Can someone more knowledgeable please answer me this?

I have recently got a Blu-Ray player (PS3) and a few Blu-Ray titles, and
as I don't own the decoding equipment for HD audio yet, I have connected
it to my standard Dolby/DTS 5.1 amplifier and speaker set-up. Obviously
I was expecting it to sound just like my DVD's sound, with their Dolby
Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 audio tracks...but it seems to sound
*amazing*....much better than what I am used to. Even my friend agrees.
Now I know this isn't anything like HD audio we're hearing, as I've
heard that and it is another level completely...but this sounds so much
better than normal. So I'm left wondering that after the amp 'downmixes'
the HD audio bitstreams, is the result of a higher quality, even in some
small degree, than what I would hear from a standard 5.1 track on a DVD?
Perhaps...I don't know, less compressed or something?

Of course I am open to the fact that as I'm seeing a better quality
picture than DVD, that my mind is playing placebo tricks and only making
me *think* it sounds better. But it is honestly clearer, louder, bassier
and I have even had to turn down the subwoofer and standard volume's a
couple of notches. So is it possible I'm hearing something slightly
better than what I'm used to from DVD? Or is my mind playing tricks?

Many thanks for any forthcoming input.

--
Legend-11

Interesting...perhaps I am not going mad after all. I just saw an old
thread on the net where someone asked the same thing, and one guy replied:

"Because HD has been less compressed in the first place, even though the
signal may have been downsampled, it should still sound better, although
this may depend on the equipment being used."

Well that would certainly tally with my experience. It's what I would
class as 1.5 times clearer, louder and bassier. Lower volume sounds are
more pronounced and the whole thing seems more spatially active (more
rear speaker action).

I'd still be interested what others think on this. Thanks.

--
Legend-11

In uk.media.home-cinema, Legend-11 wrote:

Interesting...perhaps I am not going mad after all. I just saw an old
thread on the net where someone asked the same thing, and one guy replied:

"Because HD has been less compressed in the first place, even though the
signal may have been downsampled, it should still sound better, although
this may depend on the equipment being used."

Well that would certainly tally with my experience. It's what I would
class as 1.5 times clearer, louder and bassier. Lower volume sounds are
more pronounced and the whole thing seems more spatially active (more
rear speaker action).

I'd still be interested what others think on this. Thanks.

That's my (very basic) understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital

The bit rate for DVD is potentially lower than Blu-ray even for the same
codec.

--
Tony Evans
Saving trees and wasting electrons since 1993
blog - http://perceptionistruth.com/
books - http://www.bookthing.co.uk/
[ anything below this line wasn't written by me ]

On 18/05/2010 17:12, Tony wrote:
In uk.media.home-cinema, wrote:

Interesting...perhaps I am not going mad after all. I just saw an old
thread on the net where someone asked the same thing, and one guy replied:

"Because HD has been less compressed in the first place, even though the
signal may have been downsampled, it should still sound better, although
this may depend on the equipment being used."

Well that would certainly tally with my experience. It's what I would
class as 1.5 times clearer, louder and bassier. Lower volume sounds are
more pronounced and the whole thing seems more spatially active (more
rear speaker action).

I'd still be interested what others think on this. Thanks.

That's my (very basic) understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital

The bit rate for DVD is potentially lower than Blu-ray even for the same
codec.


I was just reading another forum with several people saying that an
optical connection (which I use from PS3 to amp) can accept 1.5Mbps, and
that normal Dolby 5.1 and DTS used to max out lower than that on DVD,
often by more than they should as the producers wanted more space on the
DVD for extras and picture quality, so they compressed it further still.
Therefore, people who play Blu-Ray through standard 5.1 amps are hearing
a full, constant 1.5Mb for the first time....even though it is just
downsampled HD audio. So Blu-Ray will always sound better than
DVD...even if you don't have HD audio decoding gear.

I tell you, it's that good that I have completely put off my plans of
getting a HD audio decoder. I've heard HD audio and it is truly a
delight...but this is *so* much better than what I'm used to, I'd rather
spend that money on more PS3 games and Blu-Rays. I really don't need any
more quality than what I'm hearing.

I honestly started to think my mind/ears were playing tricks, so it is
wonderful to have it confirmed that I am indeed hearing a substantial
step up in audio quality.

Thanks.

--
Legend-11

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.

"Legend-11" wrote in message
...
Can someone more knowledgeable please answer me this?

I have recently got a Blu-Ray player (PS3) and a few Blu-Ray titles, and
as I don't own the decoding equipment for HD audio yet, I have connected
it to my standard Dolby/DTS 5.1 amplifier and speaker set-up. Obviously I
was expecting it to sound just like my DVD's sound, with their Dolby
Digital 5.1 or DTS 5.1 audio tracks...but it seems to sound
*amazing*....much better than what I am used to. Even my friend agrees.
Now I know this isn't anything like HD audio we're hearing, as I've heard
that and it is another level completely...but this sounds so much better
than normal. So I'm left wondering that after the amp 'downmixes' the HD
audio bitstreams, is the result of a higher quality, even in some small
degree, than what I would hear from a standard 5.1 track on a DVD?
Perhaps...I don't know, less compressed or something?

Of course I am open to the fact that as I'm seeing a better quality
picture than DVD, that my mind is playing placebo tricks and only making
me *think* it sounds better. But it is honestly clearer, louder, bassier
and I have even had to turn down the subwoofer and standard volume's a
couple of notches. So is it possible I'm hearing something slightly better
than what I'm used to from DVD? Or is my mind playing tricks?

Many thanks for any forthcoming input.

--
Legend-11

In article , Legend-11
wrote:
Interesting...perhaps I am not going mad after all. I just saw an old
thread on the net where someone asked the same thing, and one guy
replied:

"Because HD has been less compressed in the first place, even though the
signal may have been downsampled, it should still sound better,
although this may depend on the equipment being used."

Well that would certainly tally with my experience. It's what I would
class as 1.5 times clearer, louder and bassier. Lower volume sounds are
more pronounced and the whole thing seems more spatially active (more
rear speaker action).

I'd still be interested what others think on this. Thanks.

You would need to do some measurements and/or controlled comparisons to
tell. The problem is that there are many 'possible' reasons for what you
report. Some examples:

1) That the makers of the discs have processed the audio differently and
altered the relative loudness and dynamic range. If so, the results will be
different for reasons that have nothing to do with DVD or BD, etc, as such.
Just that the disc makers wanted a different sound to 'impress' you.

Something similar has been measured on some DVD-Audio and SACD sound
recordings where the CD version (and the CD layer on a SACD/CD hybrid disc)
show measurably different dynamics. Nothing to do with technology, all to
do with what the people making the discs decided to do to their customers.


2) That one or the other of your players has dynamic compression (or
expansion) enabled.

3) That one system is playing back with more gain that the other. As you
probably already know, a change in overall level can easily sound like an
alteration in other aspects like dyamics, tonal response, etc.

Can't tell from what you say if any of the above are involved, or if it is
something else.

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

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.

Of course Jim above could be onto something with a better effort on the
engineers part in 'building' the various audio tracks, but I must say
I'd have to lean towards the notion that I've simply been hearing the
best of what Dolby and DTS could have been at this level of equipment
for the first time, due to BD's delivering up to 1.5Mbps down my optical
cable for the first time and the fact that DVD producers regularly
compressed the audio tracks to a greater degree than they could have
been, to make way for a higher picture bitrate and/or special features.
Considering the scale of the difference involved, that would seem to be
the most plausible reason.

Whatever it is though, I'm incredably grateful of it. On video games
it's even more of a mind-blowing difference as I've gone from the PS2's
Pro Logic II tracks to hearing, say, the PS3 Uncharted 2's full DTS
track....but of course, that would be a *huge* difference as they're two
completely different technologies, one being far more superior. That's
the kind of difference I expect...but the former I never, as I thought
BD's would be down sampled to exactly the same quality as I got before
with the same amp/cable/speakers when listening to DVD.

Thanks for all your input. Greatly appreciated.


--
Legend-11

"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 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?

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

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , R. Mark Clayton
wrote:

SNIP

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"?

k obviously.


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.

Varies from 16bits 48kbps (slightly better than CD at 44k1bps) to much
higher (24bits @192k)


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.

Indeed wouldn't mind a wager on this.


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.

Whilst it is worth having reasonably thick cables so that they don't get
warm and there are negligible losses on a long run, you are otherwise
unlikely to be able to be able to notice or measure any difference (apart
from fractions of a dB in volume, which can be compensated for).

snip

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.

Dunno - nothing would surprise me especially from Sony.


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