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