In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:
"Legend-11" wrote in message
...
On 22/05/2010 19:23, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Depends a bit on how the audio was getting to your amp before.
If say Dobly Pro-logic (stereo with centre and lo-fi back channel)
then this will sound better than stereo, but well shy of full 5.1.
In addition typically DVD has 48k per channel whereas IIRC Blu-Ray
has 192k. You would need pretty good ears to notice though.
Audio was getting to my amp on the same optical digital cable as
before, if that was what you meant? Not sure about Pro-Logic/stereo
comparisons....my comparisons have just been between Dolby Digital 5.1
and DTS 5.1 tracks on DVD, compared to the same kind of audio tracks
(or their down sampled equivalent) on Blu-Ray movies in general. (and
in two cases comparing the actual same movies on BD and DVD).
I don't think I'm a 'golden ears' type...my brother is the sort who
can tell speaker cables in blind tests and all that, but that is so
not me. It must be a much more pronounced difference than any of
that. Not at all uncommon, either, when googling. I've had several
friends and family members notice it now, too, with no prompt from me
to seek a difference....just the general "wow, that sounds much
better" type comments.
Odd. Does the difference persist when DVD's are played on your Blu Ray
player?
There will be some difference between 48hpbs per channel on DVD and
192kpbs per channel on Blu Ray, but without "golden ears" you will have
difficulty spotting it (unlike the picture quality).
I'm now curious about the above values (and units). Are "hpbs" and "kpbs"
typos? If so, did you mean "kbps"?
Also, where does the data come from that most DVDs are "48kbps per
channel"? The DVDs I record using standard home recorders generally use
256kbps or more for the stereo audio. But since most of the commercial DVDs
I have are LPCM I don't know what is usual for commercial films.
And going off at a tangent... I'd be interested in the details behind the
idea that the OPs brother can "tell speaker cables in blind tests". That is
an assertion that has appeared countless times over the years and - in
correctly run tests - has never been established to my knowledge.
Only exceptions I'm aware of are when the cable either has so much series
impedance that when placed in the system it significantly alters the
frequency response, or causes a marginally stable amplifier to become
unstable. Both of these factors are well known. But all the other
quasi-magical assertions about speaker cables seem unsupported by correctly
run test results.
Indeed, so far as I know, despite a large cash 'prize' being on offer for
many years, no-one who made the claim ever even stepped forward and tried
to show they could do what was claimed. They seem deterred by the risk that
the test will show their belief is unfounded, despite the possibility of
getting a good handful of cash if they can show they were right.
I wonder if your DVD player or amp was set up correctly to do 5.1 and
was perhaps instead doing stereo or some variation on Dolby Pro Logic?
Given measurements on other commercial audio products my main candidate
remains that the material is simply being level compressed in a different
way by the makers. This has been found even as a measurable difference on
the CDA and SACD layers of dual-layer discs. The industry assumption seems
to be that 'early adopters' want to hear and see something 'more
impressive' but as the system become 'mass market' the old faith in 'louder
is better' rules and things become clipped and crushed as the output is
dumbed down.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Electronics
http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
Armstrong Audio
http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html