|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
130.149.86.77
In Reply to: ...or his Redbook player has something wrong with it. (nt) posted by Al Sekela on February 12, 2007 at 09:45:42:
Indeed. Hardware problems are certainly a possibility. Is he using "audiophile" hardware or normal hardware? Is he using different hardware for 192/24 and 44.1/16? But without knowing the relationship between the two sources it kind of makes knowing the rest somewhat irrelevant.
Follow Ups:
Hi.I use the same DVD-audio player to play both the DVD-audio & CD discs, all other gears remain identical with on-screen monitoring which digital format being played. NO guessing like you guys.
you do realize that your DVD player uses different lasers and different electronics in some of its signal path for the DVD than it uses for the CD playback, don't you?
Hi.We are talking about the end sonic results DVD-audio vs CD due to their different sample bits & sample frequencies as a consumer.
Are you telling us we need a special lab-built-calibrated disc player to play both DVD-audio & CD discs in their respective optimum conditions in a lab environment in order to validate such sonic results?
There is always different way to grow & handle an apply vs an orange. They both are not the same fruit.
Blu-ray Discs use total different laser beam (650nM) technology to achieve better video resoluion than DVD-video (being to 25GB, over 5 times of DVD-video capacity), yet the sonics still backs down to lowly CD liner PCM level. What a shame.
I really wish one day in the forseeable future, the Blu-ray video bigboys would be interested in the minute audiophiles market to cut Blu-ray audio discs with its huge Mb capacity.
No, I'm telling you that you are comparing more changes than just 44.1kHz/16bit to 96kHz/24bit. To compare, record both to the same medium (such as a DVD-A disk, which is not restricted to 24/96) and listen to both with same equipment, preferably without knowing first which is which.
Hi.Unless we are in the same business with all the instrumentation available to carry such tests precisely, you think we ordinary Joe Blows easily get recordings via the two different digital format
with consumer's type PC burners available to us?You THINK you can bank on the outcome of such homeblew disc burnings
to draw the conclusion? How are you so sure your homebrew burning comes out right?I said I already got discs of both 16/24bit 44.1/192KHz from the same music production labs to ready to compare from the same master sound tracks. What else can be more reliable & certain?
Professional lab production or your homebrew burning?
Hey, you're the ordinary Joe Blow who "got discs of both 16/24bit 44.1/192KHz from the same music production labs". So use your serious clout with the 'labs'! -- ask them to make disks that can actually be compared under equivalent conditions. On the same medium and, like suggested above, also with both made from the same recording, the 16 bit reduced from the 24. Your conclusion may be correct (or not), but the conditions of the comparison aren't enough, IMHO, to back it up.
.
No, I'm an Ordinary Joe without any mastering lab connections. I'm also a Joe who's not yet making any final judgements on whether 24/96 is a big improvement over 16/44.
> ...whether 24/96 is a big improvement over 16/44. <Depends on what you consider "big". It's not the difference between Radio Shack speakers and Maggie 20.1's but its more significant than, say, cable lifters. Bad example since I've never tried cable lifters... but anyway, the diffs are not huge but I consider them worthwhile.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: