Why has Warner decided to opt for 16-bit low bit-rate TrueHD soundtracks when every other studio is doing 24-bit? I applaud Fox for giving us 24-bit DTS-MA soundtracks on even the oldest catalog titles. New Line Cinema was also doing this for all their titles, not only giving us 24-bit but 7.1 as well! Now that Warner is releasing for them, all their titles are low bit-rate 16-bit TrueHD soundtracks. How disappointing...

Looks like someone showed up late to the party.:p *points at OP*
Damn just knowing that LOTR could have had an 8channel 24bit track hurts. :(

Why has Warner decided to opt for 16-bit low bit-rate TrueHD soundtracks when every other studio is doing 24-bit? I applaud Fox for giving us 24-bit DTS-MA soundtracks on even the oldest catalog titles. New Line Cinema was also doing this for all their titles, not only giving us 24-bit but 7.1 as well! Now that Warner is releasing for them, all their titles are low bit-rate 16-bit TrueHD soundtracks. How disappointing...

16-bit is low? There is no way your room even comes close to a 96dB dynamic range (almost no studio can). There is no consumer equipment made that can come even close to resolving 24-bit (about 16 to 18-bits (108dB) is tops). Even if it were possible to resolve and reproduce a full 24-bit audio sound do you want to be in the same room with a 144dB sound. Your ear drums would likely be ruptured and your hearing would permanently damaged in a second.

There is noting wrong with offering 24-bit audio but there a 1,000,000 things more important to the final quality than 16-bit verses 24-bit.

What William said plus bitrate is not an indicator of quality for lossless compression.

24bit/96khz audio is a waste of space.

Let's convince Warner to stop giving us plain old Dolby Digital on titles like Speed Racer and Get Smart and Journey to the Center of the Earth. Then we can talk about how disappointed we are by 16 bit TrueHD.

first get rid of the DD releases and do PCM, Tru hd or DTS Hd ma

let's convince warner to stop giving us plain old dolby digital on titles like speed racer and get smart and journey to the center of the earth. Then we can talk about how disappointed we are by 16 bit truehd.

+1

+2

+ 2 - 4(-.25)

:p

+7

the only reason 24bit is nice is the stuff is usually transferred/recorded using a 24bit 96KHz or 192KHz device and the less processing to convert it down to 16/48 the better but it's still completely acceptable

+7

the only reason 24bit is nice is the stuff is usually transferred/recorded using a 24bit 96KHz or 192KHz device and the less processing to convert it down to 16/48 the better but it's still completely acceptable

This I can agree with but Warner has much bigger fish to fry (lossy audio, DNR, low bit rate transfers on BD25's and inconstant releases) than adding the non-problem of 24-bit to the plate.;)

16-bit is low? There is no way your room even comes close to a 96dB dynamic range (almost no studio can). There is no consumer equipment made that can come even close to resolving 24-bit (about 16 to 18-bits (108dB) is tops). Even if it were possible to resolve and reproduce a full 24-bit audio sound do you want to be in the same room with a 144dB sound. Your ear drums would likely be ruptured and your hearing would permanently damaged in a second.

There is noting wrong with offering 24-bit audio but there a 1,000,000 things more important to the final quality than 16-bit verses 24-bit.

William, you stole the words right out of my mouth. I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of quoting this post in a similar discussion on the HDD forums.

Then there's also the fact that the extra 8 bits in a 24/48 soundtrack tend to just be random inaudible noise anyway, which wreaks havoc on a lossless codec's efficiency (hence the large bitrate difference).

William, you stole the words right out of my mouth. I hope you don't mind if I take the liberty of quoting this post in a similar discussion on the HDD forums.

Then there's also the fact that the extra 8 bits in a 24/48 soundtrack tend to just be random inaudible noise anyway, which wreaks havoc on a lossless codec's efficiency (hence the large bitrate difference).

If you will clean up the spelling and grammar.:D Also the lowest 8-bits don't "tend to be noise" but ARE in FACT random (inaudible) noise. How could they be anything else but random (inaudible) noise since there is not and can't be any audible sounds to encode below the absolute noise floor at about -90dB (15-bits)?

There is one arguable benefit to 24-bit and that is less quantization errors. However with noise shaping it's irrelevant (unless you think SA-CD is unlistenable since it is only 1-bit). ;)

Why has Warner decided to opt for 16-bit low bit-rate TrueHD soundtracks when every other studio is doing 24-bit? I applaud Fox for giving us 24-bit DTS-MA soundtracks on even the oldest catalog titles. New Line Cinema was also doing this for all their titles, not only giving us 24-bit but 7.1 as well! Now that Warner is releasing for them, all their titles are low bit-rate 16-bit TrueHD soundtracks. How disappointing...
They did it, so we can have a new thread about this every so often, but in reality Warner just hate BD, and hope it will die a quick death. :rolleyes:

If you will clean up the spelling and grammar.:D Also the lowest 8-bits don't "tend to be noise" but ARE in FACT random (inaudible) noise. How could they be anything else but random (inaudible) noise since there is not and can't be any audible sounds to encode below the absolute noise floor at about -90dB (15-bits)? I've known for a while that extra bitdepth doesn't help sound quality at all, but is there is audible difference with increased frequency?

I've known for a while that extra bitdepth doesn't help sound quality at all, but is there is audible difference with increased frequency?

Frequency response has nothing to do with bit depth. It is determined by the sampling rate. CD's sampling rate is the lowest at 44.1 but still goes beyond 20kHz which is above the audible hearing range. A big advantage in 48kHz is not that it goes to over 23kHz but that it allows room for noise shaping that 44.1 doesn't. 96kHz gives a lot of room for noise shaping.

If you will clean up the spelling and grammar.:D Also the lowest 8-bits don't "tend to be noise" but ARE in FACT random (inaudible) noise. How could they be anything else but random (inaudible) noise since there is not and can't be any audible sounds to encode below the absolute noise floor at about -90dB (15-bits)?

There is one arguable benefit to 24-bit and that is less quantization errors. However with noise shaping it's irrelevant (unless you think SA-CD is unlistenable since it is only 1-bit). ;)

Ah, thank you. I said "tend to be" just in case it was inappropriate to speak in absolute terms, just to cover my behind. My understanding on the topic is rudimentary at best.

And I find my SACDs to be quite listenable. ;)

I agree with the original poster. Master quality is "master quality". If the master is 24bit, so then should the BD track.

No exceptions!!

I agree with the original poster. Master quality is "master quality". If the master is 24bit, so then should the BD track.

No exceptions!!

What about analog Masters or 16-bit, 18-bit and 20-bit Masters? There is only a VERY small percentage of films that have 24-bit Masters.

What about analog Masters or 16-bit, 18-bit and 20-bit Masters? There is only a VERY small percentage of films that have 24-bit Masters.

It's generally accepted that most new release films since 2000 have a 24bit master, then why not allow the consumer the same?

I'm not saying that a film originally mixed with a 16bit master has to be converted to 24 bit, but if the original master is 24 bit, so should the BD track. Plain and simple, I want master quality audio, not "good enough" or "you wouldn't be able to hear the difference" audio.

Coming from the world of listening to DVD-A, I can definitely tell a quality difference between a 16bit CD and the 24bit DVD-A stereo tracks.

Doesn't matter if 24-bit ain't going to offer us any big value add but why settle for the second best when 24-bit master is available and which can psychologically convince customers who expect maxed out products from Studios.

Even Sony should be blamed for offering 16-bit:448 Kbps Dolby True HD that too on important releases like Casino Royale Collector's Edition.

Why has Warner decided to opt for 16-bit low bit-rate TrueHD soundtracks when every other studio is doing 24-bit? I applaud Fox for giving us 24-bit DTS-MA soundtracks on even the oldest catalog titles. New Line Cinema was also doing this for all their titles, not only giving us 24-bit but 7.1 as well! Now that Warner is releasing for them, all their titles are low bit-rate 16-bit TrueHD soundtracks. How disappointing...

I'm hoping they put some effort in lotr at least

Warner did it again in plain DD in The Nights at Ro...,a R.Gere's movie.

Even Sony should be blamed for offering 16-bit:448 Kbps Dolby True HD that too on important releases like Casino Royale Collector's Edition.

I dont think they offered 448kbps TrueHD.

That would be the lamest master ever used in high def. ;)

I dont think they offered 448kbps TrueHD.

That would be the lamest master ever used in high def. ;)

It was the embedded 448 Kbps DD track I was referring to.;)

There is no excuse why Sony and WB are releasing 16 bit TrueHD tracks (when many masters are recorded and/or re-mastered at 24 bits now)... there is space.

Sony only does this truncation to put in multiple TrueHD language tracks, which IS a waste of space. Only the original language track needs high res. audio. Other studios know this!

Let alone lossy tracks AT ALL anymore.

Warner Brothers... I'm looking at you!!!

I was listening to the 24 bit/96 kHz DTS-MA track on "Chronos" and it was amazing!

If anyone has listened to high resolution music on DVD-Audio and SA-CD's you'll know what I mean.

I agree that there isn't much value of higher sampling rates or bit depth, but if it is indeed recorded or mastered at those higher levels already I see no point to down sample, especially when a lossless encoder is used, since that is already saving space on the format that has a lot of it to begin with.. Sometimes I just wonder what these studio execs are thinking. I just wanna understand.

I just want lossless tracks fully supported by Warner, you know, instead of Speed Racer getting the shaft with lossy DD. God, the video quality is amazing, but that soundtrack is pretty sad.

There is no excuse why Sony and WB are releasing 16 bit TrueHD tracks (when many masters are recorded and/or re-mastered at 24 bits now)... there is space.

Sony only does this truncation to put in multiple TrueHD language tracks, which IS a waste of space. Only the original language track needs high res. audio. Other studios know this!

Let alone lossy tracks AT ALL anymore.

Warner Brothers... I'm looking at you!!!

I was listening to the 24 bit/96 kHz DTS-MA track on "Chronos" and it was amazing!

If anyone has listened to high resolution music on DVD-Audio and SA-CD's you'll know what I mean.


I agree with you Dan, I don't get Sony's reasoning either, even if you are doing multiple language tracks, they don't need to be down-rezzed. If it's causing that much problem, down-rez the dub track or even leave it as a legacy track.

Warners, well they are on something totally different and honestly I can't see their reasoning? It's not like they are maxing out their video bitrate or on BD have commited to a lot of Bonus View material taking up bandwidth. Warner's truly has no rhyme or reason.

I'm fully with you on the DVD-Audio tracks. Like you I can definitely tell the benefits of 24bit or for that matter 96khz encoding.

I have noticed that Warner never includes DTS audio in any form on its releases, even when the theatrical versions do have it. This holds true even for standard DVD's as well as Blu-ray. This is a bit disappointing, since DTS usually sounds better than Dolby Digital. Does anyone know why Warner avoids DTS?

I have noticed that Warner never includes DTS audio in any form on its releases, even when the theatrical versions do have it. This holds true even for standard DVD's as well as Blu-ray. This is a bit disappointing, since DTS usually sounds better than Dolby Digital. Does anyone know why Warner avoids DTS?

Legacy lossy DTS vs legacy lossy DD is subjective. However it makes no difference with DTS-MA or TrueHD lossless codecs. Also look at Twister DVD and about 3 others I can't think of right of hand for DTS.

I would rather have audio at 16bit/96khz than 24bit/48khz. You are more likely to notice the difference between 96 and 48 khz than you would between 16 and 24 bit audio. 24 bit is a big plus for recording since it allows for much more head room.

That said, Warners do need to have lossless audio standard and as the default like everyone else seems to be able to do.

I have noticed that Warner never includes DTS audio in any form on its releases, even when the theatrical versions do have it. This holds true even for standard DVD's as well as Blu-ray. This is a bit disappointing, since DTS usually sounds better than Dolby Digital. Does anyone know why Warner avoids DTS?
Warner doesn't believe that DTS have any advantage over Dolby and it takes up more room/bandwidth. They made this point when they released 5 titles[DVD] with full bit [1509kbps] DTS tracks along with DD [448kbps] and they were pretty much the same to anyone who heard them. Those titles were also didn't produced any sales jump so WB concluded it that DTS adds no value to their DVD's. I'm not surprised that they don't bother with it on BD either. Warner did make a promise recently that they will support lossless [Dolby THD] on all their future titles that have multi track recordings.
BTW the theatrical versions are PCM originally, but the studios do provide with the prints they send out all of the lossy formats depending what a particular theater use to present it.

Warner doesn't believe that DTS have any advantage over Dolby and it takes up more room/bandwidth. They made this point when they released 5 titles[DVD] with full bit [1509kbps] DTS tracks along with DD [448kbps] and they were pretty much the same to anyone who heard them. Those titles were also didn't produced any sales jump so WB concluded it that DTS adds no value to their DVD's. I'm not surprised that they don't bother with it on BD either. Warner did make a promise recently that they will support lossless [Dolby THD] on all their future titles that have multi track recordings.
BTW the theatrical versions are PCM originally, but the studios do provide with the prints they send out all of the lossy formats depending what a particular theater use to present it.

There is also no reason for Warners to switch to DTSHD MA since True HD is identical to DTSHD MA given the same source.

Legacy lossy DTS vs legacy lossy DD is subjective...

I disagree. I understand that legacy DTS is less lossy than legacy DD. DTS, when used, seems to require significantly more disc space on standard DVD's. To me, legacy DTS sounds better than legacy DD, with more "punch" to the sound in the bass and in transients; a more "visceral" quality. Also, the midrange and highs seem a bit "richer". All of this is likely due to a less lossy codec. Understand, of course, that we are only comparing the legacy sytems here.

There is also no reason for Warners to switch to DTSHD MA since True HD is identical to DTSHD MA given the same source.


This makes perfect sense in this case, since both systems are lossless.

The best Blu-Ray movie sound tracks I have experienced so far have all come from DTS-Master 24/96 high bit rate like "Wanted".... All I want is Warner Bros to spend as much time and care on the Lossless Audio sound track as they do on the Picture..

Because to most of us the Sound Quality is just as important to the Movie Experience
as the Picture, No??...

IMO Universal pictures have the balance right with HD movies!!!

Cheers...

I disagree. I understand that legacy DTS is less lossy than legacy DD. DTS, when used, seems to require significantly more disc space on standard DVD's. To me, legacy DTS sounds better than legacy DD, with more "punch" to the sound in the bass and in transients; a more "visceral" quality. Also, the midrange and highs seem a bit "richer". All of this is likely due to a less lossy codec. Understand, of course, that we are only comparing the legacy sytems here.

You disagree that it's your subjective opinion that DTS sounds better than DD.:D I don't get it, what are you disagreeing about:confused:

I disagree. I understand that legacy DTS is less lossy than legacy DD.
That's incorrect in part. DD is more efficient not more lossy, and needs less bits to achieve the same level of what DTS can do at higher bit rates. DTS couldn't even "operate" at 448kbps.

The best Blu-Ray movie sound tracks I have experienced so far have all come from DTS-Master 24/96 high bit rate like "Wanted".... All I want is Warner Bros to spend as much time and care on the Lossless Audio sound track as they do on the Picture..


What care is that? BTW I'm extremely happy with many of their titles, like TDK, I Am Legend, The Matrix trilogy, Phantom of The Opera, Amadeus, V for Vendetta,Training Day,Letters From Iwo Jima, etc.....

What care is that? BTW I'm extremely happy with many of their titles, like TDK, I Am Legend, The Matrix trilogy, Phantom of The Opera, Amadeus, V for Vendetta,Training Day,Letters From Iwo Jima, etc.....What care is that??:D....

Cheers....