MUSE on Bluray

[haze015]

I can tell the difference on my wee 22" tv, its quite a bit better

 

What sort of difference though?

[Raiko]

Bluray=rip off.

 

I'm with you on that. Watching DVD's on a 42 inch HD tv works fine. From a distance you can barely notice the diference. That and if you think otherwise, there are upscaling DVD players out there too.

[Hopix]

What sort of difference though?

 

Incredibly minimal most likely.

[sulli01]

What sort of difference though?

 

To me the sounds are soo much sharper, fuller sounding.

 

The viuals are soo sharp you can actually see the pores in peoples faces.

 

Its probably equivalent if not a bigger change from watching an old vhs and then watching the same film on DVD. Quite a lot better.

[apoco123]

When Blu ray first came out I didnt want to know, at first I couldnt see a real difference. It was only until the other day when I was in Tesco, I had a look at the menu of Avatar, that was on a loop on the TV's there, and that actually blew me away, its convinced me I should purchase one, though I havnt got a HD TV yet.

 

But yeah, would be neat to have a Muse concert released on HD.

[haze015]

To me the sounds are soo much sharper, fuller sounding.

 

The viuals are soo sharp you can actually see the pores in peoples faces.

 

Its probably equivalent if not a bigger change from watching an old vhs and then watching the same film on DVD. Quite a lot better.

 

I'm aware of the better picture, just not heard Blu-ray through a decent set up to really see what the audio thing is about, as there's no real numbers and the only ones I can find don't suggest better audio.

When Dolby first appeared, it was a noise reduction/audio compression/equalisation device that gives the impression of better audio. I don't remember any artifacts/distortion/anti-aliasing issues from DVD and that's what higher fidelity actually solves rather than sounding fuller & sharper.

[sulli01]

I'm aware of the better picture, just not heard Blu-ray through a decent set up to really see what the audio thing is about, as there's no real numbers and the only ones I can find don't suggest better audio.

When Dolby first appeared, it was a noise reduction/audio compression/equalisation device that gives the impression of better audio. I don't remember any artifacts/distortion/anti-aliasing issues from DVD and that's what higher fidelity actually solves rather than sounding fuller & sharper.

 

I'm no expert or anything on this but i believe that the audio is lossless, because of the capacity of a disc.

 

This article explains it i think, dunno how old it is but should be pretty relevant (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-13817_7-6462511-2.html)

 

Audio quality: Audio quality is also improved. New high-resolution soundtrack formats, such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio, are essentially identical to the studio master, so you'll be hearing things exactly as the director and audio engineers intended.

[haze015]

I'm no expert or anything on this but i believe that the audio is lossless, because of the capacity of a disc.

 

This article explains it i think, dunno how old it is but should be pretty relevant (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-13817_7-6462511-2.html)

 

DTS HD & TrueHD are "loseless" forms of compression and not universally used.

 

PCM at 24bit, 96kHz is the only it was intended to sound, just no format is truly capable of it as it's so large, but DVD, just like Blu-ray is capable of it.

[sulli01]

DTS HD & TrueHD are "loseless" forms of compression and not universally used.

 

PCM at 24bit, 96kHz is the only it was intended to sound, just no format is truly capable of it as it's so large, but DVD, just like Blu-ray is capable of it.

 

I'm not too sure what all that means (i know pcm but thats about it). All i know is that the blu-rays i've watched, they sound better than their dvd version

[haze015]

I'm not too sure what all that means (i know pcm but thats about it). All i know is that the blu-rays i've watched, they sound better than their dvd version

 

PCM (.wav or .aiff files) is the raw audio file, anything else is a compressed form of that audio file to fit onto the disc.

 

Technically there's no such thing as "HD Audio" and just a marketing myth

[sulli01]

PCM (.wav or .aiff files) is the raw audio file, anything else is a compressed form of that audio file to fit onto the disc.

 

Technically there's no such thing as "HD Audio" and just a marketing myth

 

If thats the case how come it sounds so much better ?

[haze015]

If thats the case how come it sounds so much better ?

 

Either they've used a better form of compression or remastered the audio, possibly both.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, try finding an album that has been remastered/remixed and getting both versions and listen to the difference, the fidelity doesn't need to change to sound "better".

[sulli01]

Heres another link to tell the difference. It explains in a more in depth way.

 

says it more advanced compression and some films etc will have the raw pcm, so no compression? Which is why it sounds better, i guess

 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1064

[sulli01]

-Doris Fail-

[haze015]

Heres another link to tell the difference. It explains in a more in depth way.

 

says it more advanced compression and some films etc will have the raw pcm, so no compression? Which is why it sounds better, i guess

 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1064

 

I don't think many films have the raw compression, that link mentions Disney, but those are fairly short, so makes sense. Can't imagine Dolby or DTS being too happy about it though.

"More advanced" just means less severe compression generally.

 

Anyway, you keep missing the point there's so many factors involved in audio quality. I'm pretty sure my DVDs sounded better when they were going through a HDMI lead compared to whatever it was before...

[Hopix]

-Doris Fail-

 

Hate her with a passion.

[Carbo]

Hate her with a passion.

 

"Ut Oh!"

[culasgus]

coldnt agree more

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.

[jutta]

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.

 

 

 

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

Nothing worse than a person that only looks at the numbers.

 

I have a high end system.

PQ is much better in HD

AQ is far and away far better in UPCM, DolbyTrueHD or DTS HD MA.

 

As far as I'm aware there is not one Bluray on the planet mastered in 32bit. 16 and 24 yes.

But I'm not a numbers man, just know what it's like in the real world mate.

[jutta]

DTS HD & TrueHD are "loseless" forms of compression and not universally used.

 

PCM at 24bit, 96kHz is the only it was intended to sound, just no format is truly capable of it as it's so large, but DVD, just like Blu-ray is capable of it.

 

Lossless is universally used be it DTS HD MA or DolbyTrue HD or UPCM - but only on Bluray:)

[jutta]

Either they've used a better form of compression or remastered the audio, possibly both.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, try finding an album that has been remastered/remixed and getting both versions and listen to the difference, the fidelity doesn't need to change to sound "better".

 

Albums I'm assuming you mean CD????

The audio bit rate here his no where near what a Bluray can hold.

 

Here are some numbers for the academics

 

Audio as stored on an audio-CD has a bit rate of 1411.2 kbit/s

 

Dolby Digital for SD-DVD can be upto 448kbps for Blu-Ray it is upto 640kbps

MLP lossless as used on DVD-Audio discs is upto 9.6mbps

Dolby True HD for Blu-Ray(and also HD-DVD) is upto 18mbps

 

DTS for DVD can be either 1536kbps(full rate) or 768kbps(half rate) is used more often.

DTS-HD Master Audio can support upto 24.5mbps on Blu-Ray.

 

LPCM can support upto about 35mbps on Blu-Ray(I think).

 

The actual bitrate for the audio on any disc will depend on the encoding, i.e. whether it is encoded at 24 bit/48kHz or 24bit/96khz for 7.1 signals or upto 24bit-192khz for 5.1 signals.

 

Edit: And yes the lossless codecs Dolby True HD, DTS-HD-MA & LPCM are a huge improvement over the old lossy formats imo, the extra detail and dynamics provided by lossless encoding make a big difference

[Hat]

"Mmm, this sounds good...WAIT, it says it's just 120kbps! THIS SOUNDS SHIT!"

[haze015]

Nothing worse than a person that only looks at the numbers.

 

I have a high end system.

PQ is much better in HD

AQ is far and away far better in UPCM, DolbyTrueHD or DTS HD MA.

 

As far as I'm aware there is not one Bluray on the planet mastered in 32bit. 16 and 24 yes.

But I'm not a numbers man, just know what it's like in the real world mate.

 

I work with audio every day. So don't telling me what I do and don't fucking know

 

Your numbers for CD audio only correlate to a stereo file, so applied to the other formats, designed for 5.1 or 7:1 systems, where you require 3x or 4x the sample rate to retain the same level of quality... So might want to check those numbers thoroughly.

[jutta]

I work with audio every day. So don't telling me what I do and don't fucking know

 

Your numbers for CD audio only correlate to a stereo file, so applied to the other formats, designed for 5.1 or 7:1 systems, where you require 3x or 4x the sample rate to retain the same level of quality... So might want to check those numbers thoroughly.

Good for you, I hope it keeps you happy.

 

I wasn't quoting numbers for multichannel such as SACD.

Just CD - DVD - BLURAY

 

I'm just looking forward to the Bluray because I know in my system it's much better quality than a DVD:)

[haze015]

I wasn't quoting numbers for multichannel such as SACD.

Just CD - DVD - BLURAY

 

I'm just looking forwar to the Bluray because I know it's much better quality than a DVD:)

 

No, the principal is always the same, the more channels you have, the more data needed.

 

We'll stick with CD quality, as technically it can used for audio of any kind, even DVD or Blu-ray.

 

1 channel = 16 x 44.1khz = 705.6kps

2 channels (stereo) = 705.6kps x 2 = 1.411mbps

5:1 = 6 channels = 1.411mbps x 3 = 4.233.6mbps

7:1 = 8 channels = 1.411mbps x 4 = 5.644.8mbps

 

16/44.1 has a dynamic range of 96dB and all digital audio has the same frequency range (Apart from DSD, but not aware of it ever being used for digital recording) and it's always flat.

Where you'll hear the difference is when the dynamic range required is greater than what's on offer, imagine really low bitrate mp3s and how it distorts everything quiet as the noise floor is risen. Despite working with 24/96k minimum, I don't know why anyone would require that level of dynamic range ever (around 150dB, basically better than human hearing) for playback rather than recording with post-processing afterwards.