replayed. Back at the start
>>of
>>CDs, the CD 100 sounded better than the Sony first model to my ears.
>> The difference speck wise was the Philips used dual 14 bit 2 times
>>oversampling on playback, the Sony used one 16 bit one shared or time
>>sliced
>>so that there was a very slight phase shift between channels. However as
>>accuracy increased, although the sound improved, it really could not be
>>heard past a certain point, until that was DVds came out and the whole
>>thing
>>became less strained. After all there must be fewer bits to encode at
>>44.1Khz of hf audio than on 96 bit sampling. That would suggest to me that
>>the waveform start wuld be less accurate on a CD, Add in the higher 24
>>bit
>>systems and in theory, the sound should be less edgy. Of course if you
>>stick
>>crap in, yyou get crap out, and many modern digital recordings seem to be
>>the digital equivalent of Phil Spectors wall of sound, no dynamic range
>>but
>>loud. There is no need for it really, since with a digital signal, if you
>>need it to sound like that a simple algorithm should do it at playback.
>> Brian
>
> Don't use those early players as a model for bit rate and depth. They
> had real problems implementing a decent DAC, and many of them truly
> did sound bad. But like it or not, harshness is not a property of
> 44.1/16 andy more than 192/24. It simply doesn't happen. As I said,
> all 192 gives you is frequencies outside the audible range. In fact
> these are likely to sound worse if they cause intermods in an amp or
> speaker. 44.1 is perfect. The same goes for 16 bits. This can't cause
> harshness either. It just sets the noise floor. And it sets it
> probably 30dB below the analogue noise on a decent recording.
>
> d

On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:32:31 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:

>OK on another tack. I notice the current crop of digital recorders you can
>buy are floating point. I'm just guessing that this must give you much more
>dynamic range, and no running out of bits nasty sounding clipping. My mind
>boggles at how this is done. as there has to in that case some way to vary
>the scaling as you record. What it seems to allow is not worrying about the
>level and the ability to have a good recording with low noise and no
>clipping, which to me in other than an interview scenario, would equate to a
>dynamic range greater than we could actually hear.
> Brian
>
>--

No. Floating point doesn't give you more dynamic range. What it doe is
allow you to do whatever signal manipulation you like without
re-dithering every time you change something. If you are working in
integers this is necessary. You re-dither just once at the end when
the signal is converted back to integer for output to the DAC.

d