Jump to content
Muse

MUSE on Bluray

jutta

By jutta
in Songs & Releases

Recommended Posts

Carbo Escapee

Carbo

Posted
Posted
Why? I never saw the difference between the normal DVDs everyone uses, and Blu-ray. :indiff:

 

There's a gigantic difference. A single layer can take up to 25 gigs with a double layer being up to 50 as opposed to a normal DVD's 4 gig, but there's special models that can take up to even 200 gigs. Not only does that mean alot more room for completely lossless and uncompressed footage and audio, but also a heap of extra material and interactivity.

 

However that only depends on how the developers utilize that space, not all Blu-Ray movies have the same quality. Some are really shit, but Blu-Rays like Band Of Brothers, Toy Story 2 and District 9 are amazing on Blu-Ray.

 

If Muse can make a great Blu-Ray DVD then more power to them. Their live shows and all the stuff they like to do would probably work wonders if done right, and there's alot of potential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisRowlands Escapee

ChrisRowlands

Posted
Posted
There's a gigantic difference. A single layer can take up to 25 gigs with a double layer being up to 50 as opposed to a normal DVD's 4 gig, but there's special models that can take up to even 200 gigs. Not only does that mean alot more room for completely lossless and uncompressed footage and audio, but also a heap of extra material and interactivity.

 

However that only depends on how the developers utilize that space, not all Blu-Ray movies have the same quality. Some are really shit, but Blu-Rays like Band Of Brothers, Toy Story 2 and District 9 are amazing on Blu-Ray.

 

If Muse can make a great Blu-Ray DVD then more power to them. Their live shows and all the stuff they like to do would probably work wonders if done right, and there's alot of potential.

 

+1 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kynch Escapee

Kynch

Posted
Posted
Why? I never saw the difference between the normal DVDs everyone uses, and Blu-ray. :indiff:

 

This is why it will take years for DVD to die. :)

 

I've seen Muse in HD, and believe me, the difference is enormous. If you downloaded one of the HD files (in 1080i, or at least 720p) we have on MuseBootlegs, and compared it to the DVD version of the same show, you would completely see what I'm on about.

 

An example with Later... with Jools Holland:

 

 

 

DVD:

vlcsnap2009092101h41m30.png

 

HD [1080i]:

vlcsnap2009100901h18m53.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jutta Escapee

jutta

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Why? I never saw the difference between the normal DVDs everyone uses, and Blu-ray. :indiff:

:eek: Are u serious

 

Take the H.A.A.R.P. release.

Awesome DTS 5.1 surround mix. Max Bitrate 1.5Mbs

 

Put it in Bluray it becomes Uber Awesome

DTS HA MA 7.1 Surround mix - Max Bitrate 24.5Mbs

 

Bluray picture alone has 5 times the resolution of DVD.

And HD Audio is just in another realm.

 

 

This is why it will take years for DVD to die. :)

 

I've seen Muse in HD, and believe me, the difference is enormous. If you downloaded one of the HD files (in 1080i, or at least 720p) we have on MuseBootlegs, and compared it to the DVD version of the same show, you would completely see what I'm on about.

 

An example with Later... with Jools Holland:

 

 

 

DVD:

vlcsnap2009092101h41m30.png

 

HD [1080i]:

vlcsnap2009100901h18m53.png

 

1080i is getting there. Infact hard to discern on some 1080p capable displays.

But you need that full bitrate HD audio track:D

 

I did read somewhere that HAARP was filmed in HD so maybe they can still bring that to Bluray one day

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jutta Escapee

jutta

Posted
  • Author
Posted
When it was in the cinemas, it was shown in HD. It looked epic, especially the shot before Knights of Cydonia kicks in.

 

There you go then. We need a partition to send to MUSE demanding HAARP be released immediately on Bluray:LOL:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jutta Escapee

jutta

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Actually seriously hoping for a Bluray/DVD of one of the stadium shows. Probably being a bit optimistic though with that tour DVD in production.

 

But they would be filming in HD anyway these days so no reason why it can't be a Bluray too.

 

The recent Metallica Nimes (France) Bluary is freakin EPIC

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carbo Escapee

Carbo

Posted
Posted
lol.

 

The human ears don't have the ability to tell the difference.

 

Between uncompressed and compressed on say, a very expensive surround system?

 

I sure as hell would be able to tell that difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
haze015 Escapee

haze015

Posted
Posted
Between uncompressed and compressed on say, a very expensive surround system?

 

I sure as hell would be able to tell that difference.

 

Blu-Ray still uses compression as raw PCM audio in full surround takes up a huge amount of space. But there is a point where the sample rates are so high, you're gaining nothing, the difference between 24bit and 32bit audio for example is totally superficial.

 

Audible differences compared to PCM/CD

In the audiophile community, the sound from the SACD format is thought to be significantly better compared to older format Red Book CD recordings.[38] However, in controlled blind, level-matched listening tests over stereo reproduction subjects were not able to differentiate SACD recordings from their CD-quality converted version. Instead, the authors suggest that differences in particular mixes for the two formats may be causing perceived differences. Meyer, E. Brad, and Moran, David R. Audibility of a CD-Standard A/D/A Loop Inserted into High-Resolution Audio Playback. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Engineering Reports).

Now, it is very difficult to use negative results to prove the inaudibility of any given phenomenon or process. There is always the remote possibility that a different system or more finely attuned pair of ears would reveal a difference. But we have gathered enough data, using sufficiently varied and capable systems and listeners, to state that the burden of proof has now shifted. Further claims that careful 16/44.1 encoding audibly degrades high resolution signals must be supported by properly controlled double-blind tests.

This conclusion is contentious among a large segment of audio engineers who work with high resolution material and many within the audiophile community.[39]. Some have questioned the basic methodology of the study and the equipment used,[40] while others such as Robert Harley, have suggested that double-blind testing is ill suited for evaluating subtle differences in audio material.[41]

Every few years, the results of some blind listening test are announced that purportedly “prove” an absurd conclusion. These tests, ironically, say more about the flaws inherent in blind listening tests than about the phenomena in question. The latest in this long history is a double-blind test that, the authors conclude, demonstrates that 44.1kHz/16-bit digital audio is indistinguishable from high-resolution digital. Note the word “indistinguishable.” The authors aren’t saying that high-res digital might sound a little different from Red Book CD but is no better. Or that high-res digital is only slightly better and not worth the additional cost. Rather, they reached the rather startling conclusion that CD-quality audio sounds exactly the same as 96kHz/24-bit PCM and DSD, the encoding scheme used in SACD... I contend that such tests are an indictment of blind listening tests in general because of the patently absurd conclusions to which they lead.

Double-blind listening tests in 2004 between DSD and 24-bit, 176.4 kHz PCM recordings reported that among test subjects no significant differences could be heard.[42] However, DSD advocates and equipment manufacturers continue to assert an improvement in sound quality above PCM 24-bit 176.4 kHz.[43] Despite both formats extended frequency responses, it has been shown people cannot distinguish audio with information above 21 kHz from audio without such high-frequency content.

 

SACD or DSD has a sample rate of 1bit/2.8Mhz, equivalent to 20bit/96khz. If you look into mastering techniques, as well as mixing, there's plenty of tricks to fool people into thinking something sounds "better", a subtle bass and "air"/presence boost on any audio will make it seem initially better, so does subtle audio compression and cutting unnecessary frequencies gains you a dB or two of extra headroom... The actual fidelity doesn't mean too much, listen to any remastered version of albums released on CD, the fidelity hasn't changed ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisRowlands Escapee

ChrisRowlands

Posted
Posted
Bluray=rip off.

 

Matter of opinion. To me it's not. You can get a blu-ray drive for PC for £60 and a full HD monitor for £100. That's a full HD experience for a bargain price, relatively. The quality is second to none and the opportunities for the tech are huge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sulli01 Escapee

sulli01

Posted
Posted
Bluray=rip off.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matter of opinion. To me it's not. You can get a blu-ray drive for PC for £60 and a full HD monitor for £100. That's a full HD experience for a bargain price, relatively. The quality is second to none and the opportunities for the tech are huge.

 

This and you can get pretty cheap Blu-Ray dvds for a tenner or less now. But they are still a bit too expensive for me to buy lots of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...