Led Zeppelin DVD-A details

I think we should stop making excuses for the low resolution of this disc. They should have done a 24/96 transfer off the analog tapes. That's the whole point of DVDA. I don't even consider 48k sampling to be high resolution. I'm sure it could still sound good with the extra bits and newer mastering, but this is a wasted opportunity for DVDA.

"And while moving to 24 bits is a huge improvement over 16 bits don’t think that moving from 48 to 96 is not another big leap too."

I agree.

 

Yeah, I know, it's too early to tell. And regarding Classic, they're notoriously tight-lipped regarding their sources for some LPs, especially the digitally sourced ones. If they can "come clean" and it looks good, I'd certainly consider their box if the DVD-A is, in fact, 24/48. The BBC set (though horrendously bright) certainly outshines the CD set (what wouldn't?), and I *believe* those LPs are cut from digital masters.

Enjoy your morning brew!

 

oopsie

 

DVD-A bashers rant and rave about how superior DSD is to 24/96.

Then a release like 'Gaucho' comes out on SACD, and it is sourced from 24/96 PCM (but they sure as hell won't admit it's not a direct DSD transfer on the back panel). Despite the fact that obviously (by them) the disc doesn't take full theoretical advantage of the format, the peanut gallery purses their lips and remains strangely silent.

But if a DVD-A doesn't take full theoretical advantage, some of the same people are eager to jump up and down, screaming that we are being hosed.

Pure hypocrisy and politics.

 

I *love* the Gaucho SACD. I don't care if it's from 24/96 to DSD. To me, that seems reasonable, though I'm sure a pure DSD transfer would have been even better. Then again, with Bob Ludwig at the controls it was bound to kick some tush regardless.

The Led Zep release is already mixed in PCM digital, so why not keep full resolution intact? That's all I've been saying.

 

Mike,

What resolution was it mixed to?

 

Well, said...I try to stay out of that whole ball of wax now, I get too upset.
Just listen to the damn music people!!!!

 

Michael,

It is not about "taking full advantage"...it is about offering high resolution at all. A very good case can be made that 24/48 is not high resolution. You have some extra word length, but heck you can get that from JVC's new XRCD process anyway. The killer is the sampling rate, that's where most of the sonic improvement is based on my work in the studio. That's what made a lot of the DAD discs from Chesky and Classic Records so fine sounding.

I want DVDA to succeed as much as anyone, that way I get more releases of great albums. But to finally take on a great band like Led Zeppelin and not even offer what audiophile labels have been doing in redbook for many years is just terrible performance.

You have often written about PCM sources for SACD being poor (although they can still sound good like the Gaucho disc) and I agree that for new recordings pure DSD efforts are often the best-witness AKUS Live. On historical works, analog to DSD transfers are the best possible route.

But you have to be consistent and agree that DVDA should be at high resolution sampling rates where possible-like if there is just not a 16/44 master, etc.

In this case, we have tapes so why not a 24/96?

Every mastering studio I have been in has 24/96 capability.

 

Dunno. But I just can't see Jimmy using 24/48 equipment on a recently done mix. It makes no sense...

 

You have to think about this from a marketing standpoint as well. DVDA has far fewer titles and less presence among audiophiles. To get going, they need to educate the early adopters about high resolution.

Now they have a premiere band but they CANNOT stand up and say "listen to how great this sounds, it is a fine example of what 24/96 offers".

Also, it creates additional skepticism among us in the professional and audiophile communities as not being a technically strong effort.

By the way Michael, preferring the sound of DSD over 24/96 PCM is not the same as being a "DVDA basher", it is just expressing an opinion based on one's personal experience.

I truly want both formats to succeed and have every DVD player have a SACD and DVDA logo on it. That's nirvana to me. A world of universal players, a world of great music titles on both. And enough longevity to get all the great albums out in hirez!

 

I can't debate what you state above, other than even though an XRCD is mastered at 24 bits, it is still a redbook CD, and playback takes place at 44/16.

With the DVD-A we will, theoretically, get playback at the full 24 bits.

My feelings are that for some reason 48/24 allowed Warners to merely fit the program better on the number of DVD-A discs they chose. (Look at the Band "The Last Waltz"... that is 48/24 on DVD-A, and I would asume that when it was re-mixed it was done at a higher resolution. The Band DVD-A sounds OK to my ears.)

 

"My feelings are that for some reason 48/24 allowed Warners to merely fit the program better on the number of DVD-A discs they chose."

Perhaps that is the case here, but why not offer two discs like many SACDs before?

The extra bits will help a little, but they could have done a lot better.

 

Can I get an amen?

I get so tired of this crap on every board that I visit.

Mostly from the same people.

 

No you can't.. We're just having a discussion here, that's all.

This is a site chock full of audiophiles and music lovers. You aren't surprised to find discussions around sound quality & system performance, are you?

 

ok let's all cool off a bit......

Mike, I think it can be frustrating when people worry more about the minutia of sampling rates than they do the quality of the music. Sometimes it goes a bit too far. But yes, you're right....the forum is here for such discussion.

Be cool everyone.

 

Well, I'm of the opinion that the release of more titles in any hires format, will do more for these fledgling formats, than the obvious shills that frequent these forums.

Most of the time, these few people will do no more than to keep stirring the format war pot and trying to get people to "come over to their side".

Sorry, I just want the music in either format.

 

I see in another thread that the Roxy Music 'Avalon' SACD, released only a few months ago, has a 24/48 surround mix.

How is this possible? Nobody uses anything less than 24/96 any more.

And people who've actually listened to the disc love the sound! Another impossibility!

 

I want to hear these debates.

I am well aware of the fact that different sources are used for SACDs, but I don't think that one can generalize completely and rank these in the order pure DSD, analogue, hi-rez PCM, medium-rez PCM. Individual examples fall out of order.

Now as for MCA not printing on the back of the Gaucho SACD what type of intermediate digital master was used, that's hardly unusual for a company like MCA. They are not focused on the audiophile - as compared to, for example, Telarc. Look on any Telarc SACD - it's no secret.

As far as the Led Zep goes, I agree that this is a lost opportunity, although with a brilliant multi-channel mix it may be worthwhile to those with that type of system. Hi-rez stereo takes a back seat, which is not unusual for DVD-Audio.

The Band DVD-Audio has been criticized for the sound.

Regards,
Geoff

 

Well, it's already on 2 discs. I’m guessing they would have to go to 3 discs to fit 96/24. But so what. They did 3 discs for the cd. They also advertised the special low price (given the size of the sets) of the CD and DVD-V sets as being such a great value for/favor to their fans.

I can do the math calculating various sampling rates and bit depth for cd’s, in terms of how much data can fit. However, I can’t do it for DVD-A, because of the MLP and DD files. Anyone have a sharp pencil? What is the maximum time for a DVD-A at 96/24 vs 48/24 with a DD2.0 and DD5.1 included? Someone on this board has to know. Bueller, Bueller?

 

Damn, you caught my post pre-edit! You're quick.. . Sorry.

Dave, just to be clear I don't think anyone is forgetting the music. Hell, I have a crappy rechanneled comp from T-Bone Walker I really enjoy, so it's not always all about the sound! But this is DVD-A!! It's marketed by all mfgr's as audiophile goods, so that's why I ranted.

Anyhow

 

Oh, I hate hi-res wars. You should have seen the old DCC board . Whatever!!!

Peace,
Mike

 

I know, no problem....but, it's funny, as someone pointed out, the press release for the Flaming Lips DVD-A makes NO mention of the hi resolution sound! Nice promotion!

 

I think these guys are really pushing the MCH aspect of the format, which is cool. I suppose somebody in marketing supposes most consumers are not too savvy on hi-res, so the MCH gets honorable mention in press releases. If it means the format takes off, I'm all for it. Someday I'll get off the MCH fence and see what all the fuss is about.

 

Let's not forget it is a "live" recording from the early '70's, an audiophile's
nightmare. If they used the "lower" rez on the studio albums then I would be upset a-little bit. I only bought the CD because Circut City had the deal for the DVD/CD at 30 bucks and it sounds good. I'm sure if the 5:1 mix is as good as the DVD I'll be very happy.

 

I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss something as important as sample rates. This board is full of similar discussions around mastering decisions and editing. Why not discuss something that can greatly impact the final product?

I enjoy talking about the performance of the music just as much, just view my postings on jazz at the Home Theater Forum.

"the press release for the Flaming Lips DVD-A makes NO mention of the hi resolution sound!"

Bingo! How are people going to know the advantage of hirez if it is never talked about?

...or in the case of Zeppelin never offered?