URZA,

Actually, since the word came from a Paramount official at an official event, it is up to you to prove otherwise. This is a direct response to a direct question from Paranount.. No other way to spin it in your favor. The ball is in your court.... I'm waiting!!!!:D


Nice try Jeff, that wont work with me. Not sure why I have to repeat this over and over, but it came from someone who said it came from a Paramount rep.

As someone who has worked for various political canidates doing grunt work, we go through this ALL the time. I go I check, and it worked out to be something different. Sometimes it was never said at all, etc. etc.

Was this rep a sales and marketing guy?

Were any technical guys asked this questions from Paramount?

What if I told you I have talked to someone from Paramount who says something different on this subject?

You see, it cuts both ways.

This subject has ran its course a long time ago, and I admit its not contributing to this thread, partly my fault.

We shall agree to disagree, regardless of how many people pile on links to the article, or pics of crows.

To use your phrase

"its just toys, why are you getting so excited?":D

^^ simply put, even if some supreme being as in god came down from heaven and slapped you in the head and told you were wrong or the paramount exec came to you personally and told you, you still wouldn't believe. We get it. You are stubborn and won't let go. Except the issue is your holding onto a proven falsehood and don't see it like that. Ah..cognitive dissonance is a wonderful trait to allow one to live in "bliss". :D

In other news....





HD DVD is dead.

^^ simply put, even if some supreme being as in god came down from heaven and slapped you in the head and told you were wrong or the paramount exec came to you personally and told you, you still wouldn't believe. We get it. You are stubborn and won't let go. Except the issue is your holding onto a proven falsehood and don't see it like that. Ah..cognitive dissonance is a wonderful trait to allow one to live in "bliss". :D

Not true, I would believe God himself, of course I would:D

It's not bliss, its called an opinion. Oh no!!

Not true, I would believe God himself, of course I would:D

It's not bliss, its called an opinion. Oh no!!

So we have a fact on one hand and your opinion of that fact on the other. Umm...I am just playing Devils advocate with you and busting butt, but I hear you. :D

I am cynical to a fault at times, but these times demand quite a bit of cynicism and pessimism considering we have been told a lot of lies from the top to the bottom over the last 100 years or so. A bit off topic but really the 20th century was a bit ugly and greedy. :(

In the end I do know one thing. Paramount, its execs and other marketers don't really give a good damn about what we think as much as what we buy.

So we have a fact on one hand and your opinion of that fact on the other. Umm...I am just playing Devils advocate with you and busting butt, but I hear you. :D

I am cynical to a fault at times, but these times demand quite a bit of cynicism and pessimism considering we have been told a lot of lies from the top to the bottom over the last 100 years or so. A bit off topic but really the 20th century was a bit ugly and greedy. :(

In the end I do know one thing. Paramount, its execs and other marketers don't really give a good damn about what we think as much as what we buy.

Fair enough.

Your last sentences bring out the truth. In the end, they could care less, they just want our cash.

Thing is I will probably fall for it hook line and sinker. I bought Transformers in HDDVD, sold the HDDVD stuff long ago, and will probably double dip! ARRG

In other news....





HD DVD is dead.

You have no proof.

Brandon

I'm convinced several of you really miss the smackdown format war days.
Where do you get the thrill of the anonymous forum bitch-slap now?
The 15 year old mentality wears a bit thin after 2 years.
In reality, in a blind test none of you could tell the difference between the the Transformers in DD+, TrueHD or the latest dumbass boner-giver, DTS-HD-MA.

I bet I could. You provide the equipment and the switching of the sound source while I (blindfolded) do the listening. :D

Seriously, if no one can tell the difference, there's no point in having these lossless sound but the studios are investing on it, no business studio would invest on something if it really doesn't make a difference (Just like how you guys prefer full 1080p instead of upconversion). If you're into audio (audiophile as you guys would call it), you can tell a difference.

And lastly, DTS-HD MA does sound better.

Seriously, if no one can tell the difference, there's no point in having these lossless sound but the studios are investing on it, no business studio would invest on something if it really doesn't make a difference


You've never heard of Monster cables? Bose? Any name brand product out there?



(Just like how you guys prefer full 1080p instead of upconversion).


It's not the same because it's easier to see the difference. If we got a group of 1000 people and showed the 10 BDs vs their dvd counterparts upconverted, I'm sure a much bigger percentage would get it correct than if we let them hear the difference between the True HD and 1.5 mbps DD+ track. Obviously if we use higher quality equipment, the number would raise on both sides, but I'm sure the video differences would be easier to spot than the audio.

Now you say, well they are not audiophiles, so you wouldn't expect them to. This is when I say to you -- the number of audiophiles who care and can actually tell the difference is so insignificant that studios would not waste time and energy trying to appease you. So why would a studio invest in this? It's a gimmick.

I am not saying there isnt a difference. I'm not saying I dont want lossless tracks, I just think the difference cannot be heard by 99.9999 percent of the people... Perhaps if they were all given $3000+ receivers and $3000+ speakers that number may move to 99.99 percent.

The good news is this.. if 10 percent of the blu-ray owners think they hear a difference OR think they will (if they upgrade their receivers), then money will be made 1) they will upgrade the disc just because of the audio and 2) they will buy new receivers which is good for all electronic companies.

It's a gimmick.


................:confused:
.........:confused:
...

................:confused:
.........:confused:
...

It's something that helps further the sales, but doesnt produce something that the majority of owners will be able to realize.

It's something that helps further the sales, but doesnt produce something that the majority of owners will be able to realize.

HT enthusiasts aren't "the majority"... but we want the best we can get and lossless is it, so why not have it? I don't care if .000000001% can tell the difference... the other 99.9999999999% still get what they like just the same.

HT enthusiasts aren't "the majority"... but we want the best we can get and lossless is it, so why not have it? I don't care if .000000001% can tell the difference... the other 99.9999999999% still get what they like just the same.

Just to clarify. My message was aimed at this statement...

"...if no one can tell the difference, there's no point in having these lossless sound but the studios are investing on it, no business studio would invest on something if it really doesn't make a difference "

My point was that the studios are not doing this for audiophiles. Theres just not enough to justify it. They are doing it because it's another additional "feature" they can use to help a consumer justify to themselves why they are upgrading when they already own the DVD. They realize some people dont have the trained ear and most wont have the equipment, but, just like monster cables, some will buy it anyway because they think its an improvement...

I'm definitely not arguing against lossless audio.

My point was that the studios are not doing this for audiophiles. Theres just not enough to justify it. They are doing it because it's another additional "feature" they can use to help a consumer justify to themselves why they are upgrading when they already own the DVD. They realize some people dont have the trained ear and most wont have the equipment, but, just like monster cables, some will buy it anyway because they think its an improvement...



I get the point you're trying to make. But in this case it really is an improvement. Lossless audio is just a selling point, but it does sound better. So I guess it's the best of both worlds.

Kind of like getting people to vote for _____ instead of _____ or ______, but they are better than _____. Or not.

My teenage children see and hear the difference between BD and DVD. They have made comments. Ask them if they care if it has HD video and audio over DVD and they will say they don't care. They just want to watch it. I think the majority outside of enthusiasts feel that way at present. Over time with some brainwash marketing and media propaganda they will feel as we do.

When will universal release Casper?

Not hear a difference? How about previously released titles with more channels and others that will be made that way also?

Now it really isn't to say there isn't a difference IMHO but whether Joe will do what is necessary to realize the advantage the format offers given my aforementioned scenario.

This is incredible news. DTS-HD MA is the most efficient way to include lossless and lossy soundtracks on the same bd while leaving the maximum amount of bandwidth possible for the video encode. I can't wait to see some of their titles on a maxed out BD-50.:D

The most efficient audio encoding technology on earth is Dolby Digital. It takes twice the bandwidth to get the same result as DD when using DTS-HDMA.

Your statement is false.

The most efficient audio encoding technology on earth is Dolby Digital. It takes twice the bandwidth to get the same result as DD when using DTS-HDMA.

Your statement is false.

The only way that would make any sense at all, is if MA could be output as DD audio. Even then shouting would probably work just as well at that point.:rolleyes:

Someone's statement is false.

What is true: Uni is putting lossless audio on all their tracks. And MA is a pretty good choice. Even if it doesn't do lossless as good as DD640.:confused:;)

When will universal release Casper?

Sometime in the future....maybe.

I am sooo tired of people ripping on DTS MA. I dont even have the ability to listen to the entire MA portion but it is plainly obvoius to anyone with ears that even the 1.5 portion sounds leaps and bounds better than 640 DD. Hell even if you have tin ears you can do the math. DD would have to be appox. 2.5 times as efficient to produce the same results.

You've never heard of Monster cables? Bose? Any name brand product out there?




It's not the same because it's easier to see the difference. If we got a group of 1000 people and showed the 10 BDs vs their dvd counterparts upconverted, I'm sure a much bigger percentage would get it correct than if we let them hear the difference between the True HD and 1.5 mbps DD+ track. Obviously if we use higher quality equipment, the number would raise on both sides, but I'm sure the video differences would be easier to spot than the audio.

Now you say, well they are not audiophiles, so you wouldn't expect them to. This is when I say to you -- the number of audiophiles who care and can actually tell the difference is so insignificant that studios would not waste time and energy trying to appease you. So why would a studio invest in this? It's a gimmick.

I am not saying there isnt a difference. I'm not saying I dont want lossless tracks, I just think the difference cannot be heard by 99.9999 percent of the people... Perhaps if they were all given $3000+ receivers and $3000+ speakers that number may move to 99.99 percent.

The good news is this.. if 10 percent of the blu-ray owners think they hear a difference OR think they will (if they upgrade their receivers), then money will be made 1) they will upgrade the disc just because of the audio and 2) they will buy new receivers which is good for all electronic companies.

You've never heard of Monster cables? Bose? Any name brand product out there?




It's not the same because it's easier to see the difference. If we got a group of 1000 people and showed the 10 BDs vs their dvd counterparts upconverted, I'm sure a much bigger percentage would get it correct than if we let them hear the difference between the True HD and 1.5 mbps DD+ track. Obviously if we use higher quality equipment, the number would raise on both sides, but I'm sure the video differences would be easier to spot than the audio.

Now you say, well they are not audiophiles, so you wouldn't expect them to. This is when I say to you -- the number of audiophiles who care and can actually tell the difference is so insignificant that studios would not waste time and energy trying to appease you. So why would a studio invest in this? It's a gimmick.

I am not saying there isnt a difference. I'm not saying I dont want lossless tracks, I just think the difference cannot be heard by 99.9999 percent of the people... Perhaps if they were all given $3000+ receivers and $3000+ speakers that number may move to 99.99 percent.

The good news is this.. if 10 percent of the blu-ray owners think they hear a difference OR think they will (if they upgrade their receivers), then money will be made 1) they will upgrade the disc just because of the audio and 2) they will buy new receivers which is good for all electronic companies.

I agree about the having a better equipment. And people (the mass consumers) are also more visually oriented rather than audibly. About Bose and monster, I agree about there marketing strategy targeting uninformed consumers.

I started in 2001 with a $300 crappy Sony HTIB and I could tell the difference between DTS and DD. DTS has better sound mix. And from there, I started to be more aware of HT sound quality (I was into music quality before). And with that example, there's gonna be people who, like me (or you), will start to discover the difference between lossless and lossy, then the difference between TrueHD and DTS-MA (must have better equipement). It's a matter of exposure. My wife has no clue about these (doesn't even care about it, LOL) but even she, noticed the difference between DD and DTS on a crappy $300 HTIB.

When people see this difference, people will find ways to save up and acquire the equipment (Like I did) and I think there's enough population like us (or poeple that can tell the difference) that studios can make money from.

The most efficient audio encoding technology on earth is Dolby Digital. It takes twice the bandwidth to get the same result as DD when using DTS-HDMA.

Your statement is false.

Does Dolby hire these people? My statement is 100% true. You may be thinking of the situation regarding a standard lossy Dolby Digital track versus a standard lossy DTS track on dvd, where it is generally agreed that the DD encoding technology is a more efficient way to compress the original audio(which doesn't mean it sounds better as DTS just throws a lot more bits at the problem which Dolby simply can't make up with its much lower bitrates on dvd).

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are engineered completely differently. For providing a lossless version and a lower quality lossy core within the same DTS-HD MA track it saves space on the BD.

Actually, Paramount did confirm sapce was the reason for DD+ on transformers. Fortunately, now that they have all the space they need and Paramount will likely never use DD+ again.

Bland your dead wrong. I have researched this to death.

This all came from an article about a guy who went to some screen test. He said that the Paramount rep told him this. In other words, second hand.

If you can find a DIRECT quote from Paramount, I will eat crow.

Not really important, I just get sick of people reporting this as fact.



http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=12858

“We’re so happy to finally bring Michael Bay’s true vision to life with this release,” said Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures. “Because of Blu-ray’s expanded capacity, we are able to elevate the bit rate used for the picture as well as present uncompressed audio in the form of Dolby True HD.”

How would you like your crow, sir? ;)

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=12858



How would you like your crow, sir? ;)

Classic Grubert :)

You guys must understand how marketing works. Of course Paramount vice chairman will say anything that makes a product as attractive as possible. But if that has anything to do with the real world is a whole different matter.

He doesnt mention that they already had two encodes for the HD DVD, and that they scrapped the one that was more true to the master for the one that looked more pleasing for J6P. If true to the master PQ is important, why wasnt it back then?

They could without problem deliver TrueHD for transformers if they really wanted to, just as they could have delivered TrueHD on Flags of our fathers on BD.

The technical limitation is never as big as the studio limitation for a release.

You know what they say about denial... or is that de nile? :)

Brandon

Does Dolby hire these people? My statement is 100% true. You may be thinking of the situation regarding a standard lossy Dolby Digital track versus a standard lossy DTS track on dvd, where it is generally agreed that the DD encoding technology is a more efficient way to compress the original audio(which doesn't mean it sounds better as DTS just throws a lot more bits at the problem which Dolby simply can't make up with its much lower bitrates on dvd).

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are engineered completely differently. For providing a lossless version and a lower quality lossy core within the same DTS-HD MA track it saves space on the BD.


Then why does the audio bitrate meter go higher on the CEotTK dtsHD MA track than the TrueHD track. I don't think MA is more efficient. In fact it requires greater processing power to be decoded.

Lossless is lossless. CEotTK is prime example that both deliver the same end result. Dolby does it much better and it delivers it using less space and bandwidth.

You guys must understand how marketing works. Of course Paramount vice chairman will say anything that makes a product as attractive as possible. But if that has anything to do with the real world is a whole different matter.

He doesnt mention that they already had two encodes for the HD DVD, and that they scrapped the one that was more true to the master for the one that looked more pleasing for J6P. If true to the master PQ is important, why wasnt it back then?

They could without problem deliver TrueHD for transformers if they really wanted to, just as they could have delivered TrueHD on Flags of our fathers on BD.

The technical limitation is never as big as the studio limitation for a release.

Another reason for holding back may be for the very reason that they could double dip the title again especially if they had their doubts about the HD DVD format surviving long term.

But in a reality how many HD DVDs had PCM, TrueHD or dtsHD MA tracks? Very few percentage wise compared to BD.

When is HOT FUZZ and Shaun of the Dead going to come out on blu ray with DTS HD MA!:)

Then why does the audio bitrate meter go higher on the CEotTK dtsHD MA track than the TrueHD track. I don't think MA is more efficient. In fact it requires greater processing power to be decoded.

Lossless is lossless. CEotTK is prime example that both deliver the same end result. Dolby does it much better and it delivers it using less space and bandwidth.

I think DTS-HD MA have one advantage over TrueHD on BD, and its because it has its core track baked in the MA track. While TrueHD must have a extra hidden DD track on BD.

So its DTS-HD MA vs TrueHD + DD. So even if the TrueHD track can be more efficient, the DTS-HD MA can win when the standard DD track is included.

(The DD track will not be included in the audio bitrate meter when playing TrueHD)

Another reason for holding back may be for the very reason that they could double dip the title again especially if they had their doubts about the HD DVD format surviving long term.

True, by not using lossless, you have an excellent marketing term for a re-release on HD or BD.


But in a reality how many HD DVDs had PCM, TrueHD or dtsHD MA tracks? Very few percentage wise compared to BD.

True, but HD also had the advantage of DD+ at 1,5mbs and it has a very good AQ. While BD were either DD640 or Lossless (if we dont count the different DTS options)

But this was more studio policy, were Paramount and Universal used 1,5mbs DD+ and Warner used (sometimes) TrueHD and DD+640. And Studio Canal used DTS-HD MA.

I think flags of our fathers is one of the best examples of studio policy.

Flags (US)BD = DD640 (Paramount)
Flags (US)HD = DD+1500 (Paramount)
Flags (EU)BD = PCM (Warner)
Flags (EU)HD = TrueHD (Warner)

DTS MA = TrueHD = PCM

Wow. Can't wait to snap up all those TrueHD HD DVDs cheap while you guys go bonkers for the same damn sound with a different name.

+1 Nothing better than 1080p + lossless for $5.99.

Can you imagine U571 & Apollo 13 with a DTSMA sountrack?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=12858



How would you like your crow, sir? ;)

Urza will likely not give me my due......

Good find, I knew capacity was the issue for few lossless titles on HD DVD>

Urza will likely not give me my due......

Good find, I knew capacity was the issue for few lossless titles on HD DVD>

I'd wager it's bandwidth not capacity since the HD DVD is only 26GB. I'll have to play it on the HTPC to see how the video peaks, but I'm pretty sure the video peaks were too great to include a lossless track on the HD DVD.

The marketing guy most likely just doesn't understand the difference between capacity and bandwidth and used the term "expanded capacity" in general. It's always been about the bandwidth not the capacity.

I'll have to play it on the HTPC to see how the video peaks, but I'm pretty sure the video peaks were too great to include a lossless track on the HD DVD.

Well of course they will peak to high if you dont bitbudget for them. Encoding process isnt an absolut process.

Have you ever encoded a DVD, you know very well that you encode your video depending what tracks you plan to use. And of course after the video was encoded then it would be hard to fit anything else.

I have my doubts they encoded the video first and discovered that they couldnt fit a lossless track. Its not a very big difference in bitrate that you shoudnt be able to fit a lossless instead of DD+. They obviously didnt plan to add it in the first place.

Im very sure that if Warner had released Transformers it would have had TrueHD.

Well of course they will peak to high if you dont bitbudget for them. Encoding process isnt an absolut process.

Have you ever encoded a DVD, you know very well that you encode your video depending what tracks you plan to use. And of course after the video was encoded then it would be hard to fit anything else.

I have my doubts they encoded the video first and discovered that they couldnt fit a lossless track. Its not a very big difference in bitrate that you shoudnt be able to fit a lossless instead of DD+. They obviously didnt plan to add it in the first place.

Im very sure that if Warner had released Transformers it would have had TrueHD.

It's usually the studio's fault in all cases. What's the typical bandwidth required by TrueHD? sometimes 2,3, 4 mbps. Well, that means Transformers could average 25-26 mbps with 3-4 mbps for the audio track. I don't see how that "bandwidth" limitation affected Paramount's ability to do this
I agree.

As for Warner -- well, they'd put TrueHD on it, but then would have average bit rate of 12-15 mbps... People always say it's HD DVDs limitation that forced Warner to encode their movies with such low bit-rates. This is completely untrue since most 2 hour movies can run with avg bit-rate of 24 mbps.

With that said, I do think the extra 20 GB of blu-ray definitely comes in handy, but everyone should know by now that HD DVDs lack of that space is blown way out of proportion.

Putting DD+ on some titles was just Paramounts plan to make people double dip later like DVD with DD and DTS, i guess. It was certainly not space constraints, when Warner has showed that it was possible to include TrueHD tracks on the EU versions of the Paramount US DD+ titles like Flags of our Fathers and Beowulf. Now Paramount and Universal are including lossless tracks on the new BDs to make people who already own the equivalent HD DVD counterpart buy the Blu-ray i reckon. Another 20 gigs are of course preferable but it is not crucial to the option of including lossless sound tracks. HD DVDs like Pans Labyrinth with 7.1 DTS HD MA and packed ith extras certainly shows this together with the Warner EU versions.

Does the EU HD DVD version of Pan's Labyrinth have DTS-MA?

Im very sure that if Warner had released Transformers it would have had TrueHD.

If Warner had release this, it would have had only 640K DD and nothing else :D

Putting DD+ on some titles was just Paramounts plan to make people double dip later like DVD with DD and DTS, i guess.

Or maybe they thought DD+ at 1.5 didn't sound any different than TrueHD, and wanted to use a CBR to give them more flexibility in video and advanced content authoring... :cool:

What's really great for all of us is that outside of Warner Brothers, I don't think we'll see any releases with lossy audio on them.... and can stop all of the conjecture on the why's.

Now everybody can start focusing on the real discussion.. which is what lossless codec sounds better.. :rolleyes:

Now everybody can start focusing on the real discussion.. which is what lossless codec sounds better.. :rolleyes:

I know. I know. The answer is...... DTS MA.:):)... mostly. The exception is titles that don't offer MA tracks. Then PCM or TrueHD will sound better on those. See it's so simple.;)

If 1,5 mbs DD+ sound just as good as 48/24 PCM tracks. Then it has some strong benefits.

If you need Seven audiotracks they just steal 10,5 mbs bandwith. But if we had the same tracks as 6,9 mbs PCM they would steal 48,3 mbs bandwith. Of course this isnt possible but even if we have them as 16/48 TrueHD tracks its would be something like 21mbs in peak.

If 1,5 mbs DD+ sound just as good as 48/24 PCM tracks...

lossy < lossless

once data is thrown away nothing in a lossy codec can magically reproduce it.

The only reason DD+ is in the BD spec is to support lossy beyond 5.1 channel encodes. There is no reason to have it for 5.1 encodes. Even some Dolby experts have said that they don't think there is much audible benefit using 1.5Mb/s DD+ over 640kb/s.

This arguement will die soon enough since the only format that supports DD+ at that rate is in the grave.

lossy < lossless

once data is thrown away nothing in a lossy codec can magically reproduce it.

But thats not the point of lossy, its to throw away information but still sound transparant to the master. I will not argue if DD+ 1,5 is transparant or not, but at some point you can do a lossy encode and noone can here the difference.


The only reason DD+ is in the BD spec is to support lossy beyond 5.1 channel encodes. There is no reason to have it for 5.1 encodes. Even some Dolby experts have said that they don't think there is much audible benefit using 1.5Mb/s DD+ over 640kb/s..

Well he said that in most cases DD640 should sound transparant to the master but you could create a stresstest were the benefits of 1,5 mbs could show itself. So if you agree whats he saying, I guess you also agree that 1,5mbs DD+ sound transparant to the master. Since he is not saying that 1,5 mbs DD+ sound the same as DD640, and therefore doesnt sound transparent to the PCM track.


This arguement will die soon enough since the only format that supports DD+ at that rate is in the grave.

Sure, but we still have 1,5mbs DTS.

Sweet! I'm so glad I upgraded from my Sharp player to a PS3. :)

Urza will likely not give me my due......

Good find, I knew capacity was the issue for few lossless titles on HD DVD>

Of course you have your due, now we know the truth, I'm ok with that.

But look at when I said what I said, and the date of the article. The article is AFTER I asked for a direct quote, which no one could provide. Now there is one, so duh yea its prooven now. Why do you think Grubert bumped this dead thread?

Cool. Now we can let it die and move on and enjoy the titles

...or not? :)

Brandon

The problem for me is that you dont get a nightmode with DTS.

Some actually have neighbours... ;)


++

or small children, or wives who don't like being woken up in the middle of the night. I'm all for lossless sound but I think it is a BAD decision to allow a situation where NONE of the audio options offer dynamic range compression. this is a feature that has been available since DVD and BD not requiring it is a step backward IMHO.

flame me if you will but some people out there like to be able to enjoy their 2.35, 10 ft, 7.1 onkyo/polk home theater WITHOUT needing to move or file for divorce.