|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
212.69.45.26
In Reply to: Basic Questions About DVD-A Authoring posted by Wegman on May 14, 2006 at 10:23:15:
DVD-A goes from 16/44.1 to 24/192 in stereo, and from 16/44.1 to 24/96 in 5.1 - however, for anything over 24/48 in 5.1 then you MUST use MLP lossless or your disc will be out of spec, and may well not play.
The Cirlinca app will allow you to write a 24/96 5.1 file without MLP, but the odds are high it will not play back properly, if at all on most players as the specs limit you to 9.6 Megabits/second, and 24/96 5.1 is over 13 Megabits/second.There is nothing at all to stop you using CD audio quality on DVD-A - you will get a lot more on the disc.
The Cirlinca app would not be much use for this due to it's lack of menu creation.
discWelder Bronze will only give you a single group, which limits you to 99 tracks.
discWelder Steel gives you all 9 groups and a lot more in the way of menu creation.
Chrome is the flagship, and whilst it has it's problems is the best available unless you go for the MEI tool from Sonic.WaveLab's DVD-A creation is at best a convoluted process, and at worst well out of spec. Just try copying one of your discs and see what happens! I/O error is almost guaranteed (with Version 5. Not tried DVD-A in version 6)
DVD-A is far from dead in the water either.
It is the ONLY High Rez format that is available to not only serious studios, but also semi pro & hobbyists. SACD was never a serious option due to the massive expense of making the discs.
As soon as all the BRD/HD DVD nonsense has gone the way of the dodo, and been left for just Hollywood type movies (Which is where it belongs, really) then DVD-A will come back stronger than ever before as it will be the ONLY high res disc based music format that is actually affordable.
Warners, EMI and many others are still well behind it too. Written properly, DVD-A/V discs will play in ALL dvd players too. Dead?
Nope. Not at all.
Follow Ups:
Well I hope you're right, just seems like it's had a very very slow start. It is certainly affordable, just a question of actually getting a lot of people interested in it.Re: Cirlinca, true it does not create a menu but it does allow several program groups (9?), will display pictures, show captions w/song titles, etc., so I think it is suitable for collections of cd-quality material.
CirLinca is perfect for CD collections, or simple High Res material.
And for $35 you really cannot go wrong at all.
IMHO, it's a better buy than Bronze is - Cirlinca gives you all 9 groups, so could be used for 9 separate albums at CD quality where Bronze gives but a single group.
Things start getting expensive when you want detailed menu creation & customization.
So just to be clear, there is no way to "upsample" your CDs beyond 44.1 kHz and make them 96 kHZ or higher, then burn them to DVD-R
Well, yes - you can - but it's pointless.
The material is at 16/44.1, and has doubtless been dithered to that & heavily brickwall limited if it's a modern disc.
So what would be the point in padding with zeroes?
Neil:The *alleged* "point" basically comes back to the whole 'validity of upsampling' issue. Basically, some of us think/have thought that if you can take RBCD files and rip them bitperfect to PC, them UPSAMPLE them using complex algorithms with steep filters and even dithering, you may have a way to *capture* a *well* upsampled RBCD files and play them back as hi-res discs. This permits one to skip traditional hardware/realtime upsampling techniques, which have their own set of *alleged* cost and performance limitations. (Did I get that right guys?)
(Notice I say *alleged* alot? You be the judge why on that one...)
The process **need not be done in real time** so it can take 4 or 6 or 8 times longer than realtime playback. Who cares? We're on a Mission from God here. (I have upsampled 16/44.1 RBDC files to 24/192 and it takes 30 minutes to do a 5 minute track on a 2.5GhZ machine) And guess what!?! The file becomes 6.53061224489 times bigger, and it sounds, well uh, it should sound, er... I think it sounds...
Oh hell I can't tell the bloody difference! HONESTLY!
Then, one would take the *precious* newly upsampled track and author it either to DVD-V (up to 24/96) or DVD-A (up to 24/192). Then one could *allegedly* enjoy all the benefits of VERY expensive realtime hardware upsamplers... without buying a very expensive realtime hardware upsampler!
Yes, the point you make about resolution is largely accepted. If I take a 800x600 digital photo and "resize" it to 1600x1200, the picture is NOT going to have the same resolution as a photo TAKEN at 1600x1200. What some claim to achieve is changing sonics by "moving audible artifacts of the low-pass filter higher into the ultra-sonic region, thereby providing a better/nicer/smoother/whatever sound". Ok. Sounds possible. Does it work?
Personally, since I have been listening to more and more hi-res material I have been spending ZERO time trying to improve RBCD's. The ones that sound good (about half of them) sound good no matter what you do to them (sample rate and bit depth wise). The bad ones still sound bad and just take up more room on the hard drive. With 24/96 and 24/192 material - even material re-recorded from analog master tapes - there is simply no contest. There IS more information there, and it is particularily noticable in the high-frequency region. Symbals sound like analog kinda real symbals again - not this hissy spitty digital things. Chimes seem to decay FOREVER as their oscillations diminish into an almost non-existnant noise floor. (PC sound cards are coming out with 24/192 D/A converters with 120db S/N ratios.)
So in a word, the reason why we think about authoring DVD-A's of upsampled redbook material? Because a)we're nuts and b)we can.
Myself, I'm gonna spend more time collecting hi-res software and less time worrying about going from 99.8% to 99.9% perfect RBCD playback.
I hope you're right. I hope DVD-A picks up and takes off! :o) Happy Days will be Here Again!
YOU GUYS! STOP ****ING AROUND WITH RBCD AND SUPPORT HI-REZ OR YOU'RE GONNA BE STUCK WITH... RBCD? MP3? Heck at this rate we'll be lucky if music is stored in a lossless format in 5 years down the road. Then the guys in the Vinyl Asylum WILL get the last laugh, as vinyl will be the ONLY hi-rez format available! Those jokes are so possible that they are NOT even FUNNY!
I'm done now. Back to my padded room.
Cheers,
Why a padded room?
Does it make the music sound better as it's not bouncing off the walls or something??? :)Upsampling is indeed a contentious issue, and I have spent a lot of time playing with this to see if any differences can be made - and if it is a straight upsample with no further work carried out, then there is *no* difference to the final tracks except for taking up a lot more space.
BUT. And this is a big but.
IF you carry out some form of non destructive processing - by this I mean to, for example, run the upsampled material through a genuine upsampling EQ unit with no cut or boost applied such as the UAD-1 Pultec, then you can make things *seem* better. It reminds me of all these fancy gizmos that the "audiophile" websites try to sell us:
Special Mains cable
Bi-Wired speakers (not Bi-Amped)
etc. - we *think* it makes things better because we have spent either time or money doing the alleged modification, and don't want to believe we have wasted our time and effort.
The upsampling EQ route like the Pultec, for example, will definitely change the sound, no question of it, and hopefully for the better. The Pultec seems to impart more of an analogue "warmth" to the track, and yes it definitely changes things but I believe it sounds better. Am I wrong? Could well be.When on the other hand, we take an analogue master tape, and digitize this at 24/96 then it does indeed sound superior to the same tape digitized at 16/44.1 - no shadow of a doubt in my mind at all. 16 bit audio is so damned fragile whatever way you look at it. 24 bit is vastly higher resolution. It's just a shame that most 24 bit converters deliver little better than true 16 bit converters can. Look at the S/N ratios & the range achieved - so-called 24 bit converters giving only 102dB of range are sadly common, and that is 17 bit performance not 24.
Sample rate? Another story altogether.
96KHz simply means 2 things to my mind.
1 - we can accurately reproduce frequencies up to 48KHz (Some would say different, but Nyquist says double. Lipshitz says you sample at 3 times the highest frequency for complete avoidance of aliasing, and he may well have a point - I am not certain.)
2 - It is much much easier to make a DAC running at 96KHz sound good compared to one running at 48KHz.
Again, when taking multitrack tapes & remixing for DVD-A, the cumulative effects of working at 96 KHz are without a shadow of a doubt preferable to lower rates. There certainly is a LOT more information there - as we all know, the devil is indeed in the detail (or more appropriately, in the lack of it)MP3?
Don't swear at me in a public forum please sir - there may be young children reading this filth!
Redbook CAN be done very well. And when it is good, it is very, very good. but 24/96 is better. Trouble is that due to massive overcompression & severe brickwall limiting in the name of hotter pressing, CD is being killed off as a sensible format. If things can revert back to sensible levels at mastering - use the K-system at K-14 for stereo, K-12 if you really must, but this obscenity of the Keane album clocking in at -4dB RMS AVERAGE level is truly gross. The end result will be severe hearing loss & ear damage. We were not meant to listen to such overcompressed garbage.
Dynamic range of less than 5dB from quietest point to loudest point?
words fail me, they really do. Makes it harsh, tiring & bad for your state of being.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: