Just read Bracke's review of both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Blind tests according to him show PCM with more detail than True HD. This was the first time a PCM and True HD track of the same movie has been compared. I wonder if something is being lost during the decoding process.

He did state the the Departeds sound was very underwelming tho. And that they were nearly identicle.

Personally I think they both sound awesome...but I do give a slight edge to BD for AQ. I will be doing a side by side of the Departed...my brother picked up the BD version and I have the HD DVD version. Will be doing this over the weekend. It should be fun. :D

If there is a difference it's either something wonky in the encoding process or in the decoding process. There is no reason why a lossless audio track should not sound identical to an uncompressed track. I'm more disappointed that the audio is even being described as underwhelming at all regardless of the format :(

Is he using analog outputs? If so, then he is using two different sets of DACs by using the analog section of two different players. The DAC process is the most delicate process in audio reproduction. Furthermore, the audio settings could be different among his two players.

In this case, using HDMI allows for a much more accurate test, because regardless of the player used, the same DACs and room correction settings are being used (by the AVR or pre/pro).

He's using HDMI for audio connections according to his equipment list.

If there is a difference it's either something wonky in the encoding process or in the decoding process. There is no reason why a lossless audio track should not sound identical to an uncompressed track. I'm more disappointed that the audio is even being described as underwhelming at all regardless of the format :(

I agree. While my post may sound like "YAY! Blu-ray, go kick HD DVD's ass!", it's not. I think it's troubling that there should be aural differences between uncompressed and lossless; because we know that PCM will go away probably by late this year in favor of THD or DTSMA.

I think the next comparison would be NIN Blu-ray and HD DVD. If Blu-ray's True HD track is subtlely better than HD DVD's then there is something going on with either the Toshiba players or the True HD chip.

He's using HDMI for audio connections according to his equipment list.
Ah.

Well the Toshiba player could very well be at fault. I can tell you that when my A2 outputs a 96 kHz signal, the volume is significantly attenuated and dynamic range is lacking. Perhaps its 48 kHz output isn't up to par either. I wouldn't be surprised, as I'm fed up with Toshiba's rather poor quality engineering.

I wonder if the "lossless" codecs do any sort of prefiltering to make it encode lossless within the bit-budget?

With lossless compression, there shouldn't be a way to always guarantee an upper bound over any fixed chunk size, should there? Even with 1 second of buffering, how can there be a guarantee that whatever audio is part of that 1second, the codec can always compress it losslessly?

(I'm just speculating.)

I highly doubt there is a difference. There was probably a slight variation in volume level between the players (or the audio tracks themselves). The PCM probably seemed more "realistic" because it was a fraction of a decibel louder.

There should be no difference between them if they have the same sample rate because TrueHD works just like FLAC. It doesn't sound like the reviewer did a proper SPL-matched, double-blind comparison.

"If we had blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible."

I highly doubt there is a difference. There was probably a slight variation in volume level between the players (or the audio tracks themselves). The PCM probably seemed more "realistic" because it was a fraction of a decibel louder.

There should be no difference between them if they have the same sample rate because TrueHD works just like FLAC. It doesn't sound like the reviewer did a proper SPL-matched, double-blind comparison.

"If we had blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible."
but then we wouldnt have this wonderful propoganda thread.

but then we wouldnt have this wonderful propoganda thread.

Bingo, the two forums, HD/BD love to do this, specifically 'making something of nothing'. This two forums specifically have downgraded the quality of these boards to gamefaqs level.

I wonder if the "lossless" codecs do any sort of prefiltering to make it encode lossless within the bit-budget?

With lossless compression, there shouldn't be a way to always guarantee an upper bound over any fixed chunk size, should there? Even with 1 second of buffering, how can there be a guarantee that whatever audio is part of that 1second, the codec can always compress it losslessly?

(I'm just speculating.)

Well, there could be some "pre-filtering," but not by the codec itself. It is possible that Warner may be doing something to the master audio before encoding to TrueHD to help it compress better, similar to how some video transfers are filtered in order to compress better for DVD. Perhaps it's a lowpass filter? That would reduce the bits needed to reproduce the sound losslessly.

I definitely agree with those who say TrueHD is lossless, but the tracks being reproduced could actually be slightly different.

I highly doubt there is a difference. There was probably a slight variation in volume level between the players (or the audio tracks themselves). The PCM probably seemed more "realistic" because it was a fraction of a decibel louder.

There should be no difference between them if they have the same sample rate because TrueHD works just like FLAC. It doesn't sound like the reviewer did a proper SPL-matched, double-blind comparison.

"If we had blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible."


I was also thinking there was simply a slight variation in volume.

I was also thinking there was simply a slight variation in volume.
Most likely due to the TrueHD "Dial Norm" setting.

Just another nail in HD-DUD's coffin!

Just another nail in HD-DUD's coffin!
Just another ignorant fanboy with nothing to contribute.

this has nothing to do with HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray.

This is about lossless codecs in reference to the uncompressed PCM soundtrack - with questions I've been very vocal about in the past. I'd love to do this comparison, but at the moment I'm not adequately equipped.

Well, I watched the SD version this morning (can't find the dang high def version anywhere and I hate online shopping) and the sound was very flat. I doubt either HD or Blu sound all that great, no matter the format.

but then we wouldnt have this wonderful propoganda thread.

Kinda like everytime someone brings up VC-1 looks better than MPEG2?

this has nothing to do with HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray.

This is about lossless codecs in reference to the uncompressed PCM soundtrack - with questions I've been very vocal about in the past. I'd love to do this comparison, but at the moment I'm not adequately equipped.

Exactly! We could have end up with both track on the Blu-Ray disk. That as nothing to do with the storage format. It is extremely annoying that any serious discussion end up in this type dead end :mad:

In case anyone was wondering, The Departed's PCM track is 16-bit.

In case anyone was wondering, The Departed's PCM track is 16-bit.


I was curious about that. I wondered what the sampling rate was for each track. I honestly believe any difference in performance is more due to the processes used to listen to them. Players, circuitry, cabling, etc. I'd like a test under ideal conditions to make sure any potential outside influences are eliminated from the equation. Probably not going to happen though. If that's the case give me the best option available. If that happens to be PCM then fine by me. If it's TrueHD or Master Audio then I'm OK with that too.

What's a 4dB delta amongst friends? ;)

I was curious about that. I wondered what the sampling rate was for each track. I honestly believe any difference in performance is more due to the processes used to listen to them. Players, circuitry, cabling, etc. I'd like a test under ideal conditions to make sure any potential outside influences are eliminated from the equation. Probably not going to happen though. If that's the case give me the best option available. If that happens to be PCM then fine by me. If it's TrueHD or Master Audio then I'm OK with that too.

maybe one day we will get on each release PCM or DolbyTrueHD or DTS HD MA

that will be great :)
Marek

maybe one day we will get on each release PCM or DolbyTrueHD or DTS HD MA

that will be great :)
Marek

Oh no, now that really would be a waste of space.

Jeez. what a bunch of BS. Please..

Lossless is bit to bit identical .. NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!

It's said that the soundlevel is a bit lower on this HD-DVD.. if so that would explain the so called difference in quality..
If you do a blindtest with 2 stereo systems (well, thats what you tell everyone) but only use one system, turning the volume down a little bit and say it's the 2nd stereo EVEYONE will pick the first system to be better even thu it's the very same system.
It's a well documented psychological effect.

So no PCM vs. Lossless please.. it's really insulting to everyones intelligence.

Oh no, now that really would be a waste of space.

did you saw that I used "OR" ?

I said I will be happy if any of those 3 formats (PCM,DoblyTrueHD,DTS HD MA) was each MOVIE :)

NOT ALL OF THEM ;) on one disc......

maybe one day we will get on each release PCM or DolbyTrueHD or DTS HD MABD exclusive studios aren't far from that now, are they? I think Lions Gate would be the exception. It would be nice to get 24/48 (or 20/48) as common and a player to decode the DTS lossless stuff though.

--Darin

BD exclusive studios aren't far from that now, are they? I think Lions Gate would be the exception. It would be nice to get 24/48 (or 20/48) as common and a player to decode the DTS lossless stuff though.

--Darin

if it will be regulary on each movie :) my drream will come true :)
and yes BD exclusive studios are very close........ and 24/48 :) hmm, can't imagine
something like star wars, lotr or indy :)

Marek

Jeez. what a bunch of BS. Please..

Lossless is bit to bit identical .. NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER!

It's said that the soundlevel is a bit lower on this HD-DVD.. if so that would explain the so called difference in quality..
If you do a blindtest with 2 stereo systems (well, thats what you tell everyone) but only use one system, turning the volume down a little bit and say it's the 2nd stereo EVEYONE will pick the first system to be better even thu it's the very same system.
It's a well documented psychological effect.

So no PCM vs. Lossless please.. it's really insulting to everyones intelligence.

I agree, but that is assuming that the source track on each disc is exactly the same. Until someone analyzes the tracks on a computer or through some special equipment, we do not know if Warner actually used the exact same PCM track to losslessly compress as TrueHD.

The best thing would be to use some kind of lossless compression, but not when the procedure is to prepare the sound for more efficient compression. It may turn out that LPCM is a "de facto" better option because there would (or should) not be a tendency to filter or compromise the track in any way, since it wouldn't save any space.

did you saw that I used "OR" ?

I said I will be happy if any of those 3 formats (PCM,DoblyTrueHD,DTS HD MA) was each MOVIE :)

NOT ALL OF THEM ;) on one disc......

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant that you wanted all of them on there so you could choose. :o

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant that you wanted all of them on there so you could choose. :o

that's OK SirDrexl, and I agree if I wanted all of them, that would really be WASTING of space :)

Marek

but that is assuming that the source track on each disc is exactly the same. Until someone analyzes the tracks on a computer or through some special equipment, we do not know if Warner actually used the exact same PCM track to losslessly compress as TrueHD.

I'm not sure this practice still exists for current titles such as this...but it's still talked about. This whole idea started long ago when DTS first emerged - when studios had to send the audio source of the film to DTS for encoding and and channel levels came out very differently when comparing them to Dolby Digital on laserdisc and some DVDs.

I highly doubt this is the case today because encoding is all done in-house now. Why would a studio use a different sound mix/printmaster for a lossless compression technology vs. that of direct PCM? Why would a 2nd sound mix/printmaster exist? If bit-depth reduction was necessary (24->16), I don't think they'd make a new master tape for it, would they? I'd assume it would be truncated during the process...? Just thoughts...

Kinda like everytime someone brings up VC-1 looks better than MPEG2?

Apples and oranges. PCM and lossless are supposed to be identical. That's why it's propagnda. VC-1 and Mpeg2 have a load of REAL variables - required bit rates, noise filtering, authoring tools, compressionist input and decisions - that could account for quality differences and not just propaganda.

My Blu-Ray.doc looks way sharper then my Blu-Ray.zip of the same file :p ;)

Review from Mr. Deering is up (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/mrg-143-february-2007-part-3.html#The%20Departed) ! :)

Review from Mr. Deering is up (http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_1/mrg-143-february-2007-part-3.html#The%20Departed) ! :)


Yep,and as expected,no difference in sound.I still bought the BD version bTW,since it was cheaper.

Just another nail in HD-DUD's coffin!

This one is a TROLLER. Posts reported.