Posts: 129
Threads: 9
Joined: 2015 Mar
Thanks: 4
Given 21 thank(s) in 7 post(s)
Country:
2017-06-19, 07:36 PM
I've given this quite a bit of thought and I've come to the conclusion that bit perfect recording isn't really important from a fidelity POV.
With that being said, it's obviously necessary for e.g. DTS which uses the 2ch 16/44.1 signal as a carrier, but for normal digital stereo and matrixed surround on LD I'd say it hardly matters.
What really matters is that there's no D->A->D step. If your sound card internally resamples incoming S/PDIF to 48KHz… so what? I damn well know I won't hear the difference and I'd put money on nobody else being able to hear it either.
So where am I going with this?
I think what matters from a preservation POV is simply getting as many of these tracks on the web as possible. Bit perfect requirements scare people away or keep people from sharing. It's silly.
The only real requirement we should have is no D->A->D.
Agree? Disagree?
Posts: 1,554
Threads: 60
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 229
Given 627 thank(s) in 372 post(s)
Country:
On balance, I agree, but I think we should still make it clear that bit perfect is the ideal. It's a question of keeping our source material as untouched as possible so we can (a) preserve it for posterity (b) go back to it to re-do our work should the need arise, be it syncing, upmixing, resampling, whatever. The more careful we are with quality control, the less likely it is that we have to re-do work needlessly.
But you're absolutely right that people are being put off sharing, and that certain is silly. We've wanted certain audio tracks for a long time, and I'd far rather listen to PCM captured through a DVD player (or whatever) than have to make do with what we are given on commercial BDs.
Posts: 5,031
Threads: 175
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 3181
Given 2944 thank(s) in 1285 post(s)
Country:
I agree that bit perfect is wanted and preferred but I would never reject a (digital) soundtrack because it didn't meet the standard; especially if rare or the person simply can't to bit-perfect.
Honestly, I don't think bit-perfect is scaring people away. I think it is that very few people have laserdisc hardware and potential un-captured disc we need. And of that small group there are very few who can capture and of those do bit-perfect. It's a niche of a niche of a niche.
Posts: 7,153
Threads: 601
Joined: 2015 Jan
Thanks: 1081
Given 1466 thank(s) in 963 post(s)
Country:
Yep, bit-perfect capture is still the best way, but a non-bit-perfect digital capture would be almost the same, audio wise... and yes, even if I would prefer a bit-perfect one, any good capture of interesting material - even D->A one - would be very welcome!
Posts: 501
Threads: 13
Joined: 2015 Mar
Thanks: 47
Given 77 thank(s) in 40 post(s)
Country:
To be honest, I've compared the BTTF bit perfect audio tracks to the D->A->D ones I've made and I couldn't hear the difference.
Posts: 2,051
Threads: 56
Joined: 2016 Dec
Thanks: 162
Given 1011 thank(s) in 614 post(s)
I'll admit the whole bit-perfect thing intimidated me a little initially. What I have found with a little research is that older sound cards (or USB devices) with bit-perfect capabilities are available cheaply nowadays. I think that so long as the capture device isn't mangling or corrupting the data then it's probably all good, however if you want to capture AC3 or DTS then bit-perfect is a must. The problem then is getting hold of a demodulator/DTS discs without breaking the bank...