CD sound vs DVD MOVIE sound -- which is better in theory? In subjective experience?

[garyrc]

Which is better in theory, CD sound or DVD movie (not DVD Audio only) sound? Also, I'm curious to know which usually sounds better to forum members in their subjective listening experience. Better? I'm interested in any of your observations concerning whatever loosely defined properties you consider important: from your overall impression, the "triggering of your musical Gestalt" as Holt has it, to frequency extension, lack of distortion, tonality, detail/texture, dynamics, effortlessness, imaging, "openness," realism (fidelity to the imagined original?), anything you think is noticeable.

I'll start it off by saying:

1) I usually listen to CDs and DVDs over the same system (amps, speakers, room)

2) I'm often disappointed in CD quality when listening to my favorite kinds of music (Classical, Contemporary Orchestral, and Jazz) -- often because the sense of richness, warmth, and "thereness" that I used to get with the best (certainly not the average) vinyl (various Ortofon cartridges & SME arms), open reel tape (7.5 & 15ips, Crown tape reorder) and even some cassette tapes (Nakamichi) happens more rarely on CD. These old listening experiences were with the same main speakers, and (damnit) a slightly warmer amp (Luxman). Many movies on DVD, however, do sound warm and "there," even though their music (except for a few great scores) is less rewarding.

3) For all the talk about the extended dynamics on CD, most of my CDs seemed a little compressed or constricted, compared to other media and compared to most movies on DVD. Some CDs come through dynamically, though, such as EiJi Oue's COPLAND HDCD disk (Reference Recordings RR-93CD, available once again, now that RR is out of court) ---- Watch Out! When turned up, this disk may be too much for most systems.

4) Mysteriously, some movies that have sweet and open sounding music recordings on DVD, or even VHS HIFi tapes, sound constricted and airless when the music from the soundtrack is put on CD, played over the same system, in the same room. Two examples are 'Round Midnight and Shakespeare in Love ... I tried turning off the surround channels in the DVD versions, and the DVDs still sounded much more open and spacious. Adding a little judicious Lexicon ambiance or reverb through the surrounds on the CDs didn't help. I realize that the final "sweetening" of movie soundtracks is sometimes not done until a mix that is closer to the release print, so the 1st generation musical elements may lack that sweetening. Does this explain all of the variance?

I realize that some of this may have to do with the economics and personalities attached to the CD industry, vs the movie industry. There is plenty of time and money available to record movies with tender loving care, and very little to record classical and jazz CDs. Filmmakers seem to like flashy sound.

It seems to me that movies on DVDs, with so much space taken up by the images, full length commentary, other special features, long running time, and the like, should be, if anything, theoretically worse in sound than CDs --- don't the CDs have a much easier job?

Perhaps the listening experience of others is different, or the opposite?

It looks like most of the music I listen to will be primarily on CD for some time, and if I got a SACD player, it would be usable 10 -15% of the time, max. Still, it might be worth it, next time I get enough money.

If you folk tell me that the CD is theoretically better than DVD in sound, and that the lower quality I hear simply has to do with style, will, time and money, then maybe some letters to the industry would improve CD sound. Naive, I know, but perhaps we should give it a shot.

[@silverfox@]

garyrc

not sure

if i have an absolute answer, only that the things you're discribing

i'm also expereincing some of the same, although majority of the music

i listen to i'm happy with, there are times when it erks a bit.

i believe that the real problem lies in the material beign played ,but

definately in the begining part of the process. one thing that

recentely alluded to this as far as i'm concern was the recent purchase

of optical cable, which brought more sparkle to the highs and solidify

my mids, i'm not quite sure how far down the rabbit hole i want to go.

and deffinately not suggesting that this is the solution though imo a

step in the right direction,

seek &u'll find.

silverfox

[psg]

I have some very crappy sounding CDs but most recent ones (mostly jazz, but some international music too) tend to be very good. Sometimes the music score of DVD movies is incredible for dynamics, but in general I don't get the same imaging from concert DVDs as I do from CDs. I have always wondered why.

[oldbuckster]

I listen to CD's in 2 channel, some are good, some of the early CD's are awful.........

I listen to concert DVD's in 5.1, with the center channel off...most sound great.........

I'm not sure it's a fair comparision CD's vs. DVD's....if Iswitch CD's to 5.1 mode, I don't really like what I hear.........kinda a loaded question isn't it???????? I really don't know, nor do I pretend to know...................

DVD Movies in DTS are hard to beat though....................

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

I have witnessed first hand what sound surround can do in an automotive environment....specifically, the Alpine F1 and soon Harmon's 7.1 JBL MS-8 model (prototype).

Certain tracks, depending on engineering, and surround settings can down right sound unrealistic. I would think the source disc would have a major bearing. I cannot condense the explanation into a brief summary, but let's just say sound surround is an enhancement that doesn't always realistically image properly and/or loses detail in certain portions of a given track.

This is a highly controversial topic and subject to a slew of different opinions, but IMO, vinyl still on a freq/dynamics scale, can reproduce better than CD/DVD simply because the highs/low are not digitally eliminated. Through audible occuity (being able to distinguish the two mediums), you should be able to feel/hear the realism over digital recordings. Take it a step further, and evaluate a "Mastered" Album which were high dollar back in the 70/80's, but superior in sound.

If you want a real challenge, try listening to a "BEST OF" CD of any artist/band bridging the late 60's to 90's, and hear the engineering improvements from the early release to later year recordings.

Example: Elton John, Rolling Stones, etc.

[WMcD]

In my view (ear) it is in the recording as finally put down with care by the recording engineer rather than the "system".

People seem to think there are issues with the bit depth and bit rate of CDs. I don't believe that because some CD's are just terrific. I always cite Telarc and DG. Even early ones.

I take some pop recordings to be "audiophile" in their day. Cringe. But Diamonds and Rust, DSOTM, Loggins & Messina, are very involving (jive talk), clear, and subjectively good. OTHOH, I believe these benefit from masterful tweeking of frequency balance, gating, compression, and microphone placement.

= = =

I have noticed some things with movie sound tracks these days in the theaters. They will have pop music which we've heard thousands of times. Yet they sound magnificent. Hard to tell whether it is a good playback system, or have the engineers gotten to source material and perhaps cleaned things up, just a little?

= = =

Somewhat OT. I started reading a biography of Walt Disney by Neil Gabler. Gosh, he writes sooo well. Flipping through there is mention, and far too little, about the Fantasound system which was what has now become surround sound. The guy who penned Mickey Mouse funded it and gave the engineers and musicians license to make it great.

= =

Gi

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

W/O getting too far off-topic, here is another interesting observation:

In MECA, we formally used a Focal disc for testing SQ, and now are utilizing the Cheskey Sampler. Just so happens, there are (2) tracks on both CD's; however, the Focal "Grandma's Hands" (Livingston Taylor) has a pronounced/detailed footstomp, whereas, the Cheskey is much more subtle, which is indicative of the re-engineering.

We have gotten into more arguments over WHICH (if either) is the properly engineered recording. With so much processing used these days, it is hard to determine WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL/NATURAL reproduction.

This again, stems back to the source and how the recordings are manipulated.

I was actually re-tuning my car one day, and accidentally tuned my system to the point where I could audibly hear the low rumble of an A/C unit during the lulls of a sax solo. This was NOT a natural phenomena of the recording, however, I use this example to illustrate the ability to create artificial (non-intended) sound reproduction as a result of technology.

[boom3]

It is not the media that is the problem. It is generational. The LPs that many audiophiles think are "better" and "warmer" than curent CDs were recorded and mixed by the previous generation of engineers in an all-analog (AAA) environment. They had to work hard to balance dynamic range vs. groove trackbility vs. playing time. Also, in many cases,LPs were rolled off below 50 or even 100 Hz and rolled off above 12 Khz or so, to minimize noise and (in the case of the bass) to limit groove excursions. The majority of buyers, using mass-market equipment (think Dad's console stereo) would never know this. And finally, think of all those last movements huddled together in the innermost band of an LP, as skating was at its worst and the dynamic range was the most compressed.

Today's engineers came up in the business when compression, for maximum airplay loudness, was key. That is an oxymoron, since CDs have a much wider theoretical dynamic range . But radio stations no longer have an engineer in the booth to gain-ride a recording so the FM signal doesn't overswing its deviation. It's all computer controlled at all mass-market stations, set to Loud.

CDs and DVD audio (we listen both here) each have the potentional for Sony's old and much derided slogan, "Perfect Sound Forever". You want to hear a CD that has been compressed to lifelessness? Madonna's "Ray of Light" album. You want to hear a glorious CD transfer? Vollenweider's "Down To The Moon".

It's the engineers who now need the second part of their education, from us critical listeners.

[boom3]

One caveat to what I just wrote...the LPs I discuss do not, of course, include the Mobile Fidelity and other high-quality transfers, nor the Direct To Disc types.

[Deang]

Dr. Who had a great post on this topic a few months ago, I wish I would have bookmarked it. At any rate, DVD's sound significantly better to me. I usually sit through all of the end credits just so I can enjoy the quality of the music. I only have about 20 CDs that I think do justice to the medium, I tolerate the rest of them because I like the music.

[colterphoto1]

CBRRV2 Cornwallsd

what is this? Cornwall Birch Raw, ??? Version 2- huh?

[boom3]

We have a number of DVD Audio discs. Most are remixes of familar material. Most are quite good, especially if the original performers or engineers were involved in the remix. Fleetwood Mac's Rumors, two Grateful Dead albums, some REM...most are very satisfying. The Doors LA Woman was awful, and so was Yes Fragile.

I don't think that DVD Audio is intrinscally "better" than CD, but a good 5.1 mix/remix can enhance the experience. We also have a few SACD 5.1 disks...Dark Side Of The Moon, most recently. Reserving judgement on that one. We also have DSOTM on Mobile Fidelty Gold CD for comparison.

[oldbuckster]

Klipsched you mentioned Greatest Hits packages, and a Rolling Stone disc.........The Stones were the first to use total Digital remastering long before anyone else did, all of their CD's a done quite well...Even when CD's first hit the scene they were leaders in that field....when the first Cd's came out, to be honest, most sounded awful, wicked back ground hiss, dead lifeless sound., example, I'll get shot for this, Early Led Zep CD's were terrible, then the Box set came out, more worthy of the Zep name, good sound, clean sound..................I guess my point is, the Stones have always put good product out on the market, way back when others didn't, so to hear good sound from their disc's is no surprise.................

[MrMcGoo]

Most DVDs use a lossy codec such as Dolby Digital for the sound tracks. Over 90% of the sound information is tossed out in the compression process. When it is decompressed and replayed, there is missing information. Yet it frequently sounds better than CDs.

The reasons are straight forward. DVDs use and array of 5.1 or 7.1 speakers with three across the front. When done right, this has always been better than 2.0. PWK used three front speakers for valid reasons. Next, DVD uses more of the dynamic range available.

DVDs are engineered better IMO because they are engineered to be played in a quiet room at home. CDs are engineered to be played in cars, on boom boxes etc.

One irony is that the best movie sound is from HD DVD and Blur-ray. The BEST HD DVD sound is from Dolby TruHD which is lossless at 16/48 which is very close to CD quality. It is way better than DD (AC3) sound. Movies that have HD TruHD are Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Phantom of the Opera. They go to the next level, CD sound at its best.

Bill

[DrWho]

Dr. Who had a great post on this topic a few months ago, I wish I would have bookmarked it. At any rate, DVD's sound significantly better to me. I usually sit through all of the end credits just so I can enjoy the quality of the music. I only have about 20 CDs that I think do justice to the medium, I tolerate the rest of them because I like the music.

Hmmm...I don't rememer writing about this before []

[DrWho]

It seems to me that movies on DVDs, with so much space taken up by the images, full length commentary, other special features, long running time, and the like, should be, if anything, theoretically worse in sound than CDs --- don't the CDs have a much easier job?

It has been my experience that the harder the mixing job, the better the recording turns out simply because the engineer is being more careful. It essentially forces a more minimalist approach when you've got so much crap going on...which is one of the key ingredients to all the oldschool recordings sounding so good - despite how crappy the mediums were. The general problem with digital is having too much control.

Also, the acoustics involved with DVD playback are far better standardized than that for CDs. The studios capable of DVD production are designed around achieving proper translation into the professional cinemas - which also happen to be using horns. Too much compression tends to sound worse on horns than it does on direct-radiators which is going to filter down into the mixes we're listening to in our homes.

Making a mix sound good in the studio is a fairly trivial process for an experienced engineer. The difficult part is getting this sound to translate to the typical sound systems of the target market, while also catering to the demands and emotions of the producers and musicians. Isn't there some saying about too many cooks ruin the stew? I'm not sure how accurate the observation is, but it seems the DVD productions give more decision making to the engineer (less cooks).

I do not think any of your observations have anything to do with the mediums in question, but rather the process in which these recordings are being produced.

[DrWho]

vinyl still on a freq/dynamics scale, can reproduce better than CD/DVD simply because the highs/low are not digitally eliminated.

For what it's worth, digital is good all the way down to 0Hz (there are no limitations to the lowest frequency stored). Best case scenario analog (reel to reel) is only good down to around 30Hz...and as mentioned, is always high-passed when transferred to other mediums (and often during tracking to prevent saturation).

The high-frequency limit of digital is definetly limited by the bitrate, but if expanding the bandwidth actually resulted in notable improvements, then I have a feeling the engineers would be pumping out DACs that run at far higher clock rates - like MHz instead of kHz. Extremely good analog is good to about 30kHz? Which is still going to be a bit shy of the 40kHz supported by a 96kHz bitrate. I would argue that most of the percieved differences with the high frequency information resides in the 10kHz region....where a lot of mics have a natural built in bump. Combined with the warmer (almost too warm) sound of analog, the extra brightness results in a great synergy providing a very good sound. Remove the warmness of the analog by going to digital and you're now left with a grainy sound (overexagerated highs).

It's just going to take a little bit of time for the new synergies to be figured out...

[garyrc]

ALL:

Thanks ... interesting observations ... keep 'em coming, if you've got 'em!

GILL:

Re: your comment on Fantasound, Disney and the Gabler book -- I don't know if you saw my old post containing info on this ---

Now I'm thinking that the Peck article may have been 1941, not 1940 --- my mind is playing tricks, and I only know about the article from reading it in the '70s ... Fantasia was in Fantasound before even I was born. Here is the relevant part of my post:

By the way, those interested in the history of movie audio might want to check an article in Scientific American (Peck, 1940) on the sound for the original 1940 Fantasia, which was the first time large numbers of people heard stereo (in a few theaters; New York, San Francisco, LA, etc.) An old sound recording teacher of mine helped set it up in San Francisco, and said that in that city, there were 96 different sound locations in the theater, fed from three discrete tracks, and manipulated -- I never was clear on whether the manipulation was automated (knowing Disney, it probably was) or handled by live mixers in the theater. My teacher said the effect was hypnotic. There was always at least some subtle outrigger ambiance from the side, which made the orchestra sound spacious, and sometimes the outrigger speakers were used creatively. And some people think "surround sound" came in with Dolby (1970s), or Cinerama (1952)!! Leopold Stokowski had been part of the landmark stereo recordings at Bell Labs, and introduced stereo to Disney, who decided to allow it to move around the screen to follow the animation at certain moments. A few times, part of the music left the screen. At one moment a goddess (Artimis?) bends the crescent moon like a bow and shoots a gleaming arrow up toward the right top of the screen, and music follows the starry arrow to the edge of the screen and beyond, passing across the proscenium arch, when CUT, the audience is now traveling with the arrow, which we now see in a medium close shot as comet-like, with stardust or glowing ice streaming off of it, as the orchestral sound whooshes past both our ears. Old Uncle Walt called that kind of stereo Fantasound. My old teacher said that the original Fantasound protocols had been lost, but I hope they have found them by now. I haven't bought that DVD yet, to find out.

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

Colterphoto1:

Yes sir, purchased unfinished Birch w/specific intent on staining them myself to match my living room furniture and surroundings. Glad I didn't urethane them though.......and still holding up nicely.

Soon as I get my networks back in, and everything hooked back up I'll snap a a couple of pics of the entire system w/my 56" Big Screen

Back to topic, OUTSTANDING writeup and explanation, and if I can follow it, anybody can!

GOOD JOB and thanks

[JetJockey]

Oldbuckster, are you listening to concerts with the center turned off in 5.1? If you are you are really missing alot on some discs depending on how they are engineered. For example, Eric Clapton ,One More car One More rider uses the center almost exclusively for Erics voice and guitar. Another is Hell freezes over, almost all bass lines are center channel, bar low down notes and lead singer and congas etc..... You may be missing alot.