SD Blu Ray

Didn't anyone see this post? Why is this even a discussion?

 

The discussion is about music sound (not a movie soundtrack).

I'll agree that there isn't much difference between lossless 16 bit PCM and higher-resolution lossless.

But for me there is a significant improvement going from DVD 5.1 DTS or 5.1 Dolby up to a high-res 5.1 blu-ray audio and this is most apparent for music.

 

You would only know for sure if you could compare the two. Very, very few people have had the ability to do it. I have been able to do it on mixing stages with film soundtracks, and there are almost no differences. It's about the same difference as between a WAV file and a 384kbps MP3 file. The differences become very, very subtle over 256k. I'm not convinced the source material for standard def video would ever even remotely tax this bitrate.

I think people are reacting irrationally to what they think is a theoretical problem and don't get that the reality is much, much more subtle than you'd think. I believe you can see compression problems far quicker than you can hear them, because video is so much more difficult to compress and encode.

 

What I have got to experience very often is immersing myself in the content of DVD and blu-ray.

One of the problems with very short comparisons is that the longer term effects don't kick in. Some music that is very compressed (ie loudness wars not bitrate compressed) often sounds fine when first played, and the wide dynamic version can sound less punch. The reason that the loudness war victims upset me is that as I continue to listen to a compressed record I find it nasty to listen to and tend to keep turning it down until I finally loose interest. If I listen to a DR 12 or greater CD I tend to turn it up as I go, and when I finish I'm still listening attentively and want to play more music.

With DVD cf blu-ray I feel that the hi-rez audio makes a difference throughout the viewing. It's far more solid and real. DVD surround never has the same feel.

 

If there is a qualitative difference, it's down to a difference in the source mastering, not to the insane 'resolution' of the audio, otherwise it's just confirmation bias. Our ability to discern/resolve sound beyond a certain (modest) threshold isn't anywhere near as acute as in the visual channel. All things being equal (source master, channels, etc), there won't be any discernible difference between 'insane-rez' audio and 'sane-rez' audio, as lab tests with 'golden eared' subjects have demonstrated.

 

The surround sound on DVDs is pretty good, but is it good enough to be called sane-rez?

For those who find a 320kbps stereo MP3 file as good as it gets the answer is yes.

But saying that a higher bitrate makes an audible difference here isn't the same as talking about the improvement that comes from replacing a components power lead with an expensive 'audiophile' lead - the later makes no engineering sense, but it does make sense that a higher bit rate than 320 can produced a better sound.

Of course how people perceive the difference is the question. For me I do think there is a difference between DVD and blu-ray.

 

Yes, that is the question and one which has been extensively investigated under scientific conditions. If you're interested in reading an excellent resource on audio sampling and perception, I refer you to this article. While it deals with the futility of the 24-bit/192kHz movement, it also delves into great detail on how the human ear works, which frequencies it's sensitive to and how much information is sufficient to encode to be indistinguishable from lossless. It really is a wonderful resource.

 

As I said before, and as Steven Wilson says, there isn't much improvement going over lossless 16 bit, but as it is now easy to do, why not. So I'm not here arguing for 24/192.

My point is that to me DVD Surround is below the good enough point.

The reason I talked earlier about the long listen is that I think this is needed to get a feel for the differences. Short A/B comparisons doesn't give the listener time to properly evaluate. I don't have time to check out your reference now, but many of the A/B comparisons are also done with general listeners and it is pretty obvious that these days most people are not concerned about audio quality.

 

It's not a separate "format", but the Blu Ray spec includes support for DVD video: MPEG2 at 480i or 576i. This allows for five times as much playing time at the same quality.

 

>>>

[at 4:28]

 

I don't think we're likely to see DVD-quality content on a Blu-ray, even as useful as that might be. Upscaled SD footage for the SD Blu-ray labeled BLU-RAYs (so yes, not a separate format) may be a test run in the market for it though.

 

Sometimes when I look at Standard Definition content on YouTube,whether it's from the Seventies and Eighties,etc.to me the material sometimes looks High Definition,I guess depending on how the programs were videotaped and it's equipment.Maybe and hopefully that some television shows that were shot on videotape will get domestic releases on SD Blu Ray from certain studios,if or when they decide to support the format.

 

Why would the Blu-ray consortium consider a test format that is inferior to what it was designed for?

This SD-BD designation by Eagle Rock is a marketing move to make consumers aware that the content on a particular BD is NOT high-def quality....that's all.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SD_Blu-ray

 

An SD-BD is a Blu-ray release....NOT a format.

Blu-ray is a format
CD is a format
DVD is a format
etc.

Recognized Blu-ray formats are:
Blu-ray
Mini Blu-ray
BD-R
BD9
BD5
BDXL
IH-BD

 

Right, I got what you were getting at from a subsequent post. It wasn't exactly obvious before...

 

I've got my last few Simpsons seasons on blu-ray. I prefer the packaging and it has fewer discs. No big whoop. I'd consider buying Pink Floyd's PULSE on blu-ray. They had extra high bit rate audio on the DVDs, but that resulted in fairly artifact heavy video and it was spread over two discs. The blu-ray could have artifact free video, great sound AND be all in one disc with all the special features. Sold. I don't see a problem so long as the company selling it is upfront about what you're getting.

This, I'd be more leery of:

http://www.amazon.com/Blu-ray-Rocke...F8&qid=1427586638&sr=1-5&keywords=Spider+baby

 

The Rolling Stones "Totally Stripped" release in June this year is going to be on both DVD and SD BluRay.

I am wondering if there will be any benefit whatsoever with the BD, as the audio is almost certainly 16-bit sourced?

 

I'm the opposite the video quality is most important...I do love great sound, but I'm watching a movie.

 

I occasionally hear a sound difference between DVD and Bluray, but it's not a deal breaker...what is? better video.

 

That's what I said, ie video > audio.

 

sorry! I misread...nevermind!

 

I would like SD BluRays if they released TV shows with higher bitrates. When they cram three hours onto a single DVD the picture can suffer depending on the source. I'm not talking about upscaling to HD, I'm talking about better encoding of old videotapes where the original is taped or shot on film where the films no longer exist. For example, I've seen quite a few Australian TV shows where they were shot on extremely grainy film. I have no idea if the films still exist for an improved telecine, but just say that they don't, the DVD's look pretty bad because they've crammed so much film grain onto one DVD disc. If they could have higher bitrates, the grain won't go away, but there will be more data to allow for the film grain with less encoding artefacts. I think. Mind you, the market for Australian TV shows is so low, they probably wouldn't bother anyway. So never mind.

 

I would bet it depends more on the mastering, but it would depend on how each is compressed. When they do the audio in Dolby Digital at 384kbps, that's a very, very low compression rate -- not quite perceptibly lossless, but the next best thing. With great source material, I can believe there would be a subtle difference.

I have seen cases where higher bitrates revealed more grain, and I can tell you for a fact that grain is more visible in HD than it is in SD. And you see grain even worse in 4K. More bandwidth can be a bitch.

This is one reason why careful grain reduction is a necessary part of mastering. The key is whether it can be done skillfully or whether it wrecks the final image.

 

I wonder what's coming out on SD Blu Ray in 2016?