VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Ok, so I bought the physical release of Metallica’s deluxe Kill ‘Em All box set. Then realized there is a 24b/96k FLAC-HD download for the album (at an additional cost of course). I planned on putting the HD files on an audio-dvd or a blu-ray. To my surprise the remastered 16b/44k cd that comes with the box set sounds way better than the Frankenstein 24/96 dvd I made. I am wondering if the problem lay in the conversion of the files/process to get files on to disc?

    1) downloaded files from Metallica website as .zip files
    2) extracted all files from .zip to FLAC
    3) converted FLAC to WAV @24/96 via Audacity
    4) inserted WAV files in Sony Vegas (non-linear video editing program) on the Timeline
    5) rendered separate projects for audio and video. Rendered audio @24/96 PCM
    6) opened DVD-Architect, dropped rendered audio file into project and burnt dvd at 24/96 PCM

    I do have Roxio which is capable of making dvd-audio discs, but not a 24/96 dvd. As far as I understand the only other way for me to put these files to disc is to make an actual dvd (using a still picture as the image) and render/burn it at 24/96.

    -So is my quality loss at Audacity converting FLAC to WAV?
    -Rendering a dvd in Vegas/Architect?

    Below is from the Question/Answer section from Metallica's web site:

    Q:"Do I need any special equipment to play high-resolution audio files?"


    A: "No. We suggest a media player such as iTunes (ALAC-only), MediaMonkey, Songbird (FLAC-only) or JRiver Media Center. If you really want to take it next level, we suggest a D/A (digital-to-analog) converter that supports high sample rates."

    I have an external sound card. I don't think I could run a D/A?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by clashradio View Post
    -So is my quality loss at Audacity converting FLAC to WAV?
    -Rendering a dvd in Vegas/Architect?
    I have an external sound card. I don't think I could run a D/A?
    Not sure about Audacity but i assume FLAC to WAV conversion is lossless.
    Not sure about Vegas capabilities and your player - it may be some player limitation.
    AV amplifier with BD formats support can be used as D/A - use HDMI or S/PDIF connection (computer?) as source of data.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Even the built-in audio on my 8 year old motherboard supports 24bit/96k. I'm still running XP and from memory everything operates at a single sampling rate (48k?) and everything else gets up or down converted accordingly, but I think newer Windows can run different sampling rates for different sources. Someone else may know.

    Silly question.... the flac files sound as good as the CDs before you convert them and burn to DVD? The 24/96 version is remastered too?
    Quote Quote  
  4. The mastering on the 24/96 ones sucks. The SHM-CDs they put out in 2012 actually sound the best imo other than the DCC Gold discs that were done awhile ago for Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets.
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    The mastering on the 24/96 ones sucks.
    Hmmmm... nowadays almost all mastering is done in at least 24 bit and at least 96ksps - so you claim that all mastering from 8 - 10 years sucks... do you have any proof for such claim?

    There is nothing that sucks to use higher bit depth and higher sampling rate than CD and side effect of this is higher quality not worse...
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    The mastering on the 24/96 ones sucks.
    Hmmmm... nowadays almost all mastering is done in at least 24 bit and at least 96ksps - so you claim that all mastering from 8 - 10 years sucks... do you have any proof for such claim?

    There is nothing that sucks to use higher bit depth and higher sampling rate than CD and side effect of this is higher quality not worse...
    Yes a lot of music is mastered in high resolutions. What I'm saying is the end result on these 24/96 downloads from Metallica.com do not sound good.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    Yes a lot of music is mastered in high resolutions. What I'm saying is the end result on these 24/96 downloads from Metallica.com do not sound good.
    And this is not related at all with 24/96 but with way how people consume music today (yes - i intentionally use word consume), mostly listening with ear plugged phones (or similar crappy headphones where brand count more than audio quality) from some portable device where music playout is is not primary function - people consume music in noisy (street) environment but don't blame for this bit depth and sampling rate.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    Yes a lot of music is mastered in high resolutions. What I'm saying is the end result on these 24/96 downloads from Metallica.com do not sound good.
    And this is not related at all with 24/96 but with way how people consume music today (yes - i intentionally use word consume), mostly listening with ear plugged phones (or similar crappy headphones where brand count more than audio quality) from some portable device where music playout is is not primary function - people consume music in noisy (street) environment but don't blame for this bit depth and sampling rate.

    Take a 24/96 track, properly downsample it to 16/48 or 16/44.1 and run a blind test. Take the Pepsi challenge and see if you can tell which is which. My guess is you won't be able to.

    As for the Metallica albums, Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets - go track down the DCC Gold CD. These versions are mastered better.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    Take a 24/96 track, properly downsample it to 16/48 or 16/44.1 and run a blind test. Take the Pepsi challenge and see if you can tell which is which. My guess is you won't be able to.

    As for the Metallica albums, Ride The Lightning and Master Of Puppets - go track down the DCC Gold CD. These versions are mastered better.
    So...? Crappy loudness maximization (dynamic compression) is not related at all to sampling and bit depth... And to be honest i would ask Metallica directly why they offering crappy version of their music, from my perspective Metallica ended after Napster affair...
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by hogger129 View Post
    ... Take a 24/96 track, properly downsample it to 16/48 or 16/44.1 and run a blind test. Take the Pepsi challenge and see if you can tell which is which. My guess is you won't be able to....
    You won't if you do it right. Open the converted file and the original in your music player and switch between them until you forget which is which.

    There is a paper published in the AES journal which involved proper double blind tests with SACD and Redbook audio. It involved playing the SACD and the same input downsampled to 16/44. The test subects couldn't tell the difference.

    Proper SACDs actually do sound better then the CD versions but that's because they're mastered better. The customers tend to have really good playback gear and are serious listeners.

    When CDs are recorded they do use 24 bits but that's so they can do all that digital processing. All the quantization artifacts that creates will be below the LSB level of 16 bit PCM and are truncated.

    High bit depth audio is just one more item in a long list of hi fi snake oil.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by Hoser Rob View Post
    You won't if you do it right. Open the converted file and the original in your music player and switch between them until you forget which is which.

    There is a paper published in the AES journal which involved proper double blind tests with SACD and Redbook audio. It involved playing the SACD and the same input downsampled to 16/44. The test subects couldn't tell the difference.

    Proper SACDs actually do sound better then the CD versions but that's because they're mastered better. The customers tend to have really good playback gear and are serious listeners.

    When CDs are recorded they do use 24 bits but that's so they can do all that digital processing. All the quantization artifacts that creates will be below the LSB level of 16 bit PCM and are truncated.

    High bit depth audio is just one more item in a long list of hi fi snake oil.
    With proper noise shaping CD is capable easily to reach 20 - 22 bits dynamic in areas where human ear is most sensitive - key to high quality digital audio is noise shaping (and dither) - high sample rates and high bit depth reducing requirements for analog postprocessing.

    SACD is something else - this is format designed purely for marketing purposes and as proven worse than DVD Audio format (informative capacity is lower, delivered quality worse than 4 times oversampled 8 bit PCM audio).

    High sampling (at least 4 - 8 times is key to high quality audio, 16 bit is more than sufficient for consumer use).
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    So the purpose of these Super Deluxe box set Hi-Res downloads is only to be played on a computer and not really designed to put a on Blu-ray or dvd-a? Is that why there a FLAC and not WAV files?
    Quote Quote  
  13. Dinosaur Supervisor KarMa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    US
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by clashradio View Post
    So the purpose of these Super Deluxe box set Hi-Res downloads is only to be played on a computer and not really designed to put a on Blu-ray or dvd-a? Is that why there a FLAC and not WAV files?
    FLAC helps to compress the file losslessly, instead of a raw wav file. It's also free, unlike any of the lossless formats supported by Blu-ray besides raw PCM.
    Last edited by KarMa; 19th Nov 2016 at 18:43.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I figured out why my Frankenstein BD doesn't sound as good as the official 16b/44k cd. My amp has a bass boost and EQ option, which I have both of them turned on. But they are not compatible with a 96K signal. So that's why the sound was flat compared to the cd. to. Just read the manual today and found out. Now I have to buy a new amp..............
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads