DVD vs CD in audio quality. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : DVD vs CD in audio quality.



natronforever
06-08-2007, 01:38 PM
Hey, I just have a passing curiosity. Is there a difference in audio quality from DVD to CD? We hear so much these days about high resolution audio in HD-DVD and Blu-ray, and I was just wondering how good the audio tracks in DVDs really are. Thanks.

Woochifer
06-08-2007, 04:01 PM
It varies.

Many music DVDs include uncompressed PCM tracks that actually use a higher resolution than a CD (which is encoded at 44.1 kHz sampling rate, and 16-bit depth). As with comparisons between different CD versions and comparisons with tracks done in other formats, a big variable is with the mastering itself, which consumers cannot adequately assess without access to the master source. Also, if the audio quality of the original source is inferior to begin with, it won't matter what format the audio gets encoded into.

Comparison with DD and DTS tracks is a bit dicier because most of those tracks are 5.1 mixes, and the two-channel downmixes are not comparable to a dedicated two-channel CD mix.

Too many variables involved make a broad generalization, although I will say that DVDs can sound noticeably better than a CD -- not just because of remastered/higher resolution audio with two-channel tracks, but also because of the often more involved listening experience with a 5.1 mix. A DD track might have subtlely degraded audio quality compared to the CD track, but having 5.1 channels available can still render a superior listening experience with a good mix.

gjpham
06-08-2007, 11:06 PM
Oh yeah, good Q. As matter of fact, that was also one of my Q when I was looking for a DVD player which could provide a great Pix and awesome sound quality....Since HD-DVD and BlueRay technology are just arrived, manufacturers still may have paid a very high price for them to intall in their DVD players. So how much a $600 Samsung BlueRay player would have cost w/o the Blueray technology. I'm assuming $150 or $200 Samsung non-BlueRay DVD player?.
Today, a $39 to $59 players can give us a sound, which could probably be good enough for those like my wife (hehehe). But to step up to another level it'd takes alot of ears, research, and engineering. Electronic parts for any components are carefully selected. To me as amature listener, a good decent sound would probably cost me from $1K for just a CD player itself and it has to sound extremely clean, no noise, well design, and super heavy weighted. As for a DVD player especially the BlueRay and/or HD-DVD, I will, of course, mainly use it for movies and I will take one anyday only if Santa drops by and holla..... or if my wife is reading this post.

hifitommy
06-09-2007, 09:31 AM
dvdps can sound wonderful such as my sony ns500v. i am sure that the $30 dvdps arent so hot but if the player has sacd capability, its likely it will sound pretty good.

here is a review of one:

http://positive-feedback.com/Issue31/s7100.htm

sounds tempting, doesnt it?

Abex
07-09-2007, 07:50 PM
Movie Sound Tracks are recorded better than regular CD's are. They seem to put a greater emphasis on recordings when a movie is involved and clean them up.

Some Movies which use oldies they clean them up which is far better than buying the original bands version.

One of the remarkable tings which occured is it took almost a decade after CD's were introduced for the engineers to figure out how to make recordings sound their best.

Listen to the Moody Blues Greatest Hits or something like C,S & N and you'll hear how bad they really were.They sucked wind so much you did not even wish to play them.The recording of Wish You Were Here sucked also and only recently have they made versions that one could listen to.

Jimi Hendrix recordings sucked also till they cleaned them up. The list is long!

And peope wonder why I still like vinyl!

Quagmire
07-19-2007, 02:53 PM
Woochifer is still here posting replies and keeping the faith... All's right with the world. Keep up the good work, my friend.

Q

Wireworm5
07-19-2007, 05:37 PM
Not to disagree with Wooch.
Assuming you do have good dvd recording, DTS or Dolby, my preference is DTS when available. A concert DVD smokes cds by a country mile in terms of realism. Bear in mind though my system is set up for MC, HT.
IMO DTS is on par with sacd, which is better, is a matter of preference. If sacd aren't being supported. I can certainly be content with DTS or DTS HD.

jrhymeammo
07-19-2007, 06:29 PM
Movie Sound Tracks are recorded better than regular CD's are. They seem to put a greater emphasis on recordings when a movie is involved and clean them up.

Some Movies which use oldies they clean them up which is far better than buying the original bands version.

One of the remarkable tings which occured is it took almost a decade after CD's were introduced for the engineers to figure out how to make recordings sound their best.

Listen to the Moody Blues Greatest Hits or something like C,S & N and you'll hear how bad they really were.They sucked wind so much you did not even wish to play them.The recording of Wish You Were Here sucked also and only recently have they made versions that one could listen to.

Jimi Hendrix recordings sucked also till they cleaned them up. The list is long!

And peope wonder why I still like vinyl!

Your post sucked!:idea:

Luvin Da Blues
07-19-2007, 06:35 PM
Movie Sound Tracks are recorded better than regular CD's are. They seem to put a greater emphasis on recordings when a movie is involved and clean them up.

Some Movies which use oldies they clean them up which is far better than buying the original bands version.

One of the remarkable tings which occured is it took almost a decade after CD's were introduced for the engineers to figure out how to make recordings sound their best.

Listen to the Moody Blues Greatest Hits or something like C,S & N and you'll hear how bad they really were.They sucked wind so much you did not even wish to play them.The recording of Wish You Were Here sucked also and only recently have they made versions that one could listen to.

Jimi Hendrix recordings sucked also till they cleaned them up. The list is long!

And peope wonder why I still like vinyl!

Nudge Nudge Wink Wink

They only seemed to suck cause your blowin so much hot air. :prrr:


:ihih: :)

Woochifer
07-19-2007, 07:12 PM
Woochifer is still here posting replies and keeping the faith... All's right with the world. Keep up the good work, my friend.

Hey Quag -

Good to see you still lurking abouts every now and then!


Not to disagree with Wooch.
Assuming you do have good dvd recording, DTS or Dolby, my preference is DTS when available. A concert DVD smokes cds by a country mile in terms of realism. Bear in mind though my system is set up for MC, HT.
IMO DTS is on par with sacd, which is better, is a matter of preference. If sacd aren't being supported. I can certainly be content with DTS or DTS HD.

Considering the amount of compression that's been applied, DTS does a very good job indeed. But, there are two varieties of DTS that have been used on DVDs -- the full 1.5k bitrate version and a 768k half-bitrate version. In Terrence's listening comparisons between a master feed from the mixing board and a 1.5k bitrate DTS encode, he found them nearly identical. Not quite as transparent with the half-bitrate version, but still very good. The Pat Metheny Group's Speaking of Now concert DVD has a full bitrate 4.1 DTS track (purposely mixed without the center channel, which lends a lot of spatiality to the sound) with incredible sound quality that bests anything they've done on CD, or even how their concert audio rig sounds live.

I think that DD does pretty well considering that its resolution is limited to 448k, but its transparency is very much hampered by the channel joining required in the high frequencies. This has a tendency to make the surround imaging sound less precise, and the overall sound more abrupt and less open.

Seems that we're in agreement on the realism that multichannel can render, and I think that's true even with the tradeoffs in DD's audio quality.

But, doing an apples-to-apples comparison with a CD, as I stated earlier the DVD still has the potential to better the CD because a DVD can carry a two-channel audio track up to 96/24 PCM resolution (CD is limited to 44.1/16), and a DVD release also presents an opportunity for a fresh remastering of the music tracks which could substantially improve upon the sound quality (and IMO make a bigger difference than the resolution or format used).

PeruvianSkies
07-19-2007, 08:43 PM
Woochifer is still here posting replies and keeping the faith... All's right with the world. Keep up the good work, my friend.

Q

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

Quagmire
07-19-2007, 10:21 PM
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Sorry you found my greeting so "putrid". I used to be somewhat of a regular around here, and just thought I'd stop by to check things out: I haven't done so in quite awhile, but it is apparent that some things have not changed. I saw a familiar name and decided to say hello. I not sure what you found so objectionable about that, but please... don't let me stop you from your suggested bodily function. I can honestly say that I really do hope you enjoy it. Regards!

Q

PeruvianSkies
07-20-2007, 12:49 PM
Sorry you found my greeting so "putrid". I used to be somewhat of a regular around here, and just thought I'd stop by to check things out: I haven't done so in quite awhile, but it is apparent that some things have not changed. I saw a familiar name and decided to say hello. I not sure what you found so objectionable about that, but please... don't let me stop you from your suggested bodily function. I can honestly say that I really do hope you enjoy it. Regards!

Q

Quagmire, nothing against you or your post at all, just the comment about Woochifer and that the world is alright as long as he is here. Just kinda make me sick to my stomach. That's all.