DVD-As Sampled At 44.1/24- Why?

[sjcorne]

I was just trying to troubleshoot another member's issues with ripping DVD-A and I noticed something interesting.

As many know, DTS Entertainment started issuing DTS-CDs in the late '90s- stuff like Toy Matinee, Marvin Gaye's Forever Yours, Don Henley's End Of The Innocence, etc. Many of these titles were later redone as DVD-A or SACD, and in some cases both.

However, I'm noticing on several of the DVD-A versions that the sample rate is still CD quality (44.1).

My first thought was that for certain albums the multi-tracks were done in early digital with lower sample rates. The Toy Matinee album, having been recorded in the early '90s, could fall into that boat.

But then I realized two things:

1. There are DVD-A's of early digital titles that have been up-sampled to 96/24 (Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms and Donald Fagen's The Nightfly, to name two)
2. Some of these titles were recorded decades earlier on analog tape and could've been captured at higher resolution (Marvin Gaye).

So what happened here? My guess is that either the multi-tracks used to do the 5.1 mix were transferred at 44.1/16, or the 5.1 mix was outputted at 44.1/16. They then ran the 44.1/16 5.1 mix files through a DTS encoder for the DTS-CD release, then used the same files through an MLP encoder for the DVD-A release. Surely if they had higher resolution files they would've used them for the DVD-A, right?

I guess this would mean that these 44.1/24 DVD-A titles from DTS are really no better than the original DTS discs.

Though to really prove it, you'd probably have to line up frequency graphs from both the DVD-A version and DTS-CD version of one of these titles and see if they're the same.

Unfortunately I don't own any of the affected titles in both formats...the only title I have in DTS-CD and DVD-A is Gaucho, and not only is the DVD-A 96/24 (likely up-sampled), it's an entirely different mix!

Here's the title's I've identified so far: these are DVD-A's with MLP 44.1/24 that were previously issued as DTS-CD. There are probably others I missed.

• Toy Matinee
• Marvin Gaye Collection (the DTS-CD version is called "Forever Yours" and has a reshuffled track order)
• Diana Krall- Love Scenes
• Sting- Brand New Day

It'd be awesome if anyone who owns both versions of one of these discs could post frequency graphs from each. We'd see if the DVD-A actually has the extended response high resolution offers.

And just for the record, I'm just doing this because I think it's interesting to analyze (it had been previously found that some DVD-A's are actually sourced from SACD masters), DTS-CD and DVD-A are both great formats and both sound excellent to my ears. The quality of the surround mix is what matters most to me.

 

[JonUrban]

Were there DVD-A players that did not play DTS-CD's? I don't recall any, but maybe that's why they moved the audio to a different format without upsampling as a cost savings(?).

This could be why they never issues DVD-A's of the McCartney's or other titles as their masters were only 44.1/24.

 

[sjcorne]

This could be why they never issues DVD-A's of the McCartney's or other titles as their masters were only 44.1/24.

Anything's possible. The real travesty with those (as you've pointed out before) is that they didn't pull the quad masters again and include new transfers in those McCartney box sets.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Anything's possible. The real travesty with those (as you've pointed out before) is that they didn't pull the quad masters again and include new transfers in those McCartney box sets.

Brothers In Arms and the Nightfly were early PCM DDD recordings so the 44.1 sampling rate makes perfect sense. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they were recorded 16 bit [16/44.1 DDD]. I know Telarc was recording at some point with a Soundstream 20 bit recorder but I don't know what the sampling rate was.

Soundstream explained: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/SOUNDSTREAM/en-en/

 

[sjcorne]

Brothers In Arms and the Nightfly were early PCM DDD recordings so the 44.1 sampling rate makes perfect sense. And correct me if I'm wrong, but they were recorded 16 bit [16/44.1 DDD] /

The funny thing is those two actually were up-sampled to 96/24 on DVD-A. My point is it doesn't make sense for these DTS Ent titles- and likely means they were created from CD quality masters.

 

[4-earredwonder]

The funny thing is those two actually were up-sampled to 96/24 on DVD-A. My point is it doesn't make sense for these DTS Ent titles- and likely means they were created from CD quality masters.

Further info on The Nightly from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nightfly [look under Production]

Likewise, Paul Simon's Graceland was also an early PCM DDD recording.

BTW, Analogue Productions has recently produced excellent sounding Stereo SACDs from 16 bit PCM masters....one for sure is Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions and I believe DUETS.

Sjcorne, I don't think anything was inherently flawed with those early 16/44.1 PCM MASTERS.....it was the brick wall filtering of the CD players [especially the early 'crappy' ones] which contributed to that sense of DIGI~ITIS!

 

[sukothai]

Don't forget that DTS-CD is a lossy encoding system vs the lossless DVD-A encoding; so at least the DVD-A has got all the bits even though they both were sourced from 44.1. Some would claim it doesn't matter much, but given a choice, I want all the bits!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Don't forget that DTS-CD is a lossy encoding system vs the lossless DVD-A encoding; so at least the DVD-A has got all the bits even though they both were sourced from 44.1. Some would claim it doesn't matter much, but given a choice, I want all the bits!

TOTALLY agree. Some of the best DTS Entertainment discs do sound superb [Lyle Lovett's Joshua Judges Ruth comes to mind] but when pitted against a well replicated DVD~A there is simply NO contest [at least to my ears and on my system].

 

[marpow]

I am ripping my DVD-A collection and could not rip the Sting and Marvin Gaye as noted above. I just put the two in and Marvin Gaye is 44.1Khz and Sting is 48Khz. Two discs in DVD-A cases and logo's but really DTS discs?

 

[4-earredwonder]

I am ripping my DVD-A collection and could not rip the Sting and Marvin Gaye as noted above. I just put the two in and Marvin Gaye is 44.1Khz and Sting is 48Khz. Two discs in DVD-A cases and logo's but really DTS discs?

For awhile, DTS Entertainment was putting DTS encoded discs in DVD~Audio cases which caused a lot of confusion. I have a few of those and some buyers were indignant because they misrepresented the product, especially when DTS Entertainment did start producing genuine MLP DVD~A multichannel discs....and did duplicate a number of former LOSSY DTS encoded titles.

 

[sjcorne]

Two discs in DVD-A cases and logo's but really DTS discs?

They are DVD-A's they're just not "truly high resolution"- I think the DTS-CD editions would probably sound almost the same.

It's all really conjecture though. On my system Q8's sound great

 

[marpow]

I am ripping now a DVD-A Silverline brand disc labeled Digital DTS Surround and is fine at 24/96.

 

[4-earredwonder]

I am ripping now a DVD-A Silverline brand disc labeled Digital DTS Surround and is fine at 24/96.

DVD~A discs usually have DTS and sometimes Dolby Digital encodes as well so they can be played on regular DVD players. Remember, a lot of these discs were produced before the Universal Player existed, Markie.

BTW, which Silverline disc are you ripping as some of the later Silverline dual discs were NOT MLP DVD~As but rather DTS and/or Dolby Digital.

 

[ubertrout]

A lot of early classical DVD-As were 44.1/48 khz. Every Naxos DVD-Audio was 24/48, as well all the EMI DVD-Audio Discs except the Mahler 10th with Rattle.

Only a few were actually 16-bit/44.1 khz - two Philips releases come to mind - Ozawa's Symphonie Fantastique and Gergiev's Tchaikovsky 6th (different recording than the one issued on SACD and later BD-Audio):

Edit to add: also, aren't DTS CDs 20-bit/48 khz, just using 16/44.1 redbook audio as a container?

 

[4-earredwonder]

A lot of early classical DVD-As were 44.1/48 khz. Every Naxos DVD-Audio was 24/48, as well all the EMI DVD-Audio Discs except the Mahler 10th with Rattle.

Only a few were actually 16-bit/44.1 khz - two Philips releases come to mind - Ozawa's Symphonie Fantastique and Gergiev's Tchaikovsky 6th (different recording than the one issued on SACD and later BD-Audio):

Edit to add: also, aren't DTS CDs 20-bit/48 khz, just using 16/44.1 redbook audio as a container?

Probably, ubertrout, because a lot of those early Classical Recordings which proudly had DIGITAL RECORDING on their glossy front covers were PCM DDD 16/44.1 recordings. No sooner had QUAD disappeared from the scene, the Majors embarked on the newest recording technology DIGITAL and everyone was looking forward to retiring their turntables and embracing the new format which promised PERFECT SOUND FOREVER. No more ticks, pops, swishes ....or hiss, just PURE unadulterated

sound.

I know a few posters castigated me for not realizing that DTS was 20 bit but for the life of me, I use my ears for reference and it hardly sounds like TRUE 20 bit technology and some audiophiles have pointed out that had 20 bit been implemented instead of 16 bit, we would've embraced the new format wholeheartedly and probably wouldn't have needed the leap to 24 bit which some criticize as 'overkill.'

 

[ubertrout]

Probably, ubertrout, because a lot of those early Classical Recordings which proudly had DIGITAL on their glossy front covers were PCM DDD 16/44.1 recordings. No sooner had QUAD disappeared from the scene, the Majors embarked on the newest recording technology DIGITAL and everyone was looking forward to retiring their turntables and embracing the new format which promised PERFECT SOUND FOREVER. No more ticks, pops, swishes ....or hiss, just PURE unadulterated sound.

I know a few posters castigated me for not realizing that DTS was 20 bit but for the life of me, I use my ears for reference and it hardly sounds like TRUE 20 bit technology and some audiophiles have pointed out that had 20 bit been implemented instead of 16 bit, we would've embraced the new format wholeheartedly and probably wouldn't have needed the leap to 24 bit which some criticize as 'overkill.'

These aren't even early digital classical recordings, they were made in the mid-1990s. But what I'm noticing is that the resolution of DVD-Audio was actually beyond what most classical labels were using to create digital masters until well after the format's introduction. A few of the classical recordings released as 24/96 DVD_Audios by Universal and Warner Classics were really demonstrations of brand new recording tech, not just a new format.

 

[4-earredwonder]

These aren't even early digital classical recordings, they were made in the mid-1990s. But what I'm noticing is that the resolution of DVD-Audio was actually beyond what most classical labels were using to create digital masters until well after the format's introduction. A few of the classical recordings released as 24/96 DVD_Audios by Universal and Warner Classics were really demonstrations of brand new recording tech, not just a new format.

I thought the Classical labels were touting DIGITAL RECORDINGS in the mid to late 80's and until TELARC actually started utilizing the 20 Bit SOUNDSTREAM recorders most of those early DDD Classical Recordings were indeed 16/44.1. As I mentioned in an above post, the brickwall filters in those early CD players limited any info above 20K hKz from reaching the listener which were perhaps present in PCM masters from that period. The DVD~A thus allows the full early classical PCM masters to be heard sans the brickwalling of the CD player itself.

A brief history of Digital technology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_recording

 

[ubertrout]

Soundstream was very early in the history of digital - the link you provide makes that clear. The 16/50 Soundstream system was used by Telarc beginning in 1978 to make digital recordings. The excellent sound quality of those recordings is a reminder that in some ways things took a step backwards in the early 1980s. However, by the late 80s/early 90s, multitrack digital recording had advanced to a pretty good place, and storage technology was beginning to reach a point where DAT tapes could be replaced by hard drives. In at least some cases, these 44.1/48 khz recordings were ones the engineers had kept in mind as particularly good candidates for multichannel reissue.

 

[4-earredwonder]

Soundstream was very early in the history of digital - the link you provide makes that clear. The 16/50 Soundstream system was used by Telarc beginning in 1978 to make digital recordings. The excellent sound quality of those recordings is a reminder that in some ways things took a step backwards in the early 1980s. However, by the late 80s/early 90s, multitrack digital recording had advanced to a pretty good place, and storage technology was beginning to reach a point where DAT tapes could be replaced by hard drives. In at least some cases, these 44.1/48 khz recordings were ones the engineers had kept in mind as particularly good candidates for multichannel reissue.

But those DAT tapes you referenced were 16/44.1 and were utilized by DTS Entertainment for a lot of their surround transfers. Yes, the Soundstream system was excellent but in true SONY fashion, their widely 'touted' PCM system was installed in many a studio and became a standard. Those early multitrack recorders were probably 16/44.1 as well as 24 bit technology wasn't introduced until much later.

 

[jimfisheye]

A possible explanation.

Early digital recordings were in fact 44.1k or 48k. If these were flat transferred 1:1 to the consumer DVDA format, they would be the same SD sample rate. If the word length was 16 bit, that would stay the same in a flat transfer. A SD sample rate DVDA could be no more, no less than this.

Many modern digital recordings are still made at SD sample rates. It's a misconception that SD sample rates omit any of the audio band. HD is all about a wide margin between the top of the audio band and the sampling frequency. Modest or budget converters are easier to make work well with HD. Boutique converters can do so well at SD sample rates that it may be very hard to spot any deficiency. So some engineers still prefer tp work at SD. 24 bit however is pretty much considered mandatory and has been for a long time now. The end format of 24 bit at 44.1k suggests this.

However there have been some shenanigans in the past. There have been bait and switch releases made that take a mastere prepared for CD (downsampled and word length reduced if the full master was HD) and put it back into an HD format. (Cheating instead of going back to the actual HD master.) Sometimes upsampling, sometimes not. If someone truly took a 44.1k and further 16 bit CD master and put it in a 24/44.1 container on a DVDA... well, that's a paddlin'! For something suspecious in HD format, you could look at the spectrum and see if there are any artifacts above 22k. If the spectrum hard cuts off at 22k, it likely came from SD format. You could look at the bit depth with a meter. Stillwell makes a free plugin called Bitter that is a bit depth meter. If you see something in a 24 bit container only using the first 16 bits, then you know this is actually 16 bit program.

The bait and switch crap was more centered around the SACD format at the time and it involved degrading the CD version (beyond the format restriction of 16/44.1) so that when they just upsampled/translated the PCM 16/44.1 CD master into DSD, the CD would sound noticeably worse. (Since it would have sounded identical otherwise since they didn't really have an HD master.) Not so much the DVDA format (that I've seen anyway).

Probably it was simply something recorded/mixed/mastered at 24/44.1.
Or a flat transfer of something at 16/44.1 and they kept the 24 bit format to be more standard. (Check it with the bit meter and find out!)