DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: phatstadt on February 21, 2019, 05:28:29 PM
-
Is there a plan for the new D/T album to be available as a 24/96 high def download via online stores like HDTracks, which currently has high def versions of many earlier albums?
It's kind of a drag to have to fork the cost of the super premium release just to get a high def version ( and i clearly don't care about surround 5.1 mixes). While I'd be perfectly happy to pay $30-35 for a stereo high-def format instead of $20 for the standard iTunes, or maybe CD quality (or just buy the CD and rip it lossless), I'd much rather buy it on HDTracks.
There is no indication, and usually the "standalone" high def releases come much later than the CD or premium packages to generate more sales.
Dunno, as i said, happy to pay $30-35, but I may wind up having to pay $20 initially to get the album tomorrow then pay $30 again to get the high def download version down the road.
-
I don't know if they will release the HDtracks version online but the bluray artbook should have very high resolution versions of the tracks. I can't wait to listen to it when they eventually ship. (prob March 15)
-
Is the BluRay going to be available standalone? I only saw it part of an elaborate package with tons of stuff I don't want. In fact I only want a high def download, as it's easier than having to rip the BluRay to a HD file. I'll wait for it to be on HDTracks and will get the low def in the meantime..
-
I just went to hdtracks.com and saw they have quite a few albums of DT so I won't be surprised if it shows up later on there. You are right though, right now the only way to get the bluray is with the artbook or the deluxe edition.
-
Out of curiosity what is your setup when listening to the HD tracks? Do you listen to them on headphones? the desktop?
-
Is there a plan for the new D/T album to be available as a 24/96 high def download via online stores like HDTracks, which currently has high def versions of many earlier albums?
It's available in 24/96 hifi now on Qobuz. I like them better than HDTracks, personally, as they have a better selection and for a few dollars less than HDTracks offers...
https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/distance-over-time-bonus-track-version-dream-theater/bunceuzl5mfsa (https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/distance-over-time-bonus-track-version-dream-theater/bunceuzl5mfsa)
-
Is there a plan for the new D/T album to be available as a 24/96 high def download via online stores like HDTracks, which currently has high def versions of many earlier albums?
It's available in 24/96 hifi now on Qobuz. I like them better than HDTracks, personally, as they have a better selection and for a few dollars less than HDTracks offers...
https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/distance-over-time-bonus-track-version-dream-theater/bunceuzl5mfsa (https://www.qobuz.com/us-en/album/distance-over-time-bonus-track-version-dream-theater/bunceuzl5mfsa)
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
-
Now selling in HD Tracks
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I second this statement. It might be difficult, though, to provide an absolute statement on this matter, as whatever differences are perceived might be highly affected by the setup/headphones used.
-
Just bought the HDtracks version so I'll have a listen.
FYI, on HDTracks use the coupon NEWHD15 and you can get it for £12.75 instead of £15.
-
3 tracks in now. Unsurprisingly it's a noticeable improvement on the version on Apple Music (which is 256kbps AAC) and a more subtle improvement on the CD version.
It sounds fatter, cleaner, with more transient detail. Slightly more pleasing in the mid-range too. As I said it's subtle (much more so than the DT12 HDtracks version), but there is a difference.
-
HDtracks version is 24/96 and $17.99 version $9.99 for lower than CD quality iTunes version so that’s a no brainer. Prior album versions in 24/96 were clearly superior so should hold here, as confirmed by genome. I’ll do the waveform analysis just to be thorough and for fun and i’ll report back.
In response to faizoff, I do not use headphones other than for tracking with my band (I use a Majesty guitar and Mesa amp:). For listening HD files, I have a really good stereo (vintage Macintosh amps, vintage JBL Pro monitors) and I use a high quality DAC (Mytek) that can convert HD formats to analog. I use a MacPro tower and a software called Audirvana+ to play the HD files. For a simpler (or more complex depending on budget) setup, check out Computer Audiophile website which has a great DAC section as I know there are affordable DAcs that can plug into a USB port on a MacBook and read HD files, with a headphone output.
-
In response to faizoff, I do not use headphones other than for tracking with my band (I use a Majesty guitar and Mesa amp:). For listening HD files, I have a really good stereo (vintage Macintosh amps, vintage JBL Pro monitors) and I use a high quality DAC (Mytek) that can convert HD formats to analog. I use a MacPro tower and a software called Audirvana+ to play the HD files. For a simpler (or more complex depending on budget) setup, check out Computer Audiophile website which has a great DAC section as I know there are affordable DAcs that can plug into a USB port on a MacBook and read HD files, with a headphone output.
Very cool, I have a desktop with Windows 10 and my motherboard has a Realtek ALC 892 audio chip that supports 192kHz/ 24-bit playback. I primarily now listen on my Sennheiser HD 6XX from Massdrop.
I've read that a DAC may not make that much of a difference to the sound output but an AMP might. Either way, I listen using Media Player Classic or JRiver MediaCenter. Both sound pretty good and have very little difference between the two. JRiver has a nice media organizer so I use that more often. I've tweaked the EQ settings for both on many levels so any high res audio that I have (blurays mostly) sound fantastic especially though that have a stereo mix.
I might get the HD tracks version of the self titled album, I was listening to the CD rip last night and was very distracted by the crackling at various points. I just checked the DVD version and that was a lot better.
I'm very excited to get the bluray version of the new album, what I heard so far the sound is already better than the past three albums.
-
Is there a decent way to listen to HD albums on the go? A format for iPods for example, I know iPods can't read FLACs.
-
Is there a decent way to listen to HD albums on the go? A format for iPods for example, I know iPods can't read FLACs.
VLC has a free phone app that can read and play FLAC files. Works well for me.
-
Is there a decent way to listen to HD albums on the go? A format for iPods for example, I know iPods can't read FLACs.
Buy the AIFF or ALAC version, as you said, FLAC won't work with iTunes/Pods.
AIFF will import into iTunes just fine and you can sync it up the iPod. ALAC works as well and is slightly smaller.
-
Thanks! And are ALAC files of lesser quality than the AIFF?
-
Thanks! And are ALAC files of lesser quality than the AIFF?
Nah. It's still lossless, but just compressed - basically it's like a file vs a zipped version of the file.
I went with AIFF because I had the space and there's less chance of compatibility issues down the line. Sometimes different music players can be fussy with the compressed versions.
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
The frequencies dropping off at 48k means it is a proper 96k waveform, no? The highest frequency measurable is always half that of the sampling rate.
Though, it's a Friday afternoon, not sure I can be bothered to debate about the Nyquist theorem :rollin
-
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
These high resolution downloads are usually either the same master that was made for the vinyl release, or they are the original stereo mix pre-mastering. So no extra effort or cost.
-
has anyone here ever heard of the music streaming service Tidal?
I have been using it for the the past 3 years now and it's probably the closest thing you can get to HD while streaming
For example, I've been listening to the glass prison since 2001 usually via a CD and when I played tGP via Tidal on my bower and wilkins sound system, I heard nuances and details I've never heard/noticed before
-
To address a few points mentioned above:
- You need a DAC to play digital audio. The headphone output of a computer effectively uses the computer built in DAC but it’s probably a $9.99 chip and circuit and may not handle HD
- A high quality DAC typically connects to a computer via USB or FireWire
- Tnere are portable DACs for iOS devices. I recall a brand called DragonFly that costs like $200 and plugs into an iPad and provides a headphones plug
- The DAC section of Computer Audiophile website has wealth of info on everything DAC related
- There are now HD streaming services and Tidal is indeed one of them. However, this simply means that you don’t have to buy the HD files, but you still need a DAC that can convert the stream to analog, either for headphones or feeding and amp/speakers. The DAC would need to be capable of converting the HD streaming format used, which may not be WAV nor DSD.
- I agree with statement below on 48k limit to signal for 96k sampling rate
Now for the fun part, I listened to the 24/96 version last night and it sounds overall really good. Much heavier than Astonising but the lead guitar tone is still similar, which is great news. I much prefer the drum mix, especially the snare is a bit lower in the mix which makes Mangini sound less like a programmed drum machine. The only thing I want to check is the compression DR because the cymbals sound very compressed and a bit unnatural, which happens with low DR mixes. I even went back and listened to A few songs in the 24/96 versions of TA and ADTOE but the cymbals sound more natural on those. Dunno, maybe it was ear fatigue.
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
The frequencies dropping off at 48k means it is a proper 96k waveform, no? The highest frequency measurable is always half that of the sampling rate.
Though, it's a Friday afternoon, not sure I can be bothered to debate about the Nyquist theorem :rollin
Sorry, I also only half-remembered what I did in my analysis. What I remember was that the frequency response was the same as the CD version, there was no additional frequency content (which would be the point of 96k after all).
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
The dynamic range score for the HDTracks version of DT12 supports your findings.
Also, the DR score for the HDTracks version of Distance Over Time is similarly poor.
Shame.
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
The frequencies dropping off at 48k means it is a proper 96k waveform, no? The highest frequency measurable is always half that of the sampling rate.
Though, it's a Friday afternoon, not sure I can be bothered to debate about the Nyquist theorem :rollin
Sorry, I also only half-remembered what I did in my analysis. What I remember was that the frequency response was the same as the CD version, there was no additional frequency content (which would be the point of 96k after all).
It's more a question of headroom and transient detail rather than altering the frequency balance and the mix itself. The 96k version of D/T definitely has an improvement in both of those to my ears. The mix will be the same for all versions, as that is what is sent to the mastering engineer.
Even if it's a psychoacoustic thing, I suppose it doesn't matter, as it sounds better!
-
If you really want to know if it's better you need to do a blind A/B comparison, one where you can't tell which version you are listening to. They did this a ton with 320kbps mp3 vs flac, and bottom line is people can't tell.
-
I am not knowledgeable in this area. I am not more of a musician in that I can play the piano decent and strum a few chords on the guitar.
I would like to know the best way to listen.
My car system is pretty great from what I uderstand - Harmen Karden and I can play it louder than I can stand. No CD player
But I also listen on my computer (too much bass - and no EQ option for the speakers) Is there and app to add to fix that?. And on headphones.
I have a droid phone, Ipad and ordered the artbook with all the different discs - and have Amazon Prime music.
Thanks for any help!
-
Is the bluray panned for surround sound only? I'd much prefer a HD version in stereo only.
-
- You need a DAC to play digital audio. The headphone output of a computer effectively uses the computer built in DAC but it’s probably a $9.99 chip and circuit and may not handle HD
- A high-quality DAC typically connects to a computer via USB or FireWire
I think the DAC used on my motherboard is by no means a top of the line one but it is a decent one and definitely can play the HD audio. I compared the sound output from my PC vs Note8 (which apparently has a high-end DAC) on my HD6xx and there is a difference in the sound quality. I feel I get more depth and punch on the Note8 but hard to say for sure if it's the DAC or the music player EQ (I did try to match them as much as possible). My gut says it's the DAC that's making the difference so I probably will look out for one, or maybe I'll just splurge and get a dedicated soundcard.
-
Is the bluray panned for surround sound only? I'd much prefer a HD version in stereo only.
From burningshed's description there are hi-res files includedLimited 2CD/Blu-Ray/DVD Artbook edition including 1 bonus track, 5.1 mix with video animations, instrumental mixes, hi-res files of the album, stems for Untethered Angel, extended liner notes, additional artwork featuring photos from the writing session, and additional video content.
-
If you really want to know if it's better you need to do a blind A/B comparison, one where you can't tell which version you are listening to. They did this a ton with 320kbps mp3 vs flac, and bottom line is people can't tell.
It depends what you're listening on and your listening environment.
The average person using earpods won't notice/care. But there is a difference.
-
If you really want to know if it's better you need to do a blind A/B comparison, one where you can't tell which version you are listening to. They did this a ton with 320kbps mp3 vs flac, and bottom line is people can't tell.
It depends what you're listening on and your listening environment.
The average person using earpods won't notice/care. But there is a difference.
That's the point. Considering the normal distribution, it's more probable that one can't notice difference at all. And that's what most blind tests show: most people can't figure it out.
The funny thing is that everyone thinks that it is not an average person :lol
-
Before committing money to these, has anyone done a waveform analysis to see if they're substantially different? 24/96 does help some, but not 20 dollars worth of help.
I did a long analysis for DT12 back in the day, looking at the waveforms and frequency responses in detail.
At least for DT12, all HDTracks did was to slightly lower the volume and upsample the waveforms to 96kHz. Meaning, this was the same audio as the CD. The frequencies still dropped off at 48khz. Specifically, instances where the CD was clipping were still clipping on the HDTracks, just at a slightly lower volume.
The problem is, to *actually* get a proper 96khz waveform you would have to remaster the album, and that is way too expensive for the few people who buy these things.
The dynamic range score for the HDTracks version of DT12 supports your findings.
Also, the DR score for the HDTracks version of Distance Over Time is similarly poor.
Shame.
Yeah, it is a shame, the last 3 albums by dt seems to have the same master (compressed as hell, low DR) even at the HD tracks, for me the best version (more DR, less compressed) are the Vinyls (maybe the 5.1 have better DR as it happened with Systematic Chaos)
-
I have a question: Why this DR average thing is so important now?
If we compare to previous albums until FII, is not very different.
DT average (CD version):
d/t - 06
TA - 08
DT12 - 06
ADTOE - 07
BCSL - 06
SC - 06
8V - 07
TOT - 07
6DOIT - 07
SFAM - 08
FII - 06
Awake - 09
I&W - 11
WDADU - 12 (1989 version)
-
I have a question: Why this DR average thing is so important now?
If we compare to previous albums until FII, is not very different.
DT average (CD version):
d/t - 06
TA - 08
DT12 - 06
ADTOE - 07
BCSL - 06
SC - 06
8V - 07
TOT - 07
6DOIT - 07
SFAM - 08
FII - 06
Awake - 09
I&W - 11
WDADU - 12 (1989 version)
Good DR + less compressed sound gives you a better sounding album, even with compressed sound the album will sound better and you wont get ear fatigue, if you could check the vinyl version vs cd version of SC you could hear the difference, at least using headphones, probably using the stereo on your car you wont hear much difference
-
Good DR + less compressed sound gives you a better sounding album, even with compressed sound the album will sound better and you wont get ear fatigue, if you could check the vinyl version vs cd version of SC you could hear the difference, at least using headphones, probably using the stereo on your car you wont hear much difference
Nice :tup
But my point is DR per se doens't seem to be very useful to certify whether a disc sounds good or not. It is quite similar in the last 20 years.
-
Good DR + less compressed sound gives you a better sounding album, even with compressed sound the album will sound better and you wont get ear fatigue, if you could check the vinyl version vs cd version of SC you could hear the difference, at least using headphones, probably using the stereo on your car you wont hear much difference
Nice :tup
But my point is DR per se doens't seem to be very useful to certify whether a disc sounds good or not. It is quite similar in the last 20 years.
i personally cant stand to listen some albums due to ear fatigue (im awaiting for my d/t vinyl, cause the singles sounded to me super compressed), maybe on a car stereo at full volume wont sound so bad, for me starting with 8v, dt albums sounds overcompressed/super loud (the same thing happens to me with rush albums starting with vapor trails), i listen to the albums after tot using my vinyls ripped to mp3, i got better DR, and even if its mp3 to me sounds better, obviously on the vinyl without converting to mp3 i can notice some things like better sounding drumbass sound and cymbals, sometimes even some passages on the keyboard that i couldnt listen on the cd version because it was so loud
you can check on youtube metallica death magnetic cd version vs guitar hero version (much better DR) and you could tell me which one sounds better to you, even if its on youtube (which compress even more the audio)
I would point you to a dt comparison but i couldnt find any on youtube, hope you can listen to that and come back, maybe you would understand what i was trying to explain
-
Yes, Death Magnetic (DR 3) sounds much worse than DM guitar hero III (DR 12).
My point is: DT12 (DR 6) is recognized as a bad sound. FII (DR 6) isn't. Therefore, only DR information doesn't say much, per se. Otherwise, every DR 6 album should be crap. Earlier someone presented the information d/t DR = 6, which would indicate bad sound. But, is it a DT12-like 6 or a FII-like 6? :lol
-
Yes, Death Magnetic (DR 3) sounds much worse than DM guitar hero III (DR 12).
My point is: DT12 (DR 6) is recognized as a bad sound. FII (DR 6) isn't. Therefore, only DR information doesn't say much, per se. Otherwise, every DR 6 album should be crap. Earlier someone presented the information d/t DR = 6, which would indicate bad sound. But, is it a DT12-like 6 or a FII-like 6? :lol
yeah you are right about that, but probably what i meant for bad sounding album wasnt the mixing, just bad sounding album because of compressed sound/clipping/low DR
FII, got a great mixing! (i love that mix btw, for me is one of the best mix of any DT album), but it has low DR, so i got ear fatigue after a while (with headphones). But newer albums (not only from DT), have super loud mastering (but some have good mixing, with low DR), and thats why you could listen to them just fine.
-
Yes, Death Magnetic (DR 3) sounds much worse than DM guitar hero III (DR 12).
My point is: DT12 (DR 6) is recognized as a bad sound. FII (DR 6) isn't. Therefore, only DR information doesn't say much, per se. Otherwise, every DR 6 album should be crap. Earlier someone presented the information d/t DR = 6, which would indicate bad sound. But, is it a DT12-like 6 or a FII-like 6? :lol
yeah you are right about that, but probably what i meant for bad sounding album wasnt the mixing, just bad sounding album because of compressed sound/clipping/low DR
FII, got a great mixing! (i love that mix btw, for me is one of the best mix of any DT album), but it has low DR, so i got ear fatigue after a while (with headphones). But newer albums (not only from DT), have super loud mastering (but some have good mixing, with low DR), and thats why you could listen to them just fine.
Now we can understand each other :lol :tup
-
Yes, Death Magnetic (DR 3) sounds much worse than DM guitar hero III (DR 12).
My point is: DT12 (DR 6) is recognized as a bad sound. FII (DR 6) isn't. Therefore, only DR information doesn't say much, per se. Otherwise, every DR 6 album should be crap. Earlier someone presented the information d/t DR = 6, which would indicate bad sound. But, is it a DT12-like 6 or a FII-like 6? :lol
yeah you are right about that, but probably what i meant for bad sounding album wasnt the mixing, just bad sounding album because of compressed sound/clipping/low DR
FII, got a great mixing! (i love that mix btw, for me is one of the best mix of any DT album), but it has low DR, so i got ear fatigue after a while (with headphones). But newer albums (not only from DT), have super loud mastering (but some have good mixing, with low DR), and thats why you could listen to them just fine.
Now we can understand each other :lol :tup
yeah :lol thats what i meant, the mixing on distance over time seems fine, probably the best mix in the mangini era, but it is so loudddddddd, i got ear fatigue with headphones, thats me i know, but i will wait for my vinyl to arrive and rip it
-
If the vinyl and any digital version comes from the same master (post mastering stage compression), then why would the vinyl be less compressed? I understand the rationale for compression, although a DR of 8 is really lame. I wish they would master with less compression for either vinyl or HD digital. My rationale is that only people with high end equipment should rationally buy the HD versions, and their systems have a high dynamic range so it s a shame that the 24/96 is so compressed.
The cymbals on D/T really sound a bit artificial, or maybe they were more heavily gated since they recorded the album in a more live fashion. Huge ear fatigue on this album, but fortunately the content is pretty remarkable.
-
If the vinyl and any digital version comes from the same master (post mastering stage compression), then why would the vinyl be less compressed? I understand the rationale for compression, although a DR of 8 is really lame. I wish they would master with less compression for either vinyl or HD digital. My rationale is that only people with high end equipment should rationally buy the HD versions, and their systems have a high dynamic range so it s a shame that the 24/96 is so compressed.
The cymbals on D/T really sound a bit artificial, or maybe they were more heavily gated since they recorded the album in a more live fashion. Huge ear fatigue on this album, but fortunately the content is pretty remarkable.
if im not mistaken, vinyl cant have low DR, you can check:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dream+theater&album=
if you compare the cd version vs hd version, it seems every dt albums have the same DR, except ADTOE which sounds great BTW on FLAC HD, but the vinyl versions of DT12, TA sounds pretty good (not so loud at least :lol), even the 5.1 of SC doesnt sound so loud as the cd, so im hoping the vinyl or 5.1 mix of distance over time gets a better DR value. ill have the vinyl next week and will compare it with the cd version. I know it has better DR for sure, too bad is pretty compressed, but what can we do
-
Vinyl often has different mastering due to its capability (lack of, specifically) as a medium. The happy side effect of that is the vinyl release often has a better dynamic range. phatstadt is right in that if the vinyl comes from the same master as the CD, it'll sound identical(ly poor). I've got the vinyl here, actually, but haven't listened to it yet.
To be clear, we're talking about mastering here, not mixing or production. There's a history in DTF of people confusing mastering with mixing and production (not saying it's happened in this thread, mind), so thought I'd clarify.
Coming back on an earlier point about whether the blu-ray contains so-called HD files, mine doesn't appear to.
Final note: Distance Over Time is an instant top five Dream Theater album for me (never thought I'd be saying that after their recent output!). This is not a criticism of the music, rather its aural quality.
-
Vinyl often has different mastering due to its capability (lack of, specifically) as a medium. The happy side effect of that is the vinyl release often has a better dynamic range. phatstadt is right in that if the vinyl comes from the same master as the CD, it'll sound identical(ly poor). I've got the vinyl here, actually, but haven't listened to it yet.
To be clear, we're talking about mastering here, not mixing or production. There's a history in DTF of people confusing mastering with mixing and production (not saying it's happened in this thread, mind), so thought I'd clarify.
Coming back on an earlier point about whether the blu-ray contains so-called HD files, mine doesn't appear to.
Final note: Distance Over Time is an instant top five Dream Theater album for me (never thought I'd be saying that after their recent output!). This is not a criticism of the music, rather its aural quality.
what about the 5.1 mix? is it loud as the cd version?
-
I've got the vinyl here, actually, but haven't listened to it yet.
I've tried one track as a quick test (Fall Into Light). Scores 11.
-
great, seems much better than the cd or the hd versions of hdtracks! ;D
Hope the vinyl gets a similar DR :metal
-
That was the vinyl... hehe ;D
-
Oh sorry, i thought you were talking about the 5.1 bluray! ;D
Great, cant wait for my vinyl to arrive! im curious too about the 5.1 mix of the bluray
-
I posted all my thoughts on the 5.1 mix, such as they are, in the other thread.
Mods, we could really do with this thread being merged with the 'D/T Hi res files' one :)
-
The TT Dynamic Range Meter Doesn’t Work on Vinyl!
https://www.yoursoundmatters.com/measuring-vinyl-dynamic-range-complicated/
-
Are the hi-res files contained in dvd and blu ray the same?? I think so. Maybe they have put in two different media for people who do not have blu ray player device.
Can someone confirm me?
-
The contents of the blu-ray and DVD are identical. There are no separate files for the music, ie it's all encoded as soundtrack. What people have done, for the most part, is rip the 24/96 stereo files and convert to separate tracks whether FLAC, wav, MP3 etc. Hope that helps.