dvd/BluRay of M3/M4 with Paavo jarvi/Franfurt R.S.O.

[James Meckley]

Amazon reviewer "Eric Lindstrom" (mentioned earlier in this thread) reports the following in an addendum to his own review of the Jarvi Mahler 3 & 4 Blu-ray disc under discussion here:

I wrote to C Major about the bad image quality (for being a blu-ray), and also why they claim (on the cover) that it is made from an HD source. Sadly no reply from them, so I contacted Hessischer Rundfunk [co-producer of the video] and they could confirm that ALL Blu-rays in the Jarvi/Mahler cycle are upscaled from standard definition sources.


James

[justininsf]

 



Nothing else to say really

[barry guerrero]

.    .    .   whiiiiiiich, makes a good argument for getting them in dvd instead?

[James Meckley]

... whiiiiiiich, makes a good argument for getting them in dvd instead?

In terms of image quality, yes. Because of the source material, there will probably be little difference between the two formats in this case. However, audio quality may be another matter. When considering the stereo-only tracks, both discs offer PCM Stereo: lossless, full-resolution audio, potentially of CD quality. Both should sound fine. The big difference comes in the 5.1 surround-sound tracks, for those who prefer that option. The Blu-ray offers DTS-HD-MA 5.1 (Master Audio) while the DVD offers only DTS 5.1.

DTS-HD-MA 5.1 means lossless, full-resolution audio of at least CD quality on all six channels. Plain DTS 5.1 means lossy, data-compressed audio on all six channels, roughly the equivalent of an mp3 at 192 kbps—a serious compromise. For those who enjoy the enhancements of 5.1 audio at full resolution, it may be worth spending an extra ten bucks for the Blu-ray—unless C Major screwed that up, too!

James

[ChrisH]

DTS-HD MA tracks are anywhere from 24/48 to 24/196 depending on the release. Regular DTS is compressed, but not technically lossy, and no where near 192kbps, it's actually 24/48 in most cases. Think of DTS in the same way as .flac. It's a lossless compression scheme.

[James Meckley]

Thanks for clarifying.

[justininsf]

Thanks for the clarification James and Vehemence.  Since there is little to no difference and my TV setup has a mid-fi (at best) sound system anyways, DVD is the obvious choice.

However the amount of time spent discussing and researching the difference between DVD and Bluray on this stupid unconverted issue has far exceeded the $10 savings!  I'm just going to keep it and when the video comes on I'll just squint my eyes to try and forget it's not HD.

[barry guerrero]

.    .    .    hey, at least it's not "Lawrence of Arabia"