3. Too few blu rays in 1.78:1 AR (or conversely, too many in 2.35(or greater):1 AR)


This has nothing to do with the Blu-ray format per say. If you don't like their shooting formats, I'd suggest you contact the Director's Guild.... ;)

1. Price vs. relative value for some of the older transfers.
2. Lack of HD audio on a disproportionate number of BDs.
3. Too few blu rays in 1.78:1 AR (or conversely, too many in 2.35(or greater):1 AR)
Face...meet palm.

3. Too few blu rays in 1.78:1 AR (or conversely, too many in 2.35(or greater):1 AR)

What does this have to do with Blu-ray? :confused:

What does this have to do with Blu-ray? :confused:

To give her/him the benefit of the doubt, maybe the idea is that Blu-ray is seeing a disproportionate percentage of 'Scope releases vis-a-vis the relative number that are actually produced. It might make sense to me as a complaint along the lines of "too many brainless blockbusters, not enough quieter films" if the theory is that more of the 'Scope product is hitting Blu-ray because it tends to cater more closely to the PS3 demographic.

Maybe Alan can change the membership requirements and force folks to agree to respect OAR...

j/k...to each his own...but not in my house.

I know this may incite some folks, but why don't they release a 16:9 version as well? Or better yet, have both versions on the disk?

They do it for DVD with Fullscreen. I have yet to actually see a 2.78:1 Display on sale in a big box store.

I would still get the OAR myself, but there are alot of folks who just do not like those bars.

....I would still get the OAR myself, but there are alot of folks who just do not like those bars.

".....let them eat Zoom..." ;)

I know this may incite some folks, but why don't they release a 16:9 version as well? Or better yet, have both versions on the disk?

They do it for DVD with Fullscreen. I have yet to actually see a 2.78:1 Display on sale in a big box store.

I would still get the OAR myself, but there are alot of folks who just do not like those bars.

They ARE doing that with Gulliver's Travels and a few other titles that are supposed to be 4:3. :rolleyes:

I think that eventually, we could see separate 16x9 versions of some movies. It's not as if the desire by some to fill their TVs just goes away when they switch from one shape to another.

1. Price vs. relative value for some of the older transfers.
2. Lack of HD audio on a disproportionate number of BDs.
3. Too few blu rays in 1.78:1 AR (or conversely, too many in 2.35(or greater):1 AR)


#3's already been "facepalmed" already...so...


#2: :facepalm:

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.

#3's already been "facepalmed" already...so...


#2: :facepalm:

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.
Word.
Although, prepare to be hit by the 'HD PICTURE MUST HAVE HD SOUND' brigade...

the main annoyance? the movies i REALLY want to see on bluray haven't even been announced

other annoyances
DNR... there is just no excuse
EE... again no excuse
no lossless... no excuse not to have the original language in lossless
stupid packaging... especially when it sticks out (warner digibooks)
overpriced barebones release... looking at you fox... i don't mind barebones on some titles as long as it's CHEAP

Word.
Although, prepare to be hit by the 'HD PICTURE MUST HAVE HD SOUND' brigade...

Lossless > Lossy

Always has been...

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.
DD 640Kbps is the top spec for DD, and although it's a nice upgrade over the SD DVD DD 448kbps max standard, it's normally very easy to hear the difference between that and what would be considered an HD track (depending on the source, of course.) DD+ 1.5Mbps is similar to DTS-HD which is remarkably good from my own 1.5Mbps DTS listening on certain SD DVDs, and I believe IS considered high definition, it just isn't lossless.

That is to say, a track doesn't have to be lossless to be considered high definition audio. Though some people do seem to feel that way :)!

Still, there is a big difference in the detail in Blu-ray. But so far it doesn't look very film-like, (The Dark Knight)though I haven't tweaked all of the scores of adjustments Samsung presents me with. So I suppose that is an objection.

Are you sure you have Auto-Motion Plus (or whatever similar on your display) turned off? It interpolates movement in your source to make it look smoother (more like video).

Sorry for OT.

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.
Can you give me a good reason to NOT do lossless?

Let me add another one to my list:
3. the "mediocrity is good enough" crowd (though this has a pretty big overlap with "bitter HDDVD fanboys", i imagine :D )

Lossless > Lossy

Always has been...


Right, and encoding an MP3 at 512kbps has always been > 384kbps which has always been > 256kbps...and no one can tell the difference. Ample tests have shown this.

And are all these screamers using FLAC instead of MP3/M4P/AAC to listen to their music on their portable music players, where the music is even closer to their ears? Uh.....no.


Weird.

:rolleyes:

Can you give me a good reason to NOT do lossless?

Sure! Some studios want to skimp and use single layer 25GB BDs. And if I (or anyone, for that matter) can't tell the difference between 640kbps or 1.5MB DTS or 1.5 MB DD+ or the lossless or PCM, I'd rather the bandwidth and space saved by using the lossy goes to the video.

Put 'm all on 50 GB and give us lossless, I get it, yes, that would be very sparkly. Some studios (one in particular) can't/won't. So when the compromise is necessary, put as much to the video when diminishing returns have been met for the audio. Not too tricky.

Claiming 640kbps and DD+ aren't HD audio simply because of the marketing hype is disingenuous.

Let me add another one to my list:
3. the "mediocrity is good enough" crowd (though this has a pretty big overlap with "bitter HDDVD fanboys", i imagine :D )

Here's another:

3. the spec-monger crowd who refuse to take listening tests to prove they'll never hear a difference between 1.5MB DTS or 640kbps and the lossless yet insist somehow there's a difference they'd actually ever hear...who for some strange reason, at the same time, listen to and are satisfied with even lower bitrate audio on many of their other devices

;)

Right, and encoding an MP3 at 512kbps has always been > 384kbps which has always been > 256kbps...and no one can tell the difference. Ample tests have shown this.

And are all these screamers using FLAC instead of MP3/M4P/AAC to listen to their music on their portable music players, where the music is even closer to their ears? Uh.....no.


Weird.

:rolleyes:
Your opinion...doesn't make it fact.
There is an audible difference noticed by myself and many others.

My ipod...lossless audio only.

If you don't notice the difference between lossless and lossy when watching a BD...buy new equipment or check what you have.

People calling it blueray annoys me most.

Your opinion...doesn't make it fact.
There is an audible difference noticed by myself and many others.

And it's placebo.

My ipod...lossless audio only.
And you're definitely in the minority. (Which format are using, BTW?)

If you don't notice the difference between lossless and lossy when watching a BD...buy new equipment or check what you have.

No need. I've taken many listening tests and beyond 192 kbps on an MP3 test, I couldn't tell the difference between the encode and the original. In fact, most people max out between 160 and 192 kbps. That's 80-96 kbps per channel. 640kbps on a BD is 128 kbps per channel, well above that. DD+ and DTS 1.5 is ~300 kbps per channel, WAY above that threshhold.

Sorry to bring actual evidence and science into it but:

http://www.listening-tests.info/

http://www.listening-tests.info/mp3-128-1/index.htm

A test done back in 2005 with 128 (yes only 128 kbps!!!)

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/resultsz.png

128 kbps is only 64 kbps per channel, and even with these older, crappier versions of these codecs from circa 2005, most couldn't distinguish the original from the master, even at this low of a bitrate. DD 640 kbps is TWICE the bits per channel as these tests. DD+ and DTS at 1.5MB is almost FIVE TIMES the bits per channel.

The marketing tells you it's better, so you "hear" it being better. You spent money on expensive equipment (so did I!) to utilize the newer codecs, so you "hear" it being better.

Listening tests paint a different picture. These aren't my opinion, these are facts. Actual listening tests.

And it's placebo.


And you're definitely in the minority. (Which format are using, BTW?)



No need. I've taken many listening tests and beyond 192 kbps on an MP3 test, I couldn't tell the difference between the encode and the original. In fact, most people max out between 160 and 192 kbps. That's 80-96 kbps per channel. 640kbps on a BD is 128 kbps per channel, well above that. DD+ and DTS 1.5 is ~300 kbps per channel, WAY above that threshhold.

Sorry to bring actual evidence and science into it but:

http://www.listening-tests.info/

http://www.listening-tests.info/mp3-128-1/index.htm

A test done back in 2005 with 128 (yes only 128 kbps!!!)

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/resultsz.png

128 kbps is only 64 kbps per channel, and even with these older, crappier versions of these codecs from circa 2005, most couldn't distinguish the original from the master, even at this low of a bitrate. DD 640 kbps is TWICE the bits per channel as these tests. DD+ and DTS at 1.5MB is almost FIVE TIMES the bits per channel.

The marketing tells you it's better, so you "hear" it being better. You spent money on expensive equipment (so did I!) to utilize the newer codecs, so you "hear" it being better.

Listening tests paint a different picture. These aren't my opinion, these are facts. Actual listening tests.

FLAC with a non-apple interface.

I can see where this is going. You know more than anyone else. Your opinion somehow matters more than the opinion of others. Ego trumps all else.

I get it.

If you're looking for an argument...look elsewhere.

What annoys me most is BD's with MP3 audio, dammit! ;)

FLAC with a non-apple interface.

I can see where this is going. You know more than anyone else. Your opinion somehow matters more than the opinion of others. Ego trumps all else.

I get it.

If you're looking for an argument...look elsewhere.

Sorry that my evidence and facts (not my opinions) obviously bother you. I'll try not to bring science back into it....my bad.

What annoys me most is BD's with MP3 audio, dammit! ;)

:eek:

:D

Sorry that my evidence and facts (not my opinions) obviously bother you. I'll try not to bring science back into it....my bad.

Again with the ego...

Let it go. Not everyone will agree with your opinions.

Here's another:

3. the spec-monger crowd who refuse to take listening tests to prove they'll never hear a difference between 1.5MB DTS or 640kbps and the lossless yet insist somehow there's a difference they'd actually ever hear...who for some strange reason, at the same time, listen to and are satisfied with even lower bitrate audio on many of their other devices

;)

Or how about the folks who don't realize that the TrueHD tracks are encoded at a higher volume level than their comparable DD+. (I was one of those for awhile :rolleyes:)

And it's placebo.
Depends on your gear. I can hear a difference between my 320kbps LAME-encoded mp3s and their lossless counterparts fairly easily on my headphones, not so much on my speakers. I don't know how efficient DD+ and DTS is at packing their audio, but I'll take the lossless versions.

Or how about the folks who don't realize that the TrueHD tracks are encoded at a higher volume level than their comparable DD+. (I was one of those for awhile :rolleyes:)

Well, louder IS better...duh! :p :D

Sorry that my evidence and facts (not my opinions) obviously bother you. I'll try not to bring science back into it....my bad.
Why do I feel that this convo is going the way of high priced wires?

Well, louder IS better...duh! :p :D

or you could just increase the volume a little more. :cool::D

But it still is the second rate menus for me. Cool ones are neat like in IM or Transformers, but the HD DVD menus were alot easier to navigate and use on my software players. still the thing for me. Which really isn't much I guess.

and price too of course.... but heh, who couldn't use an extra dollar in these times.

Again with the ego...

Let it go. Not everyone will agree with your opinions.

Again, with calling my evidence and actual presented facts my "opinion" and my "ego."

I'll wait patiently for your refuting evidence...

Again, with calling my evidence and actual presented facts my "opinion" and my "ego."

I'll wait patiently for your refuting evidence...

You can keep on waiting. I'm on a blackberry currently. I'm not exactly in a position to review your "evidence", nor do I have access to any of my own.

You're taking it all a bit too serious. Again, not everyone will agree with you all the time. Just accept that and move on with life.

Regardless, if your "evidence" (I still can't believe such a silly issue has brought about that term) was so sound...it would no longer be in question.

You have you opinion and you are welcome to it. Try letting others have their own as well.

Depends on your gear. I can hear a difference between my 320kbps LAME-encoded mp3s and their lossless counterparts fairly easily on my headphones, not so much on my speakers.

If you say so. Sorry if I have my doubts. But even if you can, at 160 kbps per channel, that's still just about half the rate of DD+ or DTS at 1.5 MB that has 300 kbps per channel.

I don't know how efficient DD+ and DTS is at packing their audio, but I'll take the lossless versions.I'd venture a guess that DD+ and DTS are pretty efficient codecs compared to the likes of MP3 flavors.

In fact, most people max out between 160 and 192 kbps. That's 80-96 kbps per channel. 640kbps on a BD is 128 kbps per channel, well above that. DD+ and DTS 1.5 is ~300 kbps per channel, WAY above that threshhold.

Er, you do understand that comparing "bitrate per channel" makes no sense for codecs like MP3, where by default, joint-stereo encoding is used, right? So you have one channel encoded as a difference against the other?

I mean, if you're going to bring *math* into it, you should probably know your math a bit better.

Er, you do understand that comparing "bitrate per channel" makes no sense for codecs like MP3, where by default, joint-stereo encoding is used, right? So you have one channel encoded as a difference against the other?

I mean, if you're going to bring *math* into it, you should probably know your math a bit better.

A stereo MP3 recording at 128 kbps IS 64 kbps per channel. I'm not sure what you're saying, here. Bruce Bartlett and Jenny Bartlett's blurb:

http://books.google.com/books?id=3HUGO_ZrlkYC&pg=PA474&lpg=PA474&dq=mp3+at+128+kbps+is+64+kbps+per+channel&source=web&ots=t3b8f-1Tiu&sig=h2D43maclqOkS7lIk61LcfslI7M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result

My understanding is that MP3 encoders don't encode each channel in isolation, but exploit correlation between channels (joint stereo) as a poster above states, but it is also my understanding (also without checking any references at this hour) that multichannel codecs do the same with 5.1 and 7.1, where there's even more correlation between channels to take advantage of. So while the above poster's comment is correct about MP3 (to the best of my knowledge), it actually strenghtens ILJG's argument.

But this is getting us away from the topic. This lossless/lossy issue will never be settled, regardless of evidence. It's just like evolution. Sapienti sat.

No need. I've taken many listening tests and beyond 192 kbps on an MP3 test, I couldn't tell the difference between the encode and the original. In fact, most people max out between 160 and 192 kbps. That's 80-96 kbps per channel. 640kbps on a BD is 128 kbps per channel, well above that. DD+ and DTS 1.5 is ~300 kbps per channel, WAY above that threshhold.

Key word being that you couldn't tell the difference; that doesn't mean others, especially those who know what to listen for, don't.

Key word being that you couldn't tell the difference; that doesn't mean others, especially those who know what to listen for, don't.

Unfortunately, a thread talking about lossless seems to have vanished. One of the posters had a link to a test that DTS engineers performed. They certainly know what to listen for, and they couldn't tell the difference between a 1.5 MB DTS encode and the master, we're not even talking DTS HD-MA or DTS HD-HR in this case. (which raised the questions that people had over the "need" for MA and HR in the first place)

I'll keep looking for that link, but when the people who do this for a living and have better equipment than all of us will ever have can't tell the difference, I'll continue to be skeptical of the "those who know what to listen for while you don't" arguments.

How about the fact that bluray has been out for 2 or 3 years now and we still don't have Lord of the Rings or Star Wars yet!!! Come on guys, bluray beat hddvd. It's time to cough up these titles!!

How about the fact that bluray has been out for 2 or 3 years now and we still don't have Lord of the Rings or Star Wars yet!!! Come on guys, bluray beat hddvd. It's time to cough up these titles!!

Don't hold your breath, man. Just as they've done with every past format, they won't release these titles until the installed-base is much larger. If you've been paying attention through the LD-VHS-DVD years, you should know this by now.

I have to sign in as one who liked the HD DVD menus much better. They were quick, easy and cool to navigate. Blu Ray menus are all over the map in user friendliness.

Not to keep stiring up the lossless/lossy sound debate, but I can definitely hear a difference in the sound track when I switch from one to the other on my 7.1 system.

And what I mean about this isn't that one is louder, it's more that the DTS-MA or TrueHD track is more alive. It seems to fill the room in a way that the lower bitrate struggles to do.

I do admit that I don't have the best encode on my MP3 player, but then again I'm not using audiophile level headset either.

Seggers

-Movies like "Waiting" get 7.1 and Action movies don't
-Releasing movies like Blue streak and National Security. Why waste discs on that and why waste customers time when we have to ignore them.
-Old transfer of an old movie on BD25 cost as much as a new movie on a BD50.
-Some studios putting ALL chapters on one scene selection screen with teeny weeny pictures of the scenes and no chapter titles.
-DNR and EE.
-No losless a all (Warner)
-Fox releasing the same catalog movies worldwide but with different region coding.
-When the GOOD extras are missing.
-Universals U-control, I have no control.
-Cases that cracks under the sheer weight of itself.
-Promos telling me how great Blu-ray is on the actual Blu-ray. Let me watch the goddamn movie sometime and I'll be the judge of that, oh look, old tranfer and DNR:ed to hell; FAIL!
-SD extras, could you atleast upscale it? I can't zoom in on non-anamorphic letterbox over HDMI.
-No resume
-Static subtitles, the menues can pop out from anywhere but some plain white text is apparently impossible to make any adjustments to.
-Yellow subtitles...
-Only HoH subtitles
-People not beeing able to spell Blu-ray, it's on the case...
-Disneys, soon on Blu-ray, on Blu-ray, soon in theatres. Skip, skip, skip, skip. skip, skip, skip, skip...

Other then that I'm happy with Blu-ray.

Are you sure you have Auto-Motion Plus (or whatever similar on your display) turned off? It interpolates movement in your source to make it look smoother (more like video).


Concerning my "not-so-filmlike" comment, yes, I have turned that off, and some sort of automatic contrast adjustment feature got turned off as well. I do admit that my system has not been professionally tweaked.

I did get out several old films in standard DVD, particularly The Red Shoes, and adjusted until I got it looking pretty much like an actual film. I then looked at the first Star Wars and it still had that HD videotape look, but who knows what the Lucasfilm people did to their master files?

Blu-ray is pretty amazing, but I fear that titles may be issued to create that 3-D look in order to boost sales, to give that "one-step-above-standard-DVD-look" rather than just come up with something that looks like a movie. But Xylon's screen captures indicate that there is good source material out there.

These topics have been discussed ad infiditum elsewhere. But the thread question is "what annoys you", and these are my initial thoughts on the matter.

-SD extras, could you atleast upscale it? I can't zoom in on non-anamorphic letterbox over HDMI.

Amen!

How about the fact that bluray has been out for 2 or 3 years now and we still don't have Lord of the Rings or Star Wars yet!!! Come on guys, bluray beat hddvd. It's time to cough up these titles!!

I wouldn't expect to yet.

Lucas is giong to wait until Bluray gives him the biggest revenue stream for lucasfilm. The base is not where he wants it yet. why do you think it took so long to get 4-6 on DVD?

And LOTRs won't be released until the Hobbit is about to go. It will provide free publicity.

If I were a studio exec... I would probably do the same. Why would I have my studios release a major catalog title that will sell when the base is less than 10 million? furthermore, we all know that Lucas is anal retentive about his work. He has to do his retinkering again for the BD edition to produce the edition he "really wanted to make" all along.

-Old transfer of an old movie on BD25 cost as much as a new movie on a BD50.
.

Folks who have never ripped an HD DVD or BD and don't understand that most of the main features on bluray (movies not tv shows) run between 14-22gb with lossless tracks when VC1 or AVC are used. Why people think that putting a movie on BD50 instead of BD25 instantly still boggles my mind.

If you do the math, a lossless track takes on average 2-4gb. thats it. most of the videos in VC1 take 12-15 and 14-19 on AVC. There was a time when stripped the feature down to the lossless track 1, commentary 1 and the video. and then placed the features on my media server. I know from experience. Most ended up in the 18gb range with a few (Top Gun is an example from what I remember) that hit 22. There are some that are over 25. But they are by far the minority and not the majority

It is not like DVD where most movies should run in the 6-7 range and they got bit limited to fit in 4.7. There is more than enough room on a 25gb disc for most features. BD50 is mostly useful for disks where they are overly long, a series or have a ton of extras. But again, I don't just want extras for the purpose of having extras. I want an extra that is worth me spending the 10-30 minutes for me to watch. Not just seem reel with an actor running around the studio with a camcorder. As I stated earlier, it might not be a bad idea for adoption to include two version (OAR and 16x9) for the black bar hater. Again I like the bars personally and for that BD50 would definitely be useful.

As far as SD extra, that is one advantage I do like with software players like Nero Showtime. I can just zoom in with no problems. Of course, the menu handling on TMT, PDVD and Nero take take that + away. Seems that alot of the SD extra stuff

----

Here are some interesting file sizes.

Here are some examples (the first is the iso size, the second is the main feature)

A Few Good Men…..<41.2 / 23.1>
Memento…..<22.4 / 15.1>
The Replacement Killers…..<30.3 / 18.7>
Rocky Balboa…..<43.1 / 22.0>
Cars.....<38.5 / 20.3>
Crash.....<20.8 / 18.0>
Shoot Em up.....<46.4 / 17.0>
War.....<40.3 / 19.3>
The Rock.....<36.4 / 24.1>

When I first started ripping them, I took the lossless off thinking it was taking off alot of weight.

After a few tries, I realized that I could keep most movies with lossless and sometimes even 2-3 commentaries and the lossy track in tact and still be under 20.

A good example to look at is crash. It is at 20gb. Would putting it on BD50 make it any better when they still had 5gb to spare anyway?

I am not saying they would shave off the bit rate to fit it just under 25 for the iso, but most end up usually well over with all the junk on there on well under. We are probably talking about a very few number of disks where this happened.

And if it helps them make a profit... I am all for it. Them making a profit incentivizes them to invest more in BD. Sometimes Greed is good.

Sorry that my evidence and facts (not my opinions) obviously bother you. I'll try not to bring science back into it....my bad.

Go watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray using TrueHD audio, then throw in the DVD. Or better yet, watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray and then watch the trailer that's on the same disc. The sound difference should be almost instant.... And this is a non-action title...

Sorry that my evidence and facts (not my opinions) obviously bother you. I'll try not to bring science back into it....my bad.

Go watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray using TrueHD audio, then throw in the DVD. Or better yet, watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray and then watch the trailer that's on the same disc. The sound difference should be almost instant.... And this is a non-action title...

As a general rule, are the lossy tracks compressed from the same lossless tracks that are on a disc, or is it possible that the lossless tracks are handled better upstream?

This is a tough argument for me, as my rational side leads me to the side of of VERY dimishing returns, yet it really seems to me that the lossless tracks often sound better?

You guys are being a bit harsh. I understand original scope and director's vision etc. etc. Thing is, I prefer to purchase BDs that are presented in 1.78:1 AR and therefore my "complaint" is that there are too few.

I understand that most BD releases are presented in the original AR, and thus giving us the 2.35:1 (or greater) ARs. I just prefer the full screen if I have a choice, and (because of my preference) I make purchases with this in mind.


This has nothing to do with the Blu-ray format per say. If you don't like their shooting formats, I'd suggest you contact the Director's Guild.... ;)

Face...meet palm.

What does this have to do with Blu-ray? :confused:

I'd prefer to have a wider selection of blu-ray titles with an aspect ratio of 1.78:1

To give her/him the benefit of the doubt, maybe the idea is that Blu-ray is seeing a disproportionate percentage of 'Scope releases vis-a-vis the relative number that are actually produced. It might make sense to me as a complaint along the lines of "too many brainless blockbusters, not enough quieter films" if the theory is that more of the 'Scope product is hitting Blu-ray because it tends to cater more closely to the PS3 demographic.

I appreciate your attempt to give me a little credit, but my owning a PS3 really doesnt affect my knowledge of blu-rays / cinema scope movies, or my preference to view content in 1.78:1 AR.

#3's already been "facepalmed" already...so...


#2: :facepalm:

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.

If you are tired of the arguments, dont get involved in them. I said what I prefer, which is lossless audio. If I feel that my home theater performs better when playing a lossless audio codec, then I prefer it and nothing you say about the bit rate will change my mind.

I appreciate your attempt to give me a little credit, but my owning a PS3 really doesnt affect my knowledge of blu-rays / cinema scope movies, or my preference to view content in 1.78:1 AR.

I wasn't referring to you as a PS3 owner; I was using the term "PS3 demographic" as shorthand to describe the kind of Blockbuster movies that tend to be released on Blu-ray by the studios which are commonly considered to be catering to the kind of buyer who comes to Blu-ray by way of PS3. A higher proportion of these films are in 2.39:1.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I guess I was put on the defensive by what appeared to be a complete bashing for expressing a preference. Thanks for standing in defense of my position. ;)

Go watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray using TrueHD audio, then throw in the DVD. Or better yet, watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray and then watch the trailer that's on the same disc. The sound difference should be almost instant.... And this is a non-action title...

People seem to misunderstand the argument here. One would hope (think) a TrueHD track would sound better than a DD at 448 kbps track. A DTS/DD+ at 1.5 MB and a DD at 640 kbps certainly would, too. In fact, quite a few discs have a lossless version on the disc, while the other tracks are mere 448 kbps. It's the difference between higher bitrate lossy and the lossless we've been talking about here. Tests have even shown the difference between 448 kbps and lossless/original wasn't as huge as people would have expected.



http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

From that article:

I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference.

Also interesting, from that article:

If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible.

Go watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray using TrueHD audio, then throw in the DVD. Or better yet, watch Shawshank Redemption on blu-ray and then watch the trailer that's on the same disc. The sound difference should be almost instant.... And this is a non-action title...

I'm not going to jump into the lossless vs lossy argument, but I will point out that these are not valid comparisons. The bitrate for lossy formats on Blu-ray is generally much higher than on DVD, so the difference is much more obvious. Also, who knows what care they put into the audio for a trailer? It's unlikely it's treated with the same respect as the feature.

The only truly valid way is to compare a high bitrate lossy track with a lossless track made from the same master. And, unless you do a blind A-B test, it's unlikely you'll be able to draw valid conclusions (it is very easy to think you heard a difference when you're expecting to hear a difference, even though that difference may not exist).

I'll also admit that I am probably a victim of expectation bias to an extent (when it comes to BD audio)...but whatever helps me sleep at night.

Folks who have never ripped an HD DVD or BD and don't understand that most of the main features on bluray (movies not tv shows) run between 14-22gb with lossless tracks when VC1 or AVC are used. Why people think that putting a movie on BD50 instead of BD25 instantly still boggles my mind.

If you do the math, a lossless track takes on average 2-4gb. thats it. most of the videos in VC1 take 12-15 and 14-19 on AVC. There was a time when stripped the feature down to the lossless track 1, commentary 1 and the video. and then placed the features on my media server. I know from experience. Most ended up in the 18gb range with a few (Top Gun is an example from what I remember) that hit 22. There are some that are over 25. But they are by far the minority and not the majority

It is not like DVD where most movies should run in the 6-7 range and they got bit limited to fit in 4.7. There is more than enough room on a 25gb disc for most features. BD50 is mostly useful for disks where they are overly long, a series or have a ton of extras. But again, I don't just want extras for the purpose of having extras. I want an extra that is worth me spending the 10-30 minutes for me to watch. Not just seem reel with an actor running around the studio with a camcorder. As I stated earlier, it might not be a bad idea for adoption to include two version (OAR and 16x9) for the black bar hater. Again I like the bars personally and for that BD50 would definitely be useful.


bjmarchini, that's some interesting stuff, there. What a lot of us have noticed is that when a certain studio *cough* uses a 25GB disc, that's when they tend to opt for the DD 640kbps tracks. I wonder if it's a blanket policy for "better safe than sorry?" Or what the reasoning is? It seems real estate on 25GB may be less of a concern than people think.

Still, if extras are going to be on the 25GB disc, and there's any concern, whatsoever that space is tight, I'd still rather the resources saved by using a high bitrate lossy be put to better use...towards the video.

Can anyone explain why DD 640kbps or DD+ 1.5 MB (although not so much anymore since the death of HD DVD) isn't high def audio?? The age old "nuh-uh, 'cause it a'int lossless" is getting really tiresome.

Word.
Although, prepare to be hit by the 'HD PICTURE MUST HAVE HD SOUND' brigade...

People seem to misunderstand the argument here. One would hope (think) a TrueHD track would sound better than a DD at 448 kbps track. A DTS/DD+ at 1.5 MB and a DD at 640 kbps certainly would, too. In fact, quite a few discs have a lossless version on the disc, while the other tracks are mere 448 kbps. It's the difference between higher bitrate lossy and the lossless we've been talking about here. Tests have even shown the difference between 448 kbps and lossless/original wasn't as huge as people would have expected.



http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

From that article:

I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference.

Also interesting, from that article:

If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible.

I have to agree that 640kbps and1.5MB Codecs certainly are “HD.” As noted, the Golden Ear Club claims to be able to hear a difference between those and the new lossless Codecs because the specs say it’s so, although many say that A-B tests have proved otherwise. I don’t know who is right here because my AV receiver has only optical audio inputs, not HDMI. Consequently, I can’t play the new lossless Codecs. Nevertheless, the 640kpbs and 1.5MB soundtracks I have heard on BDs have always provided excellent and sometimes thrilling AQ. Although a lossless Codec might sound better still, it seems to me that the difference would likely be marginal at best. For the record, my BD player is a PS3.

I'm not going to jump into the lossless vs lossy argument, but I will point out that these are not valid comparisons. The bitrate for lossy formats on Blu-ray is generally much higher than on DVD, so the difference is much more obvious. Also, who knows what care they put into the audio for a trailer? It's unlikely it's treated with the same respect as the feature.


I agree that the jump from DVD to blu-ray in sound is typically going to be very noticeable... but that's my point. He was arguing he cant tell the difference between 128, 192, 256kbps, etc... And all I was doing was trying to show him that it's not that hard. I understand that the sound in the trailer isn't given much care, but the trailer was in 1080p, so they at least gave it _some_ care.




The only truly valid way is to compare a high bitrate lossy track with a lossless track made from the same master. And, unless you do a blind A-B test, it's unlikely you'll be able to draw valid conclusions (it is very easy to think you heard a difference when you're expecting to hear a difference, even though that difference may not exist).

I won't say that 640kbps is bad and believe that it's sometimes indistinguishable from lossless. I will say, however, the better the sound system, the easier it becomes to tell the difference. If you look back to my early posts, I even argued that lossless sound was a gimmick -- not because I didnt believe it was different, but because I believe that 99.9 percent of people wont have the equipment, ear, etc to tell the difference. I still prefer lossless though because why skimp out when there's no need to?

One More annoyance with blu-ray:

The status of titles (new versus catalog). Can you believe that Superman Returns,16 blocks, Click and many other titles from 2006 are still being sold as a "new" titles ?

Can you believe that Superman Returns,16 blocks, Click and many other titles from 2006 are still being sold as a "new" titles?

Where?

Where?

Their MSRPs reflect that of new releases (Sony's new releases cost 38.95, Warner's 34.99 MSRP back when those titles came out). Catalogs are MSRP'd at 28.99 and 29.99 for Warner and Sony.

I agree that the jump from DVD to blu-ray in sound is typically going to be very noticeable... but that's my point. He was arguing he cant tell the difference between 128, 192, 256kbps, etc... And all I was doing was trying to show him that it's not that hard.

Actually, that wasn't my argument. I said at around 192 in a lot of blind MP3 listening tests is where most people maxed out, and how that lends proof to my main argument to the indistinguishability between high bitrate lossy vs lossless, since audible transparency has been met well below what the high bitrate lossys offer.

I'm not sure how you telling me to compare lossless Shawshank to 448 kbps Shashank has anything to do with comparing high bitrate lossy to lossless, since 448 kbps is definitely low bitrate lossy, but no harm, no foul.

I think people in marketing might have done too good a job when it came to the lossless bullets.

Actually, that wasn't my argument. I said at around 192 in a lot of blind MP3 listening tests is where most people maxed out, and how that lends proof to my main argument to the indistinguishability between high bitrate lossy vs lossless, since audible transparency has been met well below what the high bitrate lossys offer.

I'm not sure how you telling me to compare lossless Shawshank to 448 kbps Shashank has anything to do with comparing high bitrate lossy to lossless, since 448 kbps is definitely low bitrate lossy, but no harm, no foul.

I think people in marketing might have done too good a job when it came to the lossless bullets.
You believe that lossy is equal to or greater than lossless. You cannot tell a difference between the two. We get it...we got it several posts ago. Let it go and allow others to have opinions as well.

Actually, that wasn't my argument. I said at around 192 in a lot of blind MP3 listening tests is where most people maxed out, and how that lends proof to my main argument to the indistinguishability between high bitrate lossy vs lossless, since audible transparency has been met well below what the high bitrate lossys offer.

I'm not sure how you telling me to compare lossless Shawshank to 448 kbps Shashank has anything to do with comparing high bitrate lossy to lossless, since 448 kbps is definitely low bitrate lossy, but no harm, no foul.



What lossy bit-rate is "high" in your opinion.. 640kbps?

Their MSRPs reflect that of new releases (Sony's new releases cost 38.95, Warner's 34.99 MSRP back when those titles came out). Catalogs are MSRP'd at 28.99 and 29.99 for Warner and Sony.

Ah, gotcha. Of course, when Fox wants $39.99 for a catalog title, maybe it doesn't matter so much if they call it a "new release", instead. :p

What lossy bit-rate is "high" in your opinion?

640kbps and higher.

It's apparent this thread has run it's course. Most of the recent posts aren't about BD annoyances. Everybody has had there say. This forum is too busy to keep gone-off-topic threads at the top.

larry