[David E. Bath]

I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Serge Auckland]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

In the absence of any other information, I think you have hit upon a
significant difference in mastering. If you mean high-pass filtered, i.e
there's no bass on the CD, this won't be accounted for by any change in
sample rates , so only mastering can do that. In fact. the difference in
sample rates won't even account for an audible difference in top response,
so mastering can be the only culprit.

S.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"Serge Auckland" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

In the absence of any other information, I think you have hit upon a
significant difference in mastering. If you mean high-pass filtered, i.e
there's no bass on the CD, this won't be accounted for by any change in
sample rates , so only mastering can do that. In fact. the difference in
sample rates won't even account for an audible difference in top response,
so mastering can be the only culprit.

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Arny Krueger]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message


I speculated that the sampling rate differences might
have made the difference, but is is certainly possible
there are mastering differences.

In audio production work, material often gets bounced between 44 and 48 KHz
sampling because video formats tend to gravitate towards 48 KHz, while the
audio CD format is 44.1 KHz. Most workers consider the difference to be
more of an inconvenience, than anything related to sound quality.

Quite a bit of careful listening tests have been done to determine the point
where low pass filtering becomes noticable. Usually, low pass filtering has
to be down in the range of 16 KHz to be audible, even to young listeners.

[Steven Sullivan]

David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,
"Serge Auckland" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

In the absence of any other information, I think you have hit upon a
significant difference in mastering. If you mean high-pass filtered, i.e
there's no bass on the CD, this won't be accounted for by any change in
sample rates , so only mastering can do that. In fact. the difference in
sample rates won't even account for an audible difference in top response,
so mastering can be the only culprit.

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

Well the thing to do then is to rip (or record analog--digital) both soundtracks and compare
their spectral characteristics. A difference such as you heard should show up readily in such
an objective comparison.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

The rate difference is unlikley to be audible unless your hearing is
very good up a round 20-22 kHz. I would strongly suspect a mastering
difference, or else some sort of EQ is being applied in your playback
stream to one, and not the other.

Is the DVD track Dolby Digital/DTS, or is it LPCM?

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

Wait -- are you comparing the stereo DVD track to the steree CD track,
or are you comparing surround DVD to stereo CD?

If the latter, you are definitely dealing with different mastering.

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[[email protected]]

On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

If it were me, I'd take 5-10 second snippets of each section
where you hear the greatest differences between the two
versions and run them through a reasonably high-resolution
spectrum analysis.

If, for example, you see significant differences between
the in-band balance of the two, it would indicate significant
differences in EQ applied during the mastering process.

[Harry Lavo]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Serge Auckland" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

In the absence of any other information, I think you have hit upon a
significant difference in mastering. If you mean high-pass filtered, i.e
there's no bass on the CD, this won't be accounted for by any change in
sample rates , so only mastering can do that. In fact. the difference in
sample rates won't even account for an audible difference in top
response,
so mastering can be the only culprit.

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

Some pro audio people argue that the difference between 44.1 and 48khz
encoding is often more than the difference between 48khz and 88.2 or 96khz,
especially if the adc is less than stellar. Not sure I agree, but I think
I do hear a bit less unnatural brightness on transients when I use my
Panasonic DAT machine at 48khz rather than 44.1.

[Codifus]

On Feb 26, 4:39 pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
In article ,
"Serge Auckland" writes:



"David E. Bath" wrote in message
...
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

In the absence of any other information, I think you have hit upon a
significant difference in mastering. If you mean high-pass filtered, i.e
there's no bass on the CD, this won't be accounted for by any change in
sample rates , so only mastering can do that. In fact. the difference in
sample rates won't even account for an audible difference in top response,
so mastering can be the only culprit.

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

How does it sound if you play the CD in your DVD player?

CD

[jwvm]

On Feb 26, 2:28 pm, (David E. Bath) wrote:
I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included. The DVD
has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

The DVD player and CD player were both connected digitally to my
Yamaha AVR which was in stereo mode.

And yes, it was a fully sighted test, but the differences were easy to
determine.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

You might try recording both analog outputs at 44.1/16 using a decent
sound card and see if you can still hear the difference. If the
difference is still obvious, then the CD tracks were somehow degraded.
You could also use software that can plot the power spectrum of a
track and look for differences between the DVD and CD tracks. The
power spectra should be very similar up to at least 20 KHz.

[Eeyore]

"David E. Bath" wrote:

I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included.

Included ? How is a DVD 'included' on a CD ?

The DVD has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs

You mean a CD and a DVD that you bought independently ?

at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

It's possible I suppose that they used a totally rubbish sample rate converter.
Your guess is as good as mine.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Steven Sullivan" wrote in message

David E. Bath wrote:
In article ,

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might
have made the difference, but is is certainly possible
there are mastering differences.

The rate difference is unlikley to be audible unless your
hearing is very good up a round 20-22 kHz.

Concurrent or spectral masking needs to be considered if the effects of
various high frequency cutoffs is to be understood. The ear works like a
spectrum analyzer above 500 Hz - 1 KHz. Incoming sounds are processed by the
ear as if they were broken down by a FFT analyser. All sounds are processed
in terms of their harmonic and inharmonic component frequencies.

Spectral masking is an property of the human ear by which sounds that are
present at relatively high levels are not heard. Spectral masking generally
makes the human ear appear to be far less sensitive than might be expected
from reference to the Fletcher Munson curves. Modern perceptual coding would
not be nearly as effective as it is, were there no such thing as spectral
masking.

It has been found that the human ear operates on the principle of critical
bands. While the critical bands do not have a uniform bandwidth above 500
Hz-1 KHz, they might roughly approximated by the third octave bands on a
graphic equalizer. In reality, they get wider as the frequency goes up. The
loudest tone in each critical band dominates that critical band and reduces
or eliminates our perception of other weaker tones in that critical band.

Of particular interest in this discussion is the top or highest frequency
critical band. This band can be thought of as the half-octave centered
around roughly 16 KHz. In reality the center frequency is somewhat flexible
for the individual, and is at higher frequencies for people with smaller
structures in their ear such as young people and children. Hearing in this
frequency range is most highly susceptible to reduced sensitivity due to ear
damage, because it depends on structures of the ear (such as the high
frequency end of the basilar membrane) that receive sound first.

Basically, the perceptually loudest tone in the top critical band will tend
to be the one that is most strongly perceived. Therefore, the absence of
weaker tones at higher frequencies in the top critical band will tend to not
be perceived.

There are at least two very significant effects that tend to strongly force
the frequency of the strongest tone in the top critical band downward.

One is the fact that natural sounds strongly tend to have less energy at
higher frequencies. After the first few harmonics, the intensity of higher
frequency components tend to decrease rapidly. One reason for this is that
the physics of vibrating bodies tends to follow that of composites of second
order systems. Such a system has a final high frequency roll-off of 12
dB/octave.

The second strong effect is that the basic sensitivity of the human ear
falls rapidly above 4 KHz, in accordance with the Fletcher Munson curves.

There are other effects that work against the perception of high
frequencies, such as the fact that high frequencies are more directional,
and are less likely to be efficiently reflected by rearby objects.

This all comes together in the commonly-observed situation, which is that
removal of all sound energy above from 13 to 16 KHz generally has no
perceptable effect on sound quality. When people perceive a musical sound
as being dull, there has almost always been a very strong change in energy
balance below 8 KHz or less.

When people listen to pure tones, and hear a pure tone at higher frequencies
than 13-16 KHz, masking has been circumvented by the fact that it is a pure
tone that is being listened to. There are very few musical instruments that
create anything like pure tones, particularly at high frequencies.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan writes:
David E. Bath wrote:

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

Well the thing to do then is to rip (or record analog--digital) both soundtracks and compare
their spectral characteristics. A difference such as you heard should show up readily in such
an objective comparison.

I'll try this when I get the time.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

The rate difference is unlikley to be audible unless your hearing is
very good up a round 20-22 kHz. I would strongly suspect a mastering
difference, or else some sort of EQ is being applied in your playback
stream to one, and not the other.

Is the DVD track Dolby Digital/DTS, or is it LPCM?

It is LPCM and both streams were set for "Effect" off, which puts the
AVR in stereo mode with no processing at all. I have compared 2 CD-Rs
of the same recording in this manner before and there were no
differences.

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

Wait -- are you comparing the stereo DVD track to the steree CD track,
or are you comparing surround DVD to stereo CD?

If the latter, you are definitely dealing with different mastering.

As I say above I am comparing a CD at 16/44 with an LPCM DVD at 16/48
with no processing on either stream.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"codifus" writes:

I did mean low-pass filter since the crispness of the high frequencies
was dulled. The picking of the guitars seemed less real and the
cymbals too. The lower frequencies were identical as best as I could
tell.

I speculated that the sampling rate differences might have made the
difference, but is is certainly possible there are mastering
differences.

I was certainly surprised to hear any difference at all.

Another interesting thing was that I initially thought the CD had
superior bass response until I realized the surround sound was still
enabled on the CD input while the DVD input was not. Once I set them
both for stereo the only remaining difference was the highest
frequencies.

How does it sound if you play the CD in your DVD player?

I hear the same thing since that is how I intially detected a
difference. I then tried the simultaneous playing to help verify that
I was really hearing them.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Eeyore writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote:

I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well recorded. The
interesting part is that a DVD of the performance is included.

Included ? How is a DVD 'included' on a CD ?

The CD package included a bonus DVD of the performance. Quite a deal.

The DVD has a 16bit/48KHz soundtrack. I had listened to the CD before the DVD
and I noticed a difference in the sound.

I then queued up both discs

You mean a CD and a DVD that you bought independently ?

See above.

at the beginning of the same track on two
different players and started them at the same time. In switching back
and forth between them, I noticed that the CD sounded like a high-pass
filtered version of the DVD. The DVD sounded more life-like and had a
"you are there" quality that the CD lacked. I don't know what else was
done to create the two versions besides the rate conversion from 48KHz
to 44KHz.

It's possible I suppose that they used a totally rubbish sample rate converter.
Your guess is as good as mine.

After reading the posts in this thread I think that it's very likely
the CD was mucked with during mastering. It's a shame since the DVD
sounds much more like a live recording should sound.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Steven Sullivan]

David E. Bath wrote:

As I say above I am comparing a CD at 16/44 with an LPCM DVD at 16/48
with no processing on either stream.

Right, but are you sure you are listening to the stereo mix of the DVD,
and not two channels of a surround mix, or a downmix of the surround mix?

___
-S
"As human beings, we understand the world through simile, analogy,
metaphor, narrative and, sometimes, claymation." - B. Mason

[Arny Krueger]

"David E. Bath" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote:

I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called
One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well
recorded. The interesting part is that a DVD of the
performance is included.

Included ? How is a DVD 'included' on a CD ?

The CD package included a bonus DVD of the performance.
Quite a deal.

Oh, so you're comparing the same performances, one via audio CD, and the
other via video on a DVD?

Audio tracks on DVDs are almost always mastered separately, and differently.

It is probable that you are essentially comparing two different artistic
works.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
Steven Sullivan writes:
David E. Bath wrote:

As I say above I am comparing a CD at 16/44 with an LPCM DVD at 16/48
with no processing on either stream.

Right, but are you sure you are listening to the stereo mix of the DVD,
and not two channels of a surround mix, or a downmix of the surround mix?

The DVD only has a 2-channel LPCM audio track.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

[Arny Krueger]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message


Correction:

Basically, the perceptually loudest tone in the top critical band will tend
to be the only one that is perceived. All weaker tones in the top critical
band
will tend to be inaudible. Since weaker tones aren't heard whether they are
there or not,
removing them will not cause an audible difference.

Tones at lower frequencies are more likely to be the perceptually loudest
tone in the to critical
band for a number of reasons. One reason is that in accordance with the
Fletcher Munson curves,
the ear's sensitivity decrases rapidly as the frequency increases above
about 4 KHz. Another reason is that the energy in music generally decreases
rapidly at higher frequencies.

Therefore high frequency tones whether they are present or not, are less
likely to ever be heard. Therefore their removal is unlikely to be heard.

[David E. Bath]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore writes:
"David E. Bath" wrote:

I recently purchased a CD by the group Seether called
One Cold Night.
It is an "Unplugged" type of performance and it is well
recorded. The interesting part is that a DVD of the
performance is included.

Included ? How is a DVD 'included' on a CD ?

The CD package included a bonus DVD of the performance.
Quite a deal.

Oh, so you're comparing the same performances, one via audio CD, and the
other via video on a DVD?

Well I would characterize it as audio on a CD vs. the audio track of a
DVD.

Audio tracks on DVDs are almost always mastered separately, and differently.

That's certainly possible, and it seems likely what happened in this
case. Although this seems a low budget exercise as the DVD was
included with the CD at no extra charge, so it seems the DVD sound
track was lightly mastered while the CD had the typical overdone
mastering.

It is probable that you are essentially comparing two different artistic
works.

It seems that's true.

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator