High definition audio formats

Cpyder

Also, one more thing:

"TrueHD is capable of delivering audio that is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. Utilizing up to 7.1 channels of audio information, the format supports 100 percent lossless audio, encoded up to 24-bit/96 kHz at a maximum bitrate of 18 Mbps. In raw technical terms, that easily outperforms any other audio format currently on the market, including Dolby Digital-Plus, and is about as close as you're going to get to a cinema-level experience outside of buying your own multiplex."

Taken from: http://www.highdefdigest.com/feature_introducingdolbytruehd.html

Can SACD do that? Bit-for-bit the same as the studio master? If it can't, I'm throwing in the towel for SACD and declaring Blu-ray the winner in terms of audio quality.

shack

Uilleann wrote:

I will keep searching for a good quality player then - at a reasonable cost. Are there features in the build I should be looking for - things like any particular brand or model that really outperforms another in output?

I have no first hand knowledge of this player...but folks (including so called pro reviewers) rave about Oppo...both as a video player and about it's audio capabilities (especially SACD).

http://www.oppodigital.com/blu-ray-bdp-80/

If it lives up to it's reputation, its is certainly a reasonably priced "multi-format" player. CD, DVD, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray. If you ended up with a player such as this and decide you do not care for SACD, you still have a highly regarded DVD/Blu-ray player.

Uilleann wrote:

And my entry for 'dumb question of the year': Does one generally use an HDMI cable to connect an SACD player to their AVR? Or perhaps an optical?

Definitely not optical. I believe there are a couple of AVRs that claim to be able to decode SACD via HDMI...but for the most part one must use analog interconnects between the player and the AVR or pre/amp.

shack

Cpyder wrote:

I really think you need to re-quote him and answer with more honest opinions, possibly supported by at least some facts.

I stand by my responses, whether you like or agree with them. They are based on real world first hand experience by myself as well as other people with similar experiences that I am familiar with.

BTW...Who the hell are you to question my honesty?

treitz3

Damn. You know, it sure would be nice if an actual discussion took place on a great topic such as this. Instead of the typical "My di(k is bigger than your di(k" arguments.

Listen man, you like Blu-Ray and want to declare it the winner. Fine. You couldn't be more correct and happy listening.

If folks around here would like to actually travel down their audio journey to a better place closer to the bottom of the rainbow, they may want to sit back and listen instead of argue.

That said, I'm out of this thread. Post #2 nailed it and that's all that really needs to be said. Y'all have fun now...

F1nut

Ugh!

Shack is 100% on the money.

1. Blu-ray audio (TrueHD and DTS-HD) is newer. I'd hope the developer could improve upon an audio format introduced 11 years ago using today's technology.

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

Can SACD do that? Bit-for-bit the same as the studio master?

Yep.

Cpyder

F1nut wrote: »

Ugh!

Shack is 100% on the money.

I want your next post to read word for word: "SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio."

You should have no objection to this since he is 100% on the money.

Oh, and make sure you don't forget the word "vastly".

shack

Cpyder wrote:

I want your next post to read word for word: "SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio."

You should have no objection to this since he is 100% on the money.

Oh, and make sure you don't forget the word "vastly".

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension skills before you start questioning someone's honesty.

The actual question VERBATIM was:

Uilleann wrote:

Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality?

Given that question, "yes" is an appropriate answer.

Bye.

Uilleann

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio? Being new to all this I simply am not aware of the etiquette or prose appropriate for these discussions. I apologize if anyone's feelings are getting hurt. Perhaps it was selfish of me to ask the original question to try and learn for myself? (Truth be told - I'm still highly uncertain as to the reality of things with so many strong opinions being given back and forth.)

At any rate, apologies.

Brian~

shack

Uilleann wrote:

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio? Being new to all this I simply am not aware of the etiquette or prose appropriate for these discussions. I apologize if anyone's feelings are getting hurt. Perhaps it was selfish of me to ask the original question to try and learn for myself? (Truth be told - I'm still highly uncertain as to the reality of things with so many strong opinions being given back and forth.)

At any rate, apologies.

Brian~

No apologies necessary. There are those that have experiences and then convey an opinion based on those experiences. Then there are those that think that everything is measurable in audio and numbers always tell the tale.

IMO audio is subjective. What you hear may be different from what I hear for a multitude of reasons. My best advice is ask questions if you like, take everything you hear with a grain of salt...THEN...find out for yourself firsthand by doing, trying, listening, etc.

If that seems like too much effort...then maybe you are where you need to be as far as audio or A/V is concerned.

Again, everyone treats this hobby differently. Only you can determine what works or is right for you. Good luck.

concealer404

Just ask yourself... do you like to listen? Or do you like to read about listening?

Pretty easy to identify which pieces of info are relevant to yourself after you identify which "type" of audiophile you are.

Danny Tse

Uilleann wrote: »

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio?

Haha! Yes....sort of like Chevy vs. Ford....Leno vs. Conan vs. Letterman....less filling vs. taste great

cheddar

Uilleann wrote: »

So is stirring the hornet's nest just a given when talking about audio?

As shack pointed out, unfortunately, with people's listening preferences, equipment, knowledge, and experience varying so greatly, you will get a lot of opinions stated as fact. That's probably where most of the dust up above comes from. In all things audio, it's usually best to use your own ears to listen and make up your mind for yourself. Many of the posts above come from people listening to their own set-ups and offering opinions. I find this personal experience to be the most valuable, since technical specs cut and pasted from an article or just assumed because something is new and something is old can't tell you personally if you could even hear or appreciate any audible differences between formats. But making broad generalizations will usually end in a pretty heated discussion eventually. Even if people are being completely truthful in their own listening critiques, chances are you don't have their equipment, so you're going to have to do your own listening tests at some point. It seems you want some sort of final objective word on the matter. And I just don't think it exists given the reasons above. So seeking a 'final word' probably isn't the best strategy to go around asking questions with.

Since you seem to want something more objective, I'll try and provide you some sort of framework to do your own listening in. But remember, these are only technical specs, they don't really tell you if you can hear a difference or even if the original recording is even capable of taking full advantage of a format's potential. You can have a horrible source recording and no matter what upsampling you do with it and what format you use, it will still sound like garbage.

CDs, DVD-A, and lossless blu-ray all use something called pulse code modulation or PCM. The problem always is how to turn the analog medium of sound into something that can be digitally recorded using 0s and 1s. PCM is one standard that samples the sound value at a given point in time. But since it can't sample all sounds at all times, there are going to be gaps in what can be recorded and reproduced. This has led many to prefer the sound of old analog LPs to their digital counterparts.

Don't get bogged down with TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as some newfangled lossless formats. IIRC, TrueHD even has its roots in compression used for DVD-A. They are somewhat new compression formats that just make a PCM file smaller so it doesn't take up as much space on the disk. They offer NO SOUND IMPROVEMENTS to the file. They just make it smaller. Whatever PCM file existed before is what you get when you uncompress (decode) it to make it the large file again. That's why they call it lossless. But remember, it's garbage in, garbage out. So if they recorded the track well and mastered it well, it will sound stellar. But TrueHD or DTS-HD MA guarantee nothing about the quality of the final experience.

That said, the differences between CDs, DVD-A, and blu-ray lossless really depend on how much space is available on the disk and how much bandwidth is available over the interconnect between the player and AVR. More space means a higher sample rate is possible, leading to a larger file, that has to be transmitted over a higher bandwidth connection. So CDs have a 700MB capacity, DVDs over 7GB, and blu-ray 50GB. And HDMI can handle more information than optical or coax digital connections.

This means more channels and higher bit-depth/sample rates (CDs - stereo at 16-bit/44.1 kHz, DVD-A - stereo at 24-bit/192Khz or lower if using more channels, and blu-ray LPCM - 7.1 at 24-bit/192Khz) are possible. But music has to first be recorded and mastered at the highest rates. And there are only a handful of audio only blu-rays that exist mastered at blu-ray's highest potential. A blu-ray movie that is only 16-bit/48Khz in 5.1 isn't using the full potential of the blu-ray medium. So you can see there can be a lot of apples to oranges comparisons going on when the original source recording and preserving the quality of the source all the way up the chain are so important. And stereo vs. surround tracks is a whole other can of worms. But at least all other things being equal, you can see how blu-ray can be superior to a CD in quality because of the sharp increase in amount of information transmission possible, eventhough the underlying digital 'language' is the same.

SACD doesn't use PCM. Instead it uses something called Direct Stream Digital (DSD). It is 1-bit DSD at 2822.4 kHz. So right from the start, comparing SACD to the other formats is an apples to oranges effort. And saying one is superior to another becomes problematic. I think it's safest to say that SACD, DVD-A, and blu-ray LPCM can all sound absolutely stellar given a properly mastered source recording. SACD has the best selection of titles after the decline of DVD-A. But if blu-ray audio only disks take off, they will be a viable alternative to the SACD format and IMHO, anything that encourages the release of more high resolution recordings in either format is good for audiophiles.

Cpyder

shack wrote: »

Maybe you should improve your reading comprehension skills before you start questioning someone's honesty.

The actual question VERBATIM was:

"Is it in some form vastly superior to Blu-ray audio tracks or even Redbook audio assuming the source recording sample was of a suitable high quality?" - Uilleann

Given that question, "yes" is an appropriate answer.

Bye.

Perhaps you should realize what an ambiguous answer is. "Yes" was not an appropriate answer if you are only referring to Redbook audio. Saying "yes" leaves it open to interpretation as to whether you are saying SACD is vastly superior to Blu-ray audio, Redbook audio, or both. A better answer would be, "Yes, SACD is superior to Redbook audio because..."


"I really think you need to re-quote him and answer with more honest opinions, possibly supported by at least some facts." -Cpyder

shack wrote: »

I stand by my responses, whether you like or agree with them. They are based on real world first hand experience by myself as well as other people with similar experiences that I am familiar with.

BTW...Who the hell are you to question my honesty?

You're right. I'm sorry. I shouldn't have used the word "honest." That was not the correct word choice because (see above why this is bolded) you weren't trying to be dishonest. I'm sure your intentions were honest and good. What I meant was that the answers you gave (which I commented on), were ambiguous, did not state any facts, and probably served to confuse the OP. Since you did not comment on any point I made, I'm assuming you don't disagree with them.

Cpyder

cheddar wrote: »

As shack pointed out, unfortunately, with people's listening preferences, equipment, knowledge, and experience varying so greatly, you will get a lot of opinions stated as fact. That's probably where most of the dust up above comes from. In all things audio, it's usually best to use your own ears to listen and make up your mind for yourself. Many of the posts above come from people listening to their own set-ups and offering opinions. I find this personal experience to be the most valuable, since technical specs cut and pasted from an article or just assumed because something is new and something is old can't tell you personally if you could even hear or appreciate any audible differences between formats. But making broad generalizations will usually end in a pretty heated discussion eventually. Even if people are being completely truthful in their own listening critiques, chances are you don't have their equipment, so you're going to have to do your own listening tests at some point. It seems you want some sort of final objective word on the matter. And I just don't think it exists given the reasons above. So seeking a 'final word' probably isn't the best strategy to go around asking questions with.

Since you seem to want something more objective, I'll try and provide you some sort of framework to do your own listening in. But remember, these are only technical specs, they don't really tell you if you can hear a difference or even if the original recording is even capable of taking full advantage of a format's potential. You can have a horrible source recording and no matter what upsampling you do with it and what format you use, it will still sound like garbage.

CDs, DVD-A, and lossless blu-ray all use something called pulse code modulation or PCM. The problem always is how to turn the analog medium of sound into something that can be digitally recorded using 0s and 1s. PCM is one standard that samples the sound value at a given point in time. But since it can't sample all sounds at all times, there are going to be gaps in what can be recorded and reproduced. This has led many to prefer the sound of old analog LPs to their digital counterparts.

Don't get bogged down with TrueHD or DTS-HD MA as some newfangled lossless formats. IIRC, TrueHD even has its roots in compression used for DVD-A. They are somewhat new compression formats that just make a PCM file smaller so it doesn't take up as much space on the disk. They offer NO SOUND IMPROVEMENTS to the file. They just make it smaller. Whatever PCM file existed before is what you get when you uncompress (decode) it to make it the large file again. That's why they call it lossless. But remember, it's garbage in, garbage out. So if they recorded the track well and mastered it well, it will sound stellar. But TrueHD or DTS-HD MA guarantee nothing about the quality of the final experience.

That said, the differences between CDs, DVD-A, and blu-ray lossless really depend on how much space is available on the disk and how much bandwidth is available over the interconnect between the player and AVR. More space means a higher sample rate is possible, leading to a larger file, that has to be transmitted over a higher bandwidth connection. So CDs have a 700MB capacity, DVDs over 7GB, and blu-ray 50GB. And HDMI can handle more information than optical or coax digital connections.

This means more channels and higher bit-depth/sample rates (CDs - stereo at 16-bit/44.1 kHz, DVD-A - stereo at 24-bit/192Khz or lower if using more channels, and blu-ray LPCM - 7.1 at 24-bit/192Khz) are possible. But music has to first be recorded and mastered at the highest rates. And there are only a handful of audio only blu-rays that exist mastered at blu-ray's highest potential. A blu-ray movie that is only 16-bit/48Khz in 5.1 isn't using the full potential of the blu-ray medium. So you can see there can be a lot of apples to oranges comparisons going on when the original source recording and preserving the quality of the source all the way up the chain are so important. And stereo vs. surround tracks is a whole other can of worms. But at least all other things being equal, you can see how blu-ray can be superior to a CD in quality because of the sharp increase in amount of information transmission possible, eventhough the underlying digital 'language' is the same.

SACD doesn't use PCM. Instead it uses something called Direct Stream Digital (DSD). It is 1-bit DSD at 2822.4 kHz. So right from the start, comparing SACD to the other formats is an apples to oranges effort. And saying one is superior to another becomes problematic. I think it's safest to say that SACD, DVD-A, and blu-ray LPCM can all sound absolutely stellar given a properly mastered source recording. SACD has the best selection of titles after the decline of DVD-A. But if blu-ray audio only disks take off, they will be a viable alternative to the SACD format and IMHO, anything that encourages the release of more high resolution recordings in either format is good for audiophiles.

Very nice write up. If there was a rep system, I'd give you +1. This description was very detailed and used a neutral tone. I believe it will help the OP. You also did not try to present your opinions as facts. A+

shack

Cpyder wrote:

Since you did not comment on any point I made, I'm assuming you don't disagree with them.

Assume what you will. I have no intention on commenting on ANY point you make now or in the future. Bye.

Uilleann

Thanks Cheddar! That truly does help to clear the air for me. I sincerely appreciate your time in such as well written reply. Your next pint's on me! Cheers!

Brian~

F1nut

Cpyder wrote:

1. Blu-ray audio (TrueHD and DTS-HD) is newer. I'd hope the developer could improve upon an audio format introduced 11 years ago using today's technology.

F1nut wrote:

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

Still waiting on you to address your mistake on this one. I want you to say, F1nut is right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Say it, HARRRRRR!

Cpyder

F1nut wrote: »

Shows how much you know. Blu-ray audio is exactly the same as that 11 year old DVD-A technology, exactly.

F1nut wrote: »

Still waiting on you to address your mistake on this one. I want you to say, F1nut is right, I don't know what I'm talking about. Say it, HARRRRRR!

I was referring to SACD vs. Blu-ray audio, but F1 is right: both DVD-A and TrueHD use packed pulse-code modulation. The word choice of "exactly" was probably not a great choice because there ARE differences between the two.

1. DVD-A only supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 2.0 channels. TrueHD supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 5.1 channels. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe DVD-A does not support bit-for-bit identical playback of the studio master in 5.1 channel surround.)

2. TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bit rate of DVD-A.

3. TrueHD allows for up to 14 separate channels. Current hardware only supports up to 8 channels however. DVD-A allows for 6 separate channels.

4. TrueHD allows more options for stereo support than DVD-A. Rather than downmixing channels, TrueHD allows for a separate "artists" stereo mix.

5. TrueHD allows for expanded metadata to include dialogue normalization and dynamic range control.

shack

Brian, good luck in your audio adventure...whichever path you take...

F1nut

1. DVD-A only supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 2.0 channels. TrueHD supports 192kHz/24-bit audio for up to 5.1 channels.

2. TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bit rate of DVD-A.

Ok, you're going to have to explain to me how TrueHD more than doubles the maximum bitrate of DVD-A when both have a maximum bitrate of 24.

3. TrueHD allows for up to 14 separate channels. Current hardware only supports up to 8 channels however. DVD-A allows for 6 separate channels.

That does not equate to better sound.

4. TrueHD allows more options for stereo support than DVD-A. Rather than downmixing channels, TrueHD allows for a separate "artists" stereo mix.

I'm not understanding this one. Stereo is only two channels, why would it need to be downmixed?

5. TrueHD allows for expanded metadata to include dialogue normalization and dynamic range control.

Seems like DSP and compression, neither of which result in better sound, IMO.

TroyD

shack wrote: »

No apologies necessary. There are those that have experiences and then convey an opinion based on those experiences. Then there are those that think that everything is measurable in audio and numbers always tell the tale.

IMO audio is subjective. What you hear may be different from what I hear for a multitude of reasons. My best advice is ask questions if you like, take everything you hear with a grain of salt...THEN...find out for yourself firsthand by doing, trying, listening, etc.

If that seems like too much effort...then maybe you are where you need to be as far as audio or A/V is concerned.

Again, everyone treats this hobby differently. Only you can determine what works or is right for you. Good luck.

Game, set, match....

Jesus, Joesph and doggy-style Mary....this is like who is stronger, Captain Marvel or Superman?


BDT

F1nut

I'll take Superman for a grand.

treitz3

I'll match that but I'm picking Captain Marvel.

Uilleann

I was always partial to Wonder Woman - oh and the pink bug girl from the Bugaloos. Am I too off topic here? Or worse - do my past super-hero tastes require me to give up my quest for super cool audio today? I mean.....am I really cool enough now that *THAT* dirty laundry's been aired?

F1nut

treitz3 wrote: »

I'll match that but I'm picking Captain Marvel.

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?

shack

I still like Popeye, Mighty Mouse and Underdog...the superheros of MY YOUTH.

F1nut

I mean.....am I really cool enough now that *THAT* dirty laundry's been aired?

Wonder Woman......yeah, you're cool enough.

shack

F1nut wrote:

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?

Whatever...:rolleyes:

Popeye had Olive Oyl

Mighty Mouse had Pearl Pureheart and Mitzi (he was a playa)

Underdog had Sweet Polly Purebred

Babes all!

treitz3

F1nut wrote: »

Eh, Superman gets to do Lois. Who does CM get to do, Sona? Ron?

Hmmm, got me there.

If he wants to "do" somebody, lets let it be Ron, k?

cheddar

Uilleann wrote: »

Thanks Cheddar! That truly does help to clear the air for me. I sincerely appreciate your time in such as well written reply. Your next pint's on me! Cheers!

Brian~

No Problem. And ain't nobody beating WW after she wraps them up in her Golden Lasso thingy...