I have a question and this DVD is a perfect example. Why is it that most of my music DVDs,(not DVD Audio but DVD Video), sound so much better than CDs? This recording is a case in point. The Steinway piano that Diana is playing sounds so much more "natural" than the CD version. Anyone know why? It's not the back surround that makes the difference, there's something about the way the mains are used. Any ideas?

Some of the audio experts around here can give a better answer, but here's the basics as I understand it: CD is uncompressed, but it is only 16bit. The Dolby Digital on DVD's can be 16bit, 20bit, or 24bit -- smaller sample sizes can get closer to the original sound.

------------------
gonk -- Saloon Links | Pre/Pro Comparison Chart | 950 Review

[This message has been edited by gonk (edited March 19, 2004).]

Gonk is right, most of my concert discs are 24 bit word length. Also I beleive that the 48K sampling rate adds a little bit more air as well.

Where is soundhound to throw a wet blanket on this discussion?!?! See recent Outlaw to Outlaw thread, So I have another question - continued


[This message has been edited by sfw (edited April 09, 2004).]

I'm exausted trying to expalin for the 1000th time how there are differences in recording technique verses recording medium.

I'll just ask if you've ever seen an outstanding picture taken by a great photographer using a camera with "low" resolution or a lousy photograph taken with a "high" resolution camera taken by a less skilled photographer. Just give your Aunt Mabel a $10,000 18 megapixel camera and see if she can take consistently "great" pictures. I'm sure Ansel Adams could have taken award quality pictures with an Instamatic camera, "low resolution" notwithstanding. The photographer's skill (and in this case, the recording engineer's) will trump any contribution by the medium every time.

If any of you have my "Soundhound Organ Demo" CDs, I would remind you that they were recorded not only with "low resolution 16 bit" equipment, but with a first generation DAT recorder that used old fashoned analog "brick wall" anti-aliasing filters! Not to brag, but I think those recordings are not too shabby sounding.

Also keep in mind that the DVD is multichannel verses two channel for the CD. This will make all the difference in the world in the timbre and dimentionality of the sound of recorded instruments. Everything sounds more natural with surround information adding to the realism of the soundfield.

Suggesting that the mere fact that something is recorded in a "high resolution" format is the major determinant of the sound of a good recording is actually quite an insult to the people whose skill and experience go unnoticed behind the scenes every day. The decisions on where to place the microphones, what kind of microphone to use, and the balances of the instruments in a mix (not to mention the fact that Diana Krall is playing a very fine piano!) all make a gigantic contribution to the final sound of a recording. Such things as sample rate, bit depth, DSD vs PCM etc don't matter squat in the grand scheme of things.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited April 09, 2004).]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the video component: when we have a nice looking woman to look at, it makes the piano sound better! LOL!
The funny thing is, at least through my Pioneer 45A, SACD sounds better than DVD-A. ....to my ears anyway. I've noticed several recordings from Beck, Steely Dan and Dr. Cheskey that are available in sacd, dvd-a and cd (and maybe lp...) I'd be interested in reading/hearing a comparison of the two formats.

Jay

[This message has been edited by JMS (edited April 15, 2004).]

JMS:

I don’t think the difference between the 2 formats is really having as much of an impact on the sound as the person who did the mixing. In my review (first impressions) of the 950/7100 I reported noticing some distortion on the DVD-A of Metallica’s Black album. It sounds like (this is my opinion, I’m no expert) whoever did the mixing pushed the record level to high and caused the distortion. In other words it was not the DVD-A formats fault but was the fault of the mixing. I also have Queen A Night At The Opera DVD-A and it sounds incredible. Dark Side of the Moon on SACD was also top notch. If you do a search on the internet you will find several sites that do reviews of new recordings in both formats (I can’t remember them right off hand but they are out there) and some they say are done well and some are not. I guess what I’m saying is, don’t count one format out just because the 1 or 2 albums you have might have been done poorly. Just my .02.

Hope this helps
Lasher

Well it has been over a week since I have had the opportunity to "mosey on in" and I am surprised by the responses to a harmless question. My daughter is a pianist, she plays on a Young Chang, (the manufacture of Steinway's entry level pianos), so I have an ear for how a piano should sound. I have MANY piano CDs and most sound okay but I always figured that a speaker could never capture the resonance that the piano cabinet contributes to the instrument until I listened to this DVD. I am amazed at the sound "quality" of the piano over Diana's CD version. Maybe Soundhound is right, the timbre and dimentionality of the 5.1 may be accountable for this since the other recording variables for this should be the same. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, more are welcome. And yes JMS, she is a delight to watch. Not so much for her looks but for the obvious love she has for the music and the piano, I'm sure she had some say in how this recording was engineered.

Alejate,

Ok, it's a bit snobbish but, as the owner of a Steinway M I say, "There are Steinways and then there are piano-like instruments!" LOL! Seriously, the Boston Pianos are definitely excellent for the money but, I didn't think they were made by Young Chang. Aren't they Japanese-made?

Jay

That is, aren't Boston pianos made by Kawai?

Jay

Well I never thought I would be turning this thread into a piano one VS a DVD question, so I will keep it short. Young Chang pianos started about 40 years ago in South Korea. Since then they have manufacturing plants in other countries including the US. My local Steinway dealer is the one who told me how Steinway uses Young Chang to produce their entry level pianos and this was confirmed by my piano tuner. However, I have not officially heard this directly from Steinway. Although I like the sound of a Steinway, but cannot afford one, we have friends that really don't care for their unique tone. I, for one, like this "sound" and have many Steinway recordings. One of my favorite Steinway pianist is Robin Spielberg. This brings me back to my original point, why do most CD recordings not capture the acoustic sounds of this piano that DVDs do? JMS, since you own a Steinway you probably have noticed that many CD recordings of Steinways sound good but not great. Could this be an engineering issue, recording equipment issue, equipment placement issue, recording studio's acoustic issue, CD medium issue,...? Listen to Diana Krall's "Live in Paris" CD and then compare it to the DVD version. No comparison! The DVD definately has capture the essence of the Steinway in a way that was lost on the CD. I think Soundhound may be right in his theory. Maybe I will have to finally invest in a DVD-Audio/SACD player, I'm just afraid that the software may be gimmicky. I really don't care to hear instruments coming out of any speaker just for the sake of being able to do it. Remember stereo recordings in which the vocals were in one speaker and the music was in the other? Oh yes, this was very natural, and it didn't last long, thank God. I would like to make this leap if some of you have heard wonderful acoustic instrument recordings in DVD-audio or SACD. Please let me know.

Alejate,

You sound like a candidate to become an Absolute Sound reader, as I am. Their premise is that music reproduction systems should try to emulate the sound of acoustic instruments playing in a real space. I think the problem with recording any piano is that the sound emanates from the entire instrument. Where do you put the mics? Too close to the hammers and the sound is detailed but unrealistic. Too far and the sound is washed out. I think that getting a coherent sound from acoustic instruments is very difficult compared to direct boxing an electric guitar. Too, what is the absolute sound of that guitar? Answer: there is none. We all know what a clarinet should sound like but, that guitar can have dozens of different timbres with the twist of a dial.
As a musician, I am happy to listen "through" the recording medium and I can hear the music even on scratchy old 78s. Likewise, even a bad sound system doesn't really bother me. I can appreciate the sound of my high end ht but, I can happily listen to my Chopin on the car radio, too!

Jay

Like JMS said, there is no "absolute" sound of an instrument except for the insturment itself in a real space. That sound in it's entireity is almost impossible to caputre on a recording, but having more channels helps to give more spatial information to the illusion.

I've tried to hammer this home too much I think, but the fact is that Diana's piano would sound just as nice if it was recorded on a cassette deck with 5.1 channels (except for a bit more hiss) - the recording medium is almost irrevalent. It is 99.999% in how the mics are set up and how it all interacts with the recording room. Recording something like a big piano is a huge feat and there are 1000s of variables on how to approach it, from sticking the mics inside the piano to a stereo crossed pair of bi-directional mics. Then there is the issue of how many channels are used - stereo or 5.1. All this influences the sound way more than the recording medium.

It's funny that you mention all the locations of mics. I tried once to record my daughter's piano playing onto cassette. After numerous location attempts of placing the mics,(stereo recording), I finally just gave up and went with the "good enough" cliche.

When I record my piano I listen via headphones to the sound of the mics. With the hood open (to the standard 45 degrees) I point the mics at spots on the hood that appears to be the "reflection" spots off the lower and upper strings. If you listen carefully to your cans, you can hear "sweet spots" where the sound of the piano is "better." Sometimes, especially when the piano isn't solo but is part of an ensemble I cop out and use my Yamaha s80 keyboard straight into my digital hard disc recorder (a Roland VS...) As Frank Zappa said about using a string synthesizer keyboard: "In a hockey rink you can't hear the difference between the synthesizer and a real string section anyway." (That's a paraphrase, btw.)

Jay

[This message has been edited by JMS (edited April 22, 2004).]

Well I took my family to see Diana Krall in concert on July 4th at Tanglewood in Lenox, Massachusetts. What a wonderful concert! For those of you who think the 950 is not good with music, I wish you could have been at this concert and then listen to her CDs on the 950 with my speakers in my listening environment. The 950 with the 770 does a great job. If you get a chance to see Diana live in concert, take the opportunity. She is "swonderful."

Alejate:

Should this be in a separate thread with a title “Diana Krall Live in Lenox”?
Just a thought…

She was on The Late Late show with Craig Kilborn on CBS couple of weeks ago as a guest and a performer. Unlike Britney Spears, she didn’t appear to be lip-singing. She sang “Stop This World” (her latest album) and her singing was so close to CD version to the point that it was almost undistinguishable. I guess that’s why she does what she does for living.

Spiker, interesting thread idea. Just to let everone know what type of artist she is in concert, in two songs she reached inside the piano with her left hand and plucked the strings while still playing the keyboard with her right. Made for an interesting and pleasing sound. She also got her heal caught in the stage's carpeting during one song and had to step out of her shoe to continue using the pedals. She is no Spears, thank God.

One day I will proof my typing before selecting "submit." I meant heel, not heal. Sorry about that.