My HT system doesn’t handle anything beyond conventional Dolby Digital and DTS, and I was wondering what I was missing.

So my buddy set up a kind of A/B, with his Samsung BD-P1400 Blu-ray player feeding an Onkyo TX-SR705 AVR and Kef 3000 5.1 speakers – about $2,600 worth of not-too-shabby gear. He sent the high-bit-rate audio over HDMI and sent conventional digital audio over coax to two different inputs on the Onkyo, so that he could switch between them.

He had picked up the Dolby and DTS Blu-ray demo discs that were being given away at CES, so we played a half-dozen clips from those discs:
1. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (TrueHD)
2. Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds (TrueHD)
3. Legends of Jazz (TrueHD)
4. Night at the Museum (DTS Master Audio)
5. Nature’s Journey (DTS Master Audio)
6. Chieli Minucci (DTS Master Audio)

We played each clip (in 5.1) for a minute or two, then went back, changed the Onkyo’s audio input between TrueHD and Dolby Digital or between DTS Master Audio and regular DTS, and played the same clip again (still in 5.1), to see if we noticed any difference. We figured the demo discs’ content would show off the codecs pretty well, but that’s not what we found.

To be sure, some of the content sounded phenomenal (especially the Dave Matthews and the Legends of Jazz tracks). But when we listened, over and over, we found it wasn’t easy to pick which codec sounded better. And when I didn’t already know which one was playing, I wasn’t able to reliably choose the high-bit-rate one over the conventional one. We tried the same A/B on some friends who are into home theater, and got the same, result: no clear difference.

I’m starting to wonder if the emperor’s got no clothes. If the TrueHD and Master Audio codecs were doing a better job, then why wasn’t it obvious to us? Were we doing anything wrong? Are we missing something? Are we deaf or crazy?

I know that the new codecs are good, and much more flexible, but nobody’s explained how they might noticeably sound better than the older codecs they replace. Are the older codecs so good that the new ones just can't sound much better? What’s the deal?

We double-checked to make sure that the HDMI feed lit up the Onkyo's TrueHD indicator, and the coax S/PDIF feed lit up the Dolby Digital indicator, so I'm sure we weren't A/B-ing the same thing.

We got a suggestion that we compare the same movie on DVD and on BD, but I don't think it's a valid comparison. First, there's no guarantee that the soundtrack's mix is the same on the two discs. Second, on DVD, Dolby Digital is limited to 448 kbps, but the BD allows up to 640 kbps (see Dolby's whitepaper (http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf)). That extra bandwidth could really make a difference for Dolby Digital (nearly the ratio between 192k & 128k mp3).

I've been searching for any controlled, subjective comparison between TrueHD & DD, but I haven't found one. So far, I know people love the new Dolby & DTS codecs (what's not to love?) but I'm not convinced that they sound better than the good-ol' standards, especially when DD is "new & improved" on BD.

The question isn't "What's the difference between DD on DVD and TrueHD on BD?" It's "Compared with the DD on a Blu-ray Disc, how much better will the TrueHD sound?"

Any thoughts?

In my opinion - and there really isn't any research to back this up so it really is my opinion - it is MUCH harder for the average person to tell the difference between sound than it is video.

Part of this is training. We grow up listening to the radio on the way home then our CDs. We get used to small variations and don't focus on them. So when you are talking about small differences, we train ourselves to not hear them. I started noticing this when I picked up playing a musical instrument. There we had to do the opposite - to train ourselves to listen for small variations between the sound we were making and everyone else was making.

As a result of many years of practice, small differences in sound bug me. I will point out things that my wife will have to listen to 3 or 4 times to finally hear. That doesn't mean I can always tell the difference between lossless audio and DD. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't. It depends on how well the original track was mixed.

Even then, the largest difference in sound tends to be speaker systems. I have heard very expensive speaker systems that I think sound awful. I've heard very cheap systems that I think sound great. Likewise withe every option in between. When it comes down to audio it is so subjective that it is hard to tell what people will or wont like - or if they will or wont hear a difference. For me, most of the time lossless audio is important and makes a difference. For my wife, she wouldn't care either way. I don't think either position is right or wrong. It is just personal experience.

Its not just the codec used or the bitrate, although those things help. Its also the mixing, the bit depth, and the source material.

All things equal, DD @ 348kpbs sounds like ASS compared to TrueHD or PCM.

All things equal, DD @ 348kpbs sounds like ASS compared to TrueHD or PCM.
No argument here. But isn't DD on BD @ 640kbps?

I'm trying to get a handle on any sonic benefit to 5.1 TrueHD over 5.1 DD on Blu-ray.

No argument here. But isn't DD on BD @ 640kbps?

I'm trying to get a handle on any sonic benefit to 5.1 TrueHD over 5.1 DD on Blu-ray.

Yep, but its not even DD-Plus, just regular DD. Not nearly as nice as TrueHD or PCM or DD-Plus @ 1.5mbps. Its not terrible, just not as good.

FWIW, I have a pretty cheap surround sound setup, and even I can hear a big difference.

I own an Onkyo HTIB seperate component system. I'm still using the stock speakers that can only handle frequancies at 100hz and up (With the exception being the Subwoofer of course).

Check out the movie "300", and if you can't hear a difference between the PCM track against the standard DD, then in deed you must be deaf.

So, I'm assuming that if I can hear a big difference with my setup, I can only imagine what a speaker upgrade would do. (Mouth Waters)

Yep, but its not even DD-Plus, just regular DD. Not nearly as nice as TrueHD or PCM or DD-Plus @ 1.5mbps. Its not terrible, just not as good.What makes you say that? The A/B I described in the first post didn't make enough difference to us to support that claim. In what ways have you heard a difference?

Good test and good post. If more people conducted such tests, we would all be a lot more educated :).

Here is the thing. When you watch a magician perform a trick on TV and make something disappear, can you tell how it is done? I think the answer from just about everyone not in that business is, no. You can’t tell. Such is the case with a perceptual (lossy) codec operating at high enough data rate. Its psychoacoustics model is designed to remove only the sounds that you do not hear. By definition then, you should not miss what is removed. Just like the magician’s trick.


On the other hand, if the data rate is too low for the specific segment being encoded, then the codec, knowingly, overquantizes the frequency bands, causing pre-echo and noise. This is not something you are going to hear in every passage, and very difficult to detect even for experienced codec testers at mild compression ratios.

Having said this, some people are naturally more capable of hearing such artifacts. They are a rare breed however. When others hear differences, often this is due to level differences or placebo.

I don't know if I'm a victim of the Placebo effect, but my wife and I can tell the sonic difference in DVD version of DD and bluray. To use it seems more Clear and open. The base sounds more natural to me. Its like going from regular CD's to SACD or DVDA. Just my $0.02

Good test and good post. If more people conducted such tests, we would all be a lot more educated :).

Here is the thing. When you watch a magician perform a trick on TV and make something disappear, can you tell how it is done? I think the answer from just about everyone not in that business is, no. You can’t tell. Such is the case with a perceptual (lossy) codec operating at high enough data rate. Its psychoacoustics model is designed to remove only the sounds that you do not hear. By definition then, you should not miss what is removed. Just like the magician’s trick.

That's just one parameter for the encoding though :) There is more such as channel bonding, etc etc. You know, I know but we'll assume the audience doesn't :D

On the other hand, if the data rate is too low for the specific segment being encoded, then the codec, knowingly, overquantizes the frequency bands, causing pre-echo and noise. This is not something you are going to hear in every passage, and very difficult to detect even for experienced codec testers at mild compression ratios.

What do we define as a "mild compression ratio"? Assuming 24 bit / 48K input, uncompressed rate is just under 7 Mbits/second.


DD+ / DTS @ 1.5 Mb = 4.6:1
DTS @ 768 Kb = 9.0:1
DD @ 640bKb = 10.8:1


Having said this, some people are naturally more capable of hearing such artifacts. They are a rare breed however. When others hear differences, often this is due to level differences or placebo.

Are they naturally capable or is it a learned response? Research in several studies (though not the most independent) indicate that people can be taught to listen more astutely.

Certainly there are some highly astute listeners but I think it's a mixture of innate and learned capabilities.

Cheers,

Give PCM a run.

My guess is that you will have different results;)

I can tell a difference. TrueHD sounds much better, especially at the extremes of the frequency range. Shattering glass and LFE to be specific.
To the OP.... you are aware that for a true A/B comparison, you need to utilize the same input method which for the purposes of lossless would need to be mutichannel analog or HDMI. Comparing the two between the coax input and HDMI is not a true A/B comparison and the results could be skewed. I might also mention that TrueHD is historically recorded at lower volume. Many people who compare the two experience placebo effect by assuming DD+ is better because it is louder. You need to equalize the volume before comparing.
Give PCM a run.

My guess is that you will have different results;)Lossless codecs are bit for bit identical to the master. Same with LPCM. There is no difference between the two. Usually those who assume LPCM is superior are Blu-Ray format fans who side with LPCM because it was used as a stop gap for the Blu-Ray format until their players started to decode lossless codecs on board.

Good post. I have found that in the case of movies Dolby Digital on DVD very often had issues namely the center channel sounded sometimes thin and harsh and vocals exhibited a boxy quality. With the new codecs on HD DVD and Bluray I have encountered maybe one or two discs that sounded mediocre.

When I switched to a new receiver with HDMI I found little difference in the sound quality between DD+ and True HD on the Toshiba A2 - the transcoding to DTS at full bandwith of 1.5 Mbps is really that good. On Bluray I did find the standard core Dolby Digital to be sometimes subpar in dynamics and frequancy extension but the core DTS titles all sound fantastic and its hard to believe DTS-HD will sound any better. So basically in my experience 1.5 Mbps be it DTS core or Dolby Digital Plus is hard if not impossible to tell apart from True HD or Lossles.

It's bit for bit, but it's still compressed right? Although, I take the PS3 bitrate meter with a grain of salt, I never seen Dolby True HD ever hit the 6.9 Mbps range. The movie "300" never tops 3.0 Mbps when set to Dolby True HD if memory serves me right.

Isn't it possible for it to be bit for bit, but still of slightly "lower" quality than true uncompressed PCM, because there still is some compression?

I am no professional when it comes to audio codecs, so please forgive my ignorance.

That's just one parameter for the encoding though :) There is more such as channel bonding, etc etc. You know, I know but we'll assume the audience doesn't :D



What do we define as a "mild compression ratio"? Assuming 24 bit / 48K input, uncompressed rate is just under 7 Mbits/second.


DD+ / DTS @ 1.5 Mb = 4.6:1
DTS @ 768 Kb = 9.0:1
DD @ 640bKb = 10.8:1




Are they naturally capable or is it a learned response? Research in several studies (though not the most independent) indicate that people can be taught to listen more astutely.

Certainly there are some highly astute listeners but I think it's a mixture of innate and learned capabilities.

Cheers,


Wouldn't or couldn't the "learned capabilities" be a brainwashed affect as in training them to hear the placebo difference?

When I bought 300 on Blu-ray last summer I did numerous comparisons between the True HD, PCM and the 640k track.

The True HD and PCM were head and shoulders better. The most notable is the fullness of the bass. Listen to when the helmet is put on the ground early on. Heck, even the lightning strikes are much more clearer on the lossless tracks. And no, it's not just "level matching". I actually ran the high res tracks with less volume than the 640k at times to see if there was a difference, and it was still more clearer and dispersion was better.

In my experience, the lossless sounds crispier and fuller overall. I'm not trained like some said but I've been listening to music how it sounds (not just plain listening) and the instruments details. I'm no musician but growing up listening to differences in sound of music, I've become very keen when it comes to sound production. I can be considered one of the ordinary consumers (without training or indepth knowledge of the technical aspect of codecs and sound production) but I can tell a significant difference between lossless and lossy sound.

While I appreciate the effort that the OP put into this little listening test...it is meaningless and methodologically flawed with countless confounding variables.

It does not tell you anything...not even that they sound similar.

Let me put it another way...there may have been a big sonic difference between the sources you tested but you will never know it using the method that was employed.

Thus meaningless.

It's bit for bit, but it's still compressed right? Although, I take the PS3 bitrate meter with a grain of salt, I never seen Dolby True HD ever hit the 6.9 Mbps range. The movie "300" never tops 3.0 Mbps when set to Dolby True HD if memory serves me right.

Isn't it possible for it to be bit for bit, but still of slightly "lower" quality than true uncompressed PCM, because there still is some compression?

I am no professional when it comes to audio codecs, so please forgive my ignorance.No problem. The answer is no. At least not in theory. The data is only compressed for transfer. If the master has the following data "00110100101" then LPCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master all will be read by the receiver as "00110100101". The only difference is that LPCM transports the data in it's raw form.

Others have used the comparison of the lossless codecs to a "zip" file. The data is all there before zipping, the zip compresses the data, and then decompresses it when unzipped. All the data must make it through. In computers, if 1 bit is lost, the program will not function or be at risk for failure. Same with the lossless codecs. The integrity of the data is maintained.

Lossy codecs carry a compressed version of the master. Therefore some data is removed to fit the bitrate restriction of the lossy codec. Whether one's ear can detect the lost data or not, it's missing and you are not getting a true replication of the master.

Don't get me wrong here. There are some great DD+ @ 1.5~640k, Blu-Ray DD 640k, and D-Theater DD 576k and DTS lossy tracks out there. But in theory, they cannot compare to an exact replication of the master.

I did this test a few weeks ago and concluded that though I think I can hear the difference on certain disks the difference is much less than I initially believed it was. For me I concluded that the limiting factor in hearing the difference is the quality of my speakers.

Here's what I did for a test. It is not nearly as scientific and certainly not blind but it is still interesting.

My limitations are that my current Blu Ray system when meshed with a decent but outdated AVR can't decode or pass lossless sound. On the other hand my HDA1 is connected through multichannel analog. I had first thought that I noticed the difference when playing Phantom of the Opera which is in True HD. I did adjust the volume and found both the way the music fills the room, the bass and also the fire/ explosion at the end to be truly stunning. I don't have the sound running through optical to play just the DD track, but I played a cd of the same music and not surprisingly found it very lacking. I've also listened to lossless sound on many rental discs using my HDA1. All were great.

This made me unhappy with my PS3 combined with Yamaha rx-v1400 (4 year old system with component but no HDMI switching) Before deciding on an upgrade I played a DD+ version of the Polar Express. (scene where train pulls up to the house) my sub truly shakes the house. Then I played the SD version with plain DD 5.1. through my PS3. I was very surprised that after adjusting the volume and playing the scene 3 times in each format, I really couldn't hear the difference.

I concluded that both systems can create loud and deep bass for my sub, but that the limiting factor in my case may be smaller speakers matched with my sub. I have older Kef Uni Q Q10s and matched uniQ center and surrounds. I remember when purchasing my first entry level AVR that my friend who managed the store advised me to spend the limited budget at the time on as much speaker as I could afford and then match the bookshelf speakers with a very good sub later on (Velodyne 1012 with 12 inch powered woofer and 10 inch floor firing passive woofer) . I've decided that the limitation is my system and not whether or not the codec I'm listening to is lossless. I've concluded that I need larger floor standing main speakers that handle the midrange better prior to either buying a newer/better receiver or Blu Ray that can decode and pass the signal through multichannel analog.

After I finish the speaker upgrade I'll likely buy the newer Yamaha RX-V1800 that has HDMI switching and handles the lossless codecs. At that point perhaps I'll more clearly be able to hear a difference on a consistant basis.

I do wonder if some people who don't hear this may like me be limited by their speakers. Even high quality bookshelf or sattelite speakers have some limitations and can't possibly faithfully reproduce the True HD soundtrack.

Are they naturally capable or is it a learned response? There are studies indicating that some people are more capable of detecting artifacts in lossy audio encodes due to their physiology. Ironically, it's slight hearing deficiencies that enables them to do so. The psychoacoustic models that lossy audio codecs are based on are obviously targeted at the average person's hearing. Some of the effects used (such as the masking effect) my not work equally well if a person's hearing is less sensitive to certain sounds.

A while back I had a Samsung 1400 Blu-Ray player which I since returned because of freezing issues. I also own a PS3. I was playing Live Free Or Die on the Samsung using one of the new HD codecs through my Onkyo 605. In the middle of the film I had a disk freezing problem and I had to switch to my PS3 to finish the film. The PS3 will not pass the new codecs so I was left with Dolby digital output. I had a few people over and there was not comment until the film was over. A few than asked what happend to the qauality of the sound when I made the switch. I noticed the difference immediately but did not say anything at the time. I found this very interesting not just tech people could tell the difference. I noticed a big difference in the highs and lows. I know this is not a scientific test.

People in this thread should ignore anything that is not A/B testing without knowning source :)
Only about 1st post in this thread is correct. Then lot of crap posted after it :) Just look up some A/B test results from net about anything audio.

Well, although things like sound quality and PQ are very scientific, you can't help the fact that people will hear things differently. I am sorry that to you, it doesn't sound better. But, as the PQ of a blu ray is phenomenally better to me than DVD, so to is TrueHD to DD (same with DTSMA). Once I saw the PQ of a blu ray and heard the sound quality of the lossless codecs, I swore I would never go back, and I won't. I don't think you are doing anything wrong, and I don't think there is anything you can do, it sounds like you are one of the unfortunate ones that can't hear the nuances of HD audio. I hope at least you can see the differences in PQ.

Justin

A while back I had a Samsung 1400 Blu-Ray player which I since returned because of freezing issues. I also own a PS3. I was playing Live Free Or Die on the Samsung using one of the new HD codecs through my Onkyo 605. In the middle of the film I had a disk freezing problem and I had to switch to my PS3 to finish the film. The PS3 will not pass the new codecs so I was left with Dolby digital output. I had a few people over and there was not comment until the film was over. A few than asked what happend to the qauality of the sound when I made the switch. I noticed the difference immediately but did not say anything at the time. I found this very interesting not just tech people could tell the difference. I noticed a big difference in the highs and lows. I know this is not a scientific test.

Interesting that everyone noticed. I do have a question, though. Why didn't you just let the PS3 internally decode the audio and send it out to the receiver as PCM? It's still lossless, and still good. Plus, your friends wouldn't have complained!

Interesting that everyone noticed. I do have a question, though. Why didn't you just let the PS3 internally decode the audio and send it out to the receiver as PCM? It's still lossless, and still good. Plus, your friends wouldn't have complained!

Because the PS3 doesn't decode DTS-MA.

Informative post!

I have a semi-similar setup (bitstreaming players, onkyo 705, JBL speaks), and I can MAJORLY hear the sonic difference between a good lossless track and a lossy track.

I think, as others have hinted, that not all people's hearing capabilities are the same. From what I read, my hearing acuity will drop over the years, which is sad. Everybody's built different, I think that's the bottom line, and only a portion of the population is gonna hear the difference.

I don't know if I'm a victim of the Placebo effect, but my wife and I can tell the sonic difference in DVD version of DD and bluray. To use it seems more Clear and open. The base sounds more natural to me. Its like going from regular CD's to SACD or DVDA. Just my $0.02
To the best of my knowledge and experience standard CD's sound every bit as good as either SACD or DVDA.

Because the PS3 doesn't decode DTS-MA.

Really? That's kind of a letdown. I guess the PS3 is out for me as a Blu Ray player. Kind of strange that Live Free or Die Hard only had a DTS-MA track, usually, the Dolby tracks are more popular....and more supported.

Benefits of lossless:

System & room dependent. Period. If you can't hear the great impact of lossless sound, that is the simple explanation for lack of perceived effects. In my roonm, the dynamics, surround effects and dialog are significantly improved though bass seems only marginally better (if at all).

having been in the recording studio many times for long hours at a time.
your ear can play tricks on you after while.this was proven to me when we went in for 4 hrs to lay down basic tracks[drums ,bass etc.].we laided down tracks for 4 songs and thought it sounded great.
a couple of days later we went back in and listened to what we did,and i was shocked how bad it sounded and we had to fix a few things.
now those were raw tracks,no reverb etc.those things are added in the mixing phase.
since then i have found listening to anything,after awhile the ear can't pick up on things.
with surround sound i have found over the years that it never lives up to the hype.
i do agree a good mix makes the difference and maybe the movie director doesn't spend enough time with it,its his or hers call.a few years ago dolby had a demo disc out called''explore our world''.this demo showed off dd 5.1 and 5.1ex and it justs blows you away.but it was mixed perfect.so it comes down to the source.i don't know about movies but i find music[pop,rap etc.,are mixed to sound very mono,where years ago things were spread out to give you a wider sound.
with suround sound i think it the way its mixed.keep in mind in big action movies with so much going on your not going to pick up everything thats going on.surround sound is desiged to put you in the movie not to stand out ..so keep that in mind.

Benefits of lossless:

System & room dependent. Period. If you can't hear the great impact of lossless sound, that is the simple explanation for lack of perceived effects. In my roonm, the dynamics, surround effects and dialog are significantly improved though bass seems only marginally better (if at all).

jeff is spot on here....again surround sound is suppose to put you in the movie
not over shadow it.next time your outside just stop and listen what going on around you,then go back in your house and listen whats going on around you
you will find lossless is almost dead on to the sounds and surround effects in real life.

Having said this, some people are naturally more capable of hearing such artifacts. They are a rare breed however. When others hear differences, often this is due to level differences or placebo.


Are they naturally capable or is it a learned response? Research in several studies (though not the most independent) indicate that people can be taught to listen more astutely.

Certainly there are some highly astute listeners but I think it's a mixture of innate and learned capabilities.


Benefits of lossless:

System & room dependent. Period. If you can't hear the great impact of lossless sound, that is the simple explanation for lack of perceived effects. In my roonm, the dynamics, surround effects and dialog are significantly improved though bass seems only marginally better (if at all).

Hi,

Amir, John and Jeff's responses to the original poster's remarks sort of summarize why I feel like a deer caught in the headlights in agonizing in whether to invest in new audio gear.

I've got a pretty decent dedicated home theater (http://mysite.verizon.net/res8ycu4/id4.html), not anywhere near as nice as Jeff's, but who does? ;) All the walls are acoustically treated. The main speakers are vintage, but quite serviceable, and I've got a Lexicon MC-8 preamp without HDMI. I mainly watch movies, but I have a small collection of multi-channel music DVDs and HD DVDs. I do not have a trained ear and I'm 60 years old, without any obvious hearing deficiencies.

I love my Lexicon especially how it produces an immersive 7.1 experience, so I would never use its analog inputs for lossless audio because that would mean losing my surround back channels. Nevertheless, I am seriously thinking of replacing it with an Integra DTC-9.8.

So my question to Amir, John and Jeff (and others) is if I did switch preamps, in your opinion, is the probability high, low or medium that I would be able to hear a significant improvement in going from SPDIF to HDMI?

Thanks.

Larry

KEF cough cough. Price and performance are not in any way correlatable. As others have mentioned, bass is one of the more noticeable differences. What does the KEF do sub 20 hz? Not much. And transients, you need a good shoot 'em up for that. The hail of fire from the helicopter in Matrix, hearing the shell casings drop, etc.

I made a fast switch because of the situation. We were in the middle of the move. I thought that I did not have the volume set correctly but that was not the case. Again nothing scientific and not a real A B test but there was a feeling that it sounded much better with the new codecs.

I have said this about Dts and DD, and I will say this about TrueHD and DD+. Room acoustics are one of the most important factors in hearing differences(aside from quality of equipment). If there are audible modes at the listening position, it will be very difficult to determine any difference. If there are early reflections that are audible, it will be equally difficult to hear any differences. If you are not using headphones, room treatment, and correct speaker placement is a must.

On my modest system, There is a huge difference between DD and True HD.

I have angstrom Modular 2 fronts and center, and i forget the model of my angstrom rears. But my entire speaker setup was less than 2Gs.

On my modest system, There is a huge difference between DD and True HD.


Hi,

Can you describe the difference?

Thanks.

Larry

So my question to Amir, John and Jeff (and others) is if I did switch preamps, in your opinion, is the probability high, low or medium that I would be able to hear a significant improvement in going from SPDIF to HDMI?

Thanks.

Larry

Hi Larry,
I think you might find improvement.

When I upgraded my Halcro SSP-100 to a SSP-200 (added lossless capability over HDMI), the differences were significant and subtle.... It isn't like the whole soundtrarck will be noticeably improved compared to lossy but in certain scenes where there is a lot of action and dialog, the dialog is clearer. Dynamics in highly dynamic scenes are more real and surround effects (for whatever reason) are more enveloping. Bass, however, is only marginally improved (if at all) in my estimation. Dynamics are the number one improvement I can put my finger on with dialog intelligibility and surround effects / envelopment strong seconds.

The upgrade to lossless will give substantial results if your room and equipment is up to the task.

The Integra is a low cost solution until the upper end folks like Lexicon, Meridian, Halcro, Theta come out with a new breed of HDMI 1.3 processors. I would certainly give the Integra a go. Many in the $20K forum (Theta / Meridian owners) have done so. I gives you everything you need to get by at a low cost (and likely a better than average resale value)..

When I upgraded my Halcro SSP-100 to a SSP-200 (added lossless capability over HDMI), the differences were significant and subtle.... It isn't like the whole soundtrarck will be noticeably improved compared to lossy but in certain scenes where there is a lot of action and dialog, the dialog is clearer. Dynamics in highly dynamic scenes are more real and surround effects (for whatever reason) are more enveloping. Bass, however, is only marginally improved (if at all) in my estimation. Dynamics are the number one improvement I can put my finger on with dialog intelligibility and surround effects / envelopment strong seconds.
This is the type of description that tells me someone is hearing the true difference. I think you still have a bit of placebo working for you too :). But overall, you are using the right words to describe it.

Words like "blown away," etc. are NOT indicative of the difference between lossy and lossless. If that is your experience, explanation lies elsewhere than difference between lossy and lossless. Let me explain why.

Lossy audio has the same dynamic range and frequency response as lossless. So in this regard, it is no less in fidelity. Lossless audio gets rid of three things:

1. Pre-echo. This is where you hear the echo of something, before it occurs! However, you don’t perceive this as echo because well, it is the inverse of that! :) Instead, it can muddy a transient like guitar strings. It can also change vocals to make them a bit less intelligible but that happens more at higher compression ratios (and less so with codecs designed to do well here).

Pre-echo can also weaken the impact of transients (sharp increase in audio levels) but again, not a factor at mild compression ratios. So slightly reduced impact of base could be explained by this. But not "wow, check out the base with lossless. It blows away your old sound."

2. Ambiance detail. The quantization noise tends to mask the very low level details that describe say, a fade to silence. For this, you need very good audio system and ears. This is why I don’t even trust speakers here and always use headphones as it is much easier to get perfect headphones than speakers in a room.

The improvements here are rather subtle and described more as “air” around instruments, etc. This should not be confused however with more surround information as that can easily be due to slightly higher volume in those channels. Such a difference is also lost or gained due to jitter, leaving your AVR displays on, etc.


3. Brightness. If the audio frame is over-quantized (compressed), then it can make it sound a little sharper. Again, the same is true of jitter, display, different cables, etc.


Codec testers get trained on the above scenarios although most of the emphasis is on #1 as #2 requires a level of hearing acuity which you may not have.

So ask yourself if you think you are hearing any of the above impairments. If you are, then buy the new processor.

Hi Larry,
I think you might find improvement.

When I upgraded my Halcro SSP-100 to a SSP-200 (added lossless capability over HDMI), the differences were significant and subtle.... It isn't like the whole soundtrarck will be noticeably improved compared to lossy but in certain scenes where there is a lot of action and dialog, the dialog is clearer. Dynamics in highly dynamic scenes are more real and surround effects (for whatever reason) are more enveloping. Bass, however, is only marginally improved (if at all) in my estimation. Dynamics are the number one improvement I can put my finger on with dialog intelligibility and surround effects / envelopment strong seconds.

The upgrade to lossless will give substantial results if your room and equipment is up to the task.

The Integra is a low cost solution until the upper end folks like Lexicon, Meridian, Halcro, Theta come out with a new breed of HDMI 1.3 processors. I would certainly give the Integra a go. Many in the $20K forum (Theta / Meridian owners) have done so. I gives you everything you need to get by at a low cost (and likely a better than average resale value)..

Hi Jeff,

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.

I suspect that my room is up to the task. It's me that I'm not sure about. ;)

I had Terry Montlick Laboratories test the room. Here's what Terry had to say about Dialog Intelligibility: "Extremely high level of dialog intelligibility. No significant loss compared to a high quality movie theater."

I suspect if the room doesn't have good Dialog Intelligibility to start with that no matter how pristine the signal is its not going to help too much. Likewise with Reverberation Times, if they are too long we probably won't be able to hear these subtle improvements.

Thanks again.

Larry

2. Ambiance detail. The quantization noise tends to mask the very low level details that describe say, a fade to silence. For this, you need very good audio system and ears. This is why I don’t even trust speakers here and always use headphones as it is much easier to get perfect headphones than speakers in a room.

The improvements here are rather subtle and described more as “air” around instruments, etc. This should not be confused however with more surround information as that can easily be due to slightly higher volume in those channels. Such a difference is also lost or gained due to jitter, leaving your AVR displays on, etc.

Codec testers get trained on the above scenarios although most of the emphasis is on #1 as #2 requires a level of hearing acuity which you may not have.

So ask yourself if you think you are hearing any of the above impairments. If you are, then buy the new processor.

Hi Amir,

My room is fairly quiet, (staggered stud walls, etc.) but the projector is in the room. Coupled with my untrained 60 year old ears would it be unrealistic for me to expect to hear improved Ambiance Detail?

Thanks.

Larry

Hi Amir,

My room is fairly quiet, (staggered stud walls, etc.) but the projector is in the room. Coupled with my untrained 60 year old ears would it be unrealistic for me to expect to hear improved Ambiance Detail?

Thanks.

Larry
If you can hear the projector during quiet parts, then it is fair to say you won't hear the low level detail as they are likely to be below the noise floor of the room.

Getting older and losing some high frequency acuity does mask some compression artifacts. But overall, I would not say that age should be a reason to hold back from getting better audio performance. I know I lose hearing tests to my kids easily but I can pick out audio artifacts they cannot (due to lack of training).

If you can hear the projector during quiet parts, then it is fair to say you won't hear the low level detail as they are likely to be below the noise floor of the room.

Getting older and losing some high frequency acuity does mask some compression artifacts. But overall, I would not say that age should be a reason to hold back from getting better audio performance. I know I lose hearing tests to my kids easily but I can pick out audio artifacts they cannot (due to lack of training).

Hi Amir,

Thanks for the response.

So the moral of the story is that I should avoid training my ears so I won't be able to hear audio artifacts. ;)

Just kidding. :D

Larry

Well, I have to say that any comparison would of course be limited by both the quality of the source as well as the equipment used to play it on and that there is a certain point where the audio gear may in fact be of too poor a quality to allow for the differences between DD, DD+ and TrueHD to be heard.

This is going to be evident in many homes in the US where the individual will be listening to the soundtrack either through the speakers in his television or from a sub $200 HT in a box.

To people in those circumstances I would honestly doubt that they will hear much if any difference between DD and a "lossless" codec.

That having been said, it does not require spending thousands of dollars on audio gear in order to hear the differences either.

My theater is certainly not an "audiophile's dream" setup...

Sony STR-DE598 Receiver
Mirage Omni-sat v1 (FR, Center and FL channels)
Pioneer S-HF21-LR (rear channels)
Boston Acoustics PV700 (subwoofer)

...And yet the difference between DD and "Lossless" seems fairly obvious in my theater (at least on some disks).

- The Eagles: Farewell Tour Melbourne has the choice of either DD 5.1 or PCM 2.1 (lossless) and the choice (unanimous) of everyone who has watched the concert has been the 2.1 PCM track. Everyone agrees that the DD track seems "flatter" and lifeless compared to the PCM audio.

- Batman Begins: Again, everyone who has watched this prefers the the "TrueHD" audio over the DD+ soundtrack. While the differences may not be obvious throughout the entire film, the scenes with the bats at Arkham, the car chase through the city and the last act with the running battle to Wayne Tower are all excellent for hearing the differences in the two soundtracks.

- Superman Returns: Another case where everyone who has watched this has noticed the differences in specific scenes and in the clarity of the musical soundtrack between the HD and DD+ audio.

That is not to say that it is impossible for a DD or DD+ track to sound very good. Transformers has an excellent DD+ audio track. However, without a lossless alternative to compare it to we cannot say how the DD+ track would match against "TrueHD" audio.

Of course, the final consideration would have to be the care which was taken when transferring the audio from the source. A DD+ soundtrack which had extreme care put into sounding it's best might very well sound better than a "lossless" audio mix which was poorly handled.

Ultimately though, so long as equal care is taken in the transfer and the source is of sufficient quality, given decent enough audio gear there should be a noticeable difference between DD and True HD audio. (and quite probably, the higher quality of the gear which is used, the more noticeable the difference will be).

- Batman Begins: Again, everyone who has watched this prefers the the "TrueHD" audio over the DD+ soundtrack. While the differences may not be obvious throughout the entire film, the scenes with the bats at Arkham, the car chase through the city and the last act with the running battle to Wayne Tower are all excellent for hearing the differences in the two soundtracks.

Hi,

What were those audio differences?

Thanks.

Larry

Biggest improvement is dialog, watching Four Brothers (HD-DVD) and then Shooter (DD5.1 BD) and hearing the major differences in Mark's voice was less then subtle.

Personally its the overall transparency and how clean and distortion free the lossless sounds.

Cheers

Bobby

So the moral of the story is that I should avoid training my ears so I won't be able to hear audio artifacts. ;)

Just kidding. :D

Larry
Actually, that is an excellent point. You do NOT want to get trained on this if you can help it. I could not see strobing/rainbows on DLP until a couple of years ago. Then all of a sudden, I saw a bit of it and now, I see it all the time (more on some projectors than others). I now have Joe Kane's latest DLP projector which is a marvel when it comes to color fidelity and ease of adjustment. But I can't make myself replace the JVC with it which has less accurate color.

Hi,

What were those audio differences?

Thanks.

Larry

It's hard to describe but the TrueHD track sound more "alive".

The bat swarm sounds clearer, sharper and has a greater "presence" in the room than experiencing the same scene with the DD audio.

The bats just sounded "flattened" with the DD track running. Almost like the edges of each sound had been rounded off.

The sound effects in the other scenes also seem to "pop" more with the TrueHD track running over DD audio.

Individual effects seem to stand out as opposed to being lost or blended into the background noise.

With the TrueHD track running we tended to notice little sounds which never caught our attention before.

(like I said, it's noticeable but hard to describe) ;)

It was also easier to hear/understand what Morgan Freeman is saying while they are testing the "jumper" at Wayne Enterprises. Specifically..

We never could get the bridge to work, but this baby works just fine.

My wife never could understand what he was saying there until she heard it with the TrueHD track on.

It's hard to describe but the TrueHD track sound more "alive".

The bat swarm sounds clearer, sharper and has a greater "presence" in the room than experiencing the same scene with the DD audio.

The bats just sounded "flattened" with the DD track running. Almost like the edges of each sound had been rounded off.

The sound effects in the other scenes also seem to "pop" more with the TrueHD track running over DD audio.

Individual effects seem to stand out as opposed to being lost or blended into the background noise.

With the TrueHD track running we tended to notice little sounds which never caught our attention before.

(like I said, it's noticeable but hard to describe) ;)

It was also easier to hear/understand what Morgan Freeman is saying while they are testing the "jumper" at Wayne Enterprises. Specifically..



My wife never could understand what he was saying there until she heard it with the TrueHD track on.

Hi,

Thanks for making the effort.

Larry

Actually, that is an excellent point. You do NOT want to get trained on this if you can help it. I could not see strobing/rainbows on DLP until a couple of years ago. Then all of a sudden, I saw a bit of it and now, I see it all the time (more on some projectors than others). I now have Joe Kane's latest DLP projector which is a marvel when it comes to color fidelity and ease of adjustment. But I can't make myself replace the JVC with it which has less accurate color.

You have the Samsung SP-A800B DLP?

OK, now I'm jealous. :)

I would have to say that the differences are subtle (definitely doesnt blow you away. That is the most overused phrase in audio.). What I pick up on between lossless and DD+ or even DD is an improvement in the noise floor or a greater degree of dynamic range. This seems to result in a more natural sound that is quieter during the quite passages and louder (without distorting) when called for. Bass is less boomy but still taught. My room is very quite with a little bit of reverb. My setup plays insanely loud in the small space its in and in my book great dynamic range is extremly important to a satifying home theater experience. That being said its always in the eye of the beholder so if you don't really notice a difference don't sweat it. Just enjoy and don't question yourself. If your just looking to justify that next purchase think about this you only live once so go ahead and treat yourself. Whats the worse that will happen. Everyone loves to get a shinny new toy.

I agree whole-heartedly with Amir, John K. and Jeff.
You do have to know how to listen and what to listen for.
The system and especially the room make a huge difference.

My impression of a "good" room & system mirrors Jeff's description.
Dynamics. Clean, quick transients. Lack of edginess and voices that sound like people.
Plus not all soundtracks are created equal.
On the really good ones, I can listen easily at my calibrated reference.
It really is a joy for me.
Most guests focus on the big image, I tend to gravitate to sound.

Larry,
I think you should try out the Integra. I predict your room will reveal the improvements.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks very much for taking the time to respond.

I suspect that my room is up to the task. It's me that I'm not sure about. ;)

I had Terry Montlick Laboratories test the room. Here's what Terry had to say about Dialog Intelligibility: "Extremely high level of dialog intelligibility. No significant loss compared to a high quality movie theater."

I suspect if the room doesn't have good Dialog Intelligibility to start with that no matter how pristine the signal is its not going to help too much. Likewise with Reverberation Times, if they are too long we probably won't be able to hear these subtle improvements.

Thanks again.

Larry

Larry,


Terry also evaluated my room. I earned his Alpha Certification (after I initially failed his criteria). Nothing like a little extra acoustical work to make things perfect. And I got a neat plaque to boot!

Sounds like you will benefit from lossless sound.

Thanks Amir, I am glad that my impressions (though perhaps inaccurately defined) fit to what subjective advantages are possible with lossless.:)

This is the type of description that tells me someone is hearing the true difference. I think you still have a bit of placebo working for you too :). But overall, you are using the right words to describe it.

Words like "blown away," etc. are NOT indicative of the difference between lossy and lossless. If that is your experience, explanation lies elsewhere than difference between lossy and lossless. Let me explain why.

Lossy audio has the same dynamic range and frequency response as lossless. So in this regard, it is no less in fidelity. Lossless audio gets rid of three things:

1. Pre-echo. This is where you hear the echo of something, before it occurs! However, you don’t perceive this as echo because well, it is the inverse of that! :) Instead, it can muddy a transient like guitar strings. It can also change vocals to make them a bit less intelligible but that happens more at higher compression ratios (and less so with codecs designed to do well here).

Pre-echo can also weaken the impact of transients (sharp increase in audio levels) but again, not a factor at mild compression ratios. So slightly reduced impact of base could be explained by this. But not "wow, check out the base with lossless. It blows away your old sound."

2. Ambiance detail. The quantization noise tends to mask the very low level details that describe say, a fade to silence. For this, you need very good audio system and ears. This is why I don’t even trust speakers here and always use headphones as it is much easier to get perfect headphones than speakers in a room.

The improvements here are rather subtle and described more as “air” around instruments, etc. This should not be confused however with more surround information as that can easily be due to slightly higher volume in those channels. Such a difference is also lost or gained due to jitter, leaving your AVR displays on, etc.


3. Brightness. If the audio frame is over-quantized (compressed), then it can make it sound a little sharper. Again, the same is true of jitter, display, different cables, etc.


Codec testers get trained on the above scenarios although most of the emphasis is on #1 as #2 requires a level of hearing acuity which you may not have.

So ask yourself if you think you are hearing any of the above impairments. If you are, then buy the new processor.


Sorry, but I am not jumping on your band wagon. As I stated in my first post in this thead, sound quality and picture quality are indeed very scientific. And I agree with your 3 points above. But I do not agree with your statement that when someone says "blown away" isn't accurate for what they are hearing. How do you know that correcting the above 3 mentioned items aren't blowing them away? I just think its a silly argument and silly to suggest that someone might not being really hearing what they "think" they are hearing. Neither you nor I can possibly tell or know what a person hears. And thats what is important... what they hear. How they describe it doesn't really matter because the lay person isn't going to describe it the way you did, they are going to say "I was blown away." But it doesn't in any way invalidate what they are hearing by saying "blown away." Finally, I don't believe in the placebo affect. Of course this is all just my opinion. I just don't think I, or anyone else, really needs anyone to tell them what they are or are not hearing... because I for one know what I am hearing.

Justin

Finally, I don't believe in the placebo affect.

I'm with you. I don't believe in gravity, either, and consequently it has no effect on me. It's quite liberating, not having to worry about the force of gravity - makes the morning commute much more pleasant, too.

Placebo effect, gravity... bah. Fancy-schmancy concepts made up by know-it-all scientists who think they're smarter than the rest of us. Who needs them?

Neither you nor I can possibly tell or know what a person hears.
I may not know exactly what a poster here hears, but have participated and run countless double blind tests for audio codecs. Some of the tests have included hundreds of participants. Others only golden ear audiophiles. So I have a good body of experience to draw upon.

To be clear, I did not say they weren’t blown away. If the level between the two is off by say, 3db, I am sure they would be blown away by that difference. It is just that the difference between lossy and lossless at these rates, can hardly be described using such superlatives.

And thats what is important... what they hear.
That is a fair point but it is also important to know why. :). If all they are hearing is the difference in levels, then it doesn't matter that they were blown away because that can be fixed with a turn of a knob. No reason to go and buy new equipment then.

Finally, I don't believe in the placebo affect.
Have you been tested for it? I have (unintentionally), and flunked it! And more than once. It is quite a sobering experience, even though you think you know your stuff.

I have told the story before but it bears repeating. In one test, I was fed two identical songs and told they were different and asked which one was better. I came back with full conviction that one had better low level detail, air, etc. Just to be told that there were no differences. But this wasn’t the punch line. The punch line was that once I knew the files were identical, then they sounded identical to me when I played the again!

Here is the other weird thing. No matter how good you are in telling the difference, once you are put in a blind test, you find that you have lost nearly all of your abilities to do so! It is quite stressful to take part in these things. And the smaller the difference, the more stressful it is. You don’t know how hard it was to find audio codec testers who could consistently perform well in these tests.

I just don't think I, or anyone else, really needs anyone to tell them what they are or are not hearing... because I for one know what I am hearing.

Justin
No problem with that :). My goal here is to add a bit of science here so that you are able to differentiate the true cause and effect. That way, you can make better informed decision.

KEF cough cough. Price and performance are not in any way correlatable. As others have mentioned, bass is one of the more noticeable differences. What does the KEF do sub 20 hz? Not much. And transients, you need a good shoot 'em up for that. The hail of fire from the helicopter in Matrix, hearing the shell casings drop, etc.

Are you referring specifically to Kef?

Actually, that is an excellent point. You do NOT want to get trained on this if you can help it. I could not see strobing/rainbows on DLP until a couple of years ago. Then all of a sudden, I saw a bit of it and now, I see it all the time (more on some projectors than others). I now have Joe Kane's latest DLP projector which is a marvel when it comes to color fidelity and ease of adjustment. But I can't make myself replace the JVC with it which has less accurate color.

I don't see rainbows or what people describe as rainbows on DLP's, but I see something that I think is different. I see the strobing you mentioned. It is like the effect of filming or taking video of a tv set while it is on as you see the lines moving vertically. Weird! The first time I looked at one I knew I couldn't own one seeing that affect.

To the best of my knowledge and experience standard CD's sound every bit as good as either SACD or DVDA.

i guess your knowledge and experience have let you down in this case, then.

Sorry, but I am not jumping on your band wagon. As I stated in my first post in this thead, sound quality and picture quality are indeed very scientific. And I agree with your 3 points above. But I do not agree with your statement that when someone says "blown away" isn't accurate for what they are hearing. How do you know that correcting the above 3 mentioned items aren't blowing them away? I just think its a silly argument and silly to suggest that someone might not being really hearing what they "think" they are hearing. Neither you nor I can possibly tell or know what a person hears. And thats what is important... what they hear. How they describe it doesn't really matter because the lay person isn't going to describe it the way you did, they are going to say "I was blown away." But it doesn't in any way invalidate what they are hearing by saying "blown away." Finally, I don't believe in the placebo affect. Of course this is all just my opinion. I just don't think I, or anyone else, really needs anyone to tell them what they are or are not hearing... because I for one know what I am hearing.

Justin

Hi Justin,

Sure anyone has the right to choose whatever descriptions they wish to impart their personal impressions. Nevertheless, there are more precise and more useful ways to communicate their observations to other forum members. The term “blown away” conveys nothing to us other than the listener had an extremely positive reaction. Unfortunately, it doesn’t give us any indication whatsoever of what specific audible improvement that we can reasonably expect and therefore, for me at least, it doesn't assist in the decision-making process.

Another consideration is that reducing audio compression, or increasing bit rate, or increasing bit depth doesn’t automatically improve every possible audio characteristic. So even using more specific descriptions than “blown away” can still be incorrect if they claim an improvement to an audio characteristic that scientifically cannot be affected by the improved audio signal. For instance, if I were to switch to lossless audio and declare that it greatly improved the Reverberation Time of my room, then that would be an inaccurate description, and it would be totally appropriate for another forum member to challenge my observations.

As for placebo effect, I guess I'll just have to respectfully disagree with your opinion.

Larry

i guess your knowledge and experience have let you down in this case, then.

More likely it was his set-up that let him down. Still, this does also coincide with the general population eschewing high quality recordings while embracing awful MP3s.

I personally believe this is almost entirely dependent upon an individual's room and equipment. I had what I considered an adequate set of equipment (my friends would surely say it was more than adequate while Amir would likely yank out his hair and begin to mutter to himself if he had to watch a movie). 7.1 surround with what was recently a well regarded budget AVR (Pioneer 1014) and ~1500 in solid if not great speakers (Wharfedale and JBL) . I decided I needed to get into an HDMI receiver and literally just set up a Onkyo 805 this week. The difference in sound stages amazed me. Not between what I was getting and lossless but what I was getting and what the same thing sounded like with the new AVR. Dialog is improved and surround fields are superior. However, in some scenes I actually enjoyed the sound of the clearly inferior AVR more. The plane scene in Fight Club now has more things going on but before it had more of a brunt power. Again, this is the same scene through HD DVR and the two were night and day different. Unfortunately, different isn't always better. I am certain people can tell the difference between some of these fields but I question their ability to isolate which is superior, especially with some of the equipment I am seeing discussed.

Isn't it possible for it to be bit for bit, but still of slightly "lower" quality than true uncompressed PCM, because there still is some compression?


No it's not possible. Any variance means it's no longer "bit for bit".

LOSSLESS = there is no loss from the original = bit for bit = identical.

You have the Samsung SP-A800B DLP?

OK, now I'm jealous. :)
He was probably able to write it off as a business expense ;) J/K.

Really? That's kind of a letdown. I guess the PS3 is out for me as a Blu Ray player. Kind of strange that Live Free or Die Hard only had a DTS-MA track, usually, the Dolby tracks are more popular....and more supported.

DTS-MA still has a 1.5Mbps DTS core which the PS3 will send to the receiver, whether it be SPDIF attached or HDMI, and it can sound awfully darn good.

My wife and I just watched the Independence Day Blu-Ray last night, and the sound was an absolute revelation, even at 1.5Mbps DTS core.

I've heard some mighty good lossless Blu-Ray tracks, but if Independence Day is any guide, 1.5Mbps DTS can do plenty well enough.

Are you referring specifically to Kef?

Yes, way over priced low def speakers.

Thanks, all, for your surprisingly many comments, and for the variety of your points of view. It’s clear that some of you find the difference completely obvious, while others find it subtle enough to require experience or training to perceive.

OK. So let me try to refocus toward the original question that caused me to start this thread.

My friend hooked up a Blu-ray player to a decent HT system: an Onkyo AVR that can decode TrueHD, and a more-than-garbage, less-than-audiophile Kef 5.1 speaker system. He used HDMI to get the raw bitstream to the AVR, and played a Blu-ray disc with a TrueHD audio track. We sat back and enjoyed.

Since the HT system at my house doesn’t decode TrueHD, we simulated the difference by using S/PDIF to transport the Dolby Digital that the player alternatively put out. We didn’t select another audio track from the disc, just let the player output the Dolby Digital that S/PDIF could support.

My question was “Would we find anything substantially lacking or any obvious difference if we had to ‘settle’ for Dolby Digital?” We didn't.

In this thread, I’m not at the moment interested in how good PCM might be. I’m not interested in how DD on DVD sounds. I’m not interested in how to train myself to hear nuances of compression artifacts (though I appreciated Amir’s tutorial). I’m not interested in opinions about the equipment involved.

I am interested in how to answer my original question. I want to see if the ‘300’ BD has a TrueHD track and whether listening to it vs. DD is as obvious to me as PCM vs. DD was to emgesp. I am interested in other ways the Onkyo/Kef system might be set up to answer my question.

Bottom line, this isn’t about how to detect differences. This is about whether TrueHD makes much sonic difference -- both within and beyond AVS. I’m convinced that the picture quality of BD can be significantly better than DVD, but I’m looking for evidence that the sound quality of TrueHD on BD can be significantly better than that of the DD companion to that TrueHD/BD track.

Thanks for your help.

True HD can sound better than DD, but many times it does not.

I'm starting to think in the long run its just a ploy to get us to buy more equipment or more expensive equipment and to use up and justify all that unneeded space on the HDM disks.

Its kinda like Windows bloatware making you buy more and more over time.

Yes, way over priced low def speakers.

Oh, ok. Just wondered. I thought you were referring to AV gear in general. :)

I don't know if I'm a victim of the Placebo effect, but my wife and I can tell the sonic difference in DVD version of DD and bluray. To use it seems more Clear and open. The base sounds more natural to me. Its like going from regular CD's to SACD or DVDA. Just my $0.02
Whatever it's done for owners of high-end equipment, TrueHD has ruined the high-def experience for me. TrueHD audio bogs down my home theater PC until the video is as jerky as an old Super-8 filmstrip, and to correct that would require several hundred dollars in hardware upgrades. (Or $450 for a set-top player.)

I’m starting to wonder if the emperor’s got no clothes. If the TrueHD and Master Audio codecs were doing a better job, then why wasn’t it obvious to us? Were we doing anything wrong? Are we missing something? Are we deaf or crazy?



Hi Steve,

Getting back to some of your original questions, could you please elaborate on the acoustic environment of your friend's room? Did it have any treatments other than standard furniture, rugs and wall hangings? What was on the floor, tile, wood, carpet? How about windows were they open glass sliders, or windows with drapes? How about furniture placement? Did you have that large glass coffee table that we all have between you and the main speakers, etc.?

Thanks.

Larry

Larry and amirm,

Again, I just want to say I agree with you in that sound quality is a science that can be precisely and accurately measured. My only contention was the dismissal of a person's experience simply because they are not well versed or educated in the science. I am only playing devils advocate, and appreciate the information that you are sharing. But I also believe that the average consumer has a lot of good input too.

Larry, I agree that we will have to respectfully disagree with each other opinions regarding placebo effect. :)

Justin

May I say that PCM on my Black Hawk Down BD gives me a semi. Forget everything else. I have had the DVD for awhile now. But the BD gives me something more. Something about the bullet to M16 hit...Something about the night helicopter raid...something beautiful.

Abandon your specs. Trust your enjoyment.

Justin, my wording in hindsight was probably too strong :). It was not meant to dismiss the experience or feelings of folks not schooled in the science. My apologies if it came out that way….

Well I am certainly untrained and I can hear a difference. Kind of a fuller cleaner sound. Maybe its the lack of "noise" that actually makes it sound fuller or more immersing.

I almost always tag back and forth between the Dolby TrueHD and DD+ or DD5.1 on my HD DVDs and now the PCM, TrueHD and DD5.1 on my blooming Blu-Ray collection.

While its never a "Hey, that wasn't there before", there is almost always a more subtle sense or visceral "feel" to the sound as simple being more like your in it rather than listening to it.

And that ends my scientific Donald Duck esq assessment :cool:

Amir, on a bit of a side bar do you still have your D2? Will you or have you picked up the ARC-1? I am wondering if you have it if it made any significant difference and to tie it to this conversation, I wonder if the improvement it potentially brings will/could "widen" the perceived difference between the lossier and losslessier codecs.

Personally I can't wait to get my hands on it as I recently moved into a loft and room acoustics were never my strong point (I get dizzy if I try going beyond first order reflections). Due to the inconvenience of neighbours I need as tight and efficient a sound field as possible. From what I am reading clarity and tighter bass are the biggest benefits of the ARC-1 and that is what I desire most so fingers crossed.

And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.

Cheers,

Richard

I still find big variances on some discs and very little on others. I think 1.5Mbps DD+ is near enough for most purposes and no longer really bother looking out for TrueHD or lossless specifically as long as a fairly high rate lossy track is present. I'm using a full set of Dali Euphonias BTW.

I did quite a bit of testing with 192Kbps MP3 vs Lossless and there was a reasonable amount of difference there, particularly for precussion and vocals.

May I say that PCM on my Black Hawk Down BD gives me a semi. Forget everything else. I have had the DVD for awhile now. But the BD gives me something more. Something about the bullet to M16 hit...Something about the night helicopter raid...something beautiful.

Abandon your specs. Trust your enjoyment.

And that pretty much sums up what I am trying to say. :)

Justin

Several years back in Britain there was a blind test using an audience of average folks to determine if they could hear a difference and/or had a preference for redbook CD and SACD. Most could not hear a difference, and testers were astounded that the listeners who could preferred redbook CD! I have yet to hear HD audio and have no opinion yet, but I would expect HD codecs to have a greater dynamic range. But you will need a lot of amplifier power to handle such dynamics, not something a HTIB or even an ordinary receiver will manage without serious clipping.

Well all I can say is that the Eagles Farewell Tour, Live in Melbourne HD DVD is simply amazing. I Hear, but haven't heard that Dave Matthews Blu-Ray and HD DVD are also very very good as I am sure many others are.

I find it hard to imagine most people not being able to tell the difference between this in high bandwidth DTS 5.1 or PCM 2.0 versus a CD.

It really is like you are immersed in the concert. Incredibly full, right and tight audio and the video is pretty great also hahaa.

Cheers,

Richard

Well all I can say is that the Eagles Farewell Tour, Live in Melbourne HD DVD is simply amazing. I Hear, but haven't heard that Dave Matthews Blu-Ray and HD DVD are also very very good as I am sure many others are.

I find it hard to imagine most people not being able to tell the difference between this in high bandwidth DTS 5.1 or PCM 2.0 versus a CD.

It really is like you are immersed in the concert. Incredibly full, right and tight audio and the video is pretty great also hahaa.

Cheers,

Richard


Well, the Eagles are amazing in any format. As for Dave Matthews......?

Well all I can say is that the Eagles Farewell Tour, Live in Melbourne HD DVD is simply amazing. I Hear, but haven't heard that Dave Matthews Blu-Ray and HD DVD are also very very good as I am sure many others are.

I find it hard to imagine most people not being able to tell the difference between this in high bandwidth DTS 5.1 or PCM 2.0 versus a CD.

It really is like you are immersed in the concert. Incredibly full, right and tight audio and the video is pretty great also hahaa.

Cheers,

Richard
Music is always going to show a bigger difference due to type of content in there and what your ears expect it to sound like. In contast, when an artificially created explosion in a movie is played, who is to say it is "too bright, doesn't have as much ambiance, etc?"

When I first got my HD-DVD player, I had a ground loop problem so I sent the Dolby Digital downmix into the optical connection. Once I got my ground loop fixed and plugged in the HDMI cable, I was utterly shocked at how lifeless DD had been sounding for all these years. Both Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD soundtracks made my sound system sound incredible. There is lots of subtle surround information being lost in DD 5.1 and it just doesn't have the surround effect I get with DD+ and TrueHD. The sound on DVD's and HDTV is always disappointing now. This shouldn't be surprising since the DD codec is older than MP3.

Now the difference between DD+ and TrueHD is much less obvious to me. Most of the time I can't tell much difference other than TrueHD has more dynamic range which isn't too popular with the neighbors. I'm constantly adjusting the volume.

Its night and day for me between DD and DDTrueHD for me, however when I play 300 and switch between DD+ and DDTrueHD, I can barely tell the difference, but I am still getting use to 5.1, since I just recently purchased my first true HT equipment and was surprised at what I was missing all this time!

Well all I can say is that the Eagles Farewell Tour, Live in Melbourne HD DVD is simply amazing. I Hear, but haven't heard that Dave Matthews Blu-Ray and HD DVD are also very very good as I am sure many others are.

Richard

The first time my wife heard the Eagles tour HD DVD she actually cried.

I kid you not.

Several years back in Britain there was a blind test using an audience of average folks to determine if they could hear a difference and/or had a preference for redbook CD and SACD. Most could not hear a difference, and testers were astounded that the listeners who could preferred redbook CD! I have yet to hear HD audio and have no opinion yet, but I would expect HD codecs to have a greater dynamic range. But you will need a lot of amplifier power to handle such dynamics, not something a HTIB or even an ordinary receiver will manage without serious clipping.

Comparing CD to SACD is not the same thing as compare highly loss compressed audio to lossless.

Both CD & SACD are uncompressed digital audio. SACD just has higher bitdepth and sampling rate.

DD+ and TrueHD don't just bring more dynamic range (i.e higher bitdepth) they also bring less compression. Lossy compression attempts to remove audio data that is not recognized. A side effect is subtle sounds, cross overs, fades etc are lost.

Comparing DD/DTS to DD+/DTS-HD to TrueHD/DTS-HD:MA would be more like comparing 128k mp3 to 320k mp3 to original CD(or lossless compressed CD - FLAC).

Hi Steve,

Getting back to some of your original questions, could you please elaborate on the acoustic environment of your friend's room? Did it have any treatments other than standard furniture, rugs and wall hangings? What was on the floor, tile, wood, carpet? How about windows were they open glass sliders, or windows with drapes? How about furniture placement? Did you have that large glass coffee table that we all have between you and the main speakers, etc.?
Thanks. Larry

Environment makes a big deal. So does speaker position. So does speaker level calibration.

The jump from legacy (DD & DTS) to lossy HBR (DD+, DTS-HD) is a moderate SQ improvement. The jump from lossy HBR to Lossless (DTS-HD:MA, TrueHD, LPCM) is even smaller.

The higher up the chain we go the more things like enviroment, speaker quality, speaker position, proper calibration, proper crossovers, etc, matter.

If you mains only handle sound down to 100Hz and you have a default cross over at 80Hz the "damage" done by a bad setup is going to mask the small gain from TrueHD.

Same thing applies to having speakers out of phase, having speakers out of position (and not compensated by proper speaker delays). Having an AVR that is designed to sound "cool" (over boosting SW) or "easy" to hear (boosting center channel) and then using TrueHD is worthless.

You don't need $50K in speakers to benefit from TrueHD. You do however need a properly calibrated system, decently quality tone matched speakers, proper cross overs, balances, and level.

The Audessey EQ in the Onkyo series is not audiophile grade stuff but the ability to measure a listening position and alter speaker levels, cross overs, speaker delays, adjust parametric curves, and deal with reflection makes a big difference.

The first time my wife heard the Eagles tour HD DVD she actually cried.

I kid you not.

I don't doubt it for a second. I have had DVD-A and stuff for years and I had reasonably high expectations, but I was amazed beyond all expectations at how good it sounded, how many top songs (I really had no idea they played half of that) and how many there are.

Despite around 150 HD DVDs this is probably my most watched/listened too. I am stumbling around here and doing a poor job of actually imparting how enjoyable it is hahaa. No seriously.

Truly a pleasure every time.

Cheers,

Richard

PS. This post is dedicated to my ex "Plaintif" :cool:

The first time my wife heard the Eagles tour HD DVD she actually cried.

I kid you not.


Maybe she was remembering an old boyfriend back in High School, and those songs were played then?:D


Naah, had to be the PCM track ;)

Benefits of lossless:

System & room dependent. Period. If you can't hear the great impact of lossless sound, that is the simple explanation for lack of perceived effects. In my roonm, the dynamics, surround effects and dialog are significantly improved though bass seems only marginally better (if at all).


Bias-control and level-match dependent, followed distantly by system/room, period.

Doing these comparisons sighted allows in confounders that can easily generate fake perception of difference. Small, trivial differences in level will also lead to large variation in reports of 'quality'. ALL the science points to this . This is why development of codecs proceeds via level-matched blind A/B comparison.

I guarantee that a significant proportion of you reporting big differencesin quality, are either imagining them, or are simply reporting level differences which, when matched, would make the quality difference 'go away'.

As someone else posted on another thread, "You come over here and tell my Home Theater that". Apparently it doesn't care and seems to sound better and fuller anyway.

In reality I am not disagreeing I just wanted to use that line which I thought was pretty funny when used in a Monster Vs. Monoprice HDMI (or any digital cable) discussion.

Poster one ($100 Monster Cable owner): "There better, blah blah blah, sips Kool-aid, proven this, less loss that.

Poster in reply: "Well, you come over here and tell my Home Theater that because when I switched to a $6 Monoprice cable the darn system looked just as good".

Cheers,

Richard

Bias-control and level-match dependent, followed distantly by system/room, period.

Doing these comparisons sighted allows in confounders that can easily generate fake perception of difference. Small, trivial differences in level will also lead to large variation in reports of 'quality'. ALL the science points to this . This is why development of codecs proceeds via level-matched blind A/B comparison.

I guarantee that a significant proportion of you reporting big differencesin quality, are either imagining them, or are simply reporting level differences which, when matched, would make the quality difference 'go away'.


Tell us more about your system that allows for such a dismissal of lossless...

Lossless is subjectively and objective better... End of story.

If you can't hear it, time to work on your theater.

Tell us more about your system that allows for such a dismissal of lossless...

Lossless is subjectively and objective better... End of story.

If you can't hear it, time to work on your theater.

Or your ears. :D

I guarantee that a significant proportion of you reporting big differencesin quality, are either imagining them, or are simply reporting level differences which, when matched, would make the quality difference 'go away'.

Imagining them? Level differences? Come on man. With the majority of releases it is very EASY for me to tell. Some examples I have tried comparing are Black Hawk Down and Pirates of the Caribbean 3 on BD and Batman Begins and Happy feet on HD DVD with their DD 5.1 audio track counterparts. There is more sound detail in all of these lossless tracks. Not only that but I have also compared the Transformers DD+ track with the track on the standard DVD and it sounded markedly better.

I hear a big difference. I can compare it to good CD or SACD to MP3. ;)

... could you please elaborate on the acoustic environment of your friend's room?

I can assure you that the fairly simple, fairly dead room allowed for some very good sounding audio. Both DD & DTHD sounded great, just not different.

Environment makes a big deal. So does speaker position. So does speaker level calibration.

...the "damage" done by a bad setup is going to mask the small gain from TrueHD.

Good environment, good position, good calibration -- I hope minimal "damage".
It seems you guys are suggesting a variety of causes for the results of the setup I used:

insufficient performance
improper calibration
poor environment
my own inability to hear the difference (no offense taken, I'm just making a list of what I've seen in postings)

One conclusion I could reach is that the vast majority of listeners (probably not AVSers) won't experience much difference between DD & DTHD. This kind of confirms the premise of this thread that if your gear won't handle DTHD, you're not likely to miss much.

I'd be interested to learn, if any of you tries to replicate what my friend & I did, what your experiences are. Play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

For those of you that can't hear a difference, stick with DVD; it's a lot cheaper. Ignorance is bliss. Seriously.

I can't believe that, here at AVS, we have gone from comparing the more subtle differences of DD+ vs. lossless... to THIS!

To me it's night and day and I'll pass any blind test you throw at me.

Cheers

StevenZ, this sounds like a good idea for testing, but it's assuming there is no difference in levels between the two tracks, which isn't always the case, and quite unterstandably (and rightfully) so from the marketing perspective.

It's hard to describe but the TrueHD track sound more "alive".

The bat swarm sounds clearer, sharper and has a greater "presence" in the room than experiencing the same scene with the DD audio.

The bats just sounded "flattened" with the DD track running. Almost like the edges of each sound had been rounded off.

The sound effects in the other scenes also seem to "pop" more with the TrueHD track running over DD audio.

Individual effects seem to stand out as opposed to being lost or blended into the background noise.

With the TrueHD track running we tended to notice little sounds which never caught our attention before.

(like I said, it's noticeable but hard to describe) ;)

It was also easier to hear/understand what Morgan Freeman is saying while they are testing the "jumper" at Wayne Enterprises. Specifically..



My wife never could understand what he was saying there until she heard it with the TrueHD track on.

I always feel like the scene on the ice where Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul and Bruce Wayne are sparring with the swords and the gauntlets seems a bit more immersive in TrueHD.

P

For those of you that can't hear a difference, stick with DVD; it's a lot cheaper. Ignorance is bliss. Seriously.

I can't believe that, here at AVS, we have gone from comparing the more subtle differences of DD+ vs. lossless... to THIS!

To me it's night and day and I'll pass any blind test you throw at me.
(Sarcasm ON)
This is a great example of how the AV Science Forum works:
OP describes a methodology, posts results, asks if it's repeatable, gets responses of derision, disbelief, and proof-by-vigorous-assertion.
(Sarcasm OFF)

Thanks for your participation, Sketcha. I'm repeating myself, but I'd be interested to learn, if you try to replicate what my friend & I did, what your experiences are. Play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

I'm not claiming you won't hear a difference. I only want to know if others hear no difference as I and a number of my friends did.

I can assure you that the fairly simple, fairly dead room allowed for some very good sounding audio. Both DD & DTHD sounded great, just not different.

Hi Steve,

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but from your sketchy response this appears to be an area that you do not care to elaborate on. When you say the room is fairly dead, is that based on subjective listening tests, or did your friend actual measure the room's Reverberation Times?

The listening environments of typical multi-purpose rooms are fairly reverberant. This reflected sound can actually be helpful in providing necessary ambiance if you are listening to just two channel music. However, in a multi-channel environment with two to four extra surround speakers already supplying ambiance effects, the room should be quite dead for optimum acoustics. Otherwise the intelligibility is adversely affected by sounds bouncing off of the room boundaries and reflective furnishings. I'm guessing that without a dead and quiet room it will be quite difficult to hear the subtle differences that Amir described earlier.

Larry

Tell us more about your system that allows for such a dismissal of lossless...

Lossless is subjectively and objective better... End of story.

If you can't hear it, time to work on your theater.

It doesn't matter whether I can hear it, or what my equipment is, if my report is based on a sighted, non-level-matched comparison, of sources that may or may not be mastered the same otherwise.

Which it would be, because I don't have the resources to do a rigorous double-blind, levelmatched comparison. Therefore I don't make claims about which is better.

I've related what the science tells us about the fallibility of human perception.
As for lossy vs. lossless, of course lossy can be audibly different from lossless...but it can also be audibly identical to lossless. It all depends on how it's done, what material is being encoded, and what training the listener may have for lossy artifacts. For sure,doing the comparisons 'sighted', as I bet everyone here does, introduces routine errors, where differences are either imagined, or due to something other than the lossy vs lossless, that hasn't been controlled for in the comparison. Any reliable comparison would routinely control for both of these errors.

Btw, if you look around AVSF, you'll find film sound engineers who say the same thing about lossy DD/DTS vs lossless, compared at their best...they're difficult at best to tell apart.

Instead of addressing any of that, what you've done is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, yelling LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU MY SYSTEM ROCKS YOURS SUCKS. Bravo!

So, your system isn't up the task but you are comfortable theeorizing.

Imagining them? Level differences? Come on man. With the majority of releases it is very EASY for me to tell.

So what? It's very easy to imagine differences when you 'expect' one to be better, and it's very easy to erroneously conclude from real but trivial level differences, that one format is intrinsically better than another. That's exactly why those doing rigorous work in audio apply controls for both those sources of error.

Am I not explaining this clearly?

Subtle differences, yes, maybe. Night and day differences, as some posters describe, probably from differences in levels.

So, your system isn't up the task but you are comfortable theeorizing.


:rolleyes:

And again, no addressing the substance of the argument. Lame.

FWIW, my system includes a Pioneer Elite 74txvi AVR, five NHT Superones all around, a 12" Dayton Titanic sub, and a couple of audio/video sources (none are BD/HD yet, but they all do 'hi rez' surround audio like SACD and DVD-A). Typically I feed two-channel audio as lossless FLAC files from a hard disc archive. Room is moderately reverberant so has been treated to tame that. I also use room correction software in the Pioneer. Good enough for you? Now, tell me all about your knowledge of psychoacoustics and scientific method.

Subtle differences, yes, maybe. Night and day differences, as some posters describe, probably from differences in levels.

followed by differences in the mastering itself (which might include boosting level of one but not the other, as well as EQ differences).

Unless the listener can be reasonably sure that the mastering is really the same for two versions, except for the format, and can be sure that the signal levels aren't mismatched by their own gear (e.g., level- or EQ-changing processing being applied to one version but not the other), they have no basis for b=for even beginning to claim that one format is better than the other. Add on top of that the huge biasing effect of listening 'sighted', and these claims become extremely unreliable.

Comparing CD to SACD is not the same thing as compare highly loss compressed audio to lossless.

Both CD & SACD are uncompressed digital audio. SACD just has higher bitdepth and sampling rate.


Actually SACD is 1 bit (in pure form; in practice it's 1-8 bits), and is lossless compressed, as is DVD-A.

So, your system isn't up the task but you are comfortable theeorizing.

The bland, not everyone here is as rich and has such great equipment such as you, but everyone has a right to "theeorizing".

It all depends on the source and whats being played.

Being a drummer for so many years and still being able to hear above 20 KHZ, I will hear a difference when I hear ride cymbals being played. So even with my cheaper system than yours, I too can tell the difference, but only from certain sources with ride cymbals.

Not everyone preceives things the same way, and I suspect the people who cant tell the difference have not trained themselves to discern the differences. You really have to focus on a single element or instrument, not the overall sound.

Not everyone preceives things the same way, and I suspect the people who cant tell the difference have not trained themselves to discern the differences. You really have to focus on a single element or instrument, not the overall sound.

So I have to ask (and not necessarily the person quoted), if it's this difficult to tell the difference, is it really very important? I'm thinkin' the answer is no...

(Sarcasm ON)
This is a great example of how the AV Science Forum works:
OP describes a methodology, posts results, asks if it's repeatable, gets responses of derision, disbelief, and proof-by-vigorous-assertion.
(Sarcasm OFF)

Thanks for your participation, Sketcha. I'm repeating myself, but I'd be interested to learn, if you try to replicate what my friend & I did, what your experiences are. Play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

I'm not claiming you won't hear a difference. I only want to know if others hear no difference as I and a number of my friends did.

It's reasonable that some will not hear the difference. And to anyone of these with a shallow viewing angle, I recommend they stick to DVD. No offense intended. And you're right, the discussion is not beneath AVS. I apologize.

But clearly there are MANY of us who can tell the difference; often like night and day. I don't even have lossless capability yet. All I have is an A2 with an older, H/K 635. I can hear a huge difference between DD and DD+/lossless converted to DTS 1.5! This is what I've been waiting for! DD has long sounded akin to mp3 to my ears! A good way to tell, is with a music DVD with both DD 5.1 and 2-Ch PCM.

If you can't tell the difference... well... like I said... you may consider yourself one of the lucky ones. HD audio doesn't come cheap and DD does.

Cheers

:)

So I have to ask (and not necessarily the person quoted), if it's this difficult to tell the difference, is it really very important? I'm thinkin' the answer is no...

It is very hard to tell the difference, does it matter? Thats subjective, for a regular movie for eg. Star Trek TMP, no; but for lets say the Eagles HDDVD, yes because I listen to the drums.

But I guess if you love and maybe play the horns, love heliocopter sounds then maybe it does matter for movies like Transformers. In this case, I wouldn't give a darn because no matter how sounds comes out, I'm turning the damn thing off.:D

Being a drummer for so many years and still being able to hear above 20 KHZ,


It is highly doubtful that you can hear above 20,000 cycles.:rolleyes:

The bland, not everyone here is as rich and has such great equipment such as you, but everyone has a right to "theeorizing".

It all depends on the source and whats being played.

Being a drummer for so many years and still being able to hear above 20 KHZ, I will hear a difference when I hear ride cymbals being played. So even with my cheaper system than yours, I too can tell the difference, but only from certain sources with ride cymbals.

Not everyone preceives things the same way, and I suspect the people who cant tell the difference have not trained themselves to discern the differences. You really have to focus on a single element or instrument, not the overall sound.

I'm not rich by any means, I just choose to spend most all of my disposable income on home theater rather than a 3rd car, a 2nd home, a golf membership or a lot of vacations. We all have choices. My equipment is very good but not luxury brand stuff for the most part.

But that said, lossless improves on lossy in my room.

But clearly there are MANY of us who can tell the difference; often like night and day.

There may be many who 'claim' they can tell the difference, but unfortunately for them, that by no means makes it true, from a scientific POV. See previous posts of mine on bias and level matching.

In sum:

1) you thought you heard something
2) you might have heard a real difference, or you might have imagined one
3) if it was real, it might have been due to the format, or to something else

Nothing presented distinguishes between these possibilities. Maybe 'many' are certain they know what and why. But they don't. They only THINK they do.

There may be many who 'claim' they can tell the difference, but unfortunately for them, that by no means makes it true, from a scientific POV. See previous posts of mine on bias and level matching.

In sum:

1) you thought you heard something
2) you might have heard a real difference, or you might have imagined one
3) if it was real, it might have been due to the format, or to something else

Nothing presented distinguishes between these possibilities. Maybe 'many' are certain they know what and why. But they don't. They only THINK they do.
:rolleyes:

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dude.

:rolleyes:

And again, no addressing the substance of the argument. Lame.

FWIW, my system includes a Pioneer Elite 74txvi AVR, five NHT Superones all around, a 12" Dayton Titanic sub, and a couple of audio/video sources (none are BD/HD yet, but they all do 'hi rez' surround audio like SACD and DVD-A). Typically I feed two-channel audio as lossless FLAC files from a hard disc archive. Room is moderately reverberant so has been treated to tame that. I also use room correction software in the Pioneer. Good enough for you, punk? Now, tell me all about your knowledge of psychoacoustics and scientific method.

There are too many people here who simply post/participate to WIN the argument/discussion. That is why we get so many responses clearly designed to divert, avoid or try and change directions by either bringing up completely irrelevant points or focusing on some small part or omission in the originating post.

It is a complete waste of time to engage these folks as I have unfortunately found out through endless attempts in the past. What makes it worse is that for the most part these folks are obviously knowledgeable intelligent people. This is the part that makes it so painfully obviously they are just getting their kicks from messing around with the discussion.

It's to bad. I am sure if they spent the same effort trying to ADD to the discussion rather than simply trying to WIN the discussion we would all be the beneficiaries of better overall discussions.

Cheers,

Richard

Cases in point all over this thread hahaa. You point out a selection of scientifially proven and repeatable results and are then asked why you can't tell the difference in yours or whatever.

I can't calculate the launch window for a trip to the moon, but that sure doesn't mean that if I were to quote the findings and best practices of the rocket / balistics scientists who have in the past that this is incorrect :D

IMO, unless you set up a double blind A/B test and can pick the superior codec 10 of 10 times, any claim of hearing a difference seems pretty meaningless. If you haven't actually followed through with an experiment, how could you come to a conclusion like that. I would expect AVSers to be more sceptical rather than just jump to whatever conclusion is fun to say. It's Audio Video Science right?

P.S. AV snobs are lame

I'd say this is a testimate to just how good of quality origirnal DD is.....

Truly amazing even more so considering how much space on the disk it does NOT take up here. :)

I realy try to get most people to just stick with legacy audio. Simpler and operational can be better than all you need to know and do to get lossless to sing properly.

It is highly doubtful that you can hear above 20,000 cycles.:rolleyes:

While you may consider it unlikely, it is not impossible. For example, you can do a quick hearing check here:

http://www.egopont.com/hearing_tests.php?soundID=5000

At the age of 30, I can still hear 18kHZ every time. I can hear 19kHZ, but am doubtful that I could pick it out if I didn't know when to listen for it. When I was tested for the air force at the age of 21, I could hear up to 21kHZ.

Physically, most people can hear a range between 20 and 20kHZ. By the time you are a teenager, most people lost the ability to hear 20kHZ. That does not mean everyone though. As I mentioned, I could still hear higher frequencies at 21. Even now my range is significantly larger than you would expect of someone my age (the full range is 20-18kHZ).

Remember that when you read ranges on the internet, these are all confidence interval ranges. So when physicists say "the human ear can hear between 20 and 20kHZ", you need to add an "under normal conditions" to the end of that normally. Unless we physically specify a reason why higher frequencies are impossible, they are normally just 5 sigma ranges. There will be a few individuals who fall outside of the normal range.

Adding that to the fact that there is probably a correlation between those who can hear really well and those who invest a lot in their audio equipment and you get a situation where I would not find it strange to have a couple of the outliers reading these boards.

There may be many who 'claim' they can tell the difference, but unfortunately for them, that by no means makes it true, from a scientific POV. See previous posts of mine on bias and level matching.
In every case of comparison I have come across with Dolby codecs, TrueHD is recorded from 5-7 db less than DD+. Usually humans perceive the louder of the two to be better. So while I agree that when doing a scientific A/B comparison, that level matching with an external analyzer is imperitive, it doesn't really sustain your argument since the lossy codecs are the ones that would be perceived superior (if we really cannot tell the difference and are being fooled by volume levels like you say) due to being recorded louder.

IMO, unless you set up a double blind A/B test and can pick the superior codec 10 of 10 times, any claim of hearing a difference seems pretty meaningless. If you haven't actually followed through with an experiment, how could you come to a conclusion like that. I would expect AVSers to be more sceptical rather than just jump to whatever conclusion is fun to say. It's Audio Video Science right?Not always. I am one who can agree that sometimes... less data does parts of a lossy track good. Therefore, at times, it is entirely possible that a lossy track could sound better to the human ear even if it isn't as true to the master or as pure. I personally am not debating which can and does sound better. I am debating which in theory is more accurate to the master and more pristine. I am also in agreement with many others here that there is an audible difference to the discerning ear. I personally find these differences most profound in music comparison.

While you may consider it unlikely, it is not impossible. For example, you can do a quick hearing check here:

http://www.egopont.com/hearing_tests.php?soundID=5000

At the age of 30, I can still hear 18kHZ every time. I can hear 19kHZ, but am doubtful that I could pick it out if I didn't know when to listen for it. When I was tested for the air force at the age of 21, I could hear up to 21kHZ.

Physically, most people can hear a range between 20 and 20kHZ. By the time you are a teenager, most people lost the ability to hear 20kHZ. That does not mean everyone though. As I mentioned, I could still hear higher frequencies at 21. Even now my range is significantly larger than you would expect of someone my age (the full range is 20-18kHZ).

Remember that when you read ranges on the internet, these are all confidence interval ranges. So when physicists say "the human ear can hear between 20 and 20kHZ", you need to add an "under normal conditions" to the end of that normally. Unless we physically specify a reason why higher frequencies are impossible, they are normally just 5 sigma ranges. There will be a few individuals who fall outside of the normal range.

Adding that to the fact that there is probably a correlation between those who can hear really well and those who invest a lot in their audio equipment and you get a situation where I would not find it strange to have a couple of the outliers reading these boards.
Actually, you may not really be hearing those frequencies at all but various harmonics of those frequencies. The only way to tell for sure is a professional hearing test.

Subtle differences, yes, maybe. Night and day differences, as some posters describe, probably from differences in levels.

I have heard this "levels" thing over and over. There are subtle things I can hear with True HD and uncompressed PCM that I can't hear on DD. (No matter the level) Yes, not NIGHT and DAY, but subtle differences that make the HT experience better. And I am not imagining it like krabapple says I am.

Actually, you may not really be hearing those frequencies at all but various harmonics of those frequencies. The only way to tell for sure is a professional hearing test.

If you hadn't noticed, I have HAD a professional hearing test. Several of them. I even mentioned one in my previous post. Further, please do not try to use the "you might be hearing harmonics" excuse to explain away results people get from that page. For me to be hearing a harmonic like you claim, the pitch of the note would seem to drop an entire octave from one frequency to the next. I have done more than enough of these tests to know what that sounds like. Remember that a harmonic is an integer multiple of a base frequency. That means there will always be a "drop" from one frequency to the next if you are hearing just a harmonic.

I am not sure if you have had professional frequency tests, but the way you do them is to put someone in a sound proof booth. You then use a frequency generator to generate a sound at that frequency. Generally speaking, you ask the person to raise their hand or make some indication when then hear that sound. You start at low frequencies and ask the person to indicate when the frequency goes up with one signal or down with another. Then you play through the frequencies and watch. The frequencies are timed randomly to make sure they are really hearing something and not noticing patterns in length or rhythm of the frequencies being played.

The difference between testing yourself and having someone else test you is only in the ability to generate a randomly timed signal and to generate a perfectly quiet environment. However, it is perfectly possible for anyone with even a little knowledge to get a very good rough upper limit from tests like those on that page. A computer is a perfect source because it generates the frequencies without lower harmonics or other interference. If you use a decent set of head phones, noise should be a minimal issue. The only problem would be the "placebo" effect, where you think you hear a sound because you just pressed the button saying you should hear a sound. The number I reported was the upper limit for me where the sound was distinct. I stepped through the frequencies carefully enough to know whether or not I was hearing a harmonic. If anything, a professional test for me would only raise the number I gave you, not lower it.

It is very possible for someone to get a fairly solid frequency range from the tests on that page. If they suspect hearing loss, a professional is very necessary. In that case, you not only need to know the range but you need to know the relative intensity at each range. But to just get your range simple tests are all that is necessary.

Deja Vu. :rolleyes:

I can recall these same arguments going on in this hobby for the past half century. I've heard them about everything from the virtues of one vacuum tube vs. another to the relative merits of "audiophile" cables.

The true believers are convinced and are unwilling to consider empirical evidence contrary to their subjective experiences. They contend that those who disagree have inferior equipment, hearing or both. Nothing will change their mind.

The doubters are equally certain, as they cannot accept the impressions of others as being valid without objective "scientific" confirmation data. They insist the perceptions of the others is a form of unintentional self delusion. Nothing will change their minds either.

They might as well be talking in different languages. Neither truly understands the other.

"Twas ever thus. ;)

Deja Vu. :rolleyes:
The doubters are equally certain, as they cannot accept the impressions of others as being valid without objective "scientific" confirmation data. They insist the perceptions of the others is a form of unintentional self delusion. Nothing will change their minds either.But there is scientific evidence that lossless audio is true to the source. Lossy is not. How come nobody tries to discredit if a humans eyes can tell the difference between 480i upconverted to 1080p and a true 1080p source? Some people apparently cannot see the difference. Does that mean there isn't any? All rhetorical questions.

Its not just the codec used or the bitrate, although those things help. Its also the mixing, the bit depth, and the source material.

All things equal, DD @ 348kpbs sounds like ASS compared to TrueHD or PCM.

DD @ 384kbps can sound very good if it's done well, and anything over a good DD mix is overkill IMO. Likewise, a crummy mix still sounds crummy in TrueHD.

While I can easily detect a difference between 480p, upconverted 480p to 1080p, and a true 1080p signal in the video realm, incremental improvements in the audio realm are simply not as readily detectable. At least not to me and with my AV equipment. For years now I've been blown away by really well done DVD sound tracks, many of which are "low bitrate" 384kbps DD. Never once have I thought the audio was lacking in such situations, just the visuals. At least this is my opinion.

All that means is you have maxed out the capabilities of your sound system..... your system obviously can't resolve full bit rate lossless.

My system can resolve such and the lossless is preferred over lossy..

But there is scientific evidence that lossless audio is true to the source. Lossy is not... True. But there is not clear scientific evidence that average listeners perceive much if any of the improvement. At least, not under typical home listening conditions. (Ambient sound, less than perfect equipment, mediocre acoustics, variable sound mixes, etc.) That's really where this debate centers.

True. But there is not clear scientific evidence that average listeners perceive much if any of the improvement. At least, not under typical home listening conditions. (Ambient sound, less than perfect equipment, mediocre acoustics, variable sound mixes, etc.) That's really where this debate centers.
True, and it seems as those with lesser systems / rooms are the first to tell you good old Dolby Digital is the equal of DTS Master Audio or True HD.

True. But there is not clear scientific evidence that average listeners perceive much if any of the improvement. At least, not under typical home listening conditions. (Ambient sound, less than perfect equipment, mediocre acoustics, variable sound mixes, etc.) That's really where this debate centers.

True, and it seems as those with lesser systems / rooms are the first to tell you good old Dolby Digital is the equal of DTS Master Audio or True HD.
Macfan, that's exactly my point. I started this thread to ask the question whether there's much noticeable difference between DD and DTHD in one specific context. [Lots of others obviously missed the question mark in the thread title.]

Jeff somehow sees in that question an assertion that there is no difference. I didn't ask whether thebland, Sketcha, or anyone can tell the difference on an ultimate system, in an ultimate room, with ultimate ears. To date, I haven't seen anyone try to attempt the setup I've described, to see if how their results compare with mine.

Again, play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

It's a question. I'll give 100 points to someone who tries to answer it.

Wow, I'm shocked, shocked that it would 'seem' that way to you

When will someone with a 'greater' system present evidence for the audible differences, from a well-controlled comparison? Ever?

In every case of comparison I have come across with Dolby codecs, TrueHD is recorded from 5-7 db less than DD+. Usually humans perceive the louder of the two to be better. So while I agree that when doing a scientific A/B comparison, that level matching with an external analyzer is imperitive, it doesn't really sustain your argument since the lossy codecs are the ones that would be perceived superior (if we really cannot tell the difference and are being fooled by volume levels like you say) due to being recorded louder.

But the 'reporters' usually know which is TrueHD and which DD in advance. If THAT source of expectation bias was removed, I'd expect the loudness bias to kick in quite nicely. It would make for an amusing experiment.

Macfan, that's exactly my point. I started this thread to ask the question whether there's much noticeable difference between DD and DTHD in one specific context. [Lots of others obviously missed the question mark in the thread title.]

Jeff somehow sees in that question an assertion that there is no difference. I didn't ask whether thebland, Sketcha, or anyone can tell the difference on an ultimate system, in an ultimate room, with ultimate ears. To date, I haven't seen anyone try to attempt the setup I've described, to see if how their results compare with mine.

Again, play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

It's a question. I'll give 100 points to someone who tries to answer it.

Hi Steve,

I sincerely hope that more folks with average systems and ears report their experiences as you requested. However, in fairness here's what you asked in your original posting:

If the TrueHD and Master Audio codecs were doing a better job, then why wasn’t it obvious to us? Were we doing anything wrong? Are we missing something? Are we deaf or crazy?

So with all due respect you shouldn't be surprised, or annoyed, if some of us have attempted to respond to that original question.

Larry

Again, play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

It's a question. I'll give 100 points to someone who tries to answer it.
A few months ago I did a similar comparison using Mozart's opera "Die Zauberflote" ("The Magic Flute"). This is purely acoustic music - vocal and orchestral. Here's a link to my writeup: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12122143#post12122143

Macfan, that's exactly my point. I started this thread to ask the question whether there's much noticeable difference between DD and DTHD in one specific context. [Lots of others obviously missed the question mark in the thread title.]

Jeff somehow sees in that question an assertion that there is no difference. I didn't ask whether thebland, Sketcha, or anyone can tell the difference on an ultimate system, in an ultimate room, with ultimate ears. To date, I haven't seen anyone try to attempt the setup I've described, to see if how their results compare with mine.

Again, play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?

It's a question. I'll give 100 points to someone who tries to answer it.

I did answer this earlier in the thread to Larry.....(and Amir agreed that my assessment was reasonable to what you might find when comparing lossy to lossless)

"
Hi Larry,
I think you might find improvement.

When I upgraded my Halcro SSP-100 to a SSP-200 (added lossless capability over HDMI), the differences were significant and subtle.... It isn't like the whole soundtrarck will be noticeably improved compared to lossy but in certain scenes where there is a lot of action and dialog, the dialog is clearer. Dynamics in highly dynamic scenes are more real and surround effects (for whatever reason) are more enveloping. Bass, however, is only marginally improved (if at all) in my estimation. Dynamics are the number one improvement I can put my finger on with dialog intelligibility and surround effects / envelopment strong seconds.

The upgrade to lossless will give substantial results if your room and equipment is up to the task".

A few months ago I did a similar comparison using Mozart's opera "Die Zauberflote" ("The Magic Flute").http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12122143#post12122143
Thanks. It sounds like you found some differences, but were hard pressed to do so. Though your baseline was DD on DVD, which is limited to 448kbps. I suspect it can only sound better on BD, with a 640kbps limit.

Thanks. It sounds like you found some differences, but were hard pressed to do so. Though your baseline was DD on DVD, which is limited to 448kbps. I suspect it can only sound better on BD, with a 650kbps limit.

So 448Kbps is inferior to the original but 640Kbps (there is no 650) is 100% transparent?:confused:

So with all due respect you shouldn't be surprised, or annoyed, if some of us have attempted to respond to that original question.

I did answer this earlier in the thread to Larry.....(and Amir agreed that my assessment was reasonable to what you might find when comparing lossy to lossless)

Agreed. You both provided answers to the question "What's the difference between DD & DTHD on BD?", and offered carefully controlled, room- and equipment-specific ways to highlight those differences. So far, the only ways proposed, in this thread, to hear the differences involve special room treatment, equipment, and possibly hearing and training. I had hoped the audio performance of DTHD and the others -- relative to DD on BD -- would not be out of reach of most people, and that DTHD would offer broader benefit. After 100+ postings in this thread, I don't have any evidence of that.
I sincerely hope that more folks with average systems and ears report their experiences as you requested.
Me too.

Thanks. It sounds like you found some differences, but were hard pressed to do so. Though your baseline was DD on DVD, which is limited to 448kbps. I suspect it can only sound better on BD, with a 650kbps limit.
True. (And I when I compared TrueHD on analog to the version transcoded to DTS on coax, I failed to detect any difference.)

Agreed. You both provided answers to the question "What's the difference between DD & DTHD on BD?", and offered carefully controlled, room- and equipment-specific ways to highlight those differences. So far, the only ways proposed, in this thread, to hear the differences involve special room treatment, equipment, and possibly hearing and training. I had hoped the audio performance of DTHD and the others -- relative to DD on BD -- would not be out of reach of most people, and that DTHD would offer broader benefit. After 100+ postings in this thread, I don't have any evidence of that.

Me too.

I have a modest system and it is a very apparent difference to me. No special room treatments. In fact the room is set up to make my lovely wife happy. Truly not a very hospitable sound environment. The IB is the only thing one might call special equipment. My experience comes from HD DVD, my BD player has the dreaded LFE bug so it is pretty much useless for any listening comparisons.

So 448Kbps is inferior to the original but 640Kbps (there is no 650) is 100% transparent?:confused:
No. 448k is technically inferior to 640k, though it might sound as good in certain cases. And, aside from the bitrate, comparing a soundtrack from a DVD to another on HD DVD may not even be a comparison of the same soundtrack. It certainly doesn't represent the difference between DD and DTHD on BD.

The average user can't tell the difference between something out of the electronics department from Wal-mart and most of the gear we discuss on AVS, do we need a thread for every one of those as well?

No. 448k is technically inferior to 640k...

...can you also agree that 640Kbps lossy is technically inferior to 6.9Mbps lossless.:D

Lots of others obviously missed the question mark in the thread title.

Jeff somehow sees in that question an assertion that there is no difference. I didn't ask whether thebland, Sketcha, or anyone can tell the difference on an ultimate system, in an ultimate room, with ultimate ears. To date, I haven't seen anyone try to attempt the setup I've described, to see if how their results compare with mine.
Didn't miss a thing.

I'm sorry you feel so pounced upon, but there was more to your OP than you purport. See Larry's post #133.

Cheers

Hey all,
In my opinion the new codecs breath more life into the overall sound quality. It is almost like removing a haze off of the sound. The bottom end is definately not as boomy but feels more naturel. my 02$.

I just had to post a comment which came from my wife the other night that made me smile. I read the first two pages of this thread and felt her comment would be interesting to some.

She was explaining HD audio/Video to a friend, but mainly audio because the friend could easily see the difference.

She made a great comparison to between what you taste with Wine and what you hear in HD movies. She said before she met me she was happy with Wolf Blass Yellow Lable, but now I have almost "ruined" her expectations with wine since her palate has matured to "better" or more complexities...more she was more aware of what to look for in a good wine which made "cheaper" wines less enjoyable.

After listening to her favorite movies over and over with a lossy track then re-listening (<--- is thata word?) she now recognizes the difference. Basically she has trained herself to notice the difference much like she did with better wines.

Moral of the story I guess is that you don't know what you are missing unless you train yourself to know what to look, hear or taste for. Ignorance can be bliss i guess.

I just had to post a comment which came from my wife the other night that made me smile. I read the first two pages of this thread and felt her comment would be interesting to some.

She was explaining HD audio/Video to a friend, but mainly audio because the friend could easily see the difference.

She made a great comparison to between what you taste with Wine and what you hear in HD movies. She said before she met me she was happy with Wolf Blass Yellow Lable, but now I have almost "ruined" her expectations with wine since her palate has matured to "better" or more complexities...more she was more aware of what to look for in a good wine which made "cheaper" wines less enjoyable.

After listening to her favorite movies over and over with a lossy track then re-listening (<--- is thata word?) she now recognizes the difference. Basically she has trained herself to notice the difference much like she did with better wines.

Moral of the story I guess is that you don't know what you are missing unless you train yourself to know what to look, hear or taste for. Ignorance can be bliss i guess.
Yep

That's what I feel is the central theme of this and other threads like it. If you don't care to learn the difference, but want the better picture, spend your money accordingly i.e. on projectors and screens and not on sound equipment.

Just don't expect a non-response when you try to tell me that I can't possibly be hearing any difference. If you ask my old sound engineer, he would tell you that I most certainly can.

So for those of us that have been, for so long forced to drink 2-Buck Chuck...

BRING ON THE SILVER OAK CAB!!!

WOOHOO!!!

:)

I have heard this "levels" thing over and over. There are subtle things I can hear with True HD and uncompressed PCM that I can't hear on DD. (No matter the level) Yes, not NIGHT and DAY, but subtle differences that make the HT experience better. And I am not imagining it like krabapple says I am.

How do you know? Btw I didn't say you ARE imagining it. I've said it's likely you could be.

'Subtle things', if anything, are even more demanding of rigorous controls, than 'obvious' things.

If you hadn't noticed, I have HAD a professional hearing test. Several of them. I even mentioned one in my previous post. Further, please do not try to use the "you might be hearing harmonics" excuse to explain away results people get from that page. For me to be hearing a harmonic like you claim, the pitch of the note would seem to drop an entire octave from one frequency to the next. I have done more than enough of these tests to know what that sounds like. Remember that a harmonic is an integer multiple of a base frequency. That means there will always be a "drop" from one frequency to the next if you are hearing just a harmonic.

Perhaps he meant intermodulation distortion from the gear.

Btw, I don't discount that you could hear to 21 kHz in your youth. IIRC, the limits of human hearing go out to a few kHz beyond 20, detected in children and very rare adults (usually women).

But there is scientific evidence that lossless audio is true to the source. Lossy is not. How come nobody tries to discredit if a humans eyes can tell the difference between 480i upconverted to 1080p and a true 1080p source?

Because the difference in video are greater than the differences in audio, and also within threshold of human detection. The 'limit' of human physiological video resolution has not been reached in consumer gear -- heck, 1080 isn't even close to the resolution of film -- while it has been in audio.

That's why. It's basically an inappropriate analogy.

That said, you'll notice that film is really a series of still images, played fast enough to fool the eye into believing in motion. The 'information' between the stills is lost, of course.
Still, who's complaining? And of course, all home video is lossy. Even the best of it.

Again, play a BD TrueHD track over HDMI to your AVR. With a SPDIF connection to another AVR input, restart the same TrueHD chapter, but with the SPDIF input selected to force a DD output. What's the difference?


And again: by this method you still don't know if a 'difference' is due to imagination, the format, the mastering, or something different that your AVR does to the two different formats.

It's a question. I'll give 100 points to someone who tries to answer it.

It's already been answered. The answer is: it depends.

Yep

Just don't expect a non-response when you try to tell me that I can't possibly be hearing any difference.

Then again, NO ONE's told you that, so why are you implying that they have?

Even compare lossless to lossless, there is a remote chance that something could be introducing an audible difference. So 'impossibility' needs to be qualified..'impossible unless....."

I find very often that subjectivists falsely attribute arguments to objectivists on these matters, that objectivists never made.

If you ask my old sound engineer, he would tell you that I most certainly can.

On what basis? Btw I've seen sound engineers on AVSForum , who actually work with the formats, report that it's unlikely people will hear a difference between lossy and lossless versions, if they're both done right. So, who's right?

On what basis?
He has blind tested me with professional equipment; Neumann and better mics though a Mackie d8b board through some nice Genelecs.

His schooling had told him that there were things that I couldn't, possibly hear.

I proved that to be false in 100% of our tests.

He was forced to give up and hand me back the producer reigns. I always figured that if I made it good enough for me, that it would surely be good enough for most everyone else.

Again I don't expect that everyone can hear what I can. I'm just glad that home theater has evolved to the point that I am satisfied with the sound. And why not? Blu-ray is capable of it so...

Bring it on!

Because the difference in video are greater than the differences in audio, and also within threshold of human detection. Are you aware of the scientific proof that humans who have lost their eyesight are able to heighten their other senses to compensate? Where are you getting this information that the human ear is restricted to 20hz-20khz? Not to mention, with lossy, there is all sorts of data missing within that range. It's simply removed to fit the data transport restrictions. Why couldn't a fine tuned ear or an "audio connoisseur" if you will, be able to detect those slight differences of missing audio, or possibly even hear outside of the ranges you are quoting from an un-references source? Just curious... you seem to think the emporer has no clothes, but there are several of us here that disagree.

Personally, everything above DTS 760kilobits sounds like lossless to me.

... There is no arguing with you, as you have made up your mind and will refute EVERYTHING anybody says... As I said before, this statement could be made by those on both sides of this argument. :rolleyes: :D

Actually krabapple has many valid points. Debates have gone on for years at this forum on how different amplifiers sound from one another, yet when put to double blind testing all have failed to distinguish any difference whatsoever. Many people that absolutely "KNOW" they can hear a difference really fail miserably when taking a double blind test. So if you think/feel/know that you can hear a difference, then I would say spend the money. Krabapple does have a valid point, however, when he states that many differences are imagined or due to incorrect level matching etc.

He has blind tested me with professional equipment; Neumann and better mics though a Mackie d8b board through some nice Genelecs.

His schooling had told him that there were things that I couldn't, possibly hear.

Such as? What were you comparing?

I proved that to be false in 100% of our tests.

So, you achieved positive score for difference in, say, 14 out of 16 attempts, with a levelmatched source in a double-blind A/B or ABX protocol -- do I have that right?

Are you aware of the scientific proof that humans who have lost their eyesight are able to heighten their other senses to compensate? Where are you getting this information that the human ear is restricted to 20hz-20khz?

I didn't say it was...but for the vast majority of adults, it so happens that it is.

What frequencies can blind people hear that sighted people can't, btw?

.
Not to mention, with lossy, there is all sorts of data missing within that range

No, it's not 'all sorts of data'. Lossy compression is a technology. It's not random magic. What sorts of data are 'discarded' is predictable, and dependent on the codec and its settings. Of course.

It's simply removed to fit the data transport restrictions.

Data compression is one goal, the other is transparency. So it very much matters WHICH data are lost. Lossy compression is based on 'psymodels' - pyschoacoustics models of human hearing, which have discerned which 'sounds' are likely to be missed (because they are masked in music, or beyond the audible range of the typical listener), and which aren't.


Why couldn't a fine tuned ear or an "audio connoisseur" if you will, be able to detect those slight differences of missing audio, or possibly even hear outside of the ranges you are quoting from an un-references source? Just curious... you seem to think the emporer has no clothes, but there are several of us here that disagree.

Again, what's with people erecting straw man arguments like this? Please read more carefully in the future. As for references, here's a standard text:
Zwicker, E. and Fastl, H. (1999).
Psychoacoustics: facts and models.
Springer series in information sciences, 22. Springer, Berlin ; New York, 2nd updated edition.

I didn't say a fine tuned ear COULDN'T detect lossy artifacts -- in fact, with training some can detect them at the highest bitrates. I know of a few mp3 developers on hydrogenaudio.org who can -- and they demonstrate it with ABX tests. Here's a page with samples used by codec developers to tune mp3s, if you want to develop an ear for lossy artifact, try encoding them with the best codecs at high bitrates, and see if you can ABX them from source:

http://ff123.net/training/training.html

Once you can do that, try 'regular' musical samples and see if you can still ABX them. You can download a software ABX tool here

http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/


Demonstrating an ability to hear lossy artifacts at high bitrates via ABX comparison is a far cry from some self-proclaimed audiophile/gear snob claiming they can routinely hear lossy artifacts in high bitrate encodes in their listening room.

Because the difference in video are greater than the differences in audio, and also within threshold of human detection. The 'limit' of human physiological video resolution has not been reached in consumer gear...

actually, based on the average viewing distance and TV size it pretty much has...

I didn't say it was...but for the vast majority of adults, it so happens that it is.

What frequencies can blind people hear that sighted people can't, btw?I didn't associate blind people and advanced audible frequency range anywhere. I was speaking of better attention and mental processing due to heightened sense.

.


No, it's not 'all sorts of data'. Lossy compression is a technology. It's not random magic. What sorts of data are 'discarded' is predictable, and dependent on the codec and its settings. Of course. By "all sorts of data" I meant data within the 20hz - 20khz range you mentioned.


Data compression is one goal, the other is transparency. So it very much matters WHICH data are lost. Lossy compression is based on 'psymodels' - pyschoacoustics models of human hearing, which have discerned which 'sounds' are likely to be missed (because they are masked in music, or beyond the audible range of the typical listener), and which aren't.I'm well aware of lossy compression practices. While best case methods are used, it's still based on algorithims.


Demonstrating an ability to hear lossy artifacts at high bitrates via ABX comparison is a far cry from some self-proclaimed audiophile/gear snob claiming they can routinely hear lossy artifacts in high bitrate encodes in their listening room.Is this comment directed at everyone who is disagreeing with you on this topic, or just at thebland?

Personally, everything above DTS 760kilobits sounds like lossless to me.

Hi,

Well since you're 20 years old don't expect it to get any better as you get more mileage on those ears. (You probably should have stayed away from that 120+ db car audio system.) ;)

Seriously, I'd be interested to know if anyone 60 years and older can perceive a difference between Dolby Digital at 640 kbps and Dolby TrueHD.

Thanks.

Larry

So, you achieved positive score for difference in, say, 14 out of 16 attempts, with a levelmatched source in a double-blind A/B or ABX protocol -- do I have that right?
Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying... with one caveat; It was 16 out of 16.

Actually I listen to TV/radio at a low Volume, I listen to movies at -20 from 0.
I agree that with hearing its a Downward spiral.
I still like lossless audo better than lossy, but I can't tell 1.5 DTS from 6mibs PCM.

Perhaps he meant intermodulation distortion from the gear.

Btw, I don't discount that you could hear to 21 kHz in your youth. IIRC, the limits of human hearing go out to a few kHz beyond 20, detected in children and very rare adults (usually women).

i don't think its fair to include references to Women. My ex could here WHAT I WAS THINKING. What the heck Hz was that? Darn freaky I tell you. :D

Cheers,

Richard

Actually I listen to TV/radio at a low Volume, I listen to movies at -20 from 0.
I agree that with hearing its a Downward spiral.
I still like lossless audo better than lossy, but I can't tell 1.5 DTS from 6mibs PCM.
1.5 DTS is basically 300K/channel; roughly the equivalent of 600K mp3! I wouldn't be surprised that I couldn't tell the difference myself.


EDIT: After I bought my A2 and hooked it up via optical to my H/K 635, I realized that I was home. No need to spend money I don't have to upgrade the receiver to HDMI.

So I am presently following my own advice and remaining ignorant to advanced codecs...

and so far, it's bliss!
.

i don't think its fair to include references to Women. My ex could here WHAT I WAS THINKING. What the heck Hz was that? Darn freaky I tell you. :D

Cheers,

Richard
:D

My wife can hear me fart from the other side of the house and ask why I didn't say "Excuse me!"

:D

My wife can hear me fart from the other side of the house and ask why I didn't say "Excuse me!"

Hahaa, I had a bit of a hard time with sneezes. Not that I didn't know to say "Bless You" or whatever, but I simply wasn't very good a differentiating a cute girl sneeze from say lint floating up against a sofa.

In the end I was saying "Bless You" to any sound I didn't recognize as speech. Coughs were my number one error.

Would go something like:
Ex: Cough
Me: Bless you
Ex: That was a cough
Me: Better safe than sorry
Ex: Rolleyes

Cheers,

Richard

Hi,

Well since you're 20 years old don't expect it to get any better as you get more mileage on those ears. (You probably should have stayed away from that 120+ db car audio system.) ;)

Seriously, I'd be interested to know if anyone 60 years and older can perceive a difference between Dolby Digital at 640 kbps and Dolby TrueHD.

Thanks.

Larry

See my post above and I am 65 with crappy hearing. Much loss due to lots of shotgunning as a youngster. However, I can hear a deer walking in the woods very easily. Just like my eyes see the screen door when I look at a Plasma TV, no matter how far away I stand. My eyes see the screen, and my ears are very sensitive to what I concentrate on.

Huge differences in transients and in low frequencies.

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying... with one caveat; It was 16 out of 16.


OK, and you were comparing.....

actually, based on the average viewing distance and TV size it pretty much has...

You're right that screen size and viewing distance can make things like 720 vs 1080p moot. I was thinking 'best case' though -- which would be like achieving 'film' resolution while standing very close to the screen. We aren't there yet in video.

I didn't associate blind people and advanced audible frequency range anywhere. I was speaking of better attention and mental processing due to heightened sense.


OK, now please relate this to the argument at hand, thanks. Are you saying that this 'heightened sense' will more easily distinguish the best lossy from lossless, and that that's what people on this forum are probably experiencing -- the audio acuity of the blind?


By "all sorts of data" I meant data within the 20hz - 20khz range you mentioned.

Yes, and....? It's still not 'all sorts' of data that are discarded. It's particular 'kinds' of data.

I'm well aware of lossy compression practices. While best case methods are used, it's still based on algorithims.

As are lossless compression practices. As are digital processes in your signal chain. So....?


Is this comment directed at everyone who is disagreeing with you on this topic, or just at thebland?

It's directed at anyone on this thread that's made claims of audible difference from uncontrolled comparisons....including 'even my wife heard it'.

Anyone who's also allowed the possibility that they were wrong, is excluded. :p

:D

My wife can hear me fart from the other side of the house and ask why I didn't say "Excuse me!"

.....and thats a lot of low end lossless sounds of the likes from this thread no doubt :D

...and if you were to reproduce this sound, it would sounds the best from the Blands superior setup.

See my post above and I am 65 with crappy hearing. Much loss due to lots of shotgunning as a youngster. However, I can hear a deer walking in the woods very easily. Just like my eyes see the screen door when I look at a Plasma TV, no matter how far away I stand. My eyes see the screen, and my ears are very sensitive to what I concentrate on.

Huge differences in transients and in low frequencies.

Hi Jerry,

Thanks for the response.

Larry

It's directed at anyone on this thread that's made claims of audible difference from uncontrolled comparisons....including 'even my wife heard it'.

Anyone who's also allowed the possibility that they were wrong, is excluded. :pI think that I am going to (for the sake of sanity) have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Personally, I can tell a difference, others seem to be able to tell a difference, some probably more than others and some maybe not at all. But who am I to argue. All I can share is my personal experience and technical information. This is a purely subjective subject and the OP was clearly hoping for more answers like yours to support his feeling that an inferior codec, equipment, and acoustical space dynamics do not matter because the human ear isn't able to discern the difference. I however disagree and I will leave it at that.

Good Day. :)

I think that I am going to (for the sake of sanity) have to agree to disagree with you on this one. Personally, I can tell a difference, others seem to be able to tell a difference, some probably more than others and some maybe not at all. But who am I to argue. All I can share is my personal experience and technical information. This is a purely subjective subject and the OP was clearly hoping for more answers like yours to support his feeling that an inferior codec, equipment, and acoustical space dynamics do not matter because the human ear isn't able to discern the difference. I however disagree and I will leave it at that.


That's all that can be said at the end of the day. I myself feel that I often hear an appreciable difference between lossless/uncompressed audio and the lossy variant included on many of my nearly 300 owned HDM releases. While my methods of volume matching aren't precise and my tests aren't entirely scientific, this is what I have concluded for myself with most of the movies I've used for comparison. There are many potential confounding factors, but there's no reason to stress over this topic when discussing audio delivery on a medium (Blu-ray) that can easily accommodate lossless audio.

OK, and you were comparing.....
We were comparing people who would argue a point based on someone else's experience and those who had the class to recognize that others might actually experience things differently. He said that there were no people that would argue the former. I won... 16 out of 16.

;)

Actually one case was whether or not I could hear frequency and volume changes of less than 3 db. We tried many different frequencies along with general volume and I passed every blind test... repeatedly. We didn't do any serious, scientific control or anything. We sat there, I closed my eyes, he made changes, sometimes waiting for prolonged periods in an attempt to trick me and I proved to him that I could hear all changes down to 1.5 db.

This was with rock and roll and the music had enough of its own changes so it was actually quite a challenge.

You may not be satisfied with my answer, but I am, and a professional engineer that was working hard to save face is also satisfied. Your opinion of the situation, to me means... well... you know...

jack.

Cheers

:)

.....and thats a lot of low end lossless sounds of the likes from this thread no doubt :D

...and if you were to reproduce this sound, it would sounds the best from the Blands superior setup.
:D:D:D

...the OP was clearly hoping for more answers like yours to support his feeling that an inferior codec, equipment, and acoustical space dynamics do not matter because the human ear isn't able to discern the difference.
Hardly. I was hoping for someone to tell me how their experience, with their own setup, switching between the HDMI DTHD feed, and the SPDIF DD feed, off the same Blu-ray disc, compared to mine. I have not expressed opinions as you've indicated. I have not said the human ear cannot hear the difference. I haven't even said that I'm incapable of hearing the difference. I've only reported that with the equipment I tried, with the method I used, in the room where it happened, I did not hear a difference.

I've read plenty of (what seem to me to be chest-thumping) assertions about terrific rooms, equipment, hearing, and talent. I haven't read any reports of anyone replicating the A/B I described, whether their experiences were the same as mine or not.

I used to think the same thing. Until I started putting the TrueHD out analog instead. That is where you really notice the difference.

I am not as famaliar with BR drives as I am HD DVD. On the HD DVD side, you basically have 5 options: Onkyo 805, HD-XA1, HD-XA2, HD-A35 or a HTPC with a 7.1 out sound card (nero with the HD & Multichannel plugin is able to decode the TrueHD and DTS-MA tracks. and send them out analog).

I used to watch them on my HD-A3 and thought they sounded about the same too. I was using the optical optical. And just because your receiver or player can use hdmi, it doesn't mean it can do hdmi 1.3 which is necessary for TrueHD.

There is another possibility as well. Unbeknownst to many, many blurays have a hidden DD track that is sent out instead of TrueHD if the player perceives that the output does not support TrueHD. These tracks are only viewable when you rip the disc and edit the EVOs with an evo demuxer.

There is a difference.

If your player has analog outs (more than the two red and white RCA) for audio, I suggest you try that instead. Depending on the player, you may notice a difference.

...I am not as famaliar with BR drives as I am HD DVD. On the HD DVD side, you basically have 5 options: Onkyo 805, HD-XA1, HD-XA2, HD-A35 or a HTPC with a 7.1 out sound card (nero with the HD & Multichannel plugin is able to decode the TrueHD and DTS-MA tracks. and send them out analog).

HTPC can't fully decode TrueHD/DTS Master at this time.


...I used to watch them on my HD-A3 and thought they sounded about the same too. I was using the optical optical. And just because your receiver or player can use hdmi, it doesn't mean it can do hdmi 1.3 which is necessary for TrueHD...

You were not listening to TrueHD/DTS Master thought S/PDIF optical. Also you don't need HDMI 1.3 to Listen to TrueHD/DTS Master as long as it is decoded in the player first. You only need 1.3 to pass TrueHD/ DTS Master in it's native packet bitstream.


...If your player has analog outs (more than the two red and white RCA) for audio, I suggest you try that instead. Depending on the player, you may notice a difference.

Converting to analog in the player causes an extra 2 steps (D/A to A/D) in the audio chain and deteriorates sound quality.

Converting to analog in the player causes an extra 2 steps (D/A to A/D) in the audio chain and deteriorates sound quality.Where do the extra 2 steps come in? After bass management and time alignment are applied, the player converts the signal to analogue only once. That signal is then transmitted from the player into the receiver for amplification via an all analogue signal path.

Sanjay

This is a purely subjective subject and the OP was clearly hoping for more answers like yours to support his feeling that an inferior codec, equipment, and acoustical space dynamics do not matter because the human ear isn't able to discern the difference. I however disagree and I will leave it at that.

Of course you disagree, because that's a ridiculous straw man you've put up there.:rolleyes:

I'd disagree with anyone who made such claims too. But no one has.

If that's the best you can do, declaring victory and retiring from the debate, would seem to be your best option.

We were comparing people who would argue a point based on someone else's experience and those who had the class to recognize that others might actually experience things differently. He said that there were no people that would argue the former. I won... 16 out of 16.

;)


Fun-ny.

Actually one case was whether or not I could hear frequency and volume changes of less than 3 db.

Such a claim would hardly be controversial. Level matching is routinely done to within 0.2 dB , not to within 3 dB.

So, did you test anything more cutting edge?

HTPC can't fully decode TrueHD/DTS Master at this time.


PowerDVD does decode TrueHD, and it appears to do so properly in the latest version. You can either use analog to pass it to the receiver, or HDMI on Intel G33 and G35 chipsets. It doesn't decode DTS-HD-MA, however.


Where do the extra 2 steps come in? After bass management and time alignment are applied, the player converts the signal to analogue only once. That signal is then transmitted from the player into the receiver for amplification via an all analogue signal path.

Sanjay

Some receivers immediately convert analog inputs to digital to do processing before amplification. Others can bypass it.

Hardly. I was hoping for someone to tell me how their experience, with their own setup, switching between the HDMI DTHD feed, and the SPDIF DD feed, off the same Blu-ray disc, compared to mine. I have not expressed opinions as you've indicated. I have not said the human ear cannot hear the difference. I haven't even said that I'm incapable of hearing the difference. I've only reported that with the equipment I tried, with the method I used, in the room where it happened, I did not hear a difference.

I've read plenty of (what seem to me to be chest-thumping) assertions about terrific rooms, equipment, hearing, and talent. I haven't read any reports of anyone replicating the A/B I described, whether their experiences were the same as mine or not.

Ok, so I did (Edit: Done hahaa) some unscientific testing as well.

My system is HD-A1 and PS3 into Anthem D2 with Anthem MCA5/2 amps and top end Paradigm reference speakers all around (100 v.3 fronts etc). Not quite the Statements, but they work great for me.

My Loft is not treated and probably a pretty bad acoustic environment. I should be getting the ARC-1 (Anthem Room Correction -1) kit within the next week which I am hoping will improve things to sound even better and I can retry the tests.

My testing was all with HDMI. I would simply switch between the TrueHD, DD Plus (HD-A1) or PCM / TrueHD / DD5.1 (PS3). Sometimes restarting a chapter and sometimes just on the fly.

I always hear a difference between the DD plus/DD5.1 and Lossless TrueHD or PCM. It's hard to quantify obviously, but it just sounds fuller, clearer and more enveloping. More like you are experiencing or in the sound field rather then just listening to it.

With the PS3 it's much harder to tell any difference between TrueHD and PCM. I am pretty sure I could tell in a blind test that you switched between them, but they both sounds great so I doubt I could pick one over the other.

The reality is that I try this test with EVERY disk. I just can't help checking to see which sounds better to me. In the end I always end up preferring the highest bandwidth source. Between PCM 6.9mps and TrueHD 3.2/6mps I usually just leave it on PCM since they both sounds great.

One interesting thing I noticed was that Sony TrueHD seems to run around a variable 3.2-3.6/9 bitrate and all the Disney TrueHD bitrates are at 6.9. Any reason for that? How does that work exactly that one his higher bandwidth than the other for the same number of TrueHD channels?

PCM always seems to be 6.9. I think I am remembering that correctly.

So there you have it. A similar test although not exactly. We can probably argue that this is all in my head etc, but the reality is that with over 150 disks I am always consistent. Maybe I am just consistently deluded hahaa. In any case, I like it so it's all good for me.

Cheers,

Richard

I used to think the same thing. Until I started putting the TrueHD out analog instead. That is where you really notice the difference.

I am not as famaliar with BR drives as I am HD DVD. On the HD DVD side, you basically have 5 options: Onkyo 805, HD-XA1, HD-XA2, HD-A35 or a HTPC with a 7.1 out sound card (nero with the HD & Multichannel plugin is able to decode the TrueHD and DTS-MA tracks. and send them out analog).

I used to watch them on my HD-A3 and thought they sounded about the same too. I was using the optical optical. And just because your receiver or player can use hdmi, it doesn't mean it can do hdmi 1.3 which is necessary for TrueHD.

There is another possibility as well. Unbeknownst to many, many blurays have a hidden DD track that is sent out instead of TrueHD if the player perceives that the output does not support TrueHD. These tracks are only viewable when you rip the disc and edit the EVOs with an evo demuxer.

There is a difference.

If your player has analog outs (more than the two red and white RCA) for audio, I suggest you try that instead. Depending on the player, you may notice a difference.

Unbeknowst to you, your optical connection was actually passing DTS 5.1 and not TrueHD all along. Only HDMI and Analogue are/were able to pass the advanced codecs.

PCM can go Optical/Coax, but not full TrueHD or DTS-MA.

Could be a big part of why you couldn't tell a difference.

Cheers,

Richard

...With the PS3 it's much harder to tell any difference between TrueHD and PCM. I am pretty sure I could tell in a blind test that you switched between them, but they both sounds great so I doubt I could pick one over the other....
One interesting thing I noticed was that Sony TrueHD seems to run around a variable 3.2-3.6/9 bitrate and all the Disney TrueHD bitrates are at 6.9. Any reason for that? How does that work exactly that one his higher bandwidth than the other for the same number of TrueHD channels?

PCM always seems to be 6.9. I think I am remembering that correctly...
If from the same master and presented at the same bit dept/sample rate TrueHD and LPCM are exactly the same (other than possible level matching).

Disney almost always uses LPCM. TrueHD is always going to be a variable rate. LPCM is always at a fixed rate and 6.9 LPCM is 5.1 48/24 and 4.6 LPCM is 5.1 48/16.

You were not listening to TrueHD/DTS Master thought S/PDIF optical. Also you don't need HDMI 1.3 to Listen to TrueHD/DTS Master as long as it is decoded in the player first. You only need 1.3 to pass TrueHD/ DTS Master in it's native packet bitstream.


You are wrong there my friend. An HTPC can with the right software. Nero 8 with the HD DVD/BR plugin AND the multichannel plugin can. PowerDVD cannot as of yet.

What you cannot do is pass along... at the moment

I was making the point that you CAN'T send it out optical. I did not say that I was sending TrueHD out optical as that is not possible.

Unbeknowst to you, your optical connection was actually passing DTS 5.1 and not TrueHD all along. Only HDMI and Analogue are/were able to pass the advanced codecs.

PCM can go Optical/Coax, but not full TrueHD or DTS-MA.

Could be a big part of why you couldn't tell a difference.

Cheers,

Richard

It actually is only passing DD. The HD-A2 outputted DTS while the A3 outputted DD.

As I said, optical does not have the bandwidth. You either need an HDMI 1.3 connection OR analog out. And you really need analog out 6.1 or else you are either recoding the Audio by combing a few channesl or stripping it.

EDIT: Well can output bitstream but you would need one of the new 3850 ATI cards that has the builtin hdmi out.

It actually is only passing DD. The HD-A2 outputted DTS while the A3 outputted DD.

As I said, optical does not have the bandwidth. You either need an HDMI 1.3 connection OR analog out. And you really need analog out 6.1 or else you are either recoding the Audio by combing a few channesl or stripping it.

EDIT: Well can output bitstream but you would need one of the new 3850 ATI cards that has the builtin hdmi out.

My understanding was that my HD-A1 passes DTS 5.1. I remember this cause there were a lot of folks that couldn't understand why it didn't pass the obiquitous DD5.1 which everyone could process (yeah I know probably almost everyone could also do DTS, but that's how I remember it). That and that is what my D2 says it recieves.

Splitting hairs for this discussion of course.

Cheers,

Richard

If from the same master and presented at the same bit dept/sample rate TrueHD and LPCM are exactly the same (other than possible level matching).

Disney almost always uses LPCM. TrueHD is always going to be a variable rate. LPCM is always at a fixed rate and 6.9 LPCM is 5.1 48/24 and 4.6 LPCM is 5.1 48/16.

With the PS3 display on, the Disney TrueHD bitrate always seems to hold rock steady at 6.9 while the Sony ones vary from 3.2-3.6/9.

In any case...

Cheers,

Richard

My understanding was that my HD-A1 passes DTS 5.1. I remember this cause there were a lot of folks that couldn't understand why it didn't pass the obiquitous DD5.1 which everyone could process (yeah I know probably almost everyone could also do DTS, but that's how I remember it). That and that is what my D2 says it recieves.

Splitting hairs for this discussion of course.

Cheers,

Richard



There was a licensing change with Toshiba on the third generation where they outputted DD instead of DTS via optical. I think either sound about the same anyway. I could understand if the original was DTS, but it seems most on HD DVD are either DD+ or Dolby TrueHD. Too many harped on DTS having a higher bandwidth when either way, you are either stripping or reprocessing the video.

The big difference in audio on the HD XA2 and a35 is that they offered analog 5.1 out which gives much better results than optical out. You wouldn't think that there would be a difference as both offer 5.1, but even people with high end receivers notice a difference. I noticed the same thing using analog out instead of optical out on my htpc. Even in 5.1 material and I have an onkyo 5.1 system that is no slouch.

I used to think that most players just ripped the audio off the disk and sent it untouched to the receiver via hdmi or optical or coaxial, but apparently alot of players decode first and then resend to the receiver... even if you pick bitstream.

I am just offering a suggestion.

There is the other possibility that the player actually has a better decoder than the receiver that you are playing it on as well. I wouldn't be overly surprised by a player doing a better job. One needs to remember that all of these players are pretty high end themselves. And software players are constantly being worked on and updated as in the case of my Nero mention before. Alot of software players use the CPU to decode the audio and do not always use the cards builtin chips becuase they simply don't recognize them (and very few will decode TrueHD anyway).

It goes against logic that the analog outs are the better option... but sometimes they are. Just know from experience and the experiences that others have expressed.

With the PS3 display on, the Disney TrueHD bitrate always seems to hold rock steady at 6.9 while the Sony ones vary from 3.2-3.6/9.

In any case...

Cheers,

Richard

Universal seems to have about the same bitrate for TrueHD that you are describing with Sony. Just an FYI, I think I remember that Sony is one of the studios that have the hidden DD tracks on them that you can't select.

This is from Highdefdigest on Resident evil extinction


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1212/residentevilextinction.html

Continuing Sony's movement away from space-hogging PCM audio, the movie's original English-language soundtrack is provided in lossless Dolby TrueHD 5.1 format. If your hardware is not compatible with TrueHD, the disc will default to a hidden standard Dolby Digital 5.1 mix that can't be selected from the menus.

...You either need an HDMI 1.3 connection OR analog out...

Any version of HDMI (1.0, 1.1, 1.2,1.2a, or 1.3) will work with player decoded TrueHD.

...The big difference in audio on the HD XA2 and a35 is that they offered analog 5.1 out which gives much better results than optical out. You wouldn't think that there would be a difference as both offer 5.1, but even people with high end receivers notice a difference....

The analog out is lossless TrueHD decoded (or DD+) but the S/PDIF optical is transcoded and down converted to standard lossy DD (640Kbps). This is why S/PDIF inferior. Of course HDMI would be the best of the 3 options if available.

Well my HD-A1 also output full bandwidth Dolby TrueHD via the Analogue outs which is how I listened to everything up until I upgraded my processor to the D2 from the AVM 20.

Cheers,

Richard

Any version of HDMI (1.0, 1.1, 1.2,1.2a, or 1.3) will work with player decoded TrueHD.



The analog out is lossless TrueHD decoded (or DD+) but the S/PDIF optical is transcoded and down converted to standard lossy DD (640Kbps). This is why S/PDIF inferior. Of course HDMI would be the best of the 3 options if available.

I am not so sure about that. Analog out with 7.1 can be just as if not more effective depending on your receiver. Just because a receiver is capable of decoding TrueHD, does not necessarily mean it is the better choice.

It does matter if the player can't uncompress the audio and send it out the hdmi. Not all players can. Furthermore, very few can decode DTS-HD and only send the core and the full amount. There are some that use DTS-HD like Pan's labyrinth.

HDMI 1.0

Released December 2002.


Single-cable digital audio/video connection with a maximum bitrate of 4.9 Gbit/s. Supports up to 165 Mpixel/s video (1080p60 Hz or UXGA) and 8-channel/192 kHz/24-bit audio.


HDMI 1.1

Released May 2004.


Added support for DVD Audio.


HDMI 1.2

Released August 2005.


Added support for One Bit Audio, used on Super Audio CDs, up to 8 channels.
Availability of HDMI Type A connector for PC sources.
Ability for PC sources to use native RGB color-space while retaining the option to support the YCbCr CE color space.
Requirement for HDMI 1.2 and later displays to support low-voltage sources.


HDMI 1.3

Released 22 June 2006.


Increases single-link bandwidth to 340 MHz (10.2 Gbit/s)
Optionally supports 30-bit, 36-bit, and 48-bit xvYCC with Deep Color or over one billion colors, up from 24-bit sRGB or YCbCr in previous versions.
Incorporates automatic audio syncing (Audio video sync) capability.
Optionally supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams for external decoding by AV receivers. TrueHD and DTS-HD are lossless audio codec formats used on Blu-ray Discs and HD DVDs. If the disc player can decode these streams into uncompressed audio, then HDMI 1.3 is not necessary, as all versions of HDMI can transport uncompressed audio.
Availability of a new mini connector for devices such as camcorders.

Some receivers immediately convert analog inputs to digital to do processing before amplification. Others can bypass it.Very few receivers digitize the multi-channel analogue inputs. Most receivers typically bypass it to the amps.

Sanjay

My testing was all with HDMI. I would simply switch between the TrueHD, DD Plus (HD-A1) or PCM / TrueHD / DD5.1 (PS3). Sometimes restarting a chapter and sometimes just on the fly.

I always hear a difference between the DD plus/DD5.1 and Lossless TrueHD or PCM. It's hard to quantify obviously, but it just sounds fuller, clearer and more enveloping. More like you are experiencing or in the sound field rather then just listening to it.
Thank you for trying, and thank you for posting your experiences.

I am not so sure about that. Analog out with 7.1 can be just as if not more effective depending on your receiver. Just because a receiver is capable of decoding TrueHD, does not necessarily mean it is the better choice.

It does matter if the player can't uncompress the audio and send it out the hdmi. Not all players can. Furthermore, very few can decode DTS-HD and only send the core and the full amount. There are some that use DTS-HD like Pan's labyrinth.

This isn't that complicated. If the player can internally decode the codec, you can get the full quality track with either analog outs (5.1 or 7.1) or HDMI. You only need HDMI 1.3 if you want to send the undecoded track to a receiver that can decode the advanced audio codecs. The part that you underlined basically says what I posted above, but here it is again:

Optionally supports output of Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio streams for external decoding by AV receivers. TrueHD and DTS-HD are lossless audio codec formats used on Blu-ray Discs and HD DVDs. If the disc player can decode these streams into uncompressed audio, then HDMI 1.3 is not necessary, as all versions of HDMI can transport uncompressed audio.

I'm way late to the thread, but I wanted to say that I can tell a difference in some discs between DD and TrueHD, and, on other discs, not so much. I had some people over the other day, and they wanted to see and hear the downstairs theater, just to get an idea of what they might be able to do in their home. So, I popped in Spider-Man 3 and we watched the scene where Peter is attacked by Harry.

Since there's no DD track on the disc, I assumed we were listening to TrueHD, and during a few key parts of the scene (when the flying bombs zoom past the camera being one of them), I thought the sound seemed sort of claustrophobic. Like it wasn't as spacious as it usually is.

To describe it more accurately, I'd say it sounded like the volume was at its max peak, and if it were to be turned up any louder, it would just sound distorted. With TrueHD and PCM, I've never experienced any distortion of any kind.

We finished watching the scene, and my friends were impressed, but I checked the AV Settings menu on the PS3, and, sure enough, it was set to output Bitstream instead of LPCM. So, in that case, I noticed a difference.

My setup is really cheap, too, so I don't think it's an issue of having high-end equipment so much as it is the authoring process on the disc itself.

...sure enough, it was set to output Bitstream instead of LPCM. So, in that case, I noticed a difference.

My setup is really cheap, too, so I don't think it's an issue of having high-end equipment so much as it is the authoring process on the disc itself.

You do have your PS3 hooked through HDMI (questioning because you labeled your equipment as "really cheap")? That is the only way you can get a lossless codec from the PS3. Also you should have it set to output LPCM since the PS3 can't send native lossless bitstream (and your receiver probably can't decode it). It decodes the TrueHD and sends it out over HDMI as lossless LPCM.

So, I popped in Spider-Man 3 and we watched the scene where Peter is attacked by Harry.

Since there's no DD track on the disc, I assumed we were listening to TrueHD,{snip}

There is a DD track on Spider-Man 3, it's just not listed in the menu. If you're using optical and chose the DTHD track, you were listening to the "hidden" DD track that some BDs have.

As to whether you should have the player set to bitstream or PCM, it depends on what sort of connection you're using (optical or HDMI.) Generally speaking, if you're using optical you should have it set to bitstream and if you're using HDMI, you should set it to PCM. I'm unfamiliar with the settings menu of the PS3, so I don't know whether it lets you change the setting for different codecs (like my Panny does) but if that's the case, it would be a little more complicated.

Anybody have a Dual Format player that is capable of bitstreaming HDR audio codecs or can decode TrueHD? Does such a player exist?

I was reading the Boewulf BD Import (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1420/beowulf_uk.html)review on HDD, and they had this to say about the audio:

The Audio: Rating the Sound


Unbelievable. I was already struck with awe by the amazing Dolby Digital Plus track Paramount included on the domestic HD DVD release of 'Beowulf,' but Warner Brothers stops the show with a lossless Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround mix that's, quite frankly, a sonic revelation. Boasting improved fidelity, subtly increased stability, and more nuanced bass, the TrueHD track featured on this import makes me wish I could bump my score higher than a five.

So he seems to think there is an improvement, but I know everything he says will be discounted as "unscientific." So if anybody could grab a copy of both and do some testing I think this could be a prime example.

Brandon

Anybody have a Dual Format player that is capable of bitstreaming HDR audio codecs or can decode TrueHD? Does such a player exist?I thought the Samsung Dual Format Player (BD-UP5000) does, but it's of course been discontinued.

I thought the Samsung Dual Format Player (BD-UP5000) does, but it's of course been discontinued.

What about the LG or Samsungs currently on the market? Can they at least decode TrueHD?

Brandon

What about the LG or Samsungs currently on the market? Can they at least decode TrueHD?

BrandonWell, the BD-UP5000 is still on the market, just not being produced anymore. It supports internal decoding of all the codecs including DTS-HD-MA and can also output the encoded track as bitstream to a receiver capable of decoding if desired. It's a nice little player, but if I am going to be buying a Blu-Ray player at this point, It needs to be Profile 2.0, work with my harmony remote, and decode DTS-HD-MA. It doesn't look like there will be such a player that fits my requirements until fall and then even, it doesn't look like it will be priced in a range I am comfortable buying in at just yet.

I can't believe that no one on the web has done a blind test on this yet!

I can't believe that no one on the web has done a blind test on this yet!

Blind tests are for things like esoteric speaker cables versus coathangers, where there is no obvious difference.

Lossless codecs compared to lossy are like Edison cylinders compared to CDs.

Blind tests are for things like esoteric speaker cables versus coathangers, where there is no obvious difference.

Lossless codecs compared to lossy are like Edison cylinders compared to CDs.Your examples sound similar to me. :eek:

I didn't mean to use "sound" in the audio sense, but the logical sense.

Your examples sound similar to me. :eek:

If you think Edison cylinders sound the same as CDs, then no wonder you want a blind test. Or if you think those sound the same we need a deaf test. ;)

If you think Edison cylinders sound the same as CDs, then no wonder you want a blind test. Or if you think those sound the same we need a deaf test. ;)I was comenting on the following.

"esoteric speaker cables versus coathangers"

and

"Lossless codecs compared to lossy are like Edison cylinders compared to CDs"

Whenever I have any form of lossless audio available, I use it. I never wonder if I can tell the difference. While I've been trained in the scientific method, I'm not a scientist or an engineer.

Maybe the note I added to my post will claify it.

Enjoy. :)

Blind tests are for things like esoteric speaker cables versus coathangers, where there is no obvious difference.

Lossless codecs compared to lossy are like Edison cylinders compared to CDs.

Horsefeathers. If that were true, it would be no problem for even an average listener to tell them apart in a blind test. In reality, it's likely you yourself would have a tough time ABXing a good lossy encode from lossless...if you were able to do it at all.

Leaving aside HD-DVD (which had 1.5mbps DD+), almost all DD tracks on Blu-Ray are 640kbps. Are people now arguing that 640kbps is transparent to master? Or are they arguing that it is just as good as lossless?

Leaving aside HD-DVD (which had 1.5mbps DD+), almost all DD tracks on Blu-Ray are 640kbps. Are people now arguing that 640kbps is transparent to master? Or are they arguing that it is just as good as lossless?

I believe the argument isn't that DD 640kbps is transparent, but that DD+ at 1.5 mbps is...which is mighty convenient, but I digress :)

Nevertheless, you will also hear from a couple sound mixers that post here that they believe DTS@1.5 mbps is transparent to the master.

So 1.5mbps being "good enough" seems to be the general theme.

Brandon

Horsefeathers. If that were true, it would be no problem for even an average listener to tell them apart in a blind test. In reality, it's likely you yourself would have a tough time ABXing a good lossy encode from lossless...if you were able to do it at all.

How long is this ridiculous thread going to last? So if I understand you, lossless audio is useless and a waste of time and money by Dolby Laboratories, DTS Digital Entertainment, Onkyo , Denon, Yamaha, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic etc?

How long is this ridiculous thread going to last? So if I understand you, lossless audio is useless and a waste of time and money by Dolby Laboratories, DTS Digital Entertainment, Onkyo , Denon, Yamaha, Sony, Pioneer, Panasonic etc?
90% of the logos on a CE device is meant for marketing value, lest you think "SRS" this, and "3-D sound" that, is meant to satisfy high fidelity users :). So the assumption that anything sold and promoted is meant as a real improvement that folks notice, is not right. To wit, even things like "24-bit" audio/DAC, etc. is also complete fluff. But it is heavily pushed and promoted.

The situation here is rather simple. DD at 448kbps satisfies mass market as 90% of the people who hear DVD sound, think it is awesome. "You can hear the jet go over your head and the whole room shakes!" But there is distinct quality difference between uncompressed and DD at 480. Even so, just about everyone here built their theater and DVD and was not crying about its poor audio quality :).

Go up to 640K, and the exponential curve starts to become much more horizontal. While I have not done a lot of testing at this rate, I readily accept that many people would find that quality to be very close to the source. At this rate, we are talking about 128 Kbps per channel, or roughly equiv. to 256 Kbps MP3. Actually, it is better than that since the codec can share the load for every channel so when there is not much happening in the rear channel, a lot more than 256 kbps can be applied to the two channels with sound (or the center with the vocal). So it is bound to sound good, very good actually.

Net, net, we should allow for people to say that there is little appreciable difference to them in 640K and original sound….

90% of the logos on a CE device is meant for marketing value, lest you think "SRS" this, and "3-D sound" that, is meant to satisfy high fidelity users :). So the assumption that anything sold and promoted is meant as a real improvement that folks notice, is not right. To wit, even things like "24-bit" audio/DAC, etc. is also complete fluff. But it is heavily pushed and promoted.

The situation here is rather simple. DD at 448kbps satisfies mass market as 90% of the people who hear DVD sound, think it is awesome. "You can hear the jet go over your head and the whole room shakes!" But there is distinct quality difference between uncompressed and DD at 480. Even so, just about everyone here built their theater and DVD and was not crying about its poor audio quality :).

Go up to 640K, and the exponential curve starts to become much more horizontal. While I have not done a lot of testing at this rate, I readily accept that many people would find that quality to be very close to the source. At this rate, we are talking about 128 Kbps per channel, or roughly equiv. to 256 Kbps MP3. Actually, it is better than that since the codec can share the load for every channel so when there is not much happening in the rear channel, a lot more than 256 kbps can be applied to the two channels with sound (or the center with the vocal). So it is bound to sound good, very good actually.

Net, net, we should allow for people to say that there is little appreciable difference to them in 640K and original sound….

When 1.5mpbs DD+ existed, some were arguing that it is "just as good as" lossless. However, I don't recall anyone saying at that time that 640kbps is just as good.

Now that 1.5mbps DD+ doesn't exist, we get people saying 640bps is just as good. Why weren't these arguments made before? It seems to me that we are lowering our standards in order to accomodate a product (DD).

People were crying about the audio quality of DD on DVDs, but they were those that owned laserdiscs and heard 44.1k PCM. The rest didn't know any better, and they wrongly equated good surround effects with good audio quality.

Net, net, we should allow for people to say that there is little appreciable difference to them in 640K and original sound….Amir, I don't know whether you're encouraging respect for differing opinions, or suggesting that hearing huge differences is unlikely. Either way, I appreciate this sentiment.
At [640k], we are talking about 128 Kbps per channel, or roughly equiv. to 256 Kbps MP3. Actually, it is better than that since the codec can share the load for every channel so when there is not much happening in the rear channel, a lot more than 256 kbps can be applied to the two channels with sound (or the center with the vocal). So it is bound to sound good, very good actually.
I'm sure under certain room conditions, with the right equipment, using particular content, that some people can hear the difference between two-channel 256kbps MP3 and the original. I imagine that controlled tests would show most people can't hear the difference with most content.

I started this thread because I wondered whether such controlled tests (whether you agree mine was one or not) would show that most people won't hear the difference between 640k DD and the original, PCM, or TrueHD. As far as I can tell, the Dolby and DTS claims avoid any real performance comparison among their codecs (not to be confused with the claims of more channels and greater flexibility).

I remain unable to prove a "night and day" difference or lack thereof. But as the comments in this thread accumulate, my confidence grows that the delta between 640k DD and TrueHD is, in most cases, vanishingly small.

When 1.5mpbs DD+ existed, some were arguing that it is "just as good as" lossless. However, I don't recall anyone saying at that time that 640kbps is just as good.
I don't know that anyone is saying it is "as good." Only that the job of telling it apart from the original is hard even at 640kbps.

Now that 1.5mbps DD+ doesn't exist, we get people saying 640bps is just as good.
I don't know why 1.5 mbit/sec DD+ does not exist. Do you? I mean, for secondary langauges, it may find life assuming someone puts value on higher rate.

Why weren't these arguments made before?
'cause everyone was busy fighting the war of formats ;). Seriously, no one had asked or bothered to ask about 640k. I think it is a good topic which should have been discussed long time ago, but got lost in all the shuffle.

It seems to me that we are lowering our standards in order to accomodate a product (DD).
That is not how I see it. I see this thread is trying to shed light on true value of some technology. It is a worthy topic as I think per format war battles, the true view of these technologies has been distorted to death. With the war gone, I see nothing wrong with evaluating and comparing notes. Worst thing that can happen is that one gets more educated about this technology which is part of our life every day. I often hear compression artifacts when I listen to FM radio even! I bet most people cannot.

People were crying about the audio quality of DD on DVDs, but they were those that owned laserdiscs and heard 44.1k PCM.
I said 90% of the people were happy with DVD audio. I am pretty confident not a single one of these people know what LD is :D.

The rest didn't know any better, and they wrongly equated good surround effects with good audio quality.
I could not disagree more. The sound you got at home often was superior to what you heard in a theater. You are telling me that fidelity was nothing?

Really, people put way, way too much emphasis on incremental improvements here. If you are talking music, then I am with you all the way and then some. But for movies, you can't possibly make it sound like we were living in a poor house because of DD.

Amir, I don't know whether you're encouraging respect for differing opinions, or suggesting that hearing huge differences is unlikely. Either way, I appreciate this sentiment.
I meant it both ways :). Yes, it is hard to pass audio tests of compressed audio at these rates.

And at the same time, little in audio field is absolute. Or we would all buy the exact same speaker, amp, etc. So at the end, some allowance needs to exist for an opinion.

Video on the other hand, is easier to evaluate. We can pause a frame, magnify it, analyze it and tell what it is or it is not doing to some extent. Nothing like that exists for audio....

I meant it both ways :). Yes, it is hard to pass audio tests of compressed audio at these rates.

And at the same time, little in audio field is absolute. Or we would all buy the exact same speaker, amp, etc. So at the end, some allowance needs to exist for an opinion.

Video on the other hand, is easier to evaluate. We can pause a frame, magnify it, analyze it and tell what it is or it is not doing to some extent. Nothing like that exists for audio....

Things like that exist for audio. They just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can capture and display every waveform.

I don't know that anyone is saying it is "as good." Only that the job of telling it apart from the original is hard even at 640kbps.


Yes they did with 1.5mbps DD+. The term they used was "transparent to master".


I don't know why 1.5 mbit/sec DD+ does not exist.

It seems to me that when HD-DVD died, so did 1.5 mbit/sec DD+. At least I am not aware of its existing on actual BR discs.

Really, people put way, way too much emphasis on incremental improvements here. If you are talking music, then I am with you all the way and then some. But for movies, you can't possibly make it sound like we were living in a poor house because of DD.

It is a slippery slope settling for things that are almost as good for a lot of people. There is plenty of space on most BRs, just include a lossy and a lossless track. Those that want to stream from a media-server can stream the lossy version until they upgrade their network bandwidth.

If companies (Warner comes to mind) offer discs with only a 640kbps DD track, they almost certainly will not get my business.

Things like that exist for audio. They just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can capture and display every waveform.

Actually, the cost very little as any PC can be outfitted to do that. What I was talking about was different. If you attempt to freeze an audio sample, you get nothing useful. If you sample video, you get a lot of information in comparison.

It is a slippery slope settling for things that are almost as good for a lot of people. There is plenty of space on most BRs, just include a lossy and a lossless track. Those that want to stream from a media-server can stream the lossy version until they upgrade their network bandwidth.
It is not that simple. People want to know if they should throw out a perfectly good processor to get PCM/advanced audio units. I had to replace my $10,000 processor in the name of testing the darn thing :). I am not sure I would advise others who have spent that much money to go and buy a new processor if they can't hear significant difference.

If companies (Warner comes to mind) offer discs with only a 640kbps DD track, they almost certainly will not get my business.
That's fine. I for one, would still give them my business because they give me 6 times higher resolution on video. I am not going to walk away from that, just to get the last bit of performance on a soundtrack. But I appreciate you wanting to send them a message :).

But I appreciate you wanting to send them a message :).

It is about as a community, we should not accept this downslide towards mediocrity. Just because Dolby no longer has a viable 1.5 mbps lossy product (whose transparency to master was already questionable), doesn't mean we should now accept the next lower one as "good enough".

lossless
1.5m DD+
1.5m DTS
0.64m DD+
0.64m DD (apparently this is now the new "good enough")

It is about as a community, we should not accept this downslide towards mediocrity.
As a community, we better hope and pray that our feedback doesn't matter! Because if anyone is thinking about losing sales becaues of how we feel, by definition, there is no mass market and we have ourselves an SACD type solution!

Yes, I say that half jokingly :).


Just because Dolby no longer has a viable 1.5 mbps lossy product (whose transparency to master was already questionable), doesn't mean we should now accept the next lower one as "good enough".

lossless
1.5m DD+
1.5m DTS
0.64m DD+
0.64m DD (apparently this is now the new "good enough")
I have not seen anyone saying we should have 640K tracks. OP simply is asking how people have verified the difference they hear. If there are independent double blind tests that show the angst is well placed. Answer is that such tests are not there, simply because I am sure Dolby doesn't want to fight with its own products by putting one in bad light against the other :).

By the way, all the studios know that enthusiasts want lossless audio. So there is no need to have any worries here. Or keep flying that banner.

If you want to push things to get better then, I suggest starting to think about how to get 10-bit, 4:2:2 video. Because as it is, we are saddled with the mother of all "good enough" arguments with a standard based on broadcast specs (8-bit, 4:2:0). I think a lot more people can see that difference, than lossless audio although admittedly, we are not at all talking about night and day there either.

If you want to push things to get better then, I suggest starting to think about how to get 10-bit, 4:2:2 video. Because as it is, we are saddled with the mother of all "good enough" arguments with a standard based on broadcast specs (8-bit, 4:2:0).

Amen to that!

That, and D-Cinema like extended color gamut would be a significant step ahead.

It is about as a community, we should not accept this downslide towards mediocrity. Just because Dolby no longer has a viable 1.5 mbps lossy product (whose transparency to master was already questionable), doesn't mean we should now accept the next lower one as "good enough".

lossless
1.5m DD+
1.5m DTS
0.64m DD+
0.64m DD (apparently this is now the new "good enough")

Amen!

Brandon

If you want to push things to get better then, I suggest starting to think about how to get 10-bit, 4:2:2 video. Because as it is, we are saddled with the mother of all "good enough" arguments with a standard based on broadcast specs (8-bit, 4:2:0). I think a lot more people can see that difference, than lossless audio although admittedly, we are not at all talking about night and day there either.

Unfortunately, for SOME people, video is not the only part of the hi-def equation. SO for you to tell people to not worry about their audio and put more effort into getting video just doesn't fly with everyone.

Unfortunately, for SOME people, video is not the only part of the hi-def equation. SO for you to tell people to not worry about their audio and put more effort into getting video just doesn't fly with everyone.
There must be a disconnect. I said that studios know people want lossless audio already. So saying it in a million threads doesn't make any difference.

On the other hand, folks seem to be quiet on the video part. Amp up that noise and you might get something useful. Sit around and keep screaming lossless is better, and you help the advertisers here, but don't do much to increase the level of knowledge or impact titles coming out.... :)

There must be a disconnect. I said that studios know people want lossless audio already. So saying it in a million threads doesn't make any difference.

On the other hand, folks seem to be quiet on the video part. Amp up that noise and you might get something useful. Sit around and keep screaming lossless is better, and you help the advertisers here, but don't do much to increase the level of knowledge or impact titles coming out.... :)

Amir,
First thanks for your insights.
The question is once the format hits the mainstream and doesn't need early adopters to survive anymore (like DVD now), what is the motive for studios to keep putting out lossless as much as they can?
I mean we know that general public doesn't even care if a movie has DD or DTS on DVD. So once Blu-ray is mainstream, what keeps studios to release titles (especially obscure old catalog ones) with lossless tracks? Will they still care about the enthusiasts niche market?
Thanks in advance

Amir,
First thanks for your insights.
The question is once the format hits the mainstream and doesn't need early adopters to survive anymore (like DVD now), what is the motive for studios to keep putting out lossless as much as they can?

The question is, once the format (DVD) hits mainstream and doesn't need early adopters to survive anymore (like VHS now), what is the motive for studios to keep putting out 5.1 as much as they can?


See where that goes? Most people didn't have the equipment to listen to 5.1, but we've been getting it. What makes you think lossless will be any different?

Unfortunately, for SOME people, video is not the only part of the hi-def equation. SO for you to tell people to not worry about their audio and put more effort into getting video just doesn't fly with everyone.

Video still has a way to go to get to where audio is today. For audio, with current technology, we can already deliver the human limit of audible frequency range and resolution, no problem. The future is in accurate spatial reproduction and correction of room problems, neither of which are solved by
adding more bits or samples.

The question is, once the format (DVD) hits mainstream and doesn't need early adopters to survive anymore (like VHS now), what is the motive for studios to keep putting out 5.1 as much as they can?


See where that goes? Most people didn't have the equipment to listen to 5.1, but we've been getting it. What makes you think lossless will be any different?

I think of it differently.
By putting 5.1 you can make all those marketing claims about how you get surround sound with DVD and such. It works for marketing and even the folks who are not tech savvy (and those with simple HTiB) will get the massage that this release offers those exciting surround effects.
At the same time, these people don't care about the DD vs. DTS debate and as long as they see the word 5.1, they think they are getting the best quality.
The question is, will studios have the motivation to keep offering those mixes at the best quality for their releases once format is mainstream?
The fact is a simple DD 640kbps track is enough to satisfy the requirement for a release (either on Blu-ray or HD DVD) so why push for a better quality when 90% of your customers don't even care about the whole lossless vs. lossy discussion?
Why studios don't offer DTS on all their DVD releases except few blockbusters and important catalog titles?
I for one hope they put out lossless tracks for all their releases including those less known catalog titles.

I think of it differently.
By putting 5.1 you can make all those marketing claims about how you get surround sound with DVD and such. It works for marketing and even the folks who are not tech savvy (and those with simple HTiB) will get the massage that this release offers those exciting surround effects.
At the same time, these people don't care about the DD vs. DTS debate and as long as they see the word 5.1, they think they are getting the best quality.
The question is, will studios have the motivation to keep offering those mixes at the best quality for their releases once format is mainstream?
The fact is a simple DD 640kbps track is enough to satisfy the requirement for a release (either on Blu-ray or HD DVD) so why push for a better quality when 90% of your customers don't even care about the whole lossless vs. lossy discussion?
Why studios don't offer DTS on all their DVD releases except few blockbusters and important catalog titles?
I for one hope they put out lossless tracks for all their releases including those less known catalog titles.

Hi,

Maybe I've missed your point, but if the word 5.1 can be used for marketing purposes on legacy audio, why can't the word lossless also be used for marketing purposes on the new codecs? To take up Amir's argument using the phrase "24 bit lossless" might even have more marketing appeal, even if the last 4 bits are pure noise. ;)

Larry

I think of it differently.
By putting 5.1 you can make all those marketing claims about how you get surround sound with DVD and such. It works for marketing and even the folks who are not tech savvy (and those with simple HTiB) will get the massage that this release offers those exciting surround effects.
At the same time, these people don't care about the DD vs. DTS debate and as long as they see the word 5.1, they think they are getting the best quality.

And if they see 'lossless' or 'TrueHD' or 'Master Audio' they might think that too...and STILL be wrong. The mastering itself might be crap, even if the format is 'lossless' or 'high def' or 'high rez'.

They might also think that just because it says 'lossless' or 'TrueHD' or 'Master Audio', that they would be easily able to tell it from 'lossy' -- which time and again has turned out not to be true, when the comparison are done blind and level-matched, and lossy encoding is high-quality.

If there's anything about audio that consumers should demand, it's good mastering -- that's going to make much more of an audible difference than formats.

The future is in accurate spatial reproduction and correction of room problems, neither of which are solved by
adding more bits or samples.

No doubt the listening environment, mastering, and such are important. But they should not be used as excuses by the studios to leave out lossless tracks.

Hi,

Maybe I've missed your point, but if the word 5.1 can be used for marketing purposes on legacy audio, why can't the word lossless also be used for marketing purposes on the new codecs? To take up Amir's argument using the phrase "24 bit lossless" might even have more marketing appeal, even if the last 4 bits are pure noise. ;)

Larry

And if they see 'lossless' or 'TrueHD' or 'Master Audio' they might think that too...and STILL be wrong. The mastering itself might be crap, even if the format is 'lossless' or 'high def' or 'high rez'.

They might also think that just because it says 'lossless' or 'TrueHD' or 'Master Audio', that they would be easily able to tell it from 'lossy' -- which time and again has turned out not to be true, when the comparison are done blind and level-matched, and lossy encoding is high-quality.

If there's anything about audio that consumers should demand, it's good mastering -- that's going to make much more of an audible difference than formats.

I guess I really suck at communicating what I mean :D
I agree with you guys. I'm not one of those folks who wants 24/96 all the time neither I boycott movies because of not having lossless.
My point was different. Amir said studios know that we are interested in lossless audio and therefore they try to provide it as much as they can. It makes sense since right now we are the primary target and keeping us happy works for them.
I was simply curious when Blu-ray becomes mainstream (if ever) what would be the motivation for studios to keep releasing titles with lossless audio since the primary market at that stage is not interested in it.
I'm not saying the quality of lossy tracks will be bad. I'm perfectly fine with a solid DD+ track (Transformers, Beowulf and so on). I'm just curious if studios will have enough reasons to continue the lossless trend we are seeing today.
I hope I was clear this time :D
cheers

PS: and while you are here Amir, let em ask you another question :D. How come the support for DD+ is different in Blu-ray compare to HD DVD? If I understand correctly, to go beyond 640kbps in Blu-ray you have add extensions (or something like that). Am I right?

I personally suggest most people just stick with the legacy digital audio connection.

It is going take either an audiophile type or at leats somebody that leans in that direction to appreciate the difference and their is a fair amount of work, effort and knowledge to assure your getting the best possible audio on every presentation that the average consumer is much better off with the legacy digital audio connection.

I guess I really suck at communicating what I mean :D
I agree with you guys. I'm not one of those folks who wants 24/96 all the time neither I boycott movies because of not having lossless.
My point was different. Amir said studios know that we are interested in lossless audio and therefore they try to provide it as much as they can. It makes sense since right now we are the primary target and keeping us happy works for them.
I was simply curious when Blu-ray becomes mainstream (if ever) what would be the motivation for studios to keep releasing titles with lossless audio since the primary market at that stage is not interested in it.
I'm not saying the quality of lossy tracks will be bad. I'm perfectly fine with a solid DD+ track (Transformers, Beowulf and so on). I'm just curious if studios will have enough reasons to continue the lossless trend we are seeing today.
I hope I was clear this time :D
cheers



Hi,

I think the point that Amir makes in a number of threads (and I am inclined to agreed with him) is that for the majority of average consumers, with average listening environments, watching movies, rather than music on HD DVDs or Blu-ray, the only real reason for offering lossless is for marketing reasons.

The point being that in most cases, when blind, level corrected comparisons are performed, very few folks will be able to hear a difference between lossy and lossless soundtracks, including members of this forum. ;)

If only a few folks in can actually hear a difference, in a controlled comparison, then the only real reason for advertising lossless is because it provides a marketing advantage. The marketing argument gets even stronger for 24 bit lossless, since 1) HDM discs don't contain this level of detail (4 or more bits are simply noise, not real content), 2) there is no audio equipment that can actually reproduce this level of detail even if magically the discs could contain a full 24 bits of meaningful content.

Claiming that these lossless discs are essentially identical to the studio masters, while perhaps not entirely accurate, will nevertheless influence a lot of average consumers, and apparently an even higher percentage of early adopters.

Larry

So we're all in agreement: DD@640 kbps is good enough

:)

Brandon

I personally suggest most people just stick with the legacy digital audio connection.

It is going take either an audiophile type or at leats somebody that leans in that direction to appreciate the difference and their is a fair amount of work, effort and knowledge to assure your getting the best possible audio on every presentation that the average consumer is much better off with the legacy digital audio connection.

We sell more and more HDMI equipped receivers at lower and lower prices every day and hardly use S/PDIF and Toslink any more. And IMO, you don't have to be an audiophile to hear the difference. When I toggle between the TrueHD and legacy DD tracks on 300 (for example) there is a noticeable difference (and it's not just volume). The sound is more detailed and defined. This was on a Denon 3808 with a PS-3 outputting TrueHD (internally decoded) as PCM and a Boston Acoustics subwoofer/satellite speakers package (about $1500 retail).

I think of it differently.
By putting 5.1 you can make all those marketing claims about how you get surround sound with DVD and such. It works for marketing and even the folks who are not tech savvy (and those with simple HTiB) will get the massage that this release offers those exciting surround effects.
At the same time, these people don't care about the DD vs. DTS debate and as long as they see the word 5.1, they think they are getting the best quality.
The question is, will studios have the motivation to keep offering those mixes at the best quality for their releases once format is mainstream?
The fact is a simple DD 640kbps track is enough to satisfy the requirement for a release (either on Blu-ray or HD DVD) so why push for a better quality when 90% of your customers don't even care about the whole lossless vs. lossy discussion?
Why studios don't offer DTS on all their DVD releases except few blockbusters and important catalog titles?
I for one hope they put out lossless tracks for all their releases including those less known catalog titles.


Even now, the VAST MAJORITY of people watching DVD are listening to in on a 2-channel system. 5.1 in the home has come about almost totally because of video games. Yet, with probably less than 10% of viewers even capable of listening to 5.1, the studios continued to push it.


Why push 5.1 when 90% of your customers can't even use it? Its the same damn argument.

Very few receivers digitize the multi-channel analogue inputs. Most receivers typically bypass it to the amps.

Sanjay

When you get over $1000 for receivers, yes. The vast majority of consumer level receivers digitize it to do bass management, etc.


We're talking consumer electronics here, not audiophile

90% of the logos on a CE device is meant for marketing value, lest you think "SRS" this, and "3-D sound" that, is meant to satisfy high fidelity users :). So the assumption that anything sold and promoted is meant as a real improvement that folks notice, is not right. To wit, even things like "24-bit" audio/DAC, etc. is also complete fluff. But it is heavily pushed and promoted.….Kinda like WMA, HDi, and VC1? :p
Now that 1.5mbps DD+ doesn't exist, we get people saying 640bps is just as good. Why weren't these arguments made before? It seems to me that we are lowering our standards in order to accomodate a product (DD).Exactly. Maybe someone arguing that they sound the same should jump on over the the PS3/Profile 2.0 thread and try and explain to the vast majority of posters in that thready that the PS3 doesn't need DTS-HD-MA because their ears can't tell a difference between DTS-HD and DTS-HD-MA anyway. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Demo the Perfect Storm on HDDVD. The DTHD soundtrack body slams the DD track all day long. I've owned the dvd version for years NOW I realize how bad it sucks.

So we're all in agreement: DD@640 kbps is good enough

:)

Brandon

Come on now, everyone knows that 448 kbps DD is all you should ever want. :)

In all seriousness, I appreciate both sides of the debate. However, nothing really needs to be reiterated any further since the Blu-ray format can handle lossless audio with little, and quite often zero, impact on the amount of bits that can be allocated to video. As for storing my collection of BDs onto hard drives in the future, well, hard drive space is already cheap.

My first foray into HDM was in December of 2006 when I got my HD DVD player, but as I had an AVR without HDMI, the highest amount of quality I could get from my HD-A2 was the 1.5mbps Dolby Digital Plus tracks from Universal and Paramount titles and the 640k Dolby Digital Plus tracks from WB... or output Dolby TrueHD to 2 channels. While the Universal and Paramount tracks were noticably richer and fuller, the few tests I did on the WB Dolby TrueHD tracks were a little disappointing to say the least. Sure, I could hear some difference in "Superman Returns", "Batman Begins" and "Poseidon", but not as much of a difference as the upgrade to 1.5mbps.

In May of 2007, I switched over to my original choice of Blu-ray, but chose the PS3 as my player... and though I had originally intended on getting a Onkyo TX-SR605 at the same time, something else came up that I wanted more, so I was once again left out in the cold in regards to HD audio. One day when I didn't really feel like doing anything else, I tried listening to 2-channel HD audio, and much like my HD DVD experience, I could hear a difference, but not as much as I would have thought from some of the 1.5 mbps soundtracks on my HD DVDs or the "core" track from my Fox/MGM Blu-rays.

Now, some of you may be sitting here and saying that comparing 2 channel HD audio is not really fair to compare to 1.5mbps 5.1 soundtracks, and I agree. I also state that my speaker setup is not ideal as the placements certainly aren't ideal (due to the nature of the room layout) and probably never will be, and though my speakers are decently constructed compared to some, they (with the exception of my two newest speakers due to an upgrade to 7.1 receiver) are from an older HTIB setup. I also admit that while I have good hearing, I'm not sure how good it can be considered, BUT:

Last month I brought my PS3 over to a relative's house to show them the advantages of Blu-ray (they plan on buying a player later this year) and one of the movies I demo'ed was "Pearl Harbor" during the air attack. A few days later, I popped in PH to see something I noticed a few nights before. I then decided once again to try out using PCM outputted to 2-channel, and I noticed something I hadn't before... which is that my player appeared to be adding some additional processing that it wasn't on the DD 5.1 or DTS 5.1, so I turned it off and I WAS BLOWN AWAY! Yes, you heard me, BLOWN AWAY!! Some people might not like the term "blown away" in regards to HD audio, but you need to remember that what might blow away some people, might not blow away others... and it impressed me tremendously enough to say it. The sounds of the bullets ricochetting were much more "defined" than the regular 5.1 soundtrack, as well as other atmospheric sounds/noises. It's not a question of volume either as I simply could not get the same quality of sound from the Dolby Digital track as I could from the PCM track no matter which volume level I set it at. I didn't really have time to play around with any other discs at the time, which is disappointing due to the fact that I REALLY need to listen to the rainy scenes in "Identity".

It's not as big of difference as the difference between a DVD and a properly done Blu-ray, or even the difference between other HD sources and a properly done Blu-ray... not to mention that different films could have different results, but I could tell a large difference in what I heard I look forward to upgrading to a HDMI receiver (hopefully in the next couple of months).

~Alan

Even now, the VAST MAJORITY of people watching DVD are listening to in on a 2-channel system. 5.1 in the home has come about almost totally because of video games. Yet, with probably less than 10% of viewers even capable of listening to 5.1, the studios continued to push it.

Why push 5.1 when 90% of your customers can't even use it? Its the same damn argument.

No, it's not. I'm very sure 90% or more of listeners would be able hear a difference between a 6 channel mix and a 2 channel mix in a blind test, even on mediocre equipment. Output from a pair of surround speakers is kinda hard to miss.

With lossy vs lossless, the difference is far, far more subtle, assuming the lossy encoding is done well. Not at all sure 90% of listeners could do it, which is a testimony to the evolution of lossy encoding.

Kinda like WMA, HDi, and VC1? :p
Exactly. Maybe someone arguing that they sound the same should jump on over the the PS3/Profile 2.0 thread and try and explain to the vast majority of posters in that thready that the PS3 doesn't need DTS-HD-MA because their ears can't tell a difference between DTS-HD and DTS-HD-MA anyway. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Tell me, is something 'more true' if more people claim it's true, all using the same flawed method?

It's quite possible for a 'vast majority' of people to believe stuff that has no solid factual basis, you know. How they arrived at that belief, matters.