Blu ray sounds better than a CD, why???

doggy

Established Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
499
Reaction score
66
Points
127
Age
54
Not too sure where to post this.

I was listening to the Whiplash soundtrack cd on my hifi and I wasn't overly impressed with the cymbals. The I played the Blueray through the amp via an optical cable and it sounded so much better. Is that down to the production of the cd?
 
It's down to the DAC. I'm assuming cd player is plugged in to amp via RCA?
 
I suspect an element of it is Different Mixes. The BluRay was specifically mixed for the movie and things may have been done to enhance the Dynamic Range. But they probably used a different mix for the Audio CD of the Sound Track.

Though it could also be a difference in the DACs. (digital to analog converter)

If you use RCA Cables, then you are using the DAC in the Player. However, if you are connected by Optical Cable, then you are using the DAC in the Amp. So, that aspect is possible.

But I think it more likely a difference in the Mixes between the BluRay Movie Mix and the CD Audio Music Mix.

CD is limited to 16bit and a Sample Rate of 44.1khz. BluRay is considerably higher in both. A BluRay is typically 24 bit and 96khz Sample Rate with, I think, the potential to go as high as 24b/192k. However, just because that capability is there, doesn't mean they are using it. It is hard to determine what the actual mix is on any given BluRay. But the potential for higher resolution sound is there.

Steve/bluewizard
 
I suspect an element of it is Different Mixes. The BluRay was specifically mixed for the movie and things may have been done to enhance the Dynamic Range. But they probably used a different mix for the Audio CD of the Sound Track.

Though it could also be a difference in the DACs. (digital to analog converter)

If you use RCA Cables, then you are using the DAC in the Player. However, if you are connected by Optical Cable, then you are using the DAC in the Amp. So, that aspect is possible.

But I think it more likely a difference in the Mixes between the BluRay Movie Mix and the CD Audio Music Mix.

CD is limited to 16bit and a Sample Rate of 44.1khz. BluRay is considerably higher in both. A BluRay is typically 24 bit and 96khz Sample Rate with, I think, the potential to go as high as 24b/192k. However, just because that capability is there, doesn't mean they are using it. It is hard to determine what the actual mix is on any given BluRay. But the potential for higher resolution sound is there.

Steve/bluewizard
Hi Steve,

I'm all wrong,I thought it was the whiplash Audio cd, I believe transferred from one player to the other so I'd say it's just the difference between the active DACs when played in different machines. The Blu-ray may of course sound different.

Edit- I edited this as I disagreed with Steve, but read OP wrong
 
Last edited:
So, let's be clear here. You are not comparing the BluRay Movie to the CD Sound Track, you are comparing the CD Sound Track in the CD Player to the CD Sound Track in the BluRay Player?

Right or wrong?


In that case, yes, the difference is most likely the DAC in the CD Player vs the DAC in the Amp, and apparently the DAC in the Amp is better. Or at least you like it better.

Steve/bluewizard
 
Sorry. To clarify. Audio CD on the cd player and the Blu-ray disc on the amp via optical.

It's the last scene at the jazz festival, it can probably be found on YouTube if you haven't seen the movie.
 
Watching this scene on the Blu-ray sounds better than the same track on the CD.
 
So my next question is this. If there is a better source than cd why aren't we listening to it?
 
Presumably the blue ray player is down mixing to stereo in this case, if not is there a centre speaker and sub in the mix?
Perhaps you could play the cd in the blue ray player still with the optical out to the amp? It might provide more food for thought. Make sure any processing in the amp is switched off too.

If there is a better source than cd why aren't we listening to it?

Probably because the range of music available on Blue Ray is severely limited.....

Jim
 
Since you have optical from the BDP to the Amp, but analogue from the CDP to the amp, the difference is in the DACs you are using and is unrelated, in your case, to the sources.

It may be that BDA can have better quality sound than CD, for the reasons given by Steve in the last paragraph in post #3, and perhaps this time, unlike with SACD or DVD-A, BDA will take off as a format. However, in your specific case, it is your setup that is responsible for any differences you hear, as your setup's optical connection limits BDA replay.
 
I used to use analogue BD player out for best audio but then found HDMI gave way better sound quality compared to analogue and optical. I suspected there may be handshaking with the HDMI? Note the Yammy BD1067 has been compared favoribly to Oppo players. Also listening done with Pure Direct only.

(quote) Probably because the range of music available on Blue Ray is severely limited..... (quote)

Re comment on Blu Ray availability. There are quite a lot of Blu Ray Pure Audio discs out there.
 
So if optical gives better sound than RCA why don't amps have more optical connections?
 
Blu-ray Whiplash Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio English 2187 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2187 kbps / 16-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 16-bit)

Quite simply, it's a higher 'resolution' of Audio on Blu-Ray, than on the CD
 
Sorry. To clarify. Audio CD on the cd player and the Blu-ray disc on the amp via optical.

It's the last scene at the jazz festival, it can probably be found on YouTube if you haven't seen the movie.

In that case, it could be both the different DACs, and different Mixes.

Steve/bluewizard
 
Blu-ray Whiplash Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio English 2187 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2187 kbps / 16-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 16-bit)

Quite simply, it's a higher 'resolution' of Audio on Blu-Ray, than on the CD

It is also mixed, according to the information provided, in 5.1 Surround Sound. The Surround Sound aspect could add something to the perceived sound, assuming you are hearing it in 5.1.

Though referencing your information, the BluRay mix is 16b/48k, so not that far above CD.

But clearly a different mix.

As a side note, while SACD is still hanging on, it would seem to me that BluRay-Audio would be the format of choice. Depending on the number of channels, it has the potential to be as high as 24b/192k. And pretty much every house has or will have a BluRay player, though not all will have Analog Outputs. That would seem to make BluRay-Audio the most universally accessible format, beyond CD that is.

Though I think BluRay might be late to the game. Likely pure computer file based audio (WAV, FLAC, ALAC,...) is the real direction of the future. Still, in a physical format with near universal accessibility, I don't know what beats BluRay-Audio.

Steve/bluewizard
 
So if I could buy music in a download form as a flac file it would sound better than a CD?
 
I used to use analogue BD player out for best audio but then found HDMI gave way better sound quality compared to analogue and optical. I suspected there may be handshaking with the HDMI?
The differences in your case are entirely with your equipment. There is nothing intrinsic to the connections or, in your case, with the source media. Analogue from BDP and HDMI to the AVR are identical as far as sound quality is concerned, provided both devices are equally capable. As soon as one device is superior, using its DAC and subsequent circuitry will of course offer a superior sound. Somebody with equipment with opposite superiority will have exactly the opposite experience.
 
Blu-ray Whiplash Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio English 2187 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2187 kbps / 16-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 16-bit)

Quite simply, it's a higher 'resolution' of Audio on Blu-Ray, than on the CD
Except of course doggy has no means to access the dts hd ma track. He is using an optical connection into a stereo hi-fi, so is accessing a stereo down-mix of the dts core track.
 
He is using an optical connection into a stereo hi-fi
Or is he? He hasn't said what he's using other than it has an optical input. For all we know "the amp" may be an AVR running a full set of surround speakers & sub.
 
So if I could buy music in a download form as a flac file it would sound better than a CD?

It depends on what you mean by better. It would likely have more Bit depth, and higher Sample Rate, it could be anything from 16b/44.1k up to 24b/192k, though I think 24b/48k and 24b/96k are most common. You can also download files, some files, in DSD, the file format for SACD.

So, in the sense of Bit Resolution and Sample Rate, yes, downloads can be better. But the MIX also comes into play. If they are well mixed, then they are going to have excellent detail and dynamics.

CD is locked into a format and standard created in the mid-80's Download files can change as fast as technology will allow them to change. Typically you just need a Software upgrade on your computer and you are set to go when it comes to playing any new file format.

Also keep in mind that today, 32b/348k DACs are not uncommon, and I think I've seen 32b/768k DACs. Technology has far surpassed the CD Player, though CD still sounds pretty good when the Mix is right.

Steve/bluewizard
 
Basically what your hearing is a higher quality recording as what's been said above.

I remember doing this with a low end system to the "Musical Fidelity" representative many years ago.

I had a Marantz PM5004, Panasonic DMP-BDT500 and a pair of Tannoy V4. The other system was an Arcam A19, CD17 and the same speakers.

I played Bob Marley's "Legend" album.

Arcam first, and the sound was fine and what you would expect, Then I switched the speakers over to the Marantz/Panasonic combination and played the same track through the same speakers.

The face on the representative was "What have you done, how have you done that, It's amazing!"

I had two copies of the same album, one was a Blu-ray Audio (Pure Audio) the other was the traditional CD and that's how I did that.

Put simply, the Blu-ray Audio obliterated the CD with the same speakers. I found that lower end electronics really were able to outperform traditional hifi electronics with the right software, however, Blu-ray Audio has gone the same way as SACD and is almost dead in the water. The last one I purchase I made was "Ben Howard's" last album.

So, what you've done, is max'd your system.

To bring that kind of quality to you system from the humble CD takes you up a number of levels and costs a considerable amount of money.

I've gone down the PC route with "High Quality DAC's". It was they only way could find that could transform a CD to that level. This also took me on a nice learning journey too as you have to figure out how to get the best out of your computer as not all 1+0 sound the same when you have many background processor working against them.

Another point, you also need to archive your music files correctly (Not MP3 or lossy) it has to be a lossless format so you can hear every ounce of detail.

It has taken me about 4+ years to get music from a computer so sound similar to Blu-ray Audio. I use to up-sample everything to DSD, but since I carried out all the work on my PC, I find that the timing and stereo separation going into my Teac DAC was all I need.

So, the simplest thing to do, to improve your CD's is to start with a external DAC! One which has its own "clock" (so important) and take it from there. Every step you grow and learn with your system, the better sound and the more you will enjoy it.

Regards, Shane.
 
Last edited:
I've started playing and collecting Blu-ray audio discs - audio ONLY.

It's the best sound I've ever heard at home. Its absolutely sublime.

Nick
 
Ok so I'm slightly more confused now. If I buy a DAC do I plug my cds300 into it and then the DAC into the amp?
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom