Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
I bought my first ever CD on the weekend.
- Thread starter Katoosie
- Start date
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
In other words, sell me a DVD!
In other words - give me options. Blu-Ray, or just a digital PURCHASE option. Ya know... like buying the digital version of a song or record. You own it, or own at least unlimited access to it. But - just as with audio - if I want the highest quality version of a film, I'm buying it on 4K Blu-Ray these days.
Not to open another can of worms...but anybody else notice a difference in quality between a Blu-Ray and a "1080p HD" stream? Obviously, there is some compression going on, but I just felt that is another "W" we can put down for the physical media side of the fence
My first CD was Dire Straits Brothers in Arms, followed shortly after by The KLF with Tammy Wynette Justified and Ancient. There were many more after that, most of them disposed of when we moved house, along with a fare bit of vinyl. I still have a Pioneer CD player and a couple of Goldring Lenco turntables. They don’t get used much.
Turns out mine was a Swedish demo cassette of a different Benighted from the early 90s but nonetheless, gave me a chuckle anyhow.
This is likely just my ignorance, but I had always been under the impression that bluray could be of a higher quality though I may be confusing that with reeeeally dated info regarding the HD DVD vs BluRay situation of the mid aughts.Not to open another can of worms...but anybody else notice a difference in quality between a Blu-Ray and a "1080p HD" stream? Obviously, there is some compression going on, but I just felt that is another "W" we can put down for the physical media side of the fence
Yup, HD DVD was 720p where Blu-Ray is 1080p.
However, vertical resolution (the 1080 in "1080p") isn't the whole story when it comes to perceived visual media quality. Streaming something in 1080p will still have compression in various forms to reduce the bandwidth needed for the video signal. In general getting the physical Blu-ray version of something will have less/no compression compared to a streamed 1080p video/movie.
Ahh, fair point. I also imagine that there's the potential for a bandwidth drop to have it adjust to show a lower resolution while buffering like a YT video.
I definitely prefer physical media when it comes to music (books & magazines as well). I have a local record store where I go pick up used CD's quite often for .99 cents. They also have plenty of used vinyl, for cheap as well. I always walk out with a couple used vinyl records, in good condition, for $2 - $3 a piece. They also sell new vinyl and more popular used vinyl at the typical going rates. I'm a cheap ass, so I spent time digging through the cheap stuff and always fine some hidden gems.
I'll stream mp3s via Bluetooth in my car, but that's the only streaming music for me. It's basically just background music while in the car anyway, never any serious listening, so it's adequate.
I'll stream mp3s via Bluetooth in my car, but that's the only streaming music for me. It's basically just background music while in the car anyway, never any serious listening, so it's adequate.
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Not to open another can of worms...but anybody else notice a difference in quality between a Blu-Ray and a "1080p HD" stream? Obviously, there is some compression going on, but I just felt that is another "W" we can put down for the physical media side of the fence
I do for sure. When you get right up close to the screen, you can definitely see compression (there's that word again) and other artifacts in the image that are not there with the physical 1080p HD version of the same film, played on a good quality Blu-Ray player. There are also other issues like color balancing that become more evident with a stream vs physical media. Streaming will always be a compromise.
Not if the data is the same. Just like audio, streamed video quality will keep getting better and better as user bandwidth keeps increasing. I mean, I can get 2 Gbps up and down right now if I wanted.
Although, just like audio, there is a point at which 99.98% of consumers just don’t notice or care if the quality is better so why do any better than that (say the companies).
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
How sure are we that the 'data is the same' when it comes to a streamed movie, or even audio? As noted earlier, there are often different masters (possibly at different bitrates, overall levels, etc) delivered to specific streaming outlets. I would be curious to know if the 'streaming optimized' version of a movie that is delivered to Amazon, Hulu, yadda yadda is the EXACT SAME data as what is on Blu-Ray... especially 4K Blu-Ray. The very nature of physical media is to ensure that the highest quality possible rendering of digital media is preserved and delivered.... the very nature of streaming is to deliver it as conveniently as possible - with compromises all around in terms of the audio AND video.
The only full-fidelity, no questions asked highest quality digital transmission medium I can think of is ISDN.... and only top level studios have that.
ISDN? I used to write ISDN drivers... for telephony systems (Integrated Services Digital Network). This is used in studios? Or do I have the wrong acronym?
I still buy CDs almost every week, still makes me as happy as when I started buying LPs 55 years ago. I can't say enough about how the magic in the grooves of recordings have saved me. 
JazznFunk
Supporting Member
Used a lot still for real-time sessions with voiceover work, etc. across time zones, etc. I work with several folks who still have ISDN setups.
Ok, I could see that. For those who don't know what ISDN is, your old landline used POTS (Plain Old Telephone System). You got 2 wires to your house and that went back to a central exchange.
ISDN allowed multiple telephone lines to go over the same cable. It was mainly used in rural areas to get a lot of lines at minimal cost. Our main use case was private prisons in the middle of nowhere.
I could see bundling those lines together and using them as a very big pipe. But current internet connections should give you a cheaper and bigger pipe. However, if you already have the infrastructure... might be worth keeping it.
Of course, there will be a DVD that comes out in pretty short order. No streaming is to try and encourage people to go to the theater.
User network bandwidth is only part of the equation. There are server farms that have to make sure you're getting the right data during your session (verifying your subscription is current too), network routing equipment (to make sure it goes to the right user), and all of this is done incrementally...hence the term "streaming" as the data comes at a certain pace to you little by little, but you're still able to view it as it comes along. This prevents having to download the whole thing before it is viewable like in the olden days
It's a tradeoff because the more detailed (less compressed) the information, the larger the filesize will be. That's more strain and congestion on the network, more information for servers to decode/encode to send, and more latency trying to access high availability data drives to the order of 10s of thousands of people simultaneously (if not more).
For a non-technical rough example, this would be similar to Amazon shipping a dining plate to you versus you grabbing one from your cabinet. An Amazon delivery truck can move faster than you can, but factoring in the logistics of placing the order (along with payment) and it being processed and delivered, it will undoubtedly be faster for you to just grab it from your cabinet. Back to the digital realm, they attempt to offset this difference in latency by reducing quality to optimize delivery time and availability.
That's in no way meant to diminish the work of people who developed and tweaked these technical standards for our literal entertainment, but that compromise is always going to be there. The provider will always push the envelope of perceptible difference, since that's the acceptable threshold. In their defense, though...how many people are probably watching these streams on lower-quality TVs, tablets, or smart phones anyways?
Surprise surprise, several of us here on Talkbass (myself included) may be a little woozy from "sniffing the cork", so to speak
. I apologize if this reply came off hostile or condescending...not my intention. I'm a IT guy by trade and any opportunity to talk about tech somewhere gets me more excited than David Lee Roth at a leatherwear outlet store.
@JazznFunk,Just like there is different mastering for vinyl, CD, cassette, etc., movies are “mastered” differently for different media, as well. Even for each different kind of projector used in movie theaters. So, which version is the “real data”?
I did say that.
However, considering streaming quality has increased dramatically over the years, there is no reason to think it won’t get even better. All the factors you listed keep getting better. Throughput will continue to increase.Yep. Something I was watching made a comment about shooting and editing in 4k so their viewers can watch on their phones. Just like people listen to music on crappy earbuds and don’t care.
And, unlike early CDs, vinyl LPs have music on both sides.
Well, most do...E.G. Joe Jackson's (IMHO great) album "Big World" has an empty 4th LP side with a laconic description:
I do own this as double LP and CD and like both...
