"VHS is better than DVD?"

[ViRGE]

Hard coat was necessary for Blu-ray. Optional for HD DVD. HD DVD didn't need the hard coat, but could use it if desired. In fact, the hard coat can be used on DVD too, and TDK has released archival DVD recordable discs with the hard coat..

Aye on the hard coat coming out of a requirement for how data is replaced. Still, I really like the stuff. I wish we would have had this for CDs and DVDs back in the day. It's not indestructible, but it's nice having discs that aren't so prone to scratches.

 

[Ken g6]

You know, I don't really see much advantage for the consumer to the Blu-Ray disc format over the DVD disc format, even for HD movies. With proper, full utilization of the H.264 encoding format, most 1080P/24FPS movies should be able to fit on a DVD at a decent quality, 20-22 in Handbrake.

Of course, Blu-Ray has extra encryption. But that's not a benefit to the consumer.

 

[Eug]

You know, I don't really see much advantage for the consumer to the Blu-Ray disc format over the DVD disc format, even for HD movies. With proper, full utilization of the H.264 encoding format, most 1080P/24FPS movies should be able to fit on a DVD at a decent quality, 20-22 in Handbrake.

Of course, Blu-Ray has extra encryption. But that's not a benefit to the consumer.

DVD-9 is not a big enough disc size for a 1080P HD movie format using h.264. At higher bitrates, you can cram a short video onto one using h.264, but that's it. Longer movies will suffer, and don't expect to get any extras. Also don't expect to have multiple high rez audio tracks either. That not only impacts on movie length, it also impacts on max bitrates for the discs. (Remember, the max bitrate for DVD is less than 10 Mbps, so to get decent bitrates, you'd need to be spinning at 4X or whatever.)

BTW, the above comments really only apply to H.264 and VC9. However, when it first launched, Blu-ray's authoring tools didn't even support H.264. The movies were pretty much all MPEG2, which required significantly higher bitrates. Furthermore, dual-layer Blu-ray wasn't available, so companies were putting MPEG2 titles onto 25 GB Blu-ray, but could use h.264 or VC9 for 30 GB HD DVD. Nowadays though, Blu-ray supports both dual-layer and h.264/VC9 so you get all the benefits. And now you even can have h.265 HEVC support with 4K Blu-ray discs.

Note that both HD DVD and eventually Blu-ray supported mastering onto DVD-5 and DVD-9, but that's only for very specific niche usage, not commercial movies. HD DVD also had the advantage of being able to do this at home, so you could put your home movies onto DVD for personal use, but people don't author 2 hour home movies. Also, the specs are different for BD5/9 than for Blu-ray. I believe the true max for Blu-ray BD5/9 is actually 30 Mbps. For Blu-ray BD25/50, it's 40 Mbps. I've read that effectively this means that for the video stream, you can only have about 24 Mbps on BD5/9.

 

[Ken g6]

you can only have about 24 Mbps on BD5/9.

Only 24Mbps?! Consider that 8VSB supports less than 20 Mbps, and that's for one or more streams of HD MPEG2!

I regularly encode 720P video at video bitrates under 1.7Mbps (audio 160Kbps), using Handbrake quality 22. Although it does look like 1080P is closer to 5Mbps. That still supports a 2-hour movie on a BD5 disc.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Blu-ray brought us higher fidelity sound tracks which I love. The sound effects really enhance the movie watching experience and hearing a bullet sound versus being able to perceive a bullet whizzing past your head is really nice.

 

[zerocool84]

Saying vinyl is "warmer" sure but saying it sounds better is just hipster talk. It does not sound better and it gets worse every time you play it. The "warmth" you hear is the flaws in playback. If you love listening to vinyl that's great but comparing the same mix equally to vinyl and even CD let alone lossless digital, vinyl just has inherent flaws that it can't reproduce. It's just how the format is.

 

[Painman]

Sounds like the vinyl > CD argument to me.

The vinyl dudes actually had an argument to make, as 16 bit audio is just as insufficient as 16 bit color to express the range of the average human's sensory perception.

 

[ViRGE]

The vinyl dudes actually had an argument to make, as 16 bit audio is just as insufficient as 16 bit color to express the range of the average human's sensory perception.

16-bit PCM sampled at 44.1kHz is enough to allow 96dB of dynamic range while covering frequencies from 0Hz to 22KHz. That's more than enough for a masted product, and already goes beyond the hearing of 99.9% of the population.

 

[KeithP]

HD DVD > blu Ray

LOL…yeah, just like VHS>DVD

-KeithP

 

[Eug]

Only 24Mbps?! Consider that 8VSB supports less than 20 Mbps, and that's for one or more streams of HD MPEG2!

I regularly encode 720P video at video bitrates under 1.7Mbps (audio 160Kbps), using Handbrake quality 22. Although it does look like 1080P is closer to 5Mbps. That still supports a 2-hour movie on a BD5 disc.

Uh, with that post you just proved why your own claim that BD5 is good enough is wrong.

 

[Ken g6]

Uh, with that post you just proved why your own claim that BD5 is good enough is wrong.

Could you elaborate? Why does Blu-Ray video need to be better than 1080P Handbrake quality 22, 160Kbps audio? (Excluding 4K - that's a whole other issue.)

Of course, I'm someone who grew up recording grainy analog-antenna video on video tapes at EP. And then transferring it to another tape at EP to remove the commercials. I consider 720P@quality 22 amazing! But I may have low standards.

 

[Eug]

Could you elaborate? Why does Blu-Ray video need to be better than 1080P Handbrake quality 22, 160Kbps audio? (Excluding 4K - that's a whole other issue.)

Of course, I'm someone who grew up recording grainy analog-antenna video on video tapes at EP. And then transferring it to another tape at EP to remove the commercials. I consider 720P@quality 22 amazing! But I may have low standards.

Bingo.

To be fair, it depends on what you're used to, the screen size, and the seating distance, and of course, how you use them. Don't expect something that looks decent on a computer screen window when you're playing it on the background while you surf is going to look equally good when you're watching on a dedicated 120" projector setup from 10 feet away. High resolution with artifact-free one reason why many projector types are going gaga over 4K. The other reason though (which I consider more important) is HDR. The other point is the audio.

To put it in practical terms, I'm happy watching videos like you suggest on my iPad on the plane. However, I sure as hell wouldn't pay $15 for them, like I might for a Blu-ray disc to play on my projector, which by the way is a 5.1.2 Dolby Atmos setup.

 

[rockyct]

16-bit PCM sampled at 44.1kHz is enough to allow 96dB of dynamic range while covering frequencies from 0Hz to 22KHz. That's more than enough for a masted product, and already goes beyond the hearing of 99.9% of the population.

I know some vinyl is mastered to have a greater amount of dynamic range not because of the format but because they know audiophiles hate the "loudness war" in modern mastering. Of course, I'm sure the vast majority of vinyl uses the same master as the CD. It doesn't really matter in any case. I'm sure 90% of the vinyl being bought right now is never played on a turntable.

 

[Eug]

A big chunk of the vinyl market these days is like Royal Doulton for hipsters.

 

[mikeymikec]

I know it's supposed to be sunshine and roses in the digital neck of the woods, but my Star Trek 6 DVD died the other day during the 5th playback of its life. I is sad. Nothing visibly wrong with the surface of the disc, and it screws up in the same place on more than one player: Right when Kirk and McCoy are being sentenced by the judge with the grisly voice.

In order to watch the rest of the film I had to skip three chapters before it would start talking again.

 

[BeauCharles]

I have a high quality Oppo DV-981HD DVD player. Also have some cheap Sylvania Blu-Ray player I got when they first starting dropping below $100. I only have a 37" HDTV and sit about 9-10ft from it. Given the TV size and the distance to my couch I really can't tell much difference. The Oppo also has good quality audio processing. Plus its a lot faster to respond than any Blu-Ray player I've seen. Its also region-free (can play any DVD from anywhere in the world). If I had a bought a cheap DVD player back in 2008 I'm sure I would have been more excited about Blu-Ray.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I know some vinyl is mastered to have a greater amount of dynamic range not because of the format but because they know audiophiles hate the "loudness war" in modern mastering. Of course, I'm sure the vast majority of vinyl uses the same master as the CD. It doesn't really matter in any case. I'm sure 90% of the vinyl being bought right now is never played on a turntable.

From what I've seen, audiophiles aren't really catered to like that. There's plenty of "audiophile" mixes that aren't any better with regards to compression or dynamic range. Audiophile recording seems to just mean they put it on whatever format is the current audiophile flavor. Sure they might do a different mix but it often times isn't really better.

Its why Neil Young's Pono is a failure. They didn't really address any of the real issues, they just pushed 24/96+ files on a proprietary storefront and an expensive but mediocre portable player. Tidal is much more impressive endeavor in that its something people actually want (streaming) and brought improved quality (granted its not drastic or anything; but it also didn't require a lot of extra cost, while also attracting popular contemporary artists).

And that's the rub. The technology we have now is more than capable of all the fidelity we need or want. We don't need new formats and players (that's not to say companies making the equipment shouldn't keep trying to find new and better ways, but unless they can provide proven tangible benefits that aren't often marketspeak or outright nonsense like talking about SACD/DSD offering 100MHz frequency ranges and ultrasonic sound adds to the realism, then saying how they can't bring negative influence since they can't be heard or are even outright filtered out). We need them to just actually take advantage of what is available and for reasonable prices. People are not going to pay 3+ times the cost for extra formats that often don't sound that much better.

If they really wanted to wow people they should have adopted binaural recordings when the iPod was taking off. They have a secondary opportunity with VR. That should be a huge boon for live recordings and highly visual artists (Gorillaz comes to mind). But instead we'll get gnashing about how VR is going to ruin everything because then there's no point to going to concerts if you can just put a headset on and be given perfect seats to the show so all musicians will be out of work and somehow it makes piracy worse than ever.

 

[Eug]

VR is nerdgasm territory, but not in a good way.

It's not been done for music because that would be dumb.

 

[NutBucket]

16-bit PCM sampled at 44.1kHz is enough to allow 96dB of dynamic range while covering frequencies from 0Hz to 22KHz. That's more than enough for a masted product, and already goes beyond the hearing of 99.9% of the population.

IMHO 16 bit audio is sufficient. My argument is the sampling rate is too low. 96dB of dynamic range is more than enough but the sound reproduction at the high end is simply inaccurate.

 

[darkswordsman17]

VR is nerdgasm territory, but not in a good way.

It's not been done for music because that would be dumb.

Yeah, because concert CDs/DVDs/Blu-Rays suck! Also, uh, so I take it you hated the Wall and similar? Considering that they do concert showings in theaters in 3D, VR absolutely would take that to a new level.

And I'd even say that VR could be significant in that it could be a very isolating experience, and a lot of people (including musicians) have been complaining about how people don't just sit and listen to music like they used to and blame it on TV/Internet/phones/tablets/etc.

There are a lot of musicians that are very visual artists too (could you imagine how giddy Bowie would have been if he'd have gotten to do VR albums?).

 

[gorcorps]

Saying vinyl is "warmer" sure but saying it sounds better is just hipster talk. It does not sound better and it gets worse every time you play it. The "warmth" you hear is the flaws in playback. If you love listening to vinyl that's great but comparing the same mix equally to vinyl and even CD let alone lossless digital, vinyl just has inherent flaws that it can't reproduce. It's just how the format is.

I came in here to post something almost like this. People still attached to vinyl are no different than this guy holding on to VHS. I'm not saying that modern music sounds better, but the reason for that difference is not vinyl vs. digital.

 

[Puffnstuff]

You know that sound is a personal preference just like the audio equipment we use to play it back. This is no different that a tube vs. digital amplifier discussion. What one person prefers might not suit the tastes of another and I say that if you are enjoying your stuff then be happen and listen away. I like headphones that offer a frequency response beyond 20hz-20khz and use a pair of beyerdynamic dt990pro's that offer 5hz-35khz which sound better to me.

 

[Ichinisan]

You know that sound is a personal preference just like the audio equipment we use to play it back. This is no different that a tube vs. digital amplifier discussion. What one person prefers might not suit the tastes of another and I say that if you are enjoying your stuff then be happen and listen away. I like headphones that offer a frequency response beyond 20hz-20khz and use a pair of beyerdynamic dt990pro's that offer 5hz-35khz which sound better to me.

VHS is just "better" though. Way better.

 

[gorcorps]

You know that sound is a personal preference just like the audio equipment we use to play it back. This is no different that a tube vs. digital amplifier discussion. What one person prefers might not suit the tastes of another and I say that if you are enjoying your stuff then be happen and listen away. I like headphones that offer a frequency response beyond 20hz-20khz and use a pair of beyerdynamic dt990pro's that offer 5hz-35khz which sound better to me.

True, as long as you use subjective terms like "sound better" vs what I normally hear from vinyl folks is "better sound quality". Sound quality being able to replicate the original source/recording as closely as possible, vinyl simply can't offer that. Doesn't mean someone can't think it sounds better to them, it just isn't because of better "sound quality".

 

[Eug]

Yeah, because concert CDs/DVDs/Blu-Rays suck! Also, uh, so I take it you hated the Wall and similar? Considering that they do concert showings in theaters in 3D, VR absolutely would take that to a new level.

Yes, a whole new level of uselessness.

Concert CDs are fine, and The Wall is fine. Luckily, they have nothing in common with VR.

BTW, I think 3D concerts are pointless too. BTW, Samsung and Vizio have zero TV models in 2016 that support 3D. ZERO. LG hasn't completely stopped making 3D TVs, but they've scaled way back on them. IOW, while 3D in the home is not quite dead yet, it is at death's door.

And I'd even say that VR could be significant in that it could be a very isolating experience, and a lot of people (including musicians) have been complaining about how people don't just sit and listen to music like they used to and blame it on TV/Internet/phones/tablets/etc.

So you are saying people's tastes don't gravitate to that but VR will be good for them if you force it on them? What are you going to do, tie them down and prop their eyes open to make them experience VR?

There are a lot of musicians that are very visual artists too (could you imagine how giddy Bowie would have been if he'd have gotten to do VR albums?).

Bowie was alive when VR was available. I don't think he ever once mentioned any interest in doing a VR concert.