DVD 10bit, 12bit 28bit ????? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : DVD 10bit, 12bit 28bit ?????



NewAudioBuff
12-29-2003, 04:44 PM
Hi,
Recently one of my friends was going nuts in FRYS trying to search for a higher bit (10, 12 or something like that) DVD player. I don't seem to understand this. Is it really possible to see the difference in picture between a 10-bit and a 28 bit dvd player? Also, I use a samsung HD931 DVD player which converts the 480 signal to 1080 for my hd tv. Does these bits play a significant role in my dvd player?

mtrycraft
12-29-2003, 11:10 PM
Hi,
Recently one of my friends was going nuts in FRYS trying to search for a higher bit (10, 12 or something like that) DVD player. I don't seem to understand this. Is it really possible to see the difference in picture between a 10-bit and a 28 bit dvd player? Also, I use a samsung HD931 DVD player which converts the 480 signal to 1080 for my hd tv. Does these bits play a significant role in my dvd player?


No, it is not possible from what I know. 10 bit is more than enough. But then you know how powerful marketing is, don't you?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-05-2004, 03:10 PM
No, it is not possible from what I know. 10 bit is more than enough. But then you know how powerful marketing is, don't you?

Well this isn't exactly a marketing ploy this time. What the higher bit chips and sampling rate bring to the table is the ability to better resolve shadow and fine detail within the picture. Some 10 bit chips have a tough time with this low level information.

mtrycraft
01-05-2004, 09:57 PM
Well this isn't exactly a marketing ploy this time. What the higher bit chips and sampling rate bring to the table is the ability to better resolve shadow and fine detail within the picture. Some 10 bit chips have a tough time with this low level information.

How many levels are needed and what bit rate would that be? What can the eye detect? I was told by in th eknow that 10 bit was enough. That is 1024 levels of scale.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-06-2004, 09:43 AM
How many levels are needed and what bit rate would that be? What can the eye detect? I was told by in th eknow that 10 bit was enough. That is 1024 levels of scale.

Your question is unclear and inconcise. However you can sit closer to digital televisions and therefore the eye can detect more detail than it could with analog television. If the DVD player is non progressive, then 10 bits would be enough. But with DVD players that feature progressive scanning, 12 bit chips actually do a better job of of fleshing out more low level detail(remember you are sitting closer to the T.V) and therefore give the eye more to see. Whether the eye can see that low level detail is different from one person to the next, the size of the screen, and what type of display device you use. The higher the bitrate and sampling rate, the better the picture is. There is a point of diminishing returns, but 12 bit DAC's are not quite at that point.

I got this information from Joe Kane at his last Imaging Science workshop so don't kill the messenger.

mtrycraft
01-06-2004, 11:18 PM
Your question is unclear and inconcise. However you can sit closer to digital televisions and therefore the eye can detect more detail than it could with analog television. If the DVD player is non progressive, then 10 bits would be enough. But with DVD players that feature progressive scanning, 12 bit chips actually do a better job of of fleshing out more low level detail(remember you are sitting closer to the T.V) and therefore give the eye more to see. Whether the eye can see that low level detail is different from one person to the next, the size of the screen, and what type of display device you use. The higher the bitrate and sampling rate, the better the picture is. There is a point of diminishing returns, but 12 bit DAC's are not quite at that point.

I got this information from Joe Kane at his last Imaging Science workshop so don't kill the messenger.

Now why would I kill the messenger? I would just interrogate them more :)
Now we have 12 bits or close to it. Some suggested that 32 or 64 may not be enough.

Crunchyriff
01-08-2004, 09:20 AM
from an audio perspective:

A friend of mine recently upgraded his private digital home rec. studio, from 16bit to 24bit. We were right in the middle of recording three songs for a project of mine. Him being the engineer, he suggested scrapping everything and starting over, all in 24bit.
I, being the producer, was interested in 'getting the job done', and wasn't going to commit him to extra time; and being totally from the analog side of things in recording studios (for MANY years), I didn't care about all the fuss over the upgrade.

So... he asked me if I'd care to a/b a few tracks..those done 16bit, and the others just done in 24bit.

when he switched from the 16, to 24bit track all I could say was "oh SH%#!"...
A HUGE difference. The drum tracks just opened up, guitars had much more presence- and it was literally like taking the sheets of the speakers. Tracks were all done identically, with the same microphones, same V-Drum Pro kit; and same EQ on the tracks. The ONLY thing changed was the hardware.

Saying that to say this: I can't imagine the video being any less important. Just a couple of bits more might not get you much, but a 6-8 bit improvement in video may be startling.

ray5aes
01-08-2004, 02:08 PM
On my A/V receiver it has a sticker on it that reads as follows.
32 bit- Architecture
64 bit- Accumulator Resolution.
What is it that I'm missing as I run all of my video directly to the TV and not thru the A/V receiver.
My DVD player says 12-bit-54mhz ?
Thank you Sir T
Ray

Sir Terrence the Terrible
01-08-2004, 05:12 PM
On my A/V receiver it has a sticker on it that reads as follows.
32 bit- Architecture
64 bit- Accumulator Resolution.
What is it that I'm missing as I run all of my video directly to the TV and not thru the A/V receiver.
My DVD player says 12-bit-54mhz ?

Thank you Sir T
Ray

I don't think you are missing a thing. I run all of my video sources direct to the television because that is the best way to hookup video sources. I do not believe in hookup video sources to processing and amplification sources as it just invites intereference. Stay with your current setup.

mtrycraft
01-08-2004, 07:13 PM
So... he asked me if I'd care to a/b a few tracks..those done 16bit, and the others just done in 24bit.


This is vague what you compared, let alone how. Are these mastered from the same master? Same EQ without any monkey business?

Or, are they two performances, one recorded in 16 bits another in 24 bits?

How do you know your 24 bit system is capable of doing 24 bits? That is below thermal nois floor, you know. Or did you?

when he switched from the 16, to 24bit track all I could say was "oh SH%#!"...
A HUGE difference. The drum tracks just opened up, guitars had much more presence- and it was literally like taking the sheets of the speakers.

Of course this comparison was level matched and DBT compared? What was the statistics of it all?
I ask because there is just no reliable published data to support your claim that I am aware of.

Saying that to say this: I can't imagine the video being any less important. Just a couple of bits more might not get you much, but a 6-8 bit improvement in video may be startling.

Or not.

Crunchyriff
01-08-2004, 08:46 PM
First of all, have you ever recorded anything, are you a musician?

There was nothing vague about the difference, I can tell you that.

Let me try to clear up any misunderstandings here. The tracks were raw instrument and vocal tracks, not mixed down and mastered to 2 channel stereo. We were still in the multi-track stage of things.

We had initially gone in and done scratch tracks- the full band 'live' to get the drums and bass down, the basic guitars, keys, and capture a 'live' feeling mix.. Halfway thru the sessions, our engineer, a close friend of mine, upgraded his DAW from a 16 bit MOTU interface to a 24-bit/96kHz unit. We did a few fresh guitar tracks (my guitar went out of tune during the scratch track session so it was necessary to fix that..) and this was with the same settings on the mixer, and same mic, same mic position ( it was left the way it was earlier) same Marshall/Soldano amp rig- we're talking apples to apples here, the ONLY exception being the 24-bit upgrade. Nothing else was touched one iota.

I cut a fresh track, and we a/b'd the two. Did the same with the keyboards (Korg and Roland Digital Keys- direct into the console, unchanged settings)- same result. Drums- same thing (Roland V-DrumPro, 24-bit Drums, direct into console, unchanged settings) Vocals- oh my what a difference. Since everything is set with automation on the mixing board, I can guarantee you nothing changed there, either. I just went over (to another track) with those same board settings.

"Of course this comparison was level matched and DBT compared? What was the statistics of it all?
I ask because there is just no reliable published data to support your claim that I am aware of."

'Published data' is what HAPPENED and what was heard. Period. This didn't require a lab-smock, or the coveted "DBT". I don't have a nice database collated for you to browse thru. All that stuff is on my engineer's MAC G4 (bounced into his new DigiDesign 002) - the engineer who, btw, was Roy Clark's touring bassist for a number of years, and is one of the hottest 1st-call jazz bass players on the west coast. (and I'm NOT exaggerating) Saying that to say this: we aren't exactly a bunch of kids wet behind the ears, playing around with a Tascam 4-track cassette deck. (Not that there's anything wrong with that format for what it is.)

Whether or not 24-bit is, as you put it, below the 'thermal noise floor' (sounds like a 'muffler bearing'..), is irrelevant in this context. The point is that you have a more robust, clearer track. You won't find one PRO DIGITAL studio that isn't 24-bit. There is a reason all the pro Digital studios go 24-bit. Realism. Less grainy sound, if you will.

Digital recording is great for what it is, and I think it's a fabulous tool; but I much prefer a Studer 2" 24 trk tape machine, or an Otari for that matter, any day of the week.

If you would like to check up on this side of digital technology- the recording end of it, may I suggest two great online resources- Prorec.com, and Artistpro.com; it would take too much bandwidth on this BBS to explain the nuts and bolts of it. And this has strayed too far from the topic originator's question (and I apologize for that, NewAudioBuff! )


Hope this helps, Mrtycrafts.

mtrycraft
01-09-2004, 07:31 PM
First of all, have you ever recorded anything, are you a musician?

Irrelevant to the issues at hand.

There was nothing vague about the difference, I can tell you that.


Well, you can tell me that but I don't see any credible evidence here to support this claim.

Let me try to clear up any misunderstandings here. The tracks were raw instrument and vocal tracks, not mixed down and mastered to 2 channel stereo. We were still in the multi-track stage of things.
We had initially gone in and done scratch tracks- the full band 'live' to get the drums and bass down, the basic guitars, keys, and capture a 'live' feeling mix..

So, apparently these were done in 16 bits then.


Halfway thru the sessions, our engineer, a close friend of mine, upgraded his DAW from a 16 bit MOTU interface to a 24-bit/96kHz unit. We did a few fresh guitar tracks (my guitar went out of tune during the scratch track session so it was necessary to fix that..) and this was with the same settings on the mixer, and same mic, same mic position ( it was left the way it was earlier) same Marshall/Soldano amp rig- we're talking apples to apples here, the ONLY exception being the 24-bit upgrade. Nothing else was touched one iota.[b]


As I thought. You recorded a new performance and compared the two different performances with the two bit rates. Not a credible comparison.

[b] Since everything is set with automation on the mixing board, I can guarantee you nothing changed there, either. I just went over (to another track) with those same board settings.

Only your two performances recorded were different. No wonder they sounded different.



'Published data' is what HAPPENED and what was heard. Period.


Well, that is what we are trying to establish, what you perceived or what you really heard. From you comparison, it is undeterminable.


This didn't require a lab-smock, or the coveted "DBT".

Well, maybe the lab coat can go, but the DBT is a must to be sure.

I don't have a nice database collated for you to browse thru.

How about a not nice one, a coulle.

All that stuff is on my engineer's MAC G4 (bounced into his new DigiDesign 002) - the engineer who, btw, was Roy Clark's touring bassist for a number of years, and is one of the hottest 1st-call jazz bass players on the west coast. (and I'm NOT exaggerating) Saying that to say this: we aren't exactly a bunch of kids wet behind the ears, playing around with a Tascam 4-track cassette deck. (Not that there's anything wrong with that format for what it is.)

Oh, I am not questioning your recording or performing ability, just your a/b comparison that is unbiased and credible. From your accounting, it is lacking much.

Whether or not 24-bit is, as you put it, below the 'thermal noise floor' (sounds like a 'muffler bearing'..), is irrelevant in this context.

If it was, I would not have brought it up.

The point is that you have a more robust, clearer track. You won't find one PRO DIGITAL studio that isn't 24-bit. There is a reason all the pro Digital studios go 24-bit. Realism. Less grainy sound, if you will.

There are other reasons for using 24 bits.
.



Hope this helps, Mrtycrafts.


Thanks for your sincere explanations.

Crunchyriff
01-09-2004, 09:07 PM
Perhaps you should schedule a meeting of the minds with you, and some of the top Digital studio gurus.....you seem to know much more than they do!

Either you thrive on being 'devils advocate' , or well, I dunno. Same old mrtycrafts from the old BBS....:D

"How do you know your 24 bit system is capable of doing 24 bits?"... Because that's what it DOES. You can tell me "hey I got my car up to 130mph today. Yesterday I only got 125. Changed out the plugs. What a difference!"
I can say: "rubbish- it's not possible. A plug is a plug is a plug. I didn't see it happen. It's simply your perception and the way you happened to look at your speedometer. Where was the DBT?"....and I'd, justifiably, would look like the idiot, you having experienced it, and me not being around to judge whatsoever. Of course, you'll come up with something to counter that claim, too.

Yes, the original tracks were done in 16-bit. The 24-bit 'replacement tracks' in comparison to the same 16-bit tracks initially were identical in performance, board setup, and signal processing. Every parameter. Same songs. We A/B'd for instance, my two rhythm guitar tracks that were played identically. Identical guitar, strings, picks... NOTHING unchanged but the 24-but hdwre, and the next day of the week. Again, 16 and 24-bit tracks of identical parts, side by side. Incredible difference. I can play a part, and when I play it again, it will sound the same..unless I hit a few clams...

Two different 'performances' in your view, nixes the whole thing? Why? Because you say so? Hardly. We are talking about the same parts that have been played over and over, and OVER again. Not something like two different concerts, two seperate studios, different musicians, etc. By your way of thinking, there should be absolutely NO continuity in ANY albums, unless every single song, part, jot and tittle was done in ONE TAKE, in one-all nighter session. And you are dreadfully mistaken. It's ludicrous. Many many albums bear this out. So, say if I take two hrs to complete one tune, or two weeks, will dictate how the basic tracks 'sound'- that they won't, no CAN'T sound the same? Rubbish. To say that if I do part of the song one day, and continue again in the recording process the next, 'negates consistency' is BOGUS.

FWIW, a musician's particular performance on a given day will have NO intrinsic effect on the technical sound/production of the tracks themselves..not from an engineering standpoint. I'm talking about clarity, etc. Whether or not, say, the vocalist had a bad day, for instance, will have no bearing on the capabilities and performance of the hardware and engineer (you may, however, end up with a highly polished and pristine turd)

So, you can have a rendition that technically sounds stunning, but the performance is lackluster..or downright horrid.

The bottom line is, you can assure yourself that there is absolutely NO difference whatsoever in sound between 16 and 24-bit recording. All day long. That is, if that's what you purpose yourself to think. And many pros would argue otherwise. I tend to side with those who first, know what they are talking about because this is how they make thier living (ears I know and trust for direction); and secondly, if that information corroborates with what I hear and experience personally. (Then there is the topic of today's mastering 'techniques' that border on insane with NO dynamic range, and I don't agree with those ways at all..but that's another subject entirely)

Case in point- the latest rage in studios is all this POD& Line6 digital gear. Digital amp simulations of real tube gear. They work in the studio to a large degree in a recorded format for some people, But I think they SUCK. They haven't even come close to getting what I want in an amp, with digital gear. Try making a normal transistor that can only pass 120V duplicate the headroom of a power tube that has about 500V across the plates....these digital amp builders try to give a 300% wattage boost in the pwr section to compensate, but it's not the same. I'm talking instrument amps here. When and IF they ever DO hit the jackpot, I'll be all over that like mice on cheese.

So it's not like we're the poster children for Digital Format advocates. I don't claim to know a lot about the digital format at all- I write, play, sing, perform & produce. I don't engineer. But I DO know what I hear; yet you come across as someone who knows all. And your rebuttals to my last post reveal how much you don't know- some of your statements just didn't make sense at all...and that's OK, too. Heck, there's PLENTY I know absolutely NOTHING about, and I try to be honest about it. But I listen, evaluate, and try to learn. When you stop learning, the vegetative state soon follows.

You can cross your arms, & naysay all day long. I know what I hear. You, having heard NONE of this firsthand yourself, are certainly justified to question, but are not in a position to judge, certainly not from a neutral standpoint- you already have your mind made up.

Carry on with whatever you believe to be real.

woodman
01-10-2004, 06:41 PM
Crunchy:
Congrats on getting "better" sound on your tracks than you started out with ... but this is a totally different issue from what this thread started out talking about. You see, what you're talking about is a different encoding/decoding format being employed. When you started, you were recording using 16-bit "words". Then, there was an upgrade made to a 24-bit system - meaning that the tracks were now encoded using 24-bit "words" - capable of a bit more detail than the 16-bit system that was in place before.

Withe the video DACs, the digital video is encoded using only 10 bits per word. Therefore using a 12-bit DAC, or a 24-bit DAC, or a 4,864,264-bit DAC is not gonna give more detail or better color or deeper blacks or anything of the sort.

Sorry, T.T. - you've bought into some techno-hype on this one.

Crunchyriff
01-10-2004, 08:57 PM
Once again you never cease to amaze me! Thank you for clearing that up. I had no idea how to explain or clarify that, as this digital recording realm is so new to me. In all this digital tech newness (new for me), I just figured it may be possible to increase the video quality, like in the case of our studio exploits.

And in this, I just learned something. Cool!

Audio Recording is a different ballgame, that's for sure, and obviously (by how you compared the two) it's a different thing than video reproduction.

Thanks for "pulling the rabbit out of the hat".