Re: Blu-Ray vs DVD [message #65872 is a reply to message #65870] |
Sat, 29 January 2011 12:10 ![Go to previous message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/up.png) ![Go to next message Go to previous message](/forum/theme/AudioRoundTable/images/down.png) |
Adveser
Messages: 434 Registered: July 2009 Location: USA
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
The limitations of PCM audio at 16 bits is 96db and the limitations of 24-bit audio are somewhere in the realm of over 200db, which significantly reduces the noise level and I believe it eliminates the need for dithering.
Basically, all the problems with 16-bit audio do not exist on 20-bits and much less so at 24-bits.
I put a 24-bit recording sourced from the original analog tapes or the original 24-bit digital master over any vinyl any day.
So given that Blu-Ray has no technical problem with 24-bits it should be the best format for music assuming they are going back and using the original mix and not a subsequent generation stereo mix.
I must say that the original quote above would require really clean vinyl to be effective though, you really aren't doing yourself any favors using vinyl with a lot of tracking noise and artifacts, but yeah, anything that isn't hovering around the 96db range is not effectively using all 16 bits and you should really be looking for a HDCD, DVD-A, Blu-Ray or SACD for those albums. Anything like the vast majority of Rock albums or anything that has been commercially mastered in the last 10-15 years should sound better, even at 16 bits.
Start looking for the HDCD logo on CD, it makes a huge difference, even if you do not own a Panasonic DVD player that is usually the best bet to play them back at 20-bits.
The smart money is that they are not compressing audio for Blu-Ray, much like DVD uses 20-Bit Stereo PCM on most audio-centric discs as an option. The technical limitations are none by default, but that doesn't guarantee quality. The format of the audio should be on the packaging.
http://adveser.webs.com/
|
|
|