Since you guys don't get it, let me explain.

If you think 2:1 ratio kills a format, PS3 is dead in Japan.

Almost 900,000 consoles after a few months? Dead? I think not. Some of the BIG titles aren't even out yet. Sure, the Wii sells better. It always will. It is half the price, targeted towards a different market.

The PS3 is alive and well. As more people buy the console, more will buy Blu-ray movies.

I'm surprised you brought up the subject (with the original chart), with your own Xbox 360 being the laughing stock over there. Remember how the 360 was going to be different than the Xbox in Japan, how MS would do so much different to cater for the Japanese buyers?? What happened? The only dead in Japan are the 360 and HD DVD. IMHO, of course.

Of course, for the US market, 2:1 means dead. As in HD DVD. ;) Just kidding. I suspect the ratio will vary over the next few months, but I do think the gap will widen slowly in favor of Blu-ray.

Actually, it's 100% more. ;) ;)

Noted and corrected :)

Has a firmware update suddenly enabled the PS2 to play BD? That would would be impressive. Otherwise ganging it with PS3 as force in the format war seems like a pretty desperate stretch.


You replied to the quote:

Now for Sony’s edge in the console market, that’s another story.

Silly thing, context. :p


I would argue that the president set by PS2 should have made the sales of the PS3 a no-brainer, but so far it appears gamers think it's too much buck for your bang.

If you compare PS2 to PS3 on vgcharts, you'll see an EERILY similar dip in sales at the 3-4 month mark. Before it spikes at the 5th month and dips down until shooting into the stratosphere at the 14 month mark.

I'll be magnanimous and provide the link to you:

http://www.vgcharts.org/aconscomps.php?name1=PS3&name2=PS2&type=0&align=0

;)

Been away, so this is late to the audio/BW debate.

For the multiple language fans - how does BD support the ~25 official EU languages? You want lossless too? How many users have >$5k audio systems to hear a difference? How many masters deserve anything more than DTS? How many listening environments are free of extraneous noise that masks any difference? How many "seniors" who can hear a difference? How many can tell the difference if they hear it?

HD-DVD - 99.99% movie perfect; BD - perfect for computer storage

50GB, dude, 50GB! :) I checked out a local (Norwegian) Blu-ray release yesterday in the store. (Movies lists between $40 and $60, or more than double of DVD.) Some new animation title, not yet released in the US, don't remember the title. It had 6 DD5.1 tracks, 4 DTS5.1 tracks, 1 PCM track and 6 subtitles. Meant for the nordic region, with norwegian, swedish, danish, finnish, icelandic and one more on there. So separate Blu-ray discs pr. "region" or whatever. I suspect those "regions" will be bigger or wider than the same on HD DVD due to space limitations.

As for the rest of your questions, who cares? How many consumers ask questions like that? "Hmm.. There is some extraneous noise when I watch movies. Because of that, I will not really hear any difference between DD5.1 and Lossless, so I'll get the HD version without lossless." Or "Wait, I'm over 50 and can't hear a difference anyways, so I'll get the DD5.1 version." :rolleyes:

There might be external issues that prevents me from getting the most out of the movie sound, that could be. But I for sure do NOT want that limitation on my discs!

Is the right to place to bring up my irritation with whoever thought up the Casino Royale menus for subtitles (Thai is the default from the pop-up menu and not at all intuitive to switch to the dozen others? :D )

There might be external issues that prevents me from getting the most out of the movie sound, that could be. But I for sure do NOT want that limitation on my discs!
I count you as the 0.01% that cares :) If that is a good number, the studios don't

You replied to the quote:

Now for Sony’s edge in the console market, that’s another story.

Silly thing, context. :p


http://www.vgcharts.org/aconscomps.php?name1=PS3&name2=PS2&type=0&align=0

;)

So your really going to roll two different players into one to cook numbers?

By that logic the PS3 was number one before it was even released.

Pure "Sony think" :D

I'm sorry, I thought I read "Sony’s edge in the console market." Wait I did. :D

I checked out a local (Norwegian) Blu-ray release yesterday in the store.The Norwegian Blu, eh? I hear they have beautiful plumage!

It is nice to have all that space and bandwidth. :D

I'm sorry, I thought I read "Sony’s edge in the console market." Wait I did. :D

Tried to think of a smarty-pants response...but I got nothin

Where are all of Fox's Blu-ray releases going?
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/03/29/where-are-all-of-foxs-blu-ray-releases-going/

It looks like all of Fox's winter Blu-ray releases have been bumped with the exception of two. So, Fox brought the ax down on Me, Myself & Irene, The Fly, Turistas, Dude, Where's My Car, From Hell, and Mr. & Mrs. Smith - they're all gone. The only two that have avoided the chopping block is the newly-released Eragon and The Night at the Museum (great family film BTW) which is slated for April 24 - for now. What happened to all these Blu-ray titles? Problems at the studio? Fox jumping the Blu-ray ship and treading water 'till the HD DVD ship can pick 'em up?

Where are all of Fox's Blu-ray releases going?Paidgeek answered this here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10153335&&#post10153335).
It looks like the April releases will just rely on the AACS "update" (i.e. PC software key revocation) scheduled for April, everything else is pushed back until BD+ is implemented. As paidgeek mentioned some time ago, in December there was still no talk in BDA about BD+. It will take time to incorporate it in the process.

Diogen.

Tried to think of a smarty-pants response...but I got nothin

:)

I should actually elucidate a bit on my thoughts to your second part:


I would argue that the president set by PS2 should have made the sales of the PS3 a no-brainer, but so far it appears gamers think it's too much buck for your bang.


Not only is the dip very similar to what happened to the PS2 (especially if you account for the much smaller launch of the PS3), I would add that right now Sony is really not interested in a mass migration that kills the currently strong (and very profitable) PS2 sales to the PS3, until the PS2 sales naturally fade. PS2 sales seem definitely downward trend, but still selling VERY well to kill off prematurely. It's a tricky balancing act and the timing of a PS3 price drop will very likely compensate for when Sony sees negatives with keeping the PS3 price high coincides with a precipitous drop in PS2 sales. At this rate, no sooner than 07 holidays, at least, IMO.

Given the pricing of the 360 Elite and current PS2 sales, Sony doesn't look like they'll be facing an urgent need for a price reduction on PS3.

Paidgeek answered this here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10153335&&#post10153335).
It looks like the April releases will just rely on the AACS "update" (i.e. PC software key revocation) scheduled for April, everything else is pushed back until BD+ is implemented. As paidgeek mentioned some time ago, in December there was still no talk in BDA about BD+. It will take time to incorporate it in the process.

Diogen.

Thanks. I remember him posting back in December that there were no plans to implement BD+. I haven't kept up on the latest, but I'm not surprised to hear that it is the reason they're delaying titles. I wonder how long it will take to break the first BD+ title. ;)

Thanks. I remember him posting back in December that there were no plans to implement BD+. I haven't kept up on the latest, but I'm not surprised to hear that it is the reason they're delaying titles. I wonder how long it will take to break the first BD+ title. ;)

What's up with Fox? I mean ACCS key revocation should be suffice for now. Why use BD+ when ACCS is not broken yet? If you are a hacker, you would love to see BD+ deployed and have a peep at how it actually works........

What's up with Fox? I mean ACCS key revocation should be suffice for now. Why use BD+ when ACCS is not broken yet? If you are a hacker, you would love to see BD+ deployed and have a peep at how it actually works........

My understanding is that they were the most vocal supporter of BD+, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they will be the first to deploy BD+. From a cosumer perspective it's just one more negative to Blu-Ray. From a studio perspective it's a positive for Blu-Ray. Personally, I'd rather not buy content with extra locks if I can avoid it.

I mean ACCS key revocation should be suffice for now.If no changes (except for new keys) are made to the software players on WinXP, the new keys will be discovered in a matter of hours since it is known where to "look" for them in the memory dump during playback.

Diogen.

...I wonder how long it will take to break the first BD+ title.Unlike AACS, BD+ is not documented (jealously guarded, in fact).
And although everybody "knows" that "security through obscurity" doesn't work, only time will tell how hard of a nut that will be.

Diogen.

If no changes (except for new keys) are made to the software players on WinXP, the new keys will be discovered in a matter of hours since it is known where to "look" for them in the memory dump during playback.

Diogen.
No, because the keys for those software players will be revoked, which means you won't be able to use those software players to play back these new HD-DVDs at all. At least that's my understanding of the situation.

Unlike AACS, BD+ is not documented (jealously guarded, in fact).
And although everybody "knows" that "security through obscurity" doesn't work, only time will tell how hard of a nut that will be.

Diogen.


It would be fun to wager. My guess is about 230 days give or take.

:)

I should actually elucidate a bit on my thoughts to your second part:



Not only is the dip very similar to what happened to the PS2 (especially if you account for the much smaller launch of the PS3), I would add that right now Sony is really not interested in a mass migration that kills the currently strong (and very profitable) PS2 sales to the PS3, until the PS2 sales naturally fade. PS2 sales seem definitely downward trend, but still selling VERY well to kill off prematurely. It's a tricky balancing act and the timing of a PS3 price drop will very likely compensate for when Sony sees negatives with keeping the PS3 price high coincides with a precipitous drop in PS2 sales. At this rate, no sooner than 07 holidays, at least, IMO.

Given the pricing of the 360 Elite and current PS2 sales, Sony doesn't look like they'll be facing an urgent need for a price reduction on PS3.

You may be correct, yet they predicted much more sales and higher attach-rates to their partners who are backing BD exclusively, so the overlap of strategy isn't exactly seamless. If I factor your analogy of PS2 profitability, PS3 subsidy, BD attach rates, PS3 as the BD Trojan, and BD-J. I gotta say I have this mental picture of Sony trying to balance a half-dozen spinning plates on sticks while they stand with one foot on a ball.

And just for your information, taking your all time favourite title (by number of times mentioned) King Kong, the Euro version of the disc has six DD+ language tracks, and fifteen subtitle tracks. They didn't seem to have all that much trouble putting multiple languages on a single disc.Really???? Let's put some figures to that one shall we?? (Seeing as people have shyed away from it on the insiders thread...)

Using the HD-DVD of Kong given away with the HD-DVD drive in the UK...

Total disc size in bytes is 29,939,531,776. Very close to 30,000,000,000 which in the storage world is usually the number taken to be the capacity of 30GB, which is not the binary number for 30GB...

PowerDVD reports the main soundtrack as being 1536kbps, which at 188mins run time gives 2,169,990KB or thereabouts as the number of KB for the English soundtrack in constant bitrate DD+. The main HD-DVD folder contains two large files, one 14,131,165,185 bytes, the other 14,580,510,720 bytes, giving a total of 28,711,675,905 bytes.

There are five non-English soundtracks that are a whopping(!) 384kbps DD+ each, (short changed or what) that would amount for another 2,707,200KB. I guess you're just unlucky if you don't speak English and are into sound quality.

This disc contains no extras, and the subtitle MAP files are very small a few MB in total.

So yes, it does have 6 languages including English. But are you really telling me that non-English speaking people should be grateful for getting a truly miserly 384kbps DD+ track??? Why shouldn't French, Italian, German, Spanish and Japanese speaking people be able to enjoy at least 1.5Mbps DD+??? With higher capacity you might even be able to give everyone TrueHD.

What about extras? On a film the size of Kong how do you do an IME?? Are we already reliant on the codec gurus to squeeze an extra few GB out of the picture encode to slightly up the audio, or make room for a very highly compressed PiP??

Strikes me VC-1 needs not a small increase in efficiency, but a huge one to allow such films to be released in the full next generation experience.

Disney for example are using DTS-HD at 1.5Mbps for their foreign language tracks on European releases such as Pearl Harbor, which like Kong is not a short film. Who's getting the better deal? (Ignoring taste in films... ;) )

There are five non-English soundtracks that are a whopping(!) 384kbps DD+ each, (short changed or what) that would amount for another 2,707,200KB. I guess you're just unlucky if you don't speak English and are into sound quality.

If they are that concerned about quality, then they wouldn't be listening to a dubbed track, right?

Besides, it's not like they couldn't release 1.1 or BD-Live players now, if they wanted to.How many SoC chips are currently being mass manufactured that can satisfy the requirements for a BD-Video 1.1 player? After all as even a few HD DVD insiders have said Blu-ray has much higher requirements for PiP decoding than HD DVD does. That means many, if not all, of the current SoC chips with secondary video decoders simply aren't capable of meeting the requirements for PiP decoding with Blu-ray. As such could you explain how CE companies could release BD-Video 1.1 players right now?


If the CE manufacturers are so excited about releasing these new players, why haven't they? What's holding them back that will magically be fixed on October 31st?Just to point this out but that is the deadline for when it becomes required for new Blu-ray players. That doesn't mean we won't see BD-Video 1.1 players before that date.


The difference between $300 and $600 is closing a gap!? That's 100% more!Unless I am mistaken the HD-A2 is being lowered to $400 MSRP compared to the the $600 MSRP BDP-S300. And that is if you ignore the fact that the cheapest 1080p stand alone HD DVD player is the $500 MSRP HD-A20.

Really???? Let's put some figures to that one shall we?? (Seeing as people have shyed away from it on the insiders thread...)

Using the HD-DVD of Kong given away with the HD-DVD drive in the UK...

Total disc size in bytes is 29,939,531,776. Very close to 30,000,000,000 which in the storage world is usually the number taken to be the capacity of 30GB, which is not the binary number for 30GB...

PowerDVD reports the main soundtrack as being 1536kbps, which at 188mins run time gives 2,169,990KB or thereabouts as the number of KB for the English soundtrack in constant bitrate DD+. The main HD-DVD folder contains two large files, one 14,131,165,185 bytes, the other 14,580,510,720 bytes, giving a total of 28,711,675,905 bytes.

There are five non-English soundtracks that are a whopping(!) 384kbps DD+ each, (short changed or what) that would amount for another 2,707,200KB. I guess you're just unlucky if you don't speak English and are into sound quality.

This disc contains no extras, and the subtitle MAP files are very small a few MB in total.

So yes, it does have 6 languages including English. But are you really telling me that non-English speaking people should be grateful for getting a truly miserly 384kbps DD+ track??? Why shouldn't French, Italian, German, Spanish and Japanese speaking people be able to enjoy at least 1.5Mbps DD+??? With higher capacity you might even be able to give everyone TrueHD.

What about extras? On a film the size of Kong how do you do an IME?? Are we already reliant on the codec gurus to squeeze an extra few GB out of the picture encode to slightly up the audio, or make room for a very highly compressed PiP??

Strikes me VC-1 needs not a small increase in efficiency, but a huge one to allow such films to be released in the full next generation experience.

Disney for example are using DTS-HD at 1.5Mbps for their foreign language tracks on European releases such as Pearl Harbor, which like Kong is not a short film. Who's getting the better deal? (Ignoring taste in films... ;) )

Two questions:
1. In terms of percentage just how many movies do you foresee having this storage and bandwidth problem?

2. In terms of percentage just how many people could discern a higher bit video and audio encode?

If they are that concerned about quality, then they wouldn't be listening to a dubbed track, right?Wow! What a wonderful outlook. If you don't speak English you don't deserve to listen to the film in decent quality.

If you only speak French, how does not listening to the dubbed soundtrack help?? I assume you only listen to foreign martial arts movies or the like using the subtitles then? Or do you expect a quality English dub so you don't have to concentrate?

people who listen to dubs annoy me. use the orriginal language track and subs.

Two questions:
1. In terms of percentage just how many movies do you foresee having this storage and bandwidth problem?Interesting point actually. I was assuming only a storage issue, which as I think you're alluding to would only affect the longer titles, although there are a fair few 'epic' films around.

However, from a bandwidth point of view there's an impact that applies to films of all run lengths. Unlike video compression, audio compression seems to be much more steady paced and evolutionary. Given that all included tracks eat into the total available bandwidth and can't be selectively excluded, even for a normal length film, one lossless and five 1.5mbps tracks would require over 10Mbps of the total available bandwidth, say another 2mbps for each and any IME track (some films now have more than one and that probably assumes low bitrate sound and non-MPEG2 SD video) and you're taking fairly large chunks out of available bandwidth for PBR. Does VC-1 remain below such levels all the time?

Does the PBR/ABR VC-1 rate in Kong plus the soundtrack elements always remain comfortably below the maximum rate or is that being pushed as is the storage capacity? If the answer to that is yes, given that Kong is often rightly cited as a reference presentation, then the number of films affected would be large. If not, then no, bandwdith wouldn't matter much.

2. In terms of percentage just how many people could discern a higher bit video and audio encode?I guess that depends whether they ever get the chance to make such a comparison for themselves or are happy to accept someone else's interpretation of visually or audibly transparent to the master.

Two questions:
1. In terms of percentage just how many movies do you foresee having this storage and bandwidth problem?

2. In terms of percentage just how many people could discern a higher bit video and audio encode?

On the back of future european HD DVD releases:

"HD DVD - HD that is good enough!*"

* If the picture quality is not good enough for you, please use a smaller screen or adjust your set. Please note that the majority of people think what you are watching is good enough.
* If the sound quality is not good enough for you, there are a few things to consider.
- You might be over 50 and thus you are not able to hear the sounds that might or might not be on the disc.
- It could be that extraneous sounds are affecting the soundfield.
- Your room might not be of the correct measurements and not insulated properly
- Your receiver is not good enough and cannot produce the intended sounds properly
- Your speakers are not good enough
- Your cables (including the power cables) are not good enough
- You really need to learn english
- You're watching a looong movie, what do you expect?
- What you CAN be sure of, it is NOT the 384Kbit encoding that is the issue.

"HD-DVD - 99.99% movie perfect".... Somehow I think there are quite a few consumers in Europe that will not feel that way. IMHO, Europe is the next Japan for HD DVD. (If they keep up the dropping of features and short changing the customers.) Oh, and don't even mention that there is no region coding, because if any of you think HD DVD will succeed in Europe because everybody will be ordering from the US, well... Good luck.

BTW, I HATE dubbing, and have no dubbed movies myself, but it still is huge is certain large euro countries.

people who listen to dubs annoy me. use the orriginal language track and subs.


It's a cultural thing.

I know the French prefer dubs than subtitles. I would guess the Spanish and the Italians feel the same about dubbed vs. subtitled American movies.

Most theatrical releases of American movies are dubbed and I would guess the video releases are as well.

The French dubbers really get into it too, with stylized voices and converting some dialogue into French slang and idioms.

My understanding is that they were the most vocal supporter of BD+, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that they will be the first to deploy BD+. From a cosumer perspective it's just one more negative to Blu-Ray. From a studio perspective it's a positive for Blu-Ray. Personally, I'd rather not buy content with extra locks if I can avoid it.

Not to mention how long will it take to get it implemented? I didn't think any work had been done on it yet. And, of course, I wonder if the v1.0 players support it at all?

No, because the keys for those software players will be revoked, which means you won't be able to use those software players to play back these new HD-DVDs at all.The playback software has to be rewritten to make the retrieval of new keys non-trivial (for example, the hidef version of AnyDVD has them better hidden than PDVD or WinDVD). If Cyberlink/Intervideo just replace the keys, nothing will stop a hacker to update the software (by downloading the update from the manufacturer site) and find the new keys at the same addresses the old keys were located.

Diogen.

Interesting point actually. I was assuming only a storage issue, which as I think you're alluding to would only affect the longer titles, although there are a fair few 'epic' films around.

However, from a bandwidth point of view there's an impact that applies to films of all run lengths. Unlike video compression, audio compression seems to be much more steady paced and evolutionary. Given that all included tracks eat into the total available bandwidth and can't be selectively excluded, even for a normal length film, one lossless and five 1.5mbps tracks would require over 10Mbps of the total available bandwidth, say another 2mbps for each and any IME track (some films now have more than one and that probably assumes low bitrate sound and non-MPEG2 SD video) and you're taking fairly large chunks out of available bandwidth for PBR. Does VC-1 remain below such levels all the time?

Does the PBR/ABR VC-1 rate in Kong plus the soundtrack elements always remain comfortably below the maximum rate or is that being pushed as is the storage capacity? If the answer to that is yes, given that Kong is often rightly cited as a reference presentation, then the number of films affected would be large. If not, then no, bandwdith wouldn't matter much.

I guess that depends whether they ever get the chance to make such a comparison for themselves or are happy to accept someone else's interpretation of visually or audibly transparent to the master.

I really do not think that Studios will have much problem squeezing long running movies into HD-30 while providing very acceptable PQ & AQ.

What's the Top 3 movies with the longest running time released and scheduled to be release on hidef?

No.1 King Kong 187 mins
No.2 Deer Hunter 183 mins
No.3 The Good Shepard 167 mins

All exclusive on HD DVDs..........now that's saying alot.

The playback software has to be rewritten to make the retrieval of new keys non-trivial (for example, the hidef version of AnyDVD has them better hidden than PDVD or WinDVD). If Cyberlink/Intervideo just replace the keys, nothing will stop a hacker to update the software (by downloading the update from the manufacturer site) and find the new keys at the same addresses the old keys were located.

Diogen.

From what Amir was saying, it appears the software itself is being rewritten, so that should slow things down a bit. No bets from me on how slow. Hackerz is smart and has lots of time on their hands.

I really do not think that Studios will have much problem squeezing long running movies into HD-30 while providing very acceptable PQ & AQ.

What's the Top 3 movies with the longest running time released and scheduled to be release on hidef?

No.1 King Kong 187 mins
No.2 Deer Hunter 183 mins
No.3 The Good Shepard 167 mins

All exclusive on HD DVDs..........now that's saying alot.I know people think Pearl Harbor isn't very good, but it is 183 minutes long. So your statement is not true. Furthermore it has a 24-bit LPCM soundtrack and at least TWO 1.5Mbps dubbed DTS soundtracks on the European release. With room to spare.

Topping the lot is Kingdom Of Heaven at 194 minutes, with a DTS-HD MA main track and using just over 40GB of a BD50.

So, the real list has a BD at the top, Kong 2nd and a tie for third, which sounds like an even split to me, with the edge possibly going to BD because unlike the Deer Hunter, PH has a lossless audio track.

Kong has no room to spare, and quite pathetic dub language tracks. Clearly, amount of storage is an issue on that release. It's not clear whether or not HD-DVD's smaller bandwidth was.

However, if Kong is considered to be a reference release, then logically to get either lossless sound, better dub tracks, IME or a combination of all three, PQ would have to be squeezed MUCH further, and none of us know whether that would prevent it from being a reference PQ release...

If Kong fills an HD-DVD 30 with lossy 16 bit audio, but does so at a reference standard VC-1 encode level, how would a film such as Return of The King fit on a HD-DVD 30 with lossless 24 bit, 7.1 audio, (as touted by MS insiders) without making huge strides in further compression on the video front? And we're not talking the odd GB here to make that lot fit.

The numbers do not add up.

Sorry, last edit: Sony are just about to release Identity on BD50 with no less that 3 LPCM tracks and 3 accompanying 640kbps DD tracks. That's almost 16Mbps of bandwidth given to the soundtrack. That's a lot. How does HD-DVD compete with that in Europe?

Isn't Blu-ray theoretical advantage in how much data it can hold, being downplayed a little bit? From what I hear, and please correct me if I'm wrong I am no expert, blu-ray will always have the lead concerning how much data it can hold (wave-length). Assuming price is a circumstantial variable, why people aren't favoring the format that can hold more data?

Are people here focusing on movies only? DVD seems to be the standard media storage as well, so I guess the same will eventually happen to whatever format wins the war. I was just wondering what are your thoughts concerning this.

As a side note, I do own a PS3, but will buy no movies until this war is over. Netflix will be shipping blu-ray discs meanwhile though.

I know people think Pearl Harbor isn't very good, but it is 183 minutes long. So your statement is not true. Furthermore it has a 24-bit LPCM soundtrack and at least TWO 1.5Mbps dubbed DTS soundtracks on the European release. With room to spare.

Topping the lot is Kingdom Of Heaven at 194 minutes, with a DTS-HD MA main track and using just over 40GB of a BD50.

So, the real list has a BD at the top, Kong 2nd and a tie for third, which sounds like an even split to me, with the edge possibly going to BD because unlike the Deer Hunter, PH has a lossless audio track.

Kong has no room to spare, and quite pathetic dub language tracks. Clearly, amount of storage is an issue on that release. It's not clear whether or not HD-DVD's smaller bandwidth was.

However, if Kong is considered to be a reference release, then logically to get either lossless sound, better dub tracks, IME or a combination of all three, PQ would have to be squeezed MUCH further, and none of us know whether that would prevent it from being a reference PQ release...

If Kong fills an HD-DVD 30 with lossy 16 bit audio, but does so at a reference standard VC-1 encode level, how would a film such as Return of The King fit on a HD-DVD 30 with lossless 24 bit, 7.1 audio, (as touted by MS insiders) without making huge strides in further compression on the video front? And we're not talking the odd GB here to make that lot fit.

The numbers do not add up.

Sorry, last edit: Sony are just about to release Identity on BD50 with no less that 3 LPCM tracks and 3 accompanying 640kbps DD tracks. That's almost 16Mbps of bandwidth given to the soundtrack. That's a lot. How does HD-DVD compete with that in Europe?

My mistake.......the longest run time on hidef is Spartacus-with a whopping 197 mins. :)

BTW Why no LPCM with Kingdom in 4 or 5 other languages? In fact why no DTS-HD in 4 or 5 other languages? A little pack for space are we? Now is that acceptable for you?

My mistake.......the longest run time on hidef is Spartacus-with a whopping 197 mins. :)

BTW Why no LPCM with Kingdom in 4 or 5 other languages? In fact why no DTS-HD in 4 or 5 other languages? A little pack for space are we? Now is that acceptable for you?Well I only have the US release at present. I will look at the European one though. I can tell you though that there is at least 9GB of space (41GB used) and if AVC or VC-1 were used instead of MPEG-2, that figure would be lower still. In otherwords, whilst Fox may not have put all the bells and whilstles on there's plenty of space to do so.

Again like Kong, Spartacus is bereft of any extras at all and I suspect if you look at the disc, it will be full. Perhaps someone who has it can confirm. Granted, DD+ at 1.5mbps is probably more than adequate for a film of that vintage and lossless audio would not be required.

Given that one of the USP's of both formats is supposed to be better audio and interactive in movie extras, on big releases how does HD-DVD plan to accomodate these new selling points? And yes, I admit and concede that if it had the space at least it can do them unlike BD in it's present state. However, having working IME and PiP is of little benefit if you don't have the space to use them.

Well I only have the US release at present. I will look at the European one though. I can tell you though that there is at least 9GB of space (41GB used) and if AVC or VC-1 were used instead of MPEG-2, that figure would be lower still. In otherwords, whilst Fox may not have put all the bells and whilstles on there's plenty of space to do so.

Again like Kong, Spartacus is bereft of any extras at all and I suspect if you look at the disc, it will be full. Perhaps someone who has it can confirm. Granted, DD+ at 1.5mbps is probably more than adequate for a film of that vintage and lossless audio would not be required.

Given that one of the USP's of both formats is supposed to be better audio and interactive in movie extras, on big releases how does HD-DVD plan to accomodate these new selling points? And yes, I admit and concede that if it had the space at least it can do them unlike BD in it's present state. However, having working IME and PiP is of little benefit if you don't have the space to use them.

At some point both formats will have to work with compromised specs. But I do understand ones desire to max out in PQ & AQ. Maybe that's why TL51 spec is been submitted to the DVD forum.......

Isn't Blu-ray theoretical advantage in how much data it can hold, being downplayed a little bit? From what I hear, and please correct me if I'm wrong I am no expert, blu-ray will always have the lead concerning how much data it can hold (wave-length). Assuming price is a circumstantial variable, why people aren't favoring the format that can hold more data?

Are people here focusing on movies only? DVD seems to be the standard media storage as well, so I guess the same will eventually happen to whatever format wins the war. I was just wondering what are your thoughts concerning this.

As a side note, I do own a PS3, but will buy no movies until this war is over. Netflix will be shipping blu-ray discs meanwhile though.

Some people do favor Blu-ray because it does have higher storage capacity per layer. On the other hand only about 1 in 4 titles actually use the large discs today. Most titles are on 25G discs and use Mpeg2.

Those who favor HD-DVD are looking beyond the data sheet specs to other factors. For example the catalog of titles (some prefer the HD-DVD catalog, others prefer the BD catalog), the consistency of picture quality across the catalog, a completed implementation for interactivity and internet updates on all players, no region coding, no BD+, etc.

Some people do favor Blu-ray because it does have higher storage capacity per layer. On the other hand only about 1 in 4 titles actually use the large discs today. Most titles are on 25G discs and use Mpeg2.

Those who favor HD-DVD are looking beyond the data sheet specs to other factors. For example the catalog of titles (some prefer the HD-DVD catalog, others prefer the BD catalog), the consistency of picture quality across the catalog, a completed implementation for interactivity and internet updates on all players, no region coding, no BD+, etc.
Thanks! That's what I thought. People here are focusing on the format wars exclusively as a movie format war.

Personally, I think the only difference between the formats is the advantage of blu-ray concerning storage space (going beyond movies here). Everything else can change overnight. Everything else is software and studio support...

This disc contains no extras, and the subtitle MAP files are very small a few MB in total.Actually, the MAP files do not contain subtitles, subtitles are muxed into the EVO files.

From what Amir was saying, it appears the software itself is being rewritten, so that should slow things down a bit.A very little bit, I'd think.
As long as there is access to memory dump (as far as I understand, only PMP in Vista attempts to prevent this), it will be hard to avoid AACS hacks.
The very fact that there are a bunch of titles for which the keys are known, should be enough to decypher the "updated" players.

Diogen.

I really do not think that Studios will have much problem squeezing long running movies into HD-30 while providing very acceptable PQ & AQ.

What's the Top 3 movies with the longest running time released and scheduled to be release on hidef?

No.1 King Kong 187 mins
No.2 Deer Hunter 183 mins
No.3 The Good Shepard 167 mins

All exclusive on HD DVDs..........now that's saying alot.
top 3 using what criteria? spartacus beats all but dear hunter to a bloody pulp with one hand tied behind it's back.

hd dvd: very acceptable quality? not much of a slogan is it. especially for spanish or french folk expected to upgrade their dvd to sub 400k dd+ audio. thats a downgrade! this has always been a problem in the pipeline for hd dvd and is the reason i suspect amir was trying to prepare us for very low bitrate titles.

as to subs vs dubs. sure they're the main method of watching foreign language movies in most contries, and anyone who doesn't accomidate their customer's desires is in trouble. though personally i despise dubs.

Actually, the MAP files do not contain subtitles, subtitles are muxed into the EVO files.Care to comment on any of the rest of it? I'd be very interested to know how a film such as Kong could be brought to HD-DVD with lossless sound, better quality foreign language tracks and interactive extras.

Thanks! That's what I thought. People here are focusing on the format wars exclusively as a movie format war.

Personally, I think the only difference between the formats is the advantage of blu-ray concerning storage space (going beyond movies here). Everything else can change overnight. Everything else is software and studio support...

Everything else is at layer 8 of the protocol stack (the political layer). This is the most difficult layer to change. ;)

Care to comment on any of the rest of it? I'd be very interested to know how a film such as Kong could be brought to HD-DVD with lossless sound, better quality foreign language tracks and interactive extras.
easy: downgrade the PQ.

though personally i despise dubs.

It seems to me the people who dislike dubs (like us) are also the people looking for high quality audio. So, what is the problem, again ?

Wow! What a wonderful outlook. If you don't speak English you don't deserve to listen to the film in decent quality.

If you only speak French, how does not listening to the dubbed soundtrack help?? I assume you only listen to foreign martial arts movies or the like using the subtitles then? Or do you expect a quality English dub so you don't have to concentrate?

Dubbing sucks. I can't put it any plainer than that. I spend a significant amount of my movie time watching foreign films. I feel sorry for those people whose heads explode from having to read subtitles.

I detest dubs. They very very rarely ever get the actual emotion right. I mostly watch Kurosawa and anime and always prefer subs. I've also loved Mel Gibons language choices for The Passion and Apocalypto. Makes me wish we could see original language Latin/Greek/Aramaic dubs for the old sword & sandal classics like Ben-Hur and Spartacus, if not newer ones like Braveheart, Gladiator, and Kingdom of Heaven.

As far as Kingdom of Heaven, it's MPEG2 and top notch PQ. I make no secret that I am not a super big fan of extras. If they're there, fine, but I don't want them to impact PQ or AQ and like high bitrate whenever possible. If the bean counters and pointy headed marketing types win and extras MUST be included, put them on a second disk.

Dubbing sucks. I can't put it any plainer than that. I spend a significant amount of my movie time watching foreign films. I feel sorry for those people whose heads explode from having to read subtitles.

It really depends on when the film was shot, until fairly recently many European films were shot primarily without sound so that the dialog could later be looped in, especially Italian films. Obviously it's preferable to see a film in it's native language because even if the dialog is looped, you'll get a better match if the language the actor spoke on camera was that which is being dubbed.

However, many European films are technically "dubbed" regardless of the language you see them in, particularly ones with international casts resulting in multiple languages being spoke within a single film.

On the back of future european HD DVD releases:

"HD DVD - HD that is good enough!*"

* If the picture quality is not good enough for you, please use a smaller screen or adjust your set. Please note that the majority of people think what you are watching is good enough.
* If the sound quality is not good enough for you, there are a few things to consider.
- You might be over 50 and thus you are not able to hear the sounds that might or might not be on the disc.
- It could be that extraneous sounds are affecting the soundfield.
- Your room might not be of the correct measurements and not insulated properly
- Your receiver is not good enough and cannot produce the intended sounds properly
- Your speakers are not good enough
- Your cables (including the power cables) are not good enough
- You really need to learn english
- You're watching a looong movie, what do you expect?
- What you CAN be sure of, it is NOT the 384Kbit encoding that is the issue.

"HD-DVD - 99.99% movie perfect".... Somehow I think there are quite a few consumers in Europe that will not feel that way. IMHO, Europe is the next Japan for HD DVD. (If they keep up the dropping of features and short changing the customers.) Oh, and don't even mention that there is no region coding, because if any of you think HD DVD will succeed in Europe because everybody will be ordering from the US, well... Good luck.

BTW, I HATE dubbing, and have no dubbed movies myself, but it still is huge is certain large euro countries.
Umm, what makes you think BD will be better than HD? It hasn't shown it yet. This sounds like a tune ........."I was (s)trolling along down Blu-ray Bay"

The playback software has to be rewritten to make the retrieval of new keys non-trivial (for example, the hidef version of AnyDVD has them better hidden than PDVD or WinDVD). If Cyberlink/Intervideo just replace the keys, nothing will stop a hacker to update the software (by downloading the update from the manufacturer site) and find the new keys at the same addresses the old keys were located.

Diogen.

That's just it though, they keys for those players are revoked and those players wont be granted new keys until they solve their issues -- at least that's how I understand it. The keys are for the players, not the titles, no?

I'd be very interested to know how a film such as Kong could be brought to HD-DVD with lossless sound, better quality foreign language tracks and interactive extras.The best way to respond to this question is by slyly shifting the argument to whether lossless sound was "dropped" or not, with the narrow definition of "dropped" meaning "created the lossless audio track, then dropped it" rather than "never considering lossless audio because it's obvious there's no room for it". Then after the sly shift, attacking anyone who says lossless audio was dropped.

Is anyone here smart enough to do that? Yes!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10145978

I remember many posts saying the video quality of King Kong was close to the best ever seen anywhere. But, apart from quoting the numbers, has anyone posted on the audio quality? Forgive me if the answer is yes, 1000 times, but I have sort of a tin ear and don't follow the audio reviews as carefully.

- Tom

It really depends on when the film was shot, until fairly recently many European films were shot primarily without sound so that the dialog could later be looped in, especially Italian films.

This is true of Indian movies as well. Though, it is mostly because of noisy locations.

I remember many posts saying the video quality of King Kong was close to the best ever seen anywhere. But, apart from quoting the numbers, has anyone posted on the audio quality?

Moreover, could said audio quality on KK be improved with a TrueHD/PCM track? Yes or no. Would BD50 be able to carry over the existing VC1 encode (or the BD derivation using the tool Amir said that MS created for that purpose) and still include a PCM track, yes or no?

KK definitely get kudos from me on the PQ, but the AQ didn't have me quite as impressed... but maybe that was just my 360 add-on gimping the audio again...

Umm, what makes you think BD will be better than HD? It hasn't shown it yet. This sounds like a tune ........."I was (s)trolling along down Blu-ray Bay"

That's funny.

-Robert

I make no secret that I am not a super big fan of extras. If they're there, fine, but I don't want them to impact PQ or AQ and like high bitrate whenever possible. If the bean counters and pointy headed marketing types win and extras MUST be included, put them on a second disk.

In Japan, Movie's making of, extras are often sold on a separate DVD release, usually before the actual movie DVD release. Sell DVD to promot DVD! :) Same may work with HD content.

regards,

Li On

I remember many posts saying the video quality of King Kong was close to the best ever seen anywhere. But, apart from quoting the numbers, has anyone posted on the audio quality? Forgive me if the answer is yes, 1000 times, but I have sort of a tin ear and don't follow the audio reviews as carefully.

- Tom

Even if your ears were golden, it wouldn't matter that the sound isn't "lossless."
On my system, it sounds better than it did in the theater. IMHO, we're well past the point of diminishing returns with digital audio. It's noteworthy that no one involved in the industry has published the results of any DBTs to support explicit or implicit claims that higher sampling rates and word length are of any benefit. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Even if your ears were golden, it wouldn't matter that the sound isn't "lossless."
On my system, it sounds better than it did in the theater. IMHO, we're well past the point of diminishing returns with digital audio. It's noteworthy that no one involved in the industry has published the results of any DBTs to support explicit or implicit claims that higher sampling rates and word length are of any benefit. I wonder why. :rolleyes:

Somebody should just do a proper double blind test with DTS-HD, TrueHD, DD+ and LPCM and settle this arguement once and for all.

I think that there would be too many variables involved to get a definitive conclusion: Room acoustics, receiver, speakers and listeners ears.

I don't about most people on the forum but I believe the average consumer is already more than happy with DD and DTS. Most have inexpensive receivers and probably have them hooked up to Bose speakers. And to top it off I believe that less than 1% of the rooms in peoples houses will be able to take advantage of lossless audio (due to room shape, speaker placement, openings and secondary noise).

Somebody should just do a proper double blind test with DTS-HD, TrueHD, DD+ and LPCM and settle this arguement once and for all.

Years ago, Stereo Review did some DBTs comparing budget CD players against multi-kilobuck models, and later, repeated the protocol with amps. The results were quite interesting. Of course, much of the readership predictably screamed that they would have been capable of discerning what simply had to be obvious differences which somehow escaped the morons ( audio professionals ) who actually took part. I don't suppose those articles helped sell much advertising.

I seriously am SHOCK to keep seeing the lossless audio argument! :eek:

Before this HD-DVD/blu-ray, we (AVSForum members) ALL want LOSSLESS audio on the new disc format. Our only worry is that some studio may not want to give us due to some weird thought of content protection.

Now lossless audio track is actually happening and some want to argue that we don't want it or shouldn't need it. And those think they don't want or don't need lossless audio think OTHERS don't want or don't need too! The argument is, they don't hear it! Or there is NO prove! Give me a break! :rolleyes:

The truth is HD-DVD simply does NOT has the capacity nor bandwidth for lossless audio (together with all other data)! And blu-ray has plenty! Hating blu-ray for it's bigger capacity and higher bandwidth is really lame!

regards,

Li On

Now lossless audio track is actually happening and some want to argue that we don't want it or shouldn't need it. And those think they don't want or don't need lossless audio think OTHERS don't want or don't need too! The argument is, they don't hear it! Or there is NO prove! Give me a break.

OK, let's see it, Li On. Where's the empirical, statistically significant evidence that people can consistently tell the difference? Let's start with something reeeaaly easy. Certainly, anyone with a set of functioning ears, should be able to easy distinguish the wondrous quality of 1.5 Mbps DTS from crappy old 640 kps DD, right?

Here we dance around the same topic again and again! Yes, I fully "get" it you and many others hate lossless audio with a passion! I'm fine with that actually. The blu-ray gives me the lossless audio, together with lossy audio for you. The problem is those HD-DVD fanboy supports lossy audio on HD-DVD but hate blu-ray which give us BOTH!

Let's imagine this, for example there is a new format that give us UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO, yes you read that right! Then HD-DVD fanboy tell us we don't need that, VC1 on 30G is all there is! They don't see a difference! There is no prove! Now that sounds funny! :D

regards,

Li On

Here we dance around the same topic again and again! Yes, I fully "get" it you and many others hate lossless audio with a passion! I'm fine with that actually. The blu-ray gives me the lossless audio, together with lossy audio for you. The problem is those HD-DVD fanboy supports lossy audio on HD-DVD but hate blu-ray which give us BOTH!

Let's imagine this, for example there is a new format that give us UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO, yes you read that right! Then HD-DVD fanboy tell us we don't need that, VC1 on 30G is all there is! They don't see a difference! There is no prove! Now that sounds funny! :D

regards,

Li On

Now you're making ridiculous assumptions, and resorting to insults. We're talking about audio, not video. The evidence shouldn't be that difficult for you to find, since the differences are clearly so obvious. If empirical evidence is irrelevant, then you've moved beyond the realm of science, to an area inhabited exclusively by anecdotal claims, and opinions. Do you believe people have seen bigfoot, or been abducted by aliens, simply because they say they have?

I seriously am SHOCK to keep seeing the lossless audio argument! :eek:

Before this HD-DVD/blu-ray, we (AVSForum members) ALL want LOSSLESS audio on the new disc format. Our only worry is that some studio may not want to give us due to some weird thought of content protection.

Now lossless audio track is actually happening and some want to argue that we don't want it or shouldn't need it. And those think they don't want or don't need lossless audio think OTHERS don't want or don't need too! The argument is, they don't hear it! Or there is NO prove! Give me a break! :rolleyes:

The truth is HD-DVD simply does NOT has the capacity nor bandwidth for lossless audio (together with all other data)! And blu-ray has plenty! Hating blu-ray for it's bigger capacity and higher bandwidth is really lame!

regards,

Li On

I'm not sure why you believe that to be the case. There are a number of TrueHD titles with lossless audio. Nine Inch Nails is a recent dual release title that scored 5/5 on AQ in both formats. Of course all HD-DVD players must support TrueHD while it's an optional audio codec for BD players. My understanding is that the Philips, Pioneer, Sony and Samsung stand alone BD players do not support TrueHD, so on those players you would get DD instead of the lossless TrueHD for Nine Inch Nails.

By the way, looking at the BD-50s that are dual release in HD-DVD, 17 of the 19 titles have identical AQ scores in both formats. The other two titles scored higher for AQ in HD-DVD.

Hmmm.... a couple of MS insiders on here and no response.

Really is beginning to look like HD-DVD, the look and sound of good enough. :(

Amir and to be fair, people from the BDA too, have all stated that improved PQ and AQ alone are not enough to convince the DVD buying public that they need to by into HD discs. So, in their eyes, whether us AV nuts like it or not, advanced interactivity over and above what can be done today on DVD is seen as a key feature of both formats in enticing customers to the new media.

Now personally I do not expect many catalogue titles to get given the full interactive treatment as it's not hard to see that it won't be cost effective, apart from some well known classics such as The Matrix etc. which almost everyone will want. You cannot deliver the In-Movie-Experience with advanced interactivity if the extras are on a separate disc to the movie. If you do that, you've got something that, whilst it may be in HD, gives nothing much more than you get today on feature laden multi-disc DVD sets.

So, for the new interactivity to work, it must be on the same disc as the movie. Titles such as Kong which is a big film and relatively recent are the ideal candidate for such features. Another classic in Universals catalogue that would definitely benefit from them and also lossless sound in my mind would be Gladiator. In extended cut form it's over 170 minutes long. I want to see this film in HD. Ditto Saving Ryan's Private's, another absolute nailed on must see in HD (Looks spectacular in broadcast AVC in the UK). Tying useful making of stuff into these films is going to be much more interesting than stuffing it on a second disc where people are much less likely to look at it as it's more than a button press away.

Films of this length are not that uncommon. What about 300? An upcoming title that should hit HD-DVD?? On the one hand we're being told that interactive extras are the future, and on the other we're seeing big films that don't appear to have the space for them...

As for lossless audio, well if my wife can tell the difference it can't be that subtle. I also find that lossless audio is very good at reproducing ambient sound, one of the first things it seems you lose in compressed tracks, especially if it's a busy soundstage. It can be silly things like a church bell where the reverb hags in the air perfectly while everything kicks off around it. Again, this tends to happen more on new movies older ones simply don't have that level of detail anyway, but we shoud be looking to the future here. Some of the new film releases are getting stunning sound, and having lossless audio gives them a whole new palette to play with that people can appreciate and enjoy at home.

Finally in Europe, where a lot of people do not speak English, dubs are essential. Not all films lend themselves to subtitles. Some do, but fast dialogue and high action tend not to. Out of sync lips may be annoying to some, but for others it's a fact of life for watching Hollywood movies. Why should they be denied sweeping sound scores, special effects, creepy ambient sounds, all those things that in say a suspense movie can be just as effective as dialogue...

How does HD-DVD deliver all that??

Hmmm.... a couple of MS insiders on here and no response.

Really is beginning to look like HD-DVD, the look and sound of good enough. :(

snip....


Amir doesn't post in this thread anymore, and hasn't for quite some time. The HD-DVD insiders can be found on the insiders thread. That's the right place to ask them questions. Regarding your speculation on the Matrix release, I thought this article did a pretty good job of summing it up.

The Matrix Trilogy to Hit HD DVD Before Blu-ray
http://www.dailytech.com/The+Matrix+Trilogy+to+Hit+HD+DVD+Before+Bluray/article6648.htm

Both The Ultimate Matrix Collection and The Complete Matrix Trilogy come with the In-Movie Experience (IME), an exclusive interactive feature that allows viewers to enjoy interviews and other material via picture in picture while the movie is running.

The IME feature is precisely why the Matrix trilogy is appearing on HD DVD first. Even after more than half a year following Blu-ray’s introduction, many players are still unable to support picture in picture.

Amir doesn't post in this thread anymore, and hasn't for quite some time. The HD-DVD insiders can be found on the insiders thread. That's the right place to ask them questions. Regarding your speculation on the Matrix release, I thought this article did a pretty good job of summing it up.I don't disagree, and I'm looking forward to the films. I know they will contain IME.

BUT, it seems only shorter 2 hour ish films such as the Matrix, Batman Begins, get the TrueHD, IME experience. In non-English countries are these films going to get released on different pressings to enable non-English decent soundtracks or will people in such countries be told 384Kbps DD+ is good enough for you as well?

This is true of Indian movies as well. Though, it is mostly because of noisy locations.

It's also something the French, German, and Italian filmmakers don't like to part with. Looping dialog allows for tremendous creative freedom on the set. No worries about noisy equipment, crew or ambient noise. Takes can be kept and followed through even if someone flubs a line, and more importantly direction can be given while a scene progresses. It's part of what give European films their "exotic" allure.

I seriously am SHOCK to keep seeing the lossless audio argument! :eek:


I just find it lethally dull, if it's a tie-breaker for a dozen people here, so be it.

When I worked in film and theater production, we had a term known as "The French alteration" When an obnoxiously vain and neurotic actor would come it with a perfectly well-fitted costume insisting it made them look bad, on more that one occasion we'd agree it needed work and graciously schedule another fitting for the next day. Then we would then have them come back and try it on again and say "my you we right, it drapes much better now, you look slimmer, I really like how this is working..." Of course we hadn't done a thing to it, but the actor always left giddy, pampered, and pleased.

A lot of lossless audio issues sound to me like they could be solved with a "French Alteration". :D

I don't disagree, and I'm looking forward to the films. I know they will contain IME.

BUT, it seems only shorter 2 hour ish films such as the Matrix, Batman Begins, get the TrueHD, IME experience. In non-English countries are these films going to get released on different pressings to enable non-English decent soundtracks or will people in such countries be told 384Kbps DD+ is good enough for you as well?

Well, The Departed is 2h 31m and has a TrueHD sound track. And looking at BD, there is no player that currently can do pip at all. I don't know what the future holds, but I track and tabulate all of the reviews on highdefdigest as they are posted each day.

As things stand now, Blu-ray could change their motto from:

The next-generation format for high-def entertainment

to

Very close to the look and sound of perfect

Let me quote Scott Wilkinson from The Perfect Vision. He recently reviewed all of the stand alone BD players and wrote the following in his conclusion of his XA2 review.

Despite the major improvements in Blu-ray discs and players lately, I have to say that, based on my experience with the Toshiba HD-XA2, I still think HD-DVD looks better. Not that Blu-Ray looks bad these days - far from it - but after reviewing several Blu-ray players, I found myself being drawn more deeply into the HD-XA2 high-def image.

the non english tracks on KK were at sub 400k DD+ (effectively DD). you're not trying to tell me thats as good as audio can get are you?! if that's the case there's no need for any audio upgrade from dvd at all...

It seems to me the people who dislike dubs (like us) are also the people looking for high quality audio. So, what is the problem, again ?
there's some cross-over, though not for the majority of french, german, italians, etc who see movies on tv and the cinema with dubs. hd dvd will be targetting a tiny and tinny section of the market.

When I worked in film and theater production, we had a term known as "The French alteration" When an obnoxiously vain and neurotic actor would come it with a perfectly well-fitted costume insisting it made them look bad, on more that one occasion we'd agree it needed work and graciously schedule another fitting for the next day. Then we would then have them come back and try it on again and say "my you we right, it drapes much better now, you look slimmer, I really like how this is working..." Of course we hadn't done a thing to it, but the actor always left giddy, pampered, and pleased.

A lot of lossless audio issues sound to me like they could be solved with a "French Alteration". :D


That's a great take on "the emperor wears no clothes" :)
I just wish those who so predictably and habitually complain about "no lossless" in any context whatsoever, would either put up, or STFU, once and for all. It's a bit like a parent who answers a query of their child by answering : "because"

That's a great take on "the emperor wears no clothes" :)
I just wish those who so predictably and habitually complain about "no lossless" in any context whatsoever, would either put up, or STFU, once and for all. It's a bit like a parent who answers a query of their child by answering : "because"Well, I'm sure there are even more people who wish that those who can't add anything to a debate other than to throw insults would take their own advice.

Well, I'm sure there are even more people who wish that those who can't add anything to a debate other than to throw insults would take their own advice.

Affirmative claims require supporting evidence if they're to have any credence. Perhaps you have some to offer?

Affirmative claims require supporting evidence if they're to have any credence. Perhaps you have some to offer?Likewise the other way.

Likewise the other way.

Ah, but I'm making no affirmative claim. My skepticism is natural, given an absence of evidence.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/24_bits_can_you_hear

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/taking_stock

http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/

Years ago, Stereo Review did some DBTs comparing budget CD players against multi-kilobuck models, and later, repeated the protocol with amps. The results were quite interesting. Of course, much of the readership predictably screamed that they would have been capable of discerning what simply had to be obvious differences which somehow escaped the morons ( audio professionals ) who actually took part. I don't suppose those articles helped sell much advertising. A good friend of mine showed me some of those issues and the predictable reader and manufacturer responses.

I don't think very many other DBT have been done since then. :D

Some people are very passionate about their A/V gear......

Hmmm.... a couple of MS insiders on here and no response.

Really is beginning to look like HD-DVD, the look and sound of good enough. :(

Amir and to be fair, people from the BDA too, have all stated that improved PQ and AQ alone are not enough to convince the DVD buying public that they need to by into HD discs. So, in their eyes, whether us AV nuts like it or not, advanced interactivity over and above what can be done today on DVD is seen as a key feature of both formats in enticing customers to the new media.

Now personally I do not expect many catalogue titles to get given the full interactive treatment as it's not hard to see that it won't be cost effective, apart from some well known classics such as The Matrix etc. which almost everyone will want. You cannot deliver the In-Movie-Experience with advanced interactivity if the extras are on a separate disc to the movie. If you do that, you've got something that, whilst it may be in HD, gives nothing much more than you get today on feature laden multi-disc DVD sets.

So, for the new interactivity to work, it must be on the same disc as the movie. Titles such as Kong which is a big film and relatively recent are the ideal candidate for such features. Another classic in Universals catalogue that would definitely benefit from them and also lossless sound in my mind would be Gladiator. In extended cut form it's over 170 minutes long. I want to see this film in HD. Ditto Saving Ryan's Private's, another absolute nailed on must see in HD (Looks spectacular in broadcast AVC in the UK). Tying useful making of stuff into these films is going to be much more interesting than stuffing it on a second disc where people are much less likely to look at it as it's more than a button press away.

Films of this length are not that uncommon. What about 300? An upcoming title that should hit HD-DVD?? On the one hand we're being told that interactive extras are the future, and on the other we're seeing big films that don't appear to have the space for them...

As for lossless audio, well if my wife can tell the difference it can't be that subtle. I also find that lossless audio is very good at reproducing ambient sound, one of the first things it seems you lose in compressed tracks, especially if it's a busy soundstage. It can be silly things like a church bell where the reverb hags in the air perfectly while everything kicks off around it. Again, this tends to happen more on new movies older ones simply don't have that level of detail anyway, but we shoud be looking to the future here. Some of the new film releases are getting stunning sound, and having lossless audio gives them a whole new palette to play with that people can appreciate and enjoy at home.

Finally in Europe, where a lot of people do not speak English, dubs are essential. Not all films lend themselves to subtitles. Some do, but fast dialogue and high action tend not to. Out of sync lips may be annoying to some, but for others it's a fact of life for watching Hollywood movies. Why should they be denied sweeping sound scores, special effects, creepy ambient sounds, all those things that in say a suspense movie can be just as effective as dialogue...

How does HD-DVD deliver all that?? You could always in the future have a lossless stream in a secondary language downloaded through the internet and placed on player's internal or external network storage. Any thing played from that internal or external storage has another IIRC 15mpbs bandwidth stream independent from the badwidth off the optical disc.

Studios could design for that as all HD DVD players have those features mandatory in their specs.

Also VC-1 plus lossless TrueHD audio may fit on a 30GB with more space remaining than space hogging MPEG-2 and LPCM on a 25GB or 50GB disc.

Are either one of these formats future proof? Does any one think either one will be around longer than say 10yrs? I personally dont think either one is the format of the future or such a step up in technology that it cant be ignored. It is what it is pick a format and enjoy it while it lasts.

Umm, what makes you think BD will be better than HD? It hasn't shown it yet. This sounds like a tune ........."I was (s)trolling along down Blu-ray Bay"

Well, as I mentioned a few posts back, the Blu-ray animation title had 6 DD5.1, 4 DTS5.1 and 1 LPCM. So in Norwegian, for example, I could choose from DD or DTS. I don't think any of them were at 384Kbit.

I don't enjoy dubbing, but for animation titles it is fine for the kids at least.

You could always in the future have a lossless stream in a secondary language downloaded through the internet and placed on player's internal or external network storage. Any thing played from that internal or external storage has another IIRC 15mpbs bandwidth stream independent from the badwidth off the optical disc.

Studios could design for that as all HD DVD players have those features mandatory in their specs.

Also VC-1 plus lossless TrueHD audio may fit on a 30GB with more space remaining than space hogging MPEG-2 and LPCM on a 25GB or 50GB disc.
Which HD DVD players have enough internal storage to store lossless tracks?

Well, I'm sure there are even more people who wish that those who can't add anything to a debate other than to throw insults would take their own advice.

Usually a "debate" produces something other that the same people making the same point for an eternity. This dead horse hasn't a scrap left on his bones.

Here we dance around the same topic again and again! Yes, I fully "get" it you and many others hate lossless audio with a passion! I'm fine with that actually. The blu-ray gives me the lossless audio, together with lossy audio for you. The problem is those HD-DVD fanboy supports lossy audio on HD-DVD but hate blu-ray which give us BOTH!

Let's imagine this, for example there is a new format that give us UNCOMPRESSED VIDEO, yes you read that right! Then HD-DVD fanboy tell us we don't need that, VC1 on 30G is all there is! They don't see a difference! There is no prove! Now that sounds funny! :D

regards,

Li On
Li On, while it's nice to have for many who do have the setup to take advantage of lossless, there are many more in this world that don't and will eventually be the majority of income for either format.

It's funny, that because of my response you call me a HD DVD fanboy. I have an A1, a PS3 and the 360 addon (the A1 and PS3 in my HT and the 360 in my family room) and not one person (either in my family or friends that have come over) even mentioned how much better the sound was for uncompressed PCM or TrueHd over DD (or DD+). I have even switched "in movie" between TrueHD and DD+ (and PCM to DD on the PS3)and though there is a difference, it's not that dramatic to go "WOW". Now try to do this comparison to most people that have a Bose system or other HTiB (if they even have an HDMI connection or 5.1 analog inputs) to really care.

Which HD DVD players have enough internal storage to store lossless tracks?

360... but no way for lossless there. Ah, irony is bittersweet in this instance since that's my HDDVD player. :o

My only problem with the "lossless is not needed" or the "extras on HD-DVD are so awesome and BD is crippled" arguments is they keep shifting.


At initial launch all we heard was how awesome HD was for requiring TruHD and how much better it was than BD who did not. Once it became apparent that there might MIGHT be an issue with size and bandwidth all the arguments shifted to lossless not being an advantage anyway and anyone who brought it up believed in bigfoot.


Prelaunch whenever the interactive features were brought up it was often touted by BD that Java would enable more. Most people here would agree that extras could go hang and we wanted a good picture. Anyone who championed BD-J as an asset for BD was roundly slammed by HD-DVD folks as pointing to useless reasons to support a format.

Then BD-J had problems on implementation and HDi turned out to offer more than people imagined. Now all we hear is how wonderful interactive/PiP/blah blah blah is and how crippled BD is.

It gets annoying.



Bottom line;

BD has more bandwidth and capacity than HD-DVD. They both have shown an ability to produce an awesome picture. The lower bandwidth and capacity of HD-DVD may result in not being able to include lossless - WHICH SOME CONSUMERS MAY WANT EVEN IF THEY CAN'T HEAR A DIFFERENCE. What is HD-DVD and MS going to do, show a survey or study telling consumers they are moron alien abdtuctee believers and should buy their product anyway?

Considering many people are going to say the better picture isn't worth the money, both of these formats are built on nothing but perception versus cost anyway.

Remember this, people in France, Germany, Italy etc. when you check out the HD DVD soundtrack options. 384Kbit is no problem, at least according to MS employees. You should learn english and not be so arrogant!
No one says you have to learn English. Use the subtitles and listen to the original audio. Or, deal with a 384kbit presentation of an already compromised soundtrack with a dub.

If you really cared about getting the highest possible quality, you'd watch using the original language and subtitles. If quality's not that big of a concern, then the dubbed DD tracks provided should be fine.

I don't enjoy dubbing, but for animation titles it is fine for the kids at least.
Do you really think your kids are going to care that their cartoon soundtracks are in 384kbps DD?

No one says you have to learn English. Use the subtitles and listen to the original audio. Or, deal with a 384kbit presentation of an already compromised soundtrack with a dub.

If you really cared about getting the highest possible quality, you'd watch using the original language and subtitles. If quality's not that big of a concern, then the dubbed DD tracks provided should be fine.
Have you been to Germany, France or Italy? Visited the movie theatres there? Watched movies on TV there? (I can tell you, it is a frustrating experience, you only do it once...) But dubbing is huge there, and most people HATE subtitles, as we hate dubbing. But fine, the consumers will choose the format that gives them what they want. Simple as that.

Do you really think your kids are going to care that their cartoon soundtracks are in 384kbps DD?
Mine will. ;) (Sometimes I watch movies with them, I'd prefer great sound even on dubbed movies.)

On that note, my daughter (13) had some friends over last night. They wanted to watch Casino Royale. As soon as it started one of them said: "Wow, what a crystal clear picture". They can come over any time. :)

I take strong exception to anyone linking what I wrote as something generic from MS - inspite of my discliaimer.

And I expect mods to ban such posts - afterall they insisted on my putting the disclaimer - even though real insiders like talkstr8t can get away with having the cake and eating it too.

You should be ashamed for writing that. What are you - a teenager ? I've reported you to the mods. :rolleyes:
Oh, I'm sorry. And no, I'm not a teenager, and I am not ashamed of what I wrote. To please you, I went to correct my post to "the personal opinion of MS employees, not to be confused with the official stance of MS", but alas, my post was deleted.

My point is just that I, personally, find it interesting to see MS employees (however personal their opinions may be), trying to minimize shortcomings with their beloved format, when obviously it does matter to people. I guess since it is on another continent, it really doesn't matter? Or is that the typical thinking of a teenager?

Atleast I didn't say like your Sony exec that "Americans are cheap people" :pSo now you're the teenager?? MY Sony exec? Where did that come from? I buy a product from a company, and suddenly their execs are mine? Then I guess MS execs are mine too? :confused:

I take strong exception to anyone linking what I wrote as something generic from MS - inspite of my discliaimer.nataraj, it is strange that are so offended at what nilsp posted yet I have seen you attack companies before based on personal comments made by their employees. Apparently you expect people to respect the fact that what you say are personal comments unrelated to Microsoft, but you have little interest in showing that same respect to employees of other companies.

The best way to respond to this question is by slyly shifting the argument to whether lossless sound was "dropped" or not, with the narrow definition of "dropped" meaning "created the lossless audio track, then dropped it" rather than "never considering lossless audio because it's obvious there's no room for it". Then after the sly shift, attacking anyone who says lossless audio was dropped.

Is anyone here smart enough to do that? Yes!
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=10145978
Rob, there were numbers posted on KK ( do your own research ) that indicate for the US release that there was enough room to do lossless on this title. Give it up Rob, this is tiresome.

snip......

Bottom line;

BD has more bandwidth and capacity than HD-DVD. They both have shown an ability to produce an awesome picture. The lower bandwidth and capacity of HD-DVD may result in not being able to include lossless - WHICH SOME CONSUMERS MAY WANT EVEN IF THEY CAN'T HEAR A DIFFERENCE. What is HD-DVD and MS going to do, show a survey or study telling consumers they are moron alien abdtuctee believers and should buy their product anyway?

Considering many people are going to say the better picture isn't worth the money, both of these formats are built on nothing but perception versus cost anyway.

I would expect they'll continue to release titles like The Departed, Happy Feet and Nine Inch Nails that have great PQ and AQ (including lossless TrueHD). By the way, while Happy Feet scored 5/5 in AQ on HD-DVD it scored 4/5 on BD. Nine Inch Nails scored 5/5 in AQ in both formats, but that assumes you don't own the stand alone Sony, Pioneer, Samsung or Philips players which can't play the TrueHD soundtrack.

Looking at the last 25 titles reviewed in both formats I see the following PQ and AQ averages.

BD
PQ = 3.92
AQ = 3.74

HD-DVD
PQ = 4.02
AQ = 3.72

For those who own one of the above mentioned players, figure your effective BD audio score is lower, as some of those titles are using advanced lossless codecs not supported in those players.

T
BD has more bandwidth and capacity than HD-DVD. They both have shown an ability to produce an awesome picture. The lower bandwidth and capacity of HD-DVD may result in not being able to include lossless - WHICH SOME CONSUMERS MAY WANT EVEN IF THEY CAN'T HEAR A DIFFERENCE. What is HD-DVD and MS going to do, show a survey or study telling consumers they are moron alien abdtuctee believers and should buy their product anyway?

Considering many people are going to say the better picture isn't worth the money, both of these formats are built on nothing but perception versus cost anyway.

If consumers cannot hear the difference with lossless audio, then their perpetuation of the argument for it is a baseless as the argument for extra bandwidth and capacity is for the video, if you can't see the difference. The perception of quality vs. cost will be the deciding factor in the end, IMHO. Advantage HD-DVD.

At some point both formats will have to work with compromised specs. But I do understand ones desire to max out in PQ & AQ.
agree. That is the issue with only 30GB compromises come faster

Maybe that's why TL51 spec is been submitted to the DVD forum.......

TL45 was never submitted even though Toshiba (and brainless HD DVD supporters) were talking about it for over a year. Toshiba is BSing about the 51 as much as they did about the 45. There has already been a DVD forum meeting and that would have been the perfect time to bring in the 51. They did not. This means it is just like the 45 something to get gullible people to say "but HD DVD might be 51 and that is better then 50".

Some people do favor Blu-ray because it does have higher storage capacity per layer.
it is not a per layer but a total. If one format was 30 but only one layer and the other 50 DL 50 would still be better in capacity

On the other hand only about 1 in 4 titles actually use the large discs today.

funny how someone can think 30GB is enough for all movies and all time but not think 25 Is enough for 25% and decreasing.

Those who favor HD-DVD are looking beyond the data sheet specs to other factors.

yup like the factor that they got conned into buying the wrong format and how to make it survive because they pity the $ they wasted.

Have you been to Germany, France or Italy? Visited the movie theatres there? Watched movies on TV there? (I can tell you, it is a frustrating experience, you only do it once...) But dubbing is huge there, and most people HATE subtitles, as we hate dubbing. But fine, the consumers will choose the format that gives them what they want. Simple as that.
Nope, never been to any of those places. I have watched plenty of movies from other countries and I've always dealt with subtitles (which I always prefer over dubbing.) I don't see why it's any different in another country - reading is reading. Either you can or you can't. If you want the best quality audio available, why would you want anything but the original actors' voices?
Mine will. ;) (Sometimes I watch movies with them, I'd prefer great sound even on dubbed movies.)
If your kids really cared about getting tracks better than DD at 384kbps, they would also care about getting the real soundtrack with the real voices, not a bastardized version using inferior "actors" and "actresses." In reality, they're probably like most people and have no idea what the bitrates are or what they mean.

If they really do care about the quality of their soundtracks (and they're geeks like us,) I'd suggest you get them used to reading the dialog in movies that are in languages other than your native tongue. Even if you get your wish and get PCM tracks for the dubbed tracks, you're still listening to the work of people with far less talent (in most, if not all, cases) than the original actors and actresses. You lose the subtle nuances of the performances and are left with a bad parody of the original work.

I detest dubs. They very very rarely ever get the actual emotion right

I think the issue is that dubbing is an art. Like Nataraj and Timothy Ramzyk
pointed out often even the original language is a "dub" (not created while filming). Sometimes for acoustical reasons, sometimes for a small change......

The issue with dubbing into a foreign language is even more interesting. Dubbing needs writers, needs actors, needs more or less everything the original movie did. Some countries that do a lot of dubbing have found out how to do it right. It takes special training for a writer to translate, keep the meaning while timing things correctly. It takes special actors that can make the script fit the conversation on screen. Most big actors have their "voice doubles" that play the same parts over again (so you get an Arnold voice that won't be different from one movie to the next)

I think the issue is that in areas where dubbing is not done much the right infrastructure does not exist and you end up with that obnoxious artefact all the anti dub people here complain about.

PS As for me, I prefer dubs. I can't understand why people are talking about the "major distraction of lips/speech dis-synchronization while they totally miss that a movie is about seeing and hearing and when you spend a good part of the movie reading the subtitles you are not enjoying what a movie is about and that is the moving pictures, the image. You watch a movie for the decor, the actors for their facial expressions…. Much of that is lost

Nope, never been to any of those places. I have watched plenty of movies from other countries and I've always dealt with subtitles (which I always prefer over dubbing.) I don't see why it's any different in another country - reading is reading. Either you can or you can't. If you want the best quality audio available, why would you want anything but the original actors' voices?
the reason people don't have the same tastes as you or i isn't important, what is pertinent is that the majority of non-british europeans prefer dubs to subs. that's a simple fact. they watch the movies on release in cinemas with dubs at high quality, and will expect them to be reproduced to the same standard in the next gen highdef format. anything less is simply a cop-out.

bear in mind that foreign language movies are a tiny percentage of movie sales in america, while hollywood movies make up the largest chunk of sales in europe. the market for foreign language movies in america is somewhat eclectic and pre-disposed to searching for quality, while the reverse is not true of the european market for hollywood blockbusters, unsurprisingly!

Ah, but I'm making no affirmative claim. My skepticism is natural, given an absence of evidence.



there is nothing natural about your scepticism. Do you agree that perceivable or not there is a definite measurable difference between lossy and lossless? if so then there is a difference and the only remaining question is "is the difference perceivable or not" why do you think it is any more reasonable to assume that the difference, that is known and why one codec is called lossy while the other lossless, in absolutely all cases will not be perceivable. And not the more reasonable that sometimes by some people in some situations in some part of the movie they will be able to hear a difference if they compared the two and someone that wants top quality will want lossless for just those situations.

...If you really cared about getting the highest possible quality, you'd watch using the original language and subtitles.Huh...? Where does this come from?
With some of the far east movies with active dialog you have hardky enough time to read the subtitles, let alone to watch the movie.

And while on the subtitles issue: I've seen War and Peace with English subtitles.
If you believe you get half the dialog (leave alone the nuances), you are dreaming.
The best description of that subtitling job would be "complete crap".

To a lesser degree the same would apply to "Das Boot".

Diogen.

it is not a per layer but a total. If one format was 30 but only one layer and the other 50 DL 50 would still be better in capacity


funny how someone can think 30GB is enough for all movies and all time but not think 25 Is enough for 25% and decreasing.


yup like the factor that they got conned into buying the wrong format and how to make it survive because they pity the $ they wasted.

Let me address each of those one at a time.

Per layer capacity - I felt this was an accurate way to state this. It would be equally fair to say that BD has the largest capacity discs in use today. TL51 is still an open question mark. Things may be different with respect to disc capacities in use at the end of this year. Maybe BD will bring out higher capacity discs, maybe Toshiba will ship TL51. None of us know what will end up happening.

25G is not enough for 25% and decreasing - You missunderstood me. To be exact 71.5% are BD-25 and 28.5% are BD-50. I've said before that I care about PQ as opposed to disc size. I harp on disc size because there is a healthy percentage of people who support BD purely based on disc size. Out in the real world (not on AVS) I find that among people who do know about Blu-ray, most think all discs are 50G. It's just not true.

I've been conned - Isn't that getting kind of insulting Anthony? I spent a lot of time researching and considering my options before choosing HD-DVD. I understand why you support BD, I just happen to have different priorities than you in making my selection. By the way, I have little doubt that universal players will come to dominate, which will be good for all early adopters. I believe you find this opinion objectionable as well though.

Li On, while it's nice to have for many who do have the setup to take advantage of lossless, there are many more in this world that don't and will eventually be the majority of income for either format.



agree, but the question is why are so many anti "nice to have". A format adds the upper limits of what can be achieved. The more room the better. I want those "nice to have"

I have even switched "in movie" between TrueHD and DD+ (and PCM to DD on the PS3)and though there is a difference, it's not that dramatic to go "WOW".

it won't make a boring movie interesting either or bad actors good ones. I just want top quality. I like the idea of sitting and watching a movie and thinking "this is as good as it gets" instead of "I wonder what I am missing due to compression.

Per layer capacity - I felt this was an accurate way to state this. It would be equally fair to say that BD has the largest capacity discs in use today. TL51 is still an open question mark. Things may be different with respect to disc capacities in use at the end of this year. Maybe BD will bring out higher capacity discs, maybe Toshiba will ship TL51. None of us know what will end up happening.


well we only have facts and BS. Right know as the specs exist HD DVD is limited to 30GB per side and BD 50. We can discuss hypothetical and make believe sizes but how will that help what is available. 51GB is not in the HD DVD specs and has never been brought to the DVD forum. If it was brought at least there would be that much but let's face it around Mid 2005 Toshiba announced they can add 45GB to the specs, said it is ready and tested and will bring it to the DVD forum for addition to HD DVD and they never did, now at CES they said the same thing there has been an HD DVD forum meeting and yet they did not bring the 45 nor the 51.


25G is not enough for 25% and decreasing - You missunderstood me. To be exact 71.5% are BD-25 and 28.5% are BD-50. I've said before that I care about PQ as opposed to disc size. I harp on disc size because there is a healthy percentage of people who support BD purely based on disc size. Out in the real world (not on AVS) I find that among people who do know about Blu-ray, most think all discs are 50G. It's just not true.



let's forget the %, my point was until Oct 100% of BD was 25GB, now it is much les and most new releases are on BD50 so the % of 25/total is decreasing.

my question is this do you believe that 30GB is enough for 100% of movies. If not what %. Of those movies that fit on 30GB what % would also fit on 25GB, what would need to drop for it to fit? The point is if 100% don't need >30GB then why would you think it odd that 70% won't need more then 25GB. I always find it funny that the same content on BD needs 50GB but that HD DVD supporters think that on HD DVDs 30GB (or even 15GB) is enough.

I've been conned - Isn't that getting kind of insulting Anthony?
no, even the most intelligent person gets fooled some of the time. It does not even mean you did not do some research. Just that at some point you bought into the BS that the HD DVD side was selling? Even in this post you were talking about the 51GB as if it is anything more then just propaganda to fool people why BD is not supperior

By the way, I have little doubt that universal players will come to dominate, which will be good for all early adopters. I believe you find this opinion objectionable as well though.

it is not that I have anything against universal players. I think there twill be universal players (BD, DVD and CD :) ) I just don’t think that a dual player helps at all. Dual players won't convince the person that is worried about buying disks that won’t play when his player dies. It won't help with the cost and will keep people away. I just don’t see any use for it except for people that realize they bought on the losing side and see it as a way to recoup some of their investment "the disks I bought will still play on it"

I just find it lethally dull, if it's a tie-breaker for a dozen people here, so be it.

When I worked in film and theater production, we had a term known as "The French alteration" When an obnoxiously vain and neurotic actor would come it with a perfectly well-fitted costume insisting it made them look bad, on more that one occasion we'd agree it needed work and graciously schedule another fitting for the next day. Then we would then have them come back and try it on again and say "my you we right, it drapes much better now, you look slimmer, I really like how this is working..." Of course we hadn't done a thing to it, but the actor always left giddy, pampered, and pleased.

A lot of lossless audio issues sound to me like they could be solved with a "French Alteration". :D

Thanks for the "French Alteration" story. I'll use it sometimes. :)

Consumers pay more for many products that offer no practical advantage over a lower priced product other than the perception of getting something extra or of 'higher quality'. Sometimes the quality differences are real and practical (which is where I personally cut off my spending) but many times it doesn't matter if the difference is real or not, some people want that difference and will pay for it.

I know for a fact there are some "lossless" clothing products 'change the brand tag and price only' and "lossless" food products 'change the packaging and price only' for instance sold every day. If it makes people feel good about their choices, more power.....

In terms of audio on BD and HD, right now with the 'night mode' bug on the 360 for DD+ there is a practical audio advantage I hear with my PS3 BD over 360 HD in many movies. That's a real audio difference that affects hundreds of thousands of users.

If you listen to other 360 content though including HD trailers and movies then it's easy to hear that there should be little to be concerned about after the spring update in the audio department for 99% of consumers using BD or HD. All of it will sound great and I've had some 'average joe' types comment to me on hearing a nice difference between high def movies and standard dvd (even using my non hdmi Marantz receiver).

there is nothing natural about your scepticism. Do you agree that perceivable or not there is a definite measurable difference between lossy and lossless? if so then there is a difference and the only remaining question is "is the difference perceivable or not" why do you think it is any more reasonable to assume that the difference, that is known and why one codec is called lossy while the other lossless, in absolutely all cases will not be perceivable. And not the more reasonable that sometimes by some people in some situations in some part of the movie they will be able to hear a difference if they compared the two and someone that wants top quality will want lossless for just those situations.

Skepticism is perfectly natural, unless you simply don't mind being hoodwinked or deluding yourself. Lets assume for a moment, that measurable differences in bandwidth translate into superior sound for some relatively small sub-set of individuals. Unless you've been involved in a series of formalized tests, designed to elucidate your superior sensory discernment capabilities, you have no objective data on which to base your concerns. It's more likely than not, that you're wasting a great deal of neuronal activity worrying about nothing, because there's a far better than even chance you belong to the majority of individuals who can't tell the difference. Further, given the disparity in our relative sensitivity to visual vs. auditory stimuli, any measurable audio difference that might show up in a formalized setting, is very unlikely to be sufficiently significant, or to occur frequently enough, to impact our enjoyment of the playback experience, unless the person in question is obsessing about something which is completely irrelevant for the vast majority of time that they're sitting there.

Personally, I've always preferred a completely analog signal chain. I've never been particularly comfortable with the idea of chopping music up into discreet digital pieces, manipulating them in an IC, and reconverting them back into a reasonably, or very close approximation of the original analog signal. It's not that I honestly believe I could reliably and consistently identify specific flaws in a digital vs. an exclusively analog signal chain, simply the notion that analog is a more ideal reflection of reality the way we experience it. Is this concern any less legitimate than yours?

snip......

let's forget the %, my point was until Oct 100% of BD was 25GB, now it is much les and most new releases are on BD50 so the % of 25/total is decreasing.

my question is this do you believe that 30GB is enough for 100% of movies. If not what %. Of those movies that fit on 30GB what % would also fit on 25GB, what would need to drop for it to fit? The point is if 100% don't need >30GB then why would you think it odd that 70% won't need more then 25GB. I always find it funny that the same content on BD needs 50GB but that HD DVD supporters think that on HD DVDs 30GB (or even 15GB) is enough.

The percentages are improving. 11 of the last 25 titles reviewed are BD-50 (44%). In a few more months we'll likely see the majority of new titles released on BD-50.

Do I believe 30G is enough? do I believe 25G is enough? Yes and Yes, assuming that modern codecs are in use for video and audio (common practice on HD-DVD but not so common on BD).


no, even the most intelligent person gets fooled some of the time. It does not even mean you did not do some research. Just that at some point you bought into the BS that the HD DVD side was selling? Even in this post you were talking about the 51GB as if it is anything more then just propaganda to fool people why BD is not supperior


What can I say Anthony, you feel I've been a fool. I know I'm not going to change your mind.


it is not that I have anything against universal players. I think there twill be universal players (BD, DVD and CD :) ) I just don’t think that a dual player helps at all. Dual players won't convince the person that is worried about buying disks that won’t play when his player dies. It won't help with the cost and will keep people away. I just don’t see any use for it except for people that realize they bought on the losing side and see it as a way to recoup some of their investment "the disks I bought will still play on it"

Well, the majority of people I talk to that own HDTVs are not interested in either format until universal players are available at more reasonable prices. The only other event that will bring them off the sidelines is if one format were to quit and stop selling players. As for the added cost of a universal player, in short order it will become minor. It was eye opening that the very first universal HD player came in at $1,200 as opposed to $1,500 or $2,000.

Consumers pay more for many products that offer no practical advantage over a lower priced product other than the perception of getting something extra or of 'higher quality'.

Agreed! My 20G PS3 cost around $400 in my area (Hong Kong). Let's say typical BD disc price is around $30.


HD-DVD 30G is only 60% of BD50. If HD-DVD player sells at $240 and HD-DVD disc at $18. Then I must say HD-DVD isn't bad at all! For those who think "good enough" is all we needed, that is!

regards,

Li On

Agreed! My 20G PS3 cost around $400 in my area (Hong Kong). Let's say typical BD disc price is around $30.

I bought the 60gig PS3 because it had more HDD space (no need for me to buy a hdd for low end model) and it had wireless built-in. Real added values for the extra $100.

The hd-dvd addon for 360 was a also a great value at $199 including a blockbuster hd-dvd movie and a deluxe remote. Real added values.

I'm not sure what your "good enough" argument is really about.

I have quite a sizeable library of both hd-dvd and bd already and there is little practical difference other than a few things that should even out shortly over time. 360 hd-dvd audio should be the same general quality as BD audio unless you're in some tiny minority that both has the equipment and can actually hear the difference between DD 5.1 DTS 1.5 or WMA Pro vs. 'lossless'.

Hd-dvd actually has more consistently high PQ than BD but again that is something that is evening out some over time. Hd-dvd has more advanced interactivity in titles but again I'll give BD the benefit of the doubt since we hear that more Java power is in route, sooner or later.

As for capacity, I'm not seeing any 50gig advantage so far even for the titles that have it. Sorry, just not seeing or hearing it on my system, which is definitely above average Joe. To look at it another way, I'd wager that if I added the entire gigabyte count on all my hd-dvds which are mostly 30gig vs. all my BD's, mostly 25gig with some 50gigs I don't think there's a real capacity advantage overall either.

But as I said, if it makes you feel good about your choices to think you're going beyond 'good enough', then enjoy...

Have you been to Germany, France or Italy? Visited the movie theatres there? Watched movies on TV there? (I can tell you, it is a frustrating experience, you only do it once...) But dubbing is huge there, and most people HATE subtitles, as we hate dubbing. But fine, the consumers will choose the format that gives them what they want. Simple as that.


Somehow I think the lack of region coding on HD DVD will be a bigger issue in Europe than the lack of lossless audio dubs in multiple languages.

import sales are not a large chunk of the dvd market in europe, despite region free players being the norm. hd dvd will almost certainly follow a similar trend.

Somehow I think the lack of region coding on HD DVD will be a bigger issue in Europe than the lack of lossless audio dubs in multiple languages.

So do I. I actually believe that past about 1+ mbps in most any lossy format is enough nobody will ever complain about the audio. Though tracks at only 384 kbps are maybe pushing it a bit.

But I admit to a bias here because I absolutely detest things like region coding and don't have either the ears or equipment to properly evaluate superb audio at those higher bit rates.

- Tom

But I admit to a bias here because I absolutely detest things like region coding and don't have either the ears or equipment to properly evaluate superb audio at those higher bit rates.

- Tom

I honestly chalk it up to temperament, I know audiophiles who astonish me by have no such stringent demands on PQ.

This is purely anecdotal, but I find they also love candy and sweets, are great with numbers.???

My sensitivity to audio is sensitive enough that I can sometimes sense the loss of a pressed CD to an MP3 copy, but that's the cutoff.

360... but no way for lossless there. Ah, irony is bittersweet in this instance since that's my HDDVD player. :o

Yep, the lack of HDMI 1.3 support (and to a lesser degree an integrated HD DVD drive) was a real downer for me, as I was planning on getting their new SKU :(

Yep, the lack of HDMI 1.3 support (and to a lesser degree an integrated HD DVD drive) was a real downer for me, as I was planning on getting their new SKU :(

I never expected the HD-DVD Drive built-in, but I figured it would at least be HDMI 1.3. That said, I don't know really what that buys me other than 'Deep Color' support I'll likely never use (at least not for 5+ years). I guess I just wanted it to have the 'latest version' ... Ahhh ... Marketing is cool ... ;)

the reason people don't have the same tastes as you or i isn't important, what is pertinent is that the majority of non-british europeans prefer dubs to subs. that's a simple fact. they watch the movies on release in cinemas with dubs at high quality, and will expect them to be reproduced to the same standard in the next gen highdef format. anything less is simply a cop-out.

bear in mind that foreign language movies are a tiny percentage of movie sales in america, while hollywood movies make up the largest chunk of sales in europe. the market for foreign language movies in america is somewhat eclectic and pre-disposed to searching for quality, while the reverse is not true of the european market for hollywood blockbusters, unsurprisingly!
Never got a response on how studios will respond to the ~25 official EU languages.

What for example do the major studios do now for the 5/6 Nordic language group? Is there a separate Nordic sub-region release for DVD? BD? All the languages?

Of course everyone would like to watch a high quality dub, but that's not possible. Where is the line drawn? 20%, 10%, 5%? There has to be one.

I honestly chalk it up to temperament, I know audiophiles who astonish me by have no such stringent demands on PQ.

This is purely anecdotal, but I find they also love candy and sweets, are great with numbers.???

My sensitivity to audio is sensitive enough that I can sometimes sense the loss of a pressed CD to an MP3 copy, but that's the cutoff.
I agree, this is about movies. All lossless discussion should be banned or shunted to the audiophile sections of this forum. It should be treated here with the same scepticism as audio and power cable discussions.

What for example do the major studios do now for the 5/6 Nordic language group? Is there a separate Nordic sub-region release for DVD? BD?
Yes there is, but I haven't checked that many titles, so I can't say if it goes for all. But yes, norwegian, swedish, finnish, danish, icelandic and english on one disc in DD5.1. Four of those in DTS5.1 and English LPCM. (On Blu-ray) This however, goes for mostly animation/kids movies, as anything else is NEVER dubbed in these countries.

It gets more complicated further south as dubbing becomes the norm, but I guess you would cover a lot of people if you include english, french, german, italian, spanish and portuguese. I believe there is less dubbing in Holland and Belgium, so those won't care much and settle for subs. As you head east, again I believe subs are OK, but don't know for sure.

Thus, it should be possible to cover quite a bit of ground with 6-8 languages, and a few more subs. Personally, I do believe 384Kbit is not enough to give these people what they pay for.

And to claim that if you really care about audio quality, you listen to the english track, well, you should schedule your next vacation to central europe. Be sure to bring a dictionary... :) Then ditch your dictionary and head up to the scandinavian countries. :) (OK, let's be honest, head for Norway. That is where the REAL nature is, no matter what the swedes, danes or finns say... ;))

I agree, this is about movies. All lossless discussion should be banned or shunted to the audiophile sections of this forum. It should be treated here with the same scepticism as audio and power cable discussions.
Do you really mean that, Wayne? I agree on the cable part, for sure, but lossless? You're not saying that just because of space limitations on HD DVD. ;) Or limitations in your cabling? :p

To be honest, I can't say yet if I will hear a difference, since my current receiver is DD/DTS only. But once I upgrade my receiver, I fully expect to hear a difference. That said, if I will hear a difference between LPCM, Master Audio or TrueHD? I doubt it. I just hope studios will put the best possible sound on any future discs.

If you want the best quality audio available, why would you want anything but the original actors' voices? Because to any french, german or italian, Clint Eastwood sounds like the guy who does Clint Eastwood, not Clint himself. Sad, I know, but true. And they're not used to reading subs, haven't all their life. Now they should change, because HD is upon them? Don't think it will happen, sorry.

If your kids really cared about getting tracks better than DD at 384kbps, they would also care about getting the real soundtrack with the real voices, not a bastardized version using inferior "actors" and "actresses." In reality, they're probably like most people and have no idea what the bitrates are or what they mean.You're right, of course. Bitrates means squat to them. And yes, they are watching the originals, I've forced it upon them since they were small. All my movies (99.5%) are Region 1. It is just when we have kids over for movies, we rent dubbed movies. The other day my 9 year old had a birthday party with 13 other 9 year olds. They watched the norwegian dubbed Over The Hedge. I can tell you, for that crowd, 48kBit or 6Mbit would have made no difference, the noise level was extreme... :o

If they really do care about the quality of their soundtracks (and they're geeks like us,) I'd suggest you get them used to reading the dialog in movies that are in languages other than your native tongue. Even if you get your wish and get PCM tracks for the dubbed tracks, you're still listening to the work of people with far less talent (in most, if not all, cases) than the original actors and actresses. You lose the subtle nuances of the performances and are left with a bad parody of the original work.As mentioned, they are. Here in the nordics we are used to subs, luckily. On the talent, though, I must disagree. The people they hire to do the voices are local heroes/actors that the kids know. Bruce Who?? I'm impressed with the talent and effort that are put into the dubbing of these movies. But, as mentioned, I prefer Bruce. And, at the original pitch, not the 4% sped up one... But that's a whole other discussion.

If consumers cannot hear the difference with lossless audio, then their perpetuation of the argument for it is a baseless as the argument for extra bandwidth and capacity is for the video, if you can't see the difference. The perception of quality vs. cost will be the deciding factor in the end, IMHO. Advantage HD-DVD.


What can I say? Thank you for making my point for me?


You are honestly saying that Toshiba, Universal, Microsoft, et al are going to tell some consumers that what they want is baseless?

We are talking about hi def and next gen formats. While more and more consumers are buying expensive displays, there is still a subset of conusmers that spend a ton of money on their audio set up. They are the consumer. They are the ones with the money that Toshiba and Universal want. It does not work to tell your customer that their desire to have Losslss is baseless and they are morons for asking for it. It does not work to show them a study or a survey saying that nobody can perceive the difference between their DD+ tracks and the competition's (BD) Lossless. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong, because it is their money.

The only argument worth having on the merits of including lossless versus not isn't whether their is a difference, but whether there is a market that wants it. If that market is tiny, it won't affect the format war if Lossless is not included. If that market is big, it will.

Continually arguing over whether anyone can really tell or not is irrelevant.

Never got a response on how studios will respond to the ~25 official EU languages.
didn't see the question, sorry. different studios respond in different ways. some of these languages are, how can i put this delicately, less common than others. so by including 5 or 6 options you'll cover the bulk of the market. particularly since it's common for non-brits to speak more than one language.

agree. That is the issue with only 30GB compromises come faster



TL45 was never submitted even though Toshiba (and brainless HD DVD supporters) were talking about it for over a year. Toshiba is BSing about the 51 as much as they did about the 45. There has already been a DVD forum meeting and that would have been the perfect time to bring in the 51. They did not. This means it is just like the 45 something to get gullible people to say "but HD DVD might be 51 and that is better then 50".
Do you work for Sony? This post is as bad as someone saying America is the land of cheap people.

What can I say? Thank you for making my point for me?


You are honestly saying that Toshiba, Universal, Microsoft, et al are going to tell some consumers that what they want is baseless?

We are talking about hi def and next gen formats. While more and more consumers are buying expensive displays, there is still a subset of conusmers that spend a ton of money on their audio set up. They are the consumer. They are the ones with the money that Toshiba and Universal want. It does not work to tell your customer that their desire to have Losslss is baseless and they are morons for asking for it. It does not work to show them a study or a survey saying that nobody can perceive the difference between their DD+ tracks and the competition's (BD) Lossless. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong, because it is their money.

The only argument worth having on the merits of including lossless versus not isn't whether their is a difference, but whether there is a market that wants it. If that market is tiny, it won't affect the format war if Lossless is not included. If that market is big, it will.

Continually arguing over whether anyone can really tell or not is irrelevant.
Then since I'm a customer, I'm right! I don't want to pay more money for something is essentially "mouse's milk." This is why computers are so buggy--giving people stuff that 99% of us don't need just to say it's included. :confused:

Well, March has come and gone. I don't know how many PS3s Sony shipped, but somehow I doubt that it is greater than 2x the number of units sold worldwide since launch. By the most optimistic estimate, 2.8M have sold. I believe Talk said something at the beginning of the year about Sony absolutely meeting their forecast of 6 million units, and that Sony would not mislead shareholders on a projection so near in the future.

PS3 = 2.3M
http://nexgenwars.com/

PS3 = 2.8M
http://www.vgcharts.org/

Looking at the Americas Monthly numbers (February 2007)
http://www.vgcharts.org/amonthly.php

Wii = 379,250
Xbox360 = 257,500
PS3 = 133,750

For what it's worth I got in line at 8:30 this morning at a nearby Wii retailer that opened at 10:00. Unfortunately anyone who had lined up later than 6:30 did not get there early enough to buy a system. Based on all the numbers I've seen, the Wii continues to sell strong in all of its markets.

For the next gen console battle it still looks like Wii will dominate Japan, while Xbox360 will dominate NA. It looks like only the Wii has a chance of displacing the Xbox360 in NA.

TL51 is still an open question mark.The fact that we haven't heard anything more about it since CES though is not exactly a good sign. Personally I have the hunch that it is just marketing and that it will be like TL45 in that it will be talked about but never actually added to the HD DVD specs.


As for the added cost of a universal player, in short order it will become minor. It was eye opening that the very first universal HD player came in at $1,200 as opposed to $1,500 or $2,000.You do know that the LG universal player did not support HDi interactivity? As such it might be better to wait until we have a universal player that officially supports both formats before talking about how much a universal player costs.


I never expected the HD-DVD Drive built-in, but I figured it would at least be HDMI 1.3. That said, I don't know really what that buys me other than 'Deep Color' support I'll likely never use (at least not for 5+ years).I too was somewhat hoping for Deep Color support on the Xbox 360 Elite though I knew it was a bit unlikely considering that the Xbox 360 design was probably not designed for it. What really surprises me about the Xbox 360 Elite is that it is only capable of 2-channel PCM output over HDMI. It just baffles me that Microsoft would go through the trouble of redesigning the video output design and yet not make any changes to the audio output design. I might not have any interest in HD DVD but it would have been nice to be able to get multi-channel PCM output for Xbox 360 games.


Well, March has come and gone. I don't know how many PS3s Sony shipped, but somehow I doubt that it is greater than 2x the number of units sold worldwide since launch. By the most optimistic estimate, 2.8M have sold.2Channel, traditionally you wait for the March numbers to come in before you start talking about them. Personally I don't see the PS3 selling more than 4 million consoles worldwide by the end of March but you are jumping the gun with this post.


I believe Talk said something at the beginning of the year about Sony absolutely meeting their forecast of 6 million units, and that Sony would not mislead shareholders on a projection so near in the future.Who exactly is misleading? I believe what Talk said was that Sony would ship 6 million PS3 game consoles by the end of March. Just in the same way that Microsoft shipped over 10 million Xbox 360 game consoles by the end of 2006 but took longer to actually sell 10 million. No offense 2Channel but in your desire to find a reason to attack Sony you are not being very fair or logical.

Do you really mean that, Wayne? I agree on the cable part, for sure, but lossless? You're not saying that just because of space limitations on HD DVD. ;) Or limitations in your cabling? :p

To be honest, I can't say yet if I will hear a difference, since my current receiver is DD/DTS only. But once I upgrade my receiver, I fully expect to hear a difference. That said, if I will hear a difference between LPCM, Master Audio or TrueHD? I doubt it. I just hope studios will put the best possible sound on any future discs.
I'm generally referring to uncompressed lossless and 20-24bit/48 and above sampling rates. But even on compressed lossless, I want to see real double-blind test results on "ordinary" $2,000 systems (pick your own number) before believing anything about higher bit rates. I don't even trust my ears. Every system change I've made has been a vast improvement that dies away in a few days. Way too much subjectiveness and hype in audioville.

Giving preference to one format or the other on imperceptible audio differences is doing an injustice to the prime objective: great and affordable movies. Somebody needs to prove it rather than offer their personal opinion, no matter how great their system or how golden their ears. Proof, people, proof!

The lack of double-blind proof is de facto proof there is no difference, or we would know about it.

What can I say? Thank you for making my point for me?


You are honestly saying that Toshiba, Universal, Microsoft, et al are going to tell some consumers that what they want is baseless?

We are talking about hi def and next gen formats. While more and more consumers are buying expensive displays, there is still a subset of conusmers that spend a ton of money on their audio set up. They are the consumer. They are the ones with the money that Toshiba and Universal want. It does not work to tell your customer that their desire to have Losslss is baseless and they are morons for asking for it. It does not work to show them a study or a survey saying that nobody can perceive the difference between their DD+ tracks and the competition's (BD) Lossless. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong, because it is their money.

The only argument worth having on the merits of including lossless versus not isn't whether their is a difference, but whether there is a market that wants it. If that market is tiny, it won't affect the format war if Lossless is not included. If that market is big, it will.

Continually arguing over whether anyone can really tell or not is irrelevant.

First, I never said anyone was a moron, nor to my knowledge has Toshiba or MS. That's something from your quote that you projected on them for whatever reason.

Yes, I agree with your third paragraph, what matters is whether there is a meaningful market demand for lossless audio. However, that makes the question of whether the difference can be heard, IMO, more relevant than you claim, because the size of that market will determine if that piece of the technology will be missed. I'm not belittling you or any audiophile who feels it should be included on principle, because it exists and should in theory, at least, be the best. I'm just saying most people won't have your equipment or ears, and that might make the difference.

What can I say? Thank you for making my point for me?


You are honestly saying that Toshiba, Universal, Microsoft, et al are going to tell some consumers that what they want is baseless?

We are talking about hi def and next gen formats. While more and more consumers are buying expensive displays, there is still a subset of conusmers that spend a ton of money on their audio set up. They are the consumer. They are the ones with the money that Toshiba and Universal want. It does not work to tell your customer that their desire to have Losslss is baseless and they are morons for asking for it. It does not work to show them a study or a survey saying that nobody can perceive the difference between their DD+ tracks and the competition's (BD) Lossless. The customer is always right, even when they are wrong, because it is their money.

The only argument worth having on the merits of including lossless versus not isn't whether their is a difference, but whether there is a market that wants it. If that market is tiny, it won't affect the format war if Lossless is not included. If that market is big, it will.

Continually arguing over whether anyone can really tell or not is irrelevant.

I agree. I just find it disappointing and unfortunate that so many in this rarefied venue continually parrot marketing claims based on nothing more than an effort to exploit consumer gullibility in creating "demand" for features which have no more empirical evidence for their benefit than do products like this:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AP-CDSL

Either these individuals earnestly believe claims which are entirely speculative, or their arguments are based on the same kind of cynicism which creates the "demand" to begin with. Neither alternative is particularly heartening.

I'm sorry, I was projecting how audiophiles would feel if someone told them they couldn't hear a difference.

As for myself, I am not an audiophile. Ignoring the wonderful acoustics that the concrete walls in my basement provide, I just don't have the ear anymore to really tell. I don't doubt that there are people who can, and many more who think they can, but alas, I cannot. To be honest, long since past that either format would be perfectly fine for me. I've gone with a PS3, but will be quite happy to get the XA2 (or XA3 whatever) later this year if it looks like HD-DVD is here to stay - idea being even if BD dies I still have a game machine.

But I think you got my point and we are in agreement. If the market for Lossless is small (whether or not it has an anyone can actually hear it), then it won't affect the format war. If those audiophiles are big enough in number and interested in HD, then it will.

thom

ps - really, no offense intended - I usually try to post here in a sarcastic, smart-ass, trying to be class clown but failing, yet has some endearing bit of humor - but I think often it just comes off as insulting since there is no real way to put in voice inflection without one of these.... :o

ps - really, no offense intended - I usually try to post here in a sarcastic, smart-ass, trying to be class clown but failing, yet has some indearing bit of humor - but I think often it just comes off as insulting since there is no real way to put in voice inflection without one of these....

You're OK, thomopolis..........IMHO, of course. :D

Giving preference to one format or the other on imperceptible audio differences is doing an injustice to the prime objective: great and affordable movies. Somebody needs to prove it rather than offer their personal opinion, no matter how great their system or how golden their ears. Proof, people, proof!

The lack of double-blind proof is de facto proof there is no difference, or we would know about it.

Who could arrange such a thing? One would think there was some interest in it? Or are somone afraid something horrible will be the result of the tests? Surely there are some online magazines that would do it? Didn't one of them do a powercord double-blind, that proved NO difference? Could any AVS'ers do it? Do we have the same source across all codecs?

Who could arrange such a thing? One would think there was some interest in it? Or are somone afraid something horrible will be the result of the tests? Surely there are some online magazines that would do it? Didn't one of them do a powercord double-blind, that proved NO difference? Could any AVS'ers do it? Do we have the same source across all codecs?

Read it and weep:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MP3

Formal and informal listening tests have shown that MP3 at the 160-224 kbps range provide encoded results undistinguishable from the original materials in most of the cases.

( emphasis added )

I agree. I just find it disappointing and unfortunate that so many in this rarefied venue continually parrot marketing claims based on nothing more than an effort to exploit consumer gullibility in creating "demand" for features which have no more empirical evidence for their benefit than do products like this:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AP-CDSL

Either these individuals earnestly believe claims which are entirely speculative, or their arguments are based on the same kind of cynicism which creates the "demand" to begin with. Neither alternative is particularly heartening.


How true. I believe many people are too easily influenced by mere words from marketing and media instead of relying on basic understanding of the principles or situations.


BTW, I have been called cynical in the past :p

Skepticism is perfectly natural, unless you simply don't mind being hoodwinked or deluding yourself.

agree, the question is who is being hoodwinked. The issue is that as a consumer we should be demanding the highest quality, accepting less is not good. Let’s do a simple test, look at all the titles released would you say the price of a movie is different because it has lossless over lossy.

The only reason you are defending lossy and willing to compromise quality is because the format you bought can’t offer it as easily as the other.


Lets assume for a moment, that measurable differences in bandwidth translate into superior sound for some relatively small sub-set of individuals.

it is not BW. Lossy encodings can’t recreate the original digital sound correctly in many instances, the lossless encoding is guaranteed to have what is needed to get backto the original digital used to make the compressed format. There is a sonic difference between lossy and lossless. The question you are raising is like the old question “if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?”. If we can’t hear the sonic difference , does it matter? The answer is if you can guarantee no one can hear it, then who cares, but since

1) what is encoded
2) how much loss there is
3) the quality of the equipment
4) the individuals hearing

all plays a role. And since you can’t guarantee all of it the only wise bet is to ask for lossless.


Unless you've been involved in a series of formalized tests, designed to elucidate your superior sensory discernment capabilities, you have no objective data on which to base your concerns.

Not at all, I am sure most people can tell a difference between a lossy and lossless under the right conditions

Further, given the disparity in our relative sensitivity to visual vs. auditory stimuli, any measurable audio difference that might show up in a formalized setting, is very unlikely to be sufficiently significant, or to occur frequently enough, to impact our enjoyment of the playback experience, unless the person in question is obsessing about something which is completely irrelevant for the vast majority of time that they're sitting there.

I never said I don’t want the best PQ, I want both. The issue is that there is only one format that can do both and that is what HD DVD supporters hate. BD has a BW of 48mbps for AV, while HD DVD has 30mbps. At 48mbps you can have 18mbps for audio before you even come close to what HD DVD has for both combined.

What can I say Anthony, you feel I've been a fool. I know I'm not going to change your mind.

no I don't, trust me, if I thought it, I would have said so.

Let me ask you this. Why did you buy into HD DVD?


Well, the majority of people I talk to that own HDTVs are not interested in either format until universal players are available at more reasonable prices. The only other event that will bring them off the sidelines is if one format were to quit and stop selling players.
Exactly and only one of those will happen

As for the added cost of a universal player, in short order it will become minor.
that is what you believe, the facts point the other way

It was eye opening that the very first universal HD player came in at $1,200 as opposed to $1,500 or $2,000.

and you can get separate BD and HD DVD player for less.

I never said I don’t want the best PQ, I want both. The issue is that there is only one format that can do both and that is what HD DVD supporters hate. BD has a BW of 48mbps for AV, while HD DVD has 30mbps. At 48mbps you can have 18mbps for audio before you even come close to what HD DVD has for both combined.


If this is the case, and we know that we can more easily see differences than hear differences. Taking into account that the video is compressed much more than the audio is, do you think that you can reliably hear the difference between a DD+ soundtrack and a lossless soundtrack encoded from the same master with identical levels? Many people have a tough time with this.

You seem to keep harping on the fact that the lossy soundtracks are not good enough....seems to me you want the soundtracks because they are labelled lossless instead of actually listening to them and comparing.

Never got a response on how studios will respond to the ~25 official EU languages.

What for example do the major studios do now for the 5/6 Nordic language group? Is there a separate Nordic sub-region release for DVD? BD? All the languages?

you need to look at it from a reality point of view

1) regional distribution the same studio or sub studio won't have the distribution rights to all the countries

2) like here, the attitude is not the same. In Greece, for an example of one of the EUs official languages, movies are never dubbed (except for kid shows/cartoons) but subtitled.

Do you work for Sony?
no, otr any other BD/HD DVD/film/CE based company

This post is as bad as someone saying America is the land of cheap people
I really don't see a connection between the two, care to explain?

Read it and weep:

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MP3


Quote:
Formal and informal listening tests have shown that MP3 at the 160-224 kbps range provide encoded results undistinguishable from the original materials in most of the cases.



( emphasis added )

sure proves that in absolutely every case you can't hear a difference :)

what do you have against me wanting in all cases the best? most=50%+1

Anthony, very shortly after a standalone BD player is produced that isn't already obsolete the moment it's boxed up for shipment, I'll be purchasing one.

Not at all, I am sure most people can tell a difference between a lossy and lossless under the right conditions.

I'm afraid confidence in the veracity of your own opinion simply isn't good enough. I've provided a sourced link in which the suggestion is made that extremely low bit rate encodes at 160 to 224 kps are indistinguishable from the original source in most cases. Please provide evidence to support your apparent contention that "most people" could tell the difference with bit rates an order of magnitude above that level.

If this is the case, and we know that we can more easily see differences than hear differences. Taking into account that the video is compressed much more than the audio is, do you think that you can reliably hear the difference between a DD+ soundtrack and a lossless soundtrack encoded from the same master with identical levels? Many people have a tough time with this.

The answer is that in a faire test, yes (one where the clip is picked to maximize the difference in each movie). I have no doubt that for very high bit rate DD+ most movies 80 or even 90% of the movie the answer might be no, on the other hand in those areas where there is no advantage there will also not be an extra demand in BW. Where there is extra demand in BW the lossy codec “truncates” (actually a bit worst then truncates) information to simplify the stream to the max BW. If we limit ourselves to A/B those parts then you will hear a difference.



You seem to keep harping on the fact that the lossy soundtracks are not good enough....seems to me you want the soundtracks because they are labelled lossless instead of actually listening to them and comparing.

you are partially right. I want lossless because it guarantees it has been losslessly compressed. There can be movies where DD+ will give a lossless representation at the BW used, but an other movie might not give lossless at DD+ possible levels and even if DD+ at max might be able to do it, the studio might not have encoded it at that level. The problem is that most here don’t realize that if DD+ could be used to get a perfect representation then there should not be a BW difference. So in essence there is no need to use DD+ in those instances to save on BW (it won’t).

To me DD+ over lossless is like someone coming and saying, “Do the work and afterwards I will decide what to pay you, depending on what I think of the work”.

Doesn't HD-DVD Mandate TrueHD support? Whereas it's hit or miss with BD hardware?

In the case of HD-DVD, it seems like lossless is up to the studio and whether or not they want to include it -- since all players would decode TrueHD.

In the case of Blu-Ray, even if it's included, it seems like most of the standalones won't be able to decode it anyways, no? Unless they go with something bw-intensive -- and even then I'm not sure about player support?

Personally, I can't tell the difference between the two, and I think it's more of a marketing thing. I imagine people using regular composite audio cables will think they're getting "lossless sound" because that's what the box says anyways. *shrug*

I just don't get it, the review summaries 2Channel has posted indicate that overall, the two formats are now pretty much even with respect to both PQ and AQ. Considering one has all the more space and bandwidth, shouldn't it already be blowing the other out of the water?

I keep seeing all these comments about how HD-DVD is the 'Good Enough' Format and how HD-DVD supporters are 'stupid' or 'uneducated' or they were 'duped' because Blu-Ray is soooo much better on paper. From what I can see though, HD-DVD has at least the same PQ and AQ that Blu-Ray has, plus it has as interactivity, plus it has mandated network support ... and all for a significantly less cost. If HD-DVD is 'Good Enough', what does that make Blu-Ray? I know, it's the format for the future ... HD-DVD won't be good enough going forward ... if we are going to think like that, why not scrap both these formats and start buying into Holographic Storage mediums? Then we can have lossless video and audio. :p

I'm afraid confidence in the veracity of your own opinion simply isn't good enough. I've provided a sourced link in which the suggestion is made that extremely low bit rate encodes at 160 to 224 kps are indistinguishable from the original source in most cases. Please provide evidence to support your apparent contention that "most people" could tell the difference with bit rates an order of magnitude above that level.

the evidence is that you don't understand the first thing about how this works. Have you ever studied encoders and codecs? the codec does not work with fairies at different ends making magic spells. They work by analyzing the data and then finding a more efficient way of keeping that data. It is a bit like making a graph based on empirical data and then making an equation based on that data

http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/figures/1475-925X-5-29-1.jpg

the thing is music is not random, even more so most music is fairly consistent (inside the song) and even more there is consistency between songs (genres). So a CODEC can be built to take these considerations into account. Movies won’t have anywhere near as much consistency.



PS RTO, if there is absolutely no difference between Lossy and lossless how did some revieweres that compared BD to HD DVD find a difference between DTHD and PCM?

Doesn't HD-DVD Mandate TrueHD support? Whereas it's hit or miss with BD hardware?

yes *
In the case of HD-DVD, it seems like lossless is up to the studio and whether or not they want to include it -- since all players would decode TrueHD.

yes *

In the case of Blu-Ray, even if it's included, it seems like most of the standalones won't be able to decode it anyways, no?
yes*
Unless they go with something bw-intensive -- and even then I'm not sure about player support?

no idea what this means *

-------------------------

I thought it would be easier and better not to add more as answers to your questions in this part I will add more info

There are three CODECS that can be decoded as lossless two compressed (DTHD, DTS-HD MA) and PCM. HD DVD mandates 2ch of DTHD and all Toshiba players do at least 5.1 DTHD. The xbox add on can decode it but sends out lossy (so no way to really get lossless from it). BD does not mandate any of the compressed lossless. The issue is that many HD DVDs don’t use lossless because HD DVD is way more limited then BD in both BW and capacity. On the other hand most BDs have lossless (most have uncompressed). Then you also have some studios that use DTS HD MA so those can’t be decoded by any machine today.

the evidence is that you don't understand the first thing about how this works. Have you ever studied encoders and codecs? the codec does not work with fairies at different ends making magic spells. They work by analyzing the data and then finding a more efficient way of keeping that data. It is a bit like making a graph based on empirical data and then making an equation based on that data

http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/figures/1475-925X-5-29-1.jpg

the thing is music is not random, even more so most music is fairly consistent (inside the song) and even more there is consistency between songs (genres). So a CODEC can be built to take these considerations into account. Movies won’t have anywhere near as much consistency.

That's a very pretty graphic, but neither that, nor your obnoxiously condescending tone do anything to support your claim. If you can't locate the results of any double blind testing to support your implicit assertion that lossless is demonstrably superior to lossy under all conditions, just admit it.

PS RTO, if there is absolutely no difference between Lossy and lossless how did some revieweres that compared BD to HD DVD find a difference between DTHD and PCM?

Subjective reviews? You've got to be kidding! From a "review" of the "light pen" in the link I provided above:

"The improvement was astonishing!" - Dick Olsher, Stereophile, March, 1990.

Give me a break. :rolleyes:

That's a very pretty graphic, but neither that, nor your obnoxiously condescending tone do anything to support your claim. If you can't locate the results of any double blind testing to support your implicit assertion that lossless is demonstrably superior to lossy under all conditions, just admit it.


what will prove it to you, for me to go write som BS on wiki? Obviously every evidence and the laws of physics are not enough, so what is? You convinced yourself quality is snake oil because you can't get it and now nothing will convince you, not even reality.

what will prove it to you, for me to go write som BS on wiki? Obviously every evidence and the laws of physics are not enough, so what is? You convinced yourself quality is snake oil because you can't get it and now nothing will convince you, not even reality.

A convincing body of emirical evidence will suffice. You know, as in AV Science. It's a natural expectation for larger numbers to translate into higher qualitative output, but that doesn't make it so....without objective evidence to support belief, the "reality" you're describing may exist only in your head.

A convincing body of emirical evidence will suffice

so what is a convincing body of evidence to someone who has a staunch religious belief. You know there are still some people that think there is no convincing body of evidence for evolution or the world being round. If someone is blind and has made up his mind there is no amount of evidence that will convince them.

so what is a convincing body of evidence to someone who has a staunch religious belief. You know there are still some people that think there is no convincing body of evidence for evolution or the world being round. If someone is blind and has made up his mind there is no amount of evidence that will convince them.

Faith is the maintenance of belief in the absence of evidence. I respectfully suggest that you carefully reflect upon what you've just written.

The fact that we haven't heard anything more about it since CES though is not exactly a good sign. Personally I have the hunch that it is just marketing and that it will be like TL45 in that it will be talked about but never actually added to the HD DVD specs.

Ok


You do know that the LG universal player did not support HDi interactivity? As such it might be better to wait until we have a universal player that officially supports both formats before talking about how much a universal player costs.


Well considering that a complete HD-A2 goes at retail for under $350, I don't think HDi will bust the bank, especially as component makers build more flexible integrated solutions that can be used by CEs to build universal players. I'm expecting to see a G2 universal from LG this year with HDi. We'll see if I'm right or not.


2Channel, traditionally you wait for the March numbers to come in before you start talking about them. Personally I don't see the PS3 selling more than 4 million consoles worldwide by the end of March but you are jumping the gun with this post.


Well, nexgen and vgcharts update their numbers on a very regular basis. Vgcharts was pretty accurate at the end of 2006 with their PS3 sales number, but for some odd reason their numbers were about 5-6% higher in NA than the actual NPD numbers showed. VGcharts has always been very kind to the PS3 though. As for not selling more than 4 million, umm well, I guess I agree. I also think it's unlikely they sold more than 3 million.


Who exactly is misleading? I believe what Talk said was that Sony would ship 6 million PS3 game consoles by the end of March. Just in the same way that Microsoft shipped over 10 million Xbox 360 game consoles by the end of 2006 but took longer to actually sell 10 million. No offense 2Channel but in your desire to find a reason to attack Sony you are not being very fair or logical.

Considering that VGcharts was a little north of the real PS3 numbers on 1/1/2007 I expect that 2.8million units sold is pretty close to the true numbers for PS3 sales. Could Sony have 3.2million units in the channel? I guess that's possible, it just seems like a lot of months of sales inventory for the channel to absorb. It's ultimately up to shareholders and partners to decide if Sony mislead them. I'll just say that I expect Howard Stringer will be out before the year is over.

I was rather hoping that when you said "... activity IS taking place... to educate consumers" that this was much more that a non-committal stance by the BDA.It isn't purely non-committal, as evidenced by the spokesperson's very candid discussion of profiles with Video Business. I'll continue to explore whether a more formal explanation is possible.

I don't think those who claim audiophile superiority are capable of objective examination of self or system. Why else don't they rely on DBT? It might prove themselves wrong.

I'm willing and waiting to be proven wrong in my scepticism of higher bit rates. Show me.

...the codec does not work with fairies at different ends making magic spells.That's TL51. :D

Faith is the maintenance of belief in the absence of evidence. I respectfully suggest that you carefully reflect upon what you've just written.
i can't believe someone is quoting wikipedia on this av science forum as a source of useful information. if it was a graph someone had upped from somewhere else i could understand, but opinion from a free-for-all online database? that's... disapointing.

thom

ps - really, no offense intended - I usually try to post here in a sarcastic, smart-ass, trying to be class clown but failing, yet has some endearing bit of humor - but I think often it just comes off as insulting since there is no real way to put in voice inflection without one of these.... :o

No offense taken. I'm just amused how many forum members work themselves into a lather about the concept of lossless audio, when most have never heard it or know if they could. But please, let's not start on that again. Enough already. ;) ;)

No offense taken. I'm just amused how many forum members work themselves into a lather about the concept of lossless audio, when most have never heard it or know if they could.

Actually, most have - it's called Compact Disc. ;)

i can't believe someone is quoting wikipedia on this av science forum as a source of useful information. if it was a graph someone had upped from somewhere else i could understand, but opinion from a free-for-all online database? that's... disapointing.

Something about broken clocks.............twice a day.


http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html


In plain language, this means that our musically trained test listeners could reliably distinguish the poorer quality MP3s at 128 kbps quite accurately from either of the other higher-quality samples. But when deciding between 256 kbps encoded MP3s and the original CD, no difference could be determined, on average, for all the pieces. The testers took the 256 kbps samples for the CD just as often as they took the original CD samples themselves.

The fact that some of the 128 kbps samples were consistently judged to be better than their original CD counterparts by this skilled group – even by the best among them – stunned our editor (who participated in the test although his results were not included in the evaluation, and had to confess that he got only 15 points). It seems safe to declare that there is no musical genre that is especially well-suited or ill-suited to compression. It is apparent that there are quite other factors related to the technical aspects of recording that will later adversely affect the results at low bit rates.

i can't believe someone is quoting wikipedia on this av science forum as a source of useful information. if it was a graph someone had upped from somewhere else i could understand, but opinion from a free-for-all online database? that's... disapointing.

According to a study published on Nature, wikipedia is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844

According to a study published on Nature, wikipedia is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844
perhaps i'd place more trust in it as a resource if i didn't know a bostonian management consultant who dabbled in inserting deliberately false information there... though for technical information i certainly wouldn't look to a dictionary, traditional or newly spawned, which by dint of it's wide ranging remit is almost certainly behind the times.

Something about broken clocks.............twice a day.


http://www.geocities.com/altbinariessoundsmusicclassical/mp3test.html
a better source, though heise.de are a better source yet. why with the wiki when there was more meat on the table?

though for technical information i certainly wouldn't look to a dictionary, traditional or newly spawned, which by dint of it's wide ranging remit is almost certainly behind the times.

Has the digital encoding standard recently been modified to add extra numerals, or has some unknown extraterrestrial pathogenic/mutative process recently resulted in a universal enhancement of human hearing acuity? :confused:

According to a study published on Nature, wikipedia is as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/12/69844 For non-controversial subjects with a lot of entries it has been surveyed by other sources to also be very accurate.

Its when you get into political or controversial subjects, it has some issues as updates become contests.

Also really obscure subjects that have only sparse entries may not be reliable if the first updaters don't know what they are talking about.

Deliberate pranks and sabotage occur on popular subjects but normally now AFAIK are weaned out by Wiikpedia's new procedures.

a better source, though heise.de are a better source yet. why with the wiki when there was more meat on the table? I find wiki's most useful for general information, or to remind me about things I already knew but forgot about a subject and for the links at the bottom which go to many useful sites on that subject.

But if its a controversial subject its trusted as far as I could throw my monitor. :D

Just don't saddle hi-def dvd's with the burdens that have made SACD and DVDA flops

the evidence is that you don't understand the first thing about how this works. Have you ever studied encoders and codecs? the codec does not work with fairies at different ends making magic spells. They work by analyzing the data and then finding a more efficient way of keeping that data. It is a bit like making a graph based on empirical data and then making an equation based on that data

http://www.biomedical-engineering-online.com/content/figures/1475-925X-5-29-1.jpg

the thing is music is not random, even more so most music is fairly consistent (inside the song) and even more there is consistency between songs (genres). So a CODEC can be built to take these considerations into account. Movies won’t have anywhere near as much consistency.



PS RTO, if there is absolutely no difference between Lossy and lossless how did some revieweres that compared BD to HD DVD find a difference between DTHD and PCM?

Feel free to explain why you think that graph supports your point about codec workings.

It isn't purely non-committal, as evidenced by the spokesperson's very candid discussion of profiles with Video Business. I'll continue to explore whether a more formal explanation is possible.

Thanks.

Does this imply, despite the authoring of the document that Alex already says exists (and has for months now), you are completely unaware of any plans at this point to formally introduce this info? No logo'ing program? No collateral for merchants? Nothing more that mentioning it in an interview that maybe 1% of the potential BD-buying public might see?

If yes, then either this is similar to the BD-Video 1.1 profile date pushback where you were simply unaware, or it would seem that the BDA is deliberately withholding the info.

Has the digital encoding standard recently been modified to add extra numerals, or has some unknown extraterrestrial pathogenic/mutative process recently resulted in a universal enhancement of human hearing acuity? :confused:
new digital codecs have certainly been introduced since that study was published. though it would be interesting to hear of any study based on a larger sample than just 12 participants. none of which explains why encyclopedias would be a good place to look for technical data. they aren't.

Thanks.

Does this imply, despite the authoring of the document that Alex already says exists (and has for months now), you are completely unaware of any plans at this point to formally introduce this info? No logo'ing program? No collateral for merchants? Nothing more that mentioning it in an interview that maybe 1% of the potential BD-buying public might see?

If yes, then either this is similar to the BD-Video 1.1 profile date pushback where you were simply unaware, or it would seem that the BDA is deliberately withholding the info.

I would expect that as soon as a couple of CEs have BD-Video 1.1 compliant players on the market they will then market the differences to the public. If they explain it to the public before the new players are available many will likely wait, and not spend their money on a model that is going to be obsolete in 6 months. I would expect BD-Live to be handled in the same fashion, once it's ready.

This whole issue is painful for BD because there is a competing format. Because HD-DVD is already delivering interactive functionality, BD needs to get the word out that they can do this too. Hence the in store displays advertising technology in 2006 that I expect will not be completely available until 2008. I've seen the same scenario play out in other industries with competing technologies. The goal is to string the customer along by painting the bright future you're unable to deliver today.

Ah, but I'm making no affirmative claim. My skepticism is natural, given an absence of evidence.

http://www.moultonlabs.com/weblog/more/24_bits_can_you_hear

http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/taking_stock

http://www.pcavtech.com/test_data/

Those links were interesting, thanks!

I would expect that as soon as a couple of CEs have BD-Video 1.1 compliant players on the market they will then market the differences to the public. If they explain it to the public before the new players are available many will likely wait, and not spend their money on a model that is going to be obsolete in 6 months. I would expect BD-Live to be handled in the same fashion, once it's ready.

This whole issue is painful for BD because there is a competing format. Because HD-DVD is already delivering interactive functionality, BD needs to get the word out that they can do this too. Hence the in store displays advertising technology in 2006 that I expect will not be completely available until 2008. I've seen the same scenario play out in other industries with competing technologies. The goal is to string the customer along by painting the bright future you're unable to deliver today.

I tend to agree. Meaning it is a conscious decision to not disclose the lack of current player capability.

Actually, most have - it's called Compact Disc. ;)

I wonder if most people could tell the difference between a CD playing a movie them and that same theme coming from the HD-DVD.

What are you supposed to hear, more dynamic range, more spacial imaging, just what?

new digital codecs have certainly been introduced since that study was published.

Indeed. Encoding means and methods have only improved over the last seven years. ;)

though it would be interesting to hear of any study based on a larger sample than just 12 participants.

Repeatable results and large sampling pools are generally the hallmark of "good" science related to human perception, but as a practical matter in this case, I'm not certain we'll ever do much better than a dozen ( or a few dozen ) test subjects. It's completely unrealistic to imagine that CEs would ever release any data supporting the conclusion that "improvements" made to their products, are only meaningful on paper. A very large sampling pool and rigorously designed protocol would require a fairly substantial investment of resources. Who would be sufficiently motivated to undertake such a study?

none of which explains why encyclopedias would be a good place to look for technical data. they aren't.

Given that the relevant Wiki entry is fully supported by conclusions of the only scientific study yet presented, this point is ancillary and rhetorical.

Those links were interesting, thanks!


Glad you enjoyed them.
I really like the way David Moulton cuts a mercilessly amusing swath through the hedgerows of BS that surround the field of audio, while never losing sight of the idealism which initially attracted him to the field.

How do the lossy codecs in DD and DTS compare to MP3?

When you have a 384 kbps stream, is that for 6 or more channels?

In that case, does it even compare with 128 kbps MP3 stereo? This is the bare minimum BTW. Even talk shows compressed below 128 kbps sound noticeably bad.

I've heard music at somewhere between 128 and 160 kbps sound pretty bad. Low dynamic range. If you pay it through decent speakers, it doesn't even sound as good as FM. It sounds like AM, has that muffled quality.

Now maybe dialogue and other music soundtrack (when it's not playing music) is okay. Maybe DD and DTS is better than MP3.

Then again, MP3 is so widely accepted that maybe people have lower expectations of audio now.

How do the lossy codecs in DD and DTS compare to MP3?Merely by example. The problem with this discussion is that every time someone brings up science, ABX tests, or objective testing the defenders of lossless audio attempt to divert the discussion to tangenital matters because they lack the necessary objective evidence to support their claims.

Whether or not MP3 compares to DD and DTS is irrelevant. That question does not make the need for empirical evidence vanish nor does the absence of that evidence support assertions that lossless encoding is qualitatively superior to lossy encoding.

--Jerome

I would expect that as soon as a couple of CEs have BD-Video 1.1 compliant players on the market they will then market the differences to the public. If they explain it to the public before the new players are available many will likely wait, and not spend their money on a model that is going to be obsolete in 6 months. I would expect BD-Live to be handled in the same fashion, once it's ready.

This whole issue is painful for BD because there is a competing format. Because HD-DVD is already delivering interactive functionality, BD needs to get the word out that they can do this too. Hence the in store displays advertising technology in 2006 that I expect will not be completely available until 2008. I've seen the same scenario play out in other industries with competing technologies. The goal is to string the customer along by painting the bright future you're unable to deliver today.

Kinda like: Don't buy that Xbox 360 in November 2005! Real Next Generation Starts Spring 2006! We mean Summer 2006 ... Ooops ... we mean, Fall 2006 ... Ooops, really, we meant November 2006 ...

By spanning it 3 months, people think: Let's just wait and see, it's only a few months. Then 3 months goes by, and it's only another three months. By the last delays, "They've waiting *this long*, why not wait another few months".

What company did that again? :p

Merely by example. The problem with this discussion is that every time someone brings up science, ABX tests, or objective testing the defenders of lossless audio attempt to divert the discussion to tangenital matters because they lack the necessary objective evidence to support their claims.

Whether or not MP3 compares to DD and DTS is irrelevant. That question does not make the need for empirical evidence vanish nor does the absence of that evidence support assertions that lossless encoding is qualitatively superior to lossy encoding.

--Jerome

It's not just that ... it's a sticking point because BD 'can do lossless' and HD-DVD, cannot (although TrueHD is mandatory in all hardware).

If HD-DVD supporters bring up interactivity, these folks just say, "Who needs that? I don't want that, I'd never use it or take advantage of it."

The Irony is that Interactivity is available on all of the HD-DVD hardware ... now ... plus, the general consumer can take advantage of it if they want to. With lossless, however, the average consumer likely isn't going to be able to tell the difference if they even have the audio gear to support it.

So, this goes around and around forever:

On Lossless: HD-DVD supporters claim that lossless versus lossy is moot and DBT indicates that you can't tell a difference. BD Supporters say that they might as well get the best possible experience, even if only a small slice of the public can take advantage of it. Of course, one of several issues here is that most of the standalone BD players don't support it anyways.

On Interactivity: HD-DVD supporters claim it's here now and it's "cool, etc". BD Supporters say it's silly and useless and they'll never take advantage of it -- but what happened to the 'Best Possible Experience' argument here? Even if the minority takes advantage of it, shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to decide if they want it or not?

From a Studio perspective, however ... are they more likely to cater to a small minority that have the gear and the ears to tell the difference between lossy and lossless ... or are they more likely to put a bunch of 'interactive value add' features on a title that may entice J6P to purchase the disc ... and the special edition disc that's released later with even more interactive stuff ... and the super duper special edition etc ... Hmmm ...

I can't wait for TL51 to be released, so then lossless can be important to the HD-DVD Camp (even though I believe Studios will still leave it off). On the flip side, I can't wait for BD-J to be finished, so Interactivity can be important to the BD Camp. :rolleyes:

Kinda like: Don't buy that Xbox 360 in November 2005! Real Next Generation Starts Spring 2006! We mean Summer 2006 ... Ooops ... we mean, Fall 2006 ... Ooops, really, we meant November 2006 ...

By spanning it 3 months, people think: Let's just wait and see, it's only a few months. Then 3 months goes by, and it's only another three months. By the last delays, "They've waiting *this long*, why not wait another few months".

What company did that again? :p
If it wasn't for HD DVD, we would STILL be waiting for BD.

Whether or not MP3 compares to DD and DTS is irrelevant. That question does not make the need for empirical evidence vanish nor does the absence of that evidence support assertions that lossless encoding is qualitatively superior to lossy encoding.

the issue is that quantitvely it is beyond a doubt that a lossless encode is closer to the master then a lossy. The issue is that some people are saying that there is a chance that they might not be able to hear that quantitative difference. The problem is those people have convinced themselves of it so much that they decided that it must be true for the rest of us.

If it wasn't for HD DVD, we would STILL be waiting for BD.

Aren't we though? We're waiting for most discs to be BD50's ... we're waiting for it to support PiP ... we're waiting for it to support BD-J ... we're waiting for it to support network connectivity. Basically, all the cool things the demo's say they can do -- that's what we're still waiting for. ;)

Feel free to explain why you think that graph supports your point about codec workings.


where did I said supports. The graph itself has nothing to do with audio. It was a visual aid to explain (since from RTOs posts I am guessing many of the words I used were beyond his comprehension, kind of like not understanding that the burden of proof is on him, since he is the same one that has no science to back up his claims)

The problem is those people have convinced themselves of it so much that they decided that it must be true for the rest of us.

Er vice versa. So would a double blind test be helpful?

the issue is that quantitvely it is beyond a doubt that a lossless encode is closer to the master then a lossy. The issue is that some people are saying that there is a chance that they might not be able to hear that quantitative difference. The problem is those people have convinced themselves of it so much that they decided that it must be true for the rest of us.

The issue at hand, is a complete lack of objective, empirical evidence to support your POV. You've provided nothing other than your personal opinion. Please feel free to share the results of any scientific study which reaches a converse conclusion to the lone example presently available for review on this thread in the link I provided. No individual opinion has any scientific basis, unless it conforms to findings reached through the scientific method.........of which you've provided exactly zilch.

Identity on Blu-ray, according to High Def Digest, has these audio and subtitle specs:

Audio Formats

English PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-Bit/4.6mbps)
English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround (640kbps)
French PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-Bit/4.6mpbs)
French Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround (640kbps)
German PCM 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-Bit/4.6mpbs)
German Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround (640kbps)
English DES (Descriptive Audio Track)


Subtitles/Captions

English SDH
Hungarian Subtitles
French Subtitles
Portuguese Subtitles
Spanish Subtitles
Korean Subtitles
Czech Subtitles
Thai Subtitles
Danish Subtitles
Arabic Subtitles
German Subtitles
Greek Subtitles
Dutch Subtitles
Finnish Subtitles
Norwegian Subtitles
Hebrew Subtitles
Swedish Subtitles
Hindi Subtitles
Turkish Subtitles
English Subtitles
Polish Subtitles
Chinese Subtitles


Video is AVC. Peter gives it a 4.5 PQ and AQ rating

On Lossless: HD-DVD supporters claim that lossless versus lossy is moot and DBT indicates that you can't tell a difference. BD Supporters say that they might as well get the best possible experience, even if only a small slice of the public can take advantage of it. Of course, one of several issues here is that most of the standalone BD players don't support it anyways.[/quote]

there is no DBT thgat proves there is no difference, what the HD DVD supporter is saying is that even though there is a technical difference ythey would rather assume (and you know what they say about assuming) that they can't hear the difference even if shown there is one. Then they add well look on MP3 one pathetic excuse for a studie showed a handful of people can barely tell the difference, we will assume that it applies even more to DD+ and so no difference to lossless
Of course, one of several issues here is that most of the standalone BD players don't support it anyways.
that is wrong, with most disks most people can listen to the lossless version

the real issue isn't even BD/HD DVD (at least not for me) it is the BS of 30GB 30mbps is more then enough because we can assume that dropped AV features don't matter. Even if there was only HD DVD (no BD) I would not think 30/30 is enough and I would not be happy if studios dropped the lossless track.


On Interactivity: HD-DVD supporters claim it's here now and it's "cool, etc". BD Supporters say it's silly and useless and they'll never take advantage of it -- but what happened to the 'Best Possible Experience' argument here? Even if the minority takes advantage of it, shouldn't everyone have the opportunity to decide if they want it or not?

not at all. When was the last time you went to the theatre and there was a small square in the corner with the director telling you how many times he had to retake that scene. PiP commentary don’t add to the enjoyment of the AV of the movie itself , it takes away from it. There is nothing wrong with someone that wants it. Many love the extras, but I want the movie, for all I care they can remove everything even the menus. All a disk needs is play, stop, pause, FF, RW and to be able to use the remote to jump to a location in the movie (time wise) they can even remove scene selection and everything else. Also to be totally honest even with just play and stop I would be extremely happy

I can't wait for BD-J to be finished, so Interactivity can be important to the BD Camp.

BD-J is there, so in that you are wrong. There are several movies with games in them. The difference is that most of us don't care about them either. I don't have the time for the extras, be they extras tacked on at the end, extras during the movie or someone talking while I am trying to watch a movie (be it the director or some idiot in the room)

where did I said supports. The graph itself has nothing to do with audio. It was a visual aid to explain (since from RTOs posts I am guessing many of the words I used were beyond his comprehension, kind of like not understanding that the burden of proof is on him, since he is the same one that has no science to back up his claims)

Why is it, that every time you paint yourself into an argumentative corner, you resort to personal insults, and attacks? Desperation, perhaps?

The issue at hand, is a complete lack of objective, empirical evidence to support your POV.
because I can't show it to YOU because you decided it is not true. Empirical evidence as you mean it isn't even necessary. There is rational and logical evidence. Do I need to empirically show you that in the integers 1+1=2 by showing you one finger on one hand and one on the other and then counting my fingers in front of you to show you empirically it is 2? Empirical evidence (especially without reasoning) leads to wrong conclusions, not right ones. That is why hundreds and thousands of years ago people looked at the sun and thought it was moving.

Do you agree that a lossless track can have a quantitative difference to a lossy one? That the difference can be objectively measured by a device? If so nothing else is important. WHY because then you get out of the realm of objectivity and you fall into subjectivity. Can I tell a difference, can you tell a difference. Do I care about the difference do you care about the difference.

You've provided nothing other than your personal opinion.

and what evidence have you posted. (anbd don't merntion that idiotic MP3 test, since neither of us are talking MP3)

...there is no DBT thgat proves there is no difference...

This simple statement illustrates your complete misunderstanding of scientific principles with perfect clarity. Science isn't about "proof," Anthony; it never has been. The conceit of "proof" simply isn't in the scientific lexicon. Experimental results are suggestive, more so, if a procedure can be repeated with similar results, far less so, if not.

Humans are not machines, Anthony; in spite of the fact you apparently see no difference between them. Instruments can easily measure frequency response extending beyond 100khz, and this level of performance is entirely possible in an electronic component. Following your brand of "logic" to its' natural conclusion, we should be demanding frequency extension to 100khz in our speakers.

This simple statement illustrates your complete misunderstanding of scientific principles with perfect clarity.
well I have an MSc in Math And I thought in a University for 2 years. What do you have?

Humans are not machines, Anthony;
no they are not, they are objective
in spite of the fact you apparently see no difference between them. Instruments can easily measure frequency response extending beyond 100khz,

we never talked 100khz. That is the main point you don't understand what is a CODEC, what is an encoding, what it means to be lossy and lossless and what are the other specs in audio (why we would say DTHD 16/48 and what is the difference to DD+ 16/48)

well I have an MSc in Math And I thought in a University for 2 years. What do you have?


no they are not, they are objective


we never talked 100khz. That is the main point you don't understand what is a CODEC, what is an encoding, what it means to be lossy and lossless and what are the other specs in audio (why we would say DTHD 16/48 and what is the difference to DD+ 16/48)

Changing the subject, and obfuscation won't help you here. Show me the data. Until you can do that, there's really nothing more for us to discuss.

I tend to agree. Meaning it is a conscious decision to not disclose the lack of current player capability.

It's hard to keep things under wraps though when you're walking a tight wire like this. The news is getting out.

Blu-ray Disc Specification Change Threatens Current Players
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6702

“Blu-ray player requirements and BD-Java specifications have been gradually changed over and over again, which has caused a good amount of grief for player manufacturers,” said optical storage analyst Wesley Novack. “The new specification and requirements will ensure that all Blu-ray players manufactured past October will be able to support the full range of BD-Java capabilities, including picture in picture and more.”

Early adopters of Blu-ray players may find themselves with inadequate hardware to support media making use of BD Java software.

Novack continued, “This might be bad news for early adopters who have already purchased a player, but it will not prevent them from playing back future Blu-ray movies. Owners of first generation Blu-ray players will probably not be able to use the full range of interactive features available on future Blu-ray Disc titles.”

Owners of current Blu-ray Disc players who are concerned about the future utility of their hardware are assured by manufacturers that current players won’t be made completely obsolete with the new standard.

Changing the subject, and obfuscation won't help you here. Show me the data. Until you can do that, there's really nothing more for us to discuss.

not that I want this discussion to continue, but what subject have I changed? you brought up the knpowledge of science, you brought up the 100khz

Please, for all that is holy, STOP ASKING FOR SCIENTIFIC DATA!!!!

There isn't going to be any. The purpose of science is to take opinion out of it. Hence AVScience would ask for instrumentation and mathematics to show a specification or piece of equipment is better. As soon as you try to input, "it looks better or sounds better" science has absolutely no place.

A proper Double Blind study could never be done to ask that question since as soon as you ask the participantsto listen for differences rather than listening to the music/soundtrack/white noise means the study would be trash. It's like trying to say there is a scientific basess to the Coca-Cola challenge.

Opinion is why some people prefer LCD over Plasma (those people are idiots btw). It is why most people can't see the difference between a 50" 1080P plasma and a 768P plasma at 8 feet (total blind morons if you ask me, which you didn't so why do I bother).

Should we do a double blind study and eliminate all future production of 1080P 50" plasmas?? If we did I would be pretty pissed since I am planning on getting one, no matter how many people post here that I can't see a difference (f**k*** engineers can't get SED out the F*c**** door).


My third semester of physics at UC Berkeley (not just dropping names, this does have relevance) our optics professor showed how mathematically (optically, whatever) if you stood at Sather Tower and looked out over the SF Bay at the Golden Gate Bridge, it was physically impossible to see the vertical cables holding up the bridge. They were just too skinny for the resolution of the human eye to discern at that distance, by a factor of two in fact. However if anyone with moderately good vision went and stood there they could see the cables - because the human mind new they were there.

Lossless audio may provide a wee bit of information between the notes we can actually hear to allow for a piece to "feel" better when they listen to it. And that is not something you can determine from a double blind study.


btw for work I have helped run several double blind studies (medical devices) and they are inherently unreliable even when all controls are held to. The only info anyone trusts anymore is collections of double blind studies over many years with slightly varying protocols that slowly steer toward a conclusion - like the latest one torpedoing all the stents my company of past designed.

Please, for all that is holy, STOP ASKING FOR SCIENTIFIC DATA!!!!

Lossless audio may provide a wee bit of information between the notes we can actually hear to allow for a piece to "feel" better when they listen to it. And that is not something you can determine from a double blind study.



I don't get it. i tot the purpose of a DBT is to ask the participant which version
they like better? Are you saying that someone can "feel" something is better but we are unable to detect that in a DBT? :confused:

A proper Double Blind study could never be done to ask that question since as soon as you ask the participantsto listen for differences rather than listening to the music/soundtrack/white noise means the study would be trash. It's like trying to say there is a scientific basess to the Coca-Cola challenge.




It's funny you should say this, because I just read the book "Blink," in which they gave impartial double-blind test data behind "The Pepsi Challenge."

The results they disclosed were that in "sip tests" Pepsi had greater taste response advantage because of it's sweetness, but Cokes more citric flavor got much higher ratings in than Pepsi when people were either required to consume the whole can or drink the beverages while consuming food. The combined determination was that food with perceivably higher sugar content had more immediate appeal but that the arch falls-quickly with repeated exposure.

This might explain that even with our dietary habits being as awful as they are, on average we naturally consume "desert foods" in smaller proportion to more savory food.

Lossless audio may provide a wee bit of information between the notes we can actually hear to allow for a piece to "feel" better when they listen to it. And that is not something you can determine from a double blind study.

:D You are waaaaaay out on a limb, because this is nothing more than meaningless gibberish. You might as well be talking about magic, or ESP.

Double blind testing is designed to quantify subjective qualitative judgements based upon our physical ability to perceive differences. A well designed protocol excises psychological factors from the equation as much as practicable with regard to expectations and preconceptions, and it's a perfectly legitimate means of segregating differences we might imagine, from those which are actually apparent to our sensory apparatus.

The only reason DBTs are controversial with regard to audio, is the natural reluctance of self-described "audiophiles" to admit that what they imagine to be meaningful qualitative differences might not be, and/or that their equipment preferences, and substantial monetary investments are sometimes based more on wishful thinking than any clearly audible advantage. There really isn't anything all that surprising about this phenomenon, but I honestly wasn't expecting to see quite so much of it on AVS. Preconceptions are frequently erroneous. ;)

My third semester of physics at UC Berkeley (not just dropping names, this does have relevance) our optics professor showed how mathematically (optically, whatever) if you stood at Sather Tower and looked out over the SF Bay at the Golden Gate Bridge, it was physically impossible to see the vertical cables holding up the bridge. They were just too skinny for the resolution of the human eye to discern at that distance, by a factor of two in fact. However if anyone with moderately good vision went and stood there they could see the cables - because the human mind new they were there.EXACTLY! You know they're there, so your brain paints them in. It does the same thing with audio and video. If someone told you sample A was lossless and sample B was lossy, you would find sample A better every time, even after the person switched the samples and played the lossy one to you as sample A. Thus the need for double blind tests, although the "bait and switch" type tests are great to show people how much their "knowledge" of data changes their perception of it.

Double blind testing is designed to quantify subjective qualitative judgements based upon our physical ability to perceive differences. A well designed protocol excises psychological factors from the equation as much as practicable with regard to expectations and preconceptions, and it's a perfectly legitimate means of segregating differences we might imagine, from those which are actually apparent to our sensory apparatus.

I certainly agree on that, but there is a flaw in the way DBTs are conducted with audio gear: duration.

Some differences are subtle, and it takes time to process them. For example, I purchased 2 years ago some very expensive amps after listening them at home, in my own setup, for almost one hour. I really liked them.

But after owning them for 2 days, I could not stand them anymore. Over time, they were showing an harshness that I would not have been able to detect on any short term DBT.

The psychological factor you speak about was against what I was ultimately hearing in that case. I took quite a bath with these amps, and if what you say about audiophiles was always true, I should have kept the amps and rave about them after spending so much money over them.

DBTs should be done over several days for each test, not several seconds as it is always done.

I certainly agree on that, but there is a flaw in the way DBTs are conducted with audio gear: duration.

Some differences are subtle, and it takes time to process them. For example, I purchased 2 years ago some very expensive amps after listening them at home, in my own setup, for almost one hour. I really liked them.

But after owning them for 2 days, I could not stand them anymore. Over time, they were showing an harshness that I would not have been able to detect on any short term DBT.


Could this be attributed to another controversial hifi concept called the burn-in factor?

I can't wait for BD-J to be finished, so Interactivity can be important to the BD Camp. :rolleyes:
interactivity is clearly important to the future mass market success of bd. it simply isn't import to me as an individual consumer. nor are the majority of extras, regardless of format or movie.

well I have an MSc in Math And I thought in a University for 2 years. What do you have?
anthony, for all that's good and holy, please start quoting properly. it's a real pain to have to go back and read over previous posts to try and work out who you're responding to. thanks. :)

Indeed. Encoding means and methods have only improved over the last seven years. ;)

they certainly have. or are you claiming encoding algorithms were more advanced back in the day?!


Repeatable results and large sampling pools are generally the hallmark of "good" science related to human perception, but as a practical matter in this case, I'm not certain we'll ever do much better than a dozen ( or a few dozen ) test subjects. It's completely unrealistic to imagine that CEs would ever release any data supporting the conclusion that "improvements" made to their products, are only meaningful on paper. A very large sampling pool and rigorously designed protocol would require a fairly substantial investment of resources. Who would be sufficiently motivated to undertake such a study?
nonsense. book an acoustically sound room, for a couple hundred dollars. hire a few hundred folks off the street, and pay them $30 a head. play tunes to them over half hour doses, and get them to fill in questionaires as they listen. then tabulate the data. all for less money than a high end audio set up, and no ce's need be inconvenienced in the slightest.

is it possible that all the ce's are trying to sell us snake oil with their latest codecs, receivers, and highdef players? sure. is a study involving 12 participants sufficient evidence to drive this assertion. probably not.


Given that the relevant Wiki entry is fully supported by conclusions of the only scientific study yet presented, this point is ancillary and rhetorical.
no. you quoted wiki as a source, which struck me as imediately questionable. as i asked earlier why use wiki when there are better potatoes in the pan?

Aren't we though? We're waiting for most discs to be BD50's ... we're waiting for it to support PiP ... we're waiting for it to support BD-J ... we're waiting for it to support network connectivity. Basically, all the cool things the demo's say they can do -- that's what we're still waiting for. ;)
Waiting for a better picture, waiting for players that can support the upcoming interactivity. What do you do with your $1000. dollar machines that dont support interactivity?

where did I said supports. The graph itself has nothing to do with audio. It was a visual aid to explain (since from RTOs posts I am guessing many of the words I used were beyond his comprehension, kind of like not understanding that the burden of proof is on him, since he is the same one that has no science to back up his claims)

Was there to be more to your last sentence? It ends after your parenthetical comment where I was rather hoping you were going to tell us where the graph was there to explain "WHAT".

So, after telling the OP, "you don't understand the first thing about how this works.", you posted some random graph that has nothing to do with... well... how it works?

well I have an MSc in Math And I thought in a University for 2 years. What do you have?


An opinion on AVS: $Free

University education: $Thousands

Spelling blunder while being condescending: $Priceless!

:D

It's hard to keep things under wraps though when you're walking a tight wire like this. The news is getting out.

Blu-ray Disc Specification Change Threatens Current Players
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6702

“Blu-ray player requirements and BD-Java specifications have been gradually changed over and over again, which has caused a good amount of grief for player manufacturers,” said optical storage analyst Wesley Novack. “The new specification and requirements will ensure that all Blu-ray players manufactured past October will be able to support the full range of BD-Java capabilities, including picture in picture and more.”

Early adopters of Blu-ray players may find themselves with inadequate hardware to support media making use of BD Java software.

Novack continued, “This might be bad news for early adopters who have already purchased a player, but it will not prevent them from playing back future Blu-ray movies. Owners of first generation Blu-ray players will probably not be able to use the full range of interactive features available on future Blu-ray Disc titles.”

Owners of current Blu-ray Disc players who are concerned about the future utility of their hardware are assured by manufacturers that current players won’t be made completely obsolete with the new standard.

Ahh, thanks for that. I wonder if the apparently candid discussion the BDA had with Video Business (?) was rather forced as a result of this sort of negative publicity starting to trickle out.

Actually, does anybody know if that BDA interview is available to see somewhere? Talk?

Here's my $0.02 (and it's probably worth less than that)... these are intended to be mass-marketed consumer formats.

It's already been widely speculated that the primary motivating forces behind the studios even supporting the hi-def formats is NOT their innate wholesome desire to give the user something that rivals the best quality they themselves possess, but rather: 1) To plug the CSS whole, and 2) to double-dip.

Additionally, we have technical limitations that stipulate we aren't going to get EXACT original presentation on a 12cm shiny disc. Finally, there are market forces.

Hence, the format is going to be about whatever the content holders think they can do least expensively, yet, still manage to make their format most desirable while fulfilling #'s 1& 2 above.

We'll never get artifact-free video. However, as screen sizes are ramping up, they studios hands are forced in that they have to provide an experience superior to DVD on 60 and 70 inch flat panels. Even though I have 133" front projection, I have no delusions that the studios are mastering for me. I'm statistically insignificant noise that happens to benefit from the fact that average screen sizes are going up, and that there is a competing format that's to some extent keeping each side honest.

I also realize that studio's aren't going to target the 0.00261% of people with an environment that can resolve lossless 96Khz/24bit audio. Or even 48Khz/20. I am, however, benefiting from the desire to provide "better than DVD", as well as the need to "outdo the other team". There's significant marketing value behind things like "Dolby TruHD", even if there's no sonic content in the audio track that DD+ couldn't handle for 99.99% of the audience.

All of these "Last 1%" performance endeavors tend to be expensive, both in terms of time and effort. Studio's will do whatever minimum they can to appear in the market to be superior. We do have opportunity to provide some feedback here (and I do appreciate that), but let's be real... it all comes down to the bottom line.

It's too bad audiophile wishes aren't consumer level equipment, or Consumer Reports would do some DBT, reveal it for what it is. Well maybe they should do some testing on those expensive cables BB likes to sell J6P. That would hurt!

there is no DBT thgat proves there is no difference, what the HD DVD supporter is saying is that even though there is a technical difference ythey would rather assume (and you know what they say about assuming) that they can't hear the difference even if shown there is one. Then they add well look on MP3 one pathetic excuse for a studie showed a handful of people can barely tell the difference, we will assume that it applies even more to DD+ and so no difference to lossless

But there also is no DBT that proves there is a difference either. I think I'm finally understanding your POV and it seems to be that since lossless has more bits, then it must be better, because it has more data ... and more data is always better, right?


that is wrong, with most disks most people can listen to the lossless version


Assuming that J6P is 'most' people with HDMI-enabled receivers, right?


the real issue isn't even BD/HD DVD (at least not for me) it is the BS of 30GB 30mbps is more then enough because we can assume that dropped AV features don't matter. Even if there was only HD DVD (no BD) I would not think 30/30 is enough and I would not be happy if studios dropped the lossless track.


But it's up to the studios. That other thread seems to indicate that they could fit a TrueHD track on most of the releases if they wanted to.


not at all. When was the last time you went to the theatre and there was a small square in the corner with the director telling you how many times he had to retake that scene. PiP commentary don’t add to the enjoyment of the AV of the movie itself , it takes away from it. There is nothing wrong with someone that wants it. Many love the extras, but I want the movie, for all I care they can remove everything even the menus. All a disk needs is play, stop, pause, FF, RW and to be able to use the remote to jump to a location in the movie (time wise) they can even remove scene selection and everything else. Also to be totally honest even with just play and stop I would be extremely happy


But this is about you. You're saying that 'many love the extras' ... so should 'many' not get them because you don't care for them? I thought this was about the Best Experience Possible ... not the 'Best Experience Possible [for you]'. I guess my point is that different things are important to different people -- and the majority of the people don't read or care about the forums here. Not only that, but they likely have quite the different set of priorities.


BD-J is there, so in that you are wrong. There are several movies with games in them. The difference is that most of us don't care about them either. I don't have the time for the extras, be they extras tacked on at the end, extras during the movie or someone talking while I am trying to watch a movie (be it the director or some idiot in the room)

All information points to BD-J being 'there', but incomplete with most hardware not being able to handle the HDi-equivilent feature sets.

btw, here you say that 'most of us don't care about the extras'. I assume you mean here on AVS? Because in the previous quote you say 'Many love the extras, but I want the movie'. :confused:

And finally, for all the advantages in space and bandwidth -- what is the tangible benefit of BD? When, as 2Channel has posted several times now the reviews are pretty much even (and I think the 'nudge' for AQ has gone to HD-DVD). :confused:

It's hard to keep things under wraps though when you're walking a tight wire like this. The news is getting out.

Blu-ray Disc Specification Change Threatens Current Players
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6702

“Blu-ray player requirements and BD-Java specifications have been gradually changed over and over again, which has caused a good amount of grief for player manufacturers,” said optical storage analyst Wesley Novack. “The new specification and requirements will ensure that all Blu-ray players manufactured past October will be able to support the full range of BD-Java capabilities, including picture in picture and more.”

Early adopters of Blu-ray players may find themselves with inadequate hardware to support media making use of BD Java software.

Novack continued, “This might be bad news for early adopters who have already purchased a player, but it will not prevent them from playing back future Blu-ray movies. Owners of first generation Blu-ray players will probably not be able to use the full range of interactive features available on future Blu-ray Disc titles.”

Owners of current Blu-ray Disc players who are concerned about the future utility of their hardware are assured by manufacturers that current players won’t be made completely obsolete with the new standard.

At least they won't be made *completely* obsolete ... just partially ... :p

Nine Inch Nails. It has seamless branching on Blu-ray, it doesn't on HD DVD, for reasons referred to as technical limitations on the HD DVD side by the disc producers.

- Talk
Based on data provided by insiders on this forum:

- HD DVD supports seamless branching.
- The version of the Microsoft encoding tool the NiN DVD team was using at the time did not enable authoring of seamless branching.
- Newer versions of the Microsoft encoding tool for HD DVD do enable authoring of seamless branching.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10156451#post10156451

Please, for all that is holy, STOP ASKING FOR SCIENTIFIC DATA!!!!


Opinion is why some people prefer LCD over Plasma (those people are idiots btw). It is why most people can't see the difference between a 50" 1080P plasma and a 768P plasma at 8 feet (total blind morons if you ask me, which you didn't so why do I bother).
.
You think people are morons and idiots because they don't have the visual acuity or taste in displays that you have? Try fitting in a class on manners while you are at Bezerkly.

All of these "Last 1%" performance endeavors tend to be expensive, both in terms of time and effort. Studio's will do whatever minimum they can to appear in the market to be superior. We do have opportunity to provide some feedback here (and I do appreciate that), but let's be real... it all comes down to the bottom line.

You need look no further than the car you drive to support your own theory. Same $hit, different pile. It's why without the two formats competing you'd still be looking at first round of BD software as the norm.

That's why I think it's a hot hot one that so many make their choice based solely on "potential" rather than performance. Do you really think that BD-J would be implemented if it was clear HD DVD was going down? There's a part of me at this point that thinks it's not just late, "but late like a fox;" that is stalled off until it was clear they have to go through with it to compete. After all it is inevitable that they get some bad PR for creating a feature that's not backwards compatible. Depending on how severe the issue is, software may have to bare some not-so-appealing sticker that warns about compatibility issues.

You need look no further than the car you drive to support your own theory. Same $hit, different pile. It's why without the two formats competing you'd still be looking at first round of BD software as the norm.

That's why I think it's a hot hot one that so many make their choice based solely on "potential" rather than performance. Do you really think that BD-J would be implemented if it was clear HD DVD was going down? There's a part of me at this point that think it's not just late, "but late like a fox;" that is stalled off until it was clear they have to go through with it to compete. After all it is inevitable that they get some bad PR for creating a feature that's not backwards compatible. Depending on how severe the issue is, software may have to bare some not-so-appealing sticker that warns about compatibility issues.

While I suppose that is indeed possible, I tend to suspect that it's more that it would have been delivered, but on a much longer timetable. I think HD DVD's capabilities (on a number of fronts) caught BD sleeping a bit.

well I have an MSc in Math And I thought in a University for 2 years. What do you have?


Don't you mean 'taught'?

This arguement is getting out of hand. Honestly Anthony, after reading what you have written I'm favoring HD DVD (when before I was neutral). Do you really NEED those extra bits in audio when you can't prove most humans can even hear them? It's like having 10 bags of flower, when all you need is 2 cups to make a cake. You have extra that isn't required, unless you are a dog and really can hear extremely well. While I do agree the extra bits would electronically be a pure source, compression was invented for a reason and you have yet to prove that anyone NEEDS the loseless track. Now if you have beyond perfect human hearing, then I could justify not using compression. Several links have been provided already (not just the wikipedia one) where blind tests were done and loseless was not proven to be heard as a better source. Most people can't tell the difference at certain lossy bit rates.

So, if we didn't have compression your ipod would probably hold maybe 100 songs... but it's a good thing it was invented so that all could walk around in their pocket a few thousand songs. And with this I'm just trying to state that most people have ipods, and don't seem to care about compression on that. Most think it sounds great and I bet most will also think DD+ or whatever they listen to in a movie well sound great as well.

They should cater to the majority, and not to your supposedly god like ears.

All of these "Last 1%" performance endeavors tend to be expensive, both in terms of time and effort. Studio's will do whatever minimum they can to appear in the market to be superior. We do have opportunity to provide some feedback here (and I do appreciate that), but let's be real... it all comes down to the bottom line.

Nothing like a good format war to keep them honest. ;)

- Tom

the issue is that quantitvely it is beyond a doubt that a lossless encode is closer to the master then a lossy. The issue is that some people are saying that there is a chance that they might not be able to hear that quantitative difference. The problem is those people have convinced themselves of it so much that they decided that it must be true for the rest of us.


The question was about comparing low bitrate DD or DTS versus low bitrate MP3.

I guess the HD-DVD defenders don't want to go there for obvious reasons.

If they could point out that DD and DTS use much more efficient audio codecs than MP3, then it would be an answer. Maybe not a completely satisfactory answer but an answer of some sort.

Nothing like a good format war to keep them honest. ;)

- Tom

Absolutely. And I bet that's done an order of magnitude more than anybody clammoring for 110db+ S/N ratios on the disc.

They should cater to the majority, and not to your supposedly god like ears.
this sounds like an argument for sticking with dvd. odd thing to assert in this particular forum...

this sounds like an argument for sticking with dvd. odd thing to assert in this particular forum...

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about DVD.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about DVD.
you suggested sticking with low bitrate audio, since that was what you think the majority want. if you feel that way about audio why not video as well. your argument is one for sticking with dvd, and is not what this forum is about.

you suggested sticking with low bitrate audio, since that was what you think the majority want. if you feel that way about audio why not video as well. your argument is one for sticking with dvd, and is not what this forum is about.

Where in my post did I say "LOW" bitrate audio? And where did I say anything about DVD? Again, stop putting words in my mouth and twisting it towards your wants.

"Most people can't tell the difference at certain lossy bit rates."

"certain" is not LOW.

Where in my post did I say "LOW" bitrate audio? And where did I say anything about DVD? Again, stop putting words in my mouth and twisting it towards your wants.

"Most people can't tell the difference at certain lossy bit rates."

"certain" is not LOW.
are you part of the discussion in this thread or not? if yes, then you should know the subject of current debate (outside the bd-j sideshow enjoyed by a few) which is related to low bitrate supplemental audio tracks on european hd dvds. sub 400k seems to be the range they're looking at, with DD+ (effectively DD according to Roger). this is in fact a step down from dvd, and if you're advocating it then you most certainly are pushing for dvd over highdef. if on the other hand you're making some other point then just which debate do you think you are engaging in?!

now that i look back i see that you even used the low bitrate study as part of your arguement!

are you part of the discussion in this thread or not? if yes, then you should know the subject of current debate (outside the bd-j sideshow enjoyed by a few) which is related to low bitrate supplemental audio tracks on european hd dvds. sub 400k seems to be the range they're looking at, with DD+ (effectively DD according to Roger). this is in fact a step down from dvd, and if you're advocating it then you most certainly are pushing for dvd over highdef. if on the other hand you're making some other point then just which debate do you think you are engaging in?!

now that i look back i see that you even used the low bitrate study as part of your arguement!

Obviously you don't know the standards that well. DD+ can be more then 400k streams, and I was talking about loseless versus compression (DD+) only. I never once brought up low bitrate lossy versus loseless. It helps if you learn to read. Again, certain does not mean "LOW". I don't know what dictionary you are using.

In case you didn't know DD+ from Dolby's website...

Features

- Multichannel sound with discrete channel output.
- Channel and program extensions can carry multichannel audio programs of up to 7.1 channels* and support multiple programs in a single encoded bitstream.
- Outputs a Dolby Digital bitstream for playback on existing Dolby Digital systems.
- Supports data rates as high as 6 Mbps.
- Bit rate performance of at least 3 Mbps on HD DVD and up to 1.7 Mbps on Blu-ray Disc.
- Accurately reproduces what the director and producer intended.
- Interactive mixing and streaming capability in advanced systems.
- Supported by HDMI™, the new single-cable digital connection for high-definition audio and video.

you suggested sticking with low bitrate audio, since that was what you think the majority want. if you feel that way about audio why not video as well. your argument is one for sticking with dvd, and is not what this forum is about.

Isn't this really just about BD supporters insisting that BD offers perceivably better audio than HD DVD because of the greater GB?

Why should this be a tie-breaker for the majority who find no appreciable difference VS the extreme minority who say they can? It's not like these formats exist in the theoretical realm any longer, we've had a year to kick the tires and decide which we prefer.

Isn't this really just about BD supporters insisting that BD offers perceivably better audio than HD DVD because of the greater GB?

Why should this be a tie-breaker for the majority who find no appreciable difference VS the extreme minority who say they can? It's not like these formats exist in the theoretical realm any longer, we've had a year to kick the tires and decide which we prefer.

Timothy, I'm so glad you can read. Can you teach the others? ;)

That's exactly what I was trying to respond to. But somehow I got pushed into another issue/argument.

Obviously you don't know the standards that well. DD+ can be more then 400k streams
of course it can but in the situation being discussed in this thread it doesn't. that is the max bitrate uni are using for their non-english audio tracks for european hd dvds.

, and I was talking about loseless versus compression (DD+) only. I never once brought up low bitrate lossy versus loseless. It helps if you learn to read.
if you were referring to loseless vs DD+ then why on earth did you spend an entire paragraph talking about ipods with their low bitrate audio, or reference the wiki sourced audio test which again dealt with low bitrates. either you didn't understand the things you were using to support your position, or you've shifted it after the fact to not look like you're pulling for dvd. either way it's not me who neads to learn how to read. look again at the wiki sourced test and the bitrates they tested with. then look at the bitrates used on ipods. now look at your assertion that you weren't calling for low bitrates.

Isn't this really just about BD supporters insisting that BD offers perceivably better audio than HD DVD because of the greater GB?

Why should this be a tie-breaker for the majority who find no appreciable difference VS the extreme minority who say they can? It's not like these formats exist in the theoretical realm any longer, we've had a year to kick the tires and decide which we prefer.
we certainly have, and the reviewers are consistently hearing differences between these various offerings from the studios. pcm seems to be the clear favourite so far, with dd+ at low bitrates trailing at the rear.

as to better audio between the formats, that's a question on a per disc basis. though i believe bd has been better received in this area generally. since there are only 3 areas for these formats to improve on dvd (pq, aq, extras), each one is of more than a little interest.

of course it can but in the situation being discussed in this thread it doesn't. that is the max bitrate uni are using for their non-english audio tracks for european hd dvds.


if you were referring to loseless vs DD+ then why on earth did you spend an entire paragraph talking about ipods with their low bitrate audio, or reference the wiki sourced audio test which again dealt with low bitrates. either you didn't understand the things you were using to support your position, or you've shifted it after the fact to not look like you're pulling for dvd. either way it's not me who neads to learn how to read. look again at the wiki sourced test and the bitrates they tested with. then look at the bitrates used on ipods. now look at your assertion that you weren't calling for low bitrates.

Ipods don't have to have low bitrates. So it was you dreaming about low bitrates that must have put that into your head. And towards the wiki I said there are other links besides the wiki on the net about tests. RTO had addressed those earlier which talks about 24bit audio loseless versus lossy.

"Several links have been provided already (not just the wikipedia one)" (which implies I was not just talking about the wikipedia one, in fact that one I didn't care for at all). Everyone seems to refer to that link, but I was trying to say there are others.

And if you need details about why I said what, private message me instead of dragging this further. I said most people are happy with their ipods performance. Have you heard many that aren't? This argument has nothing to do with the euro standards that you are so stuck on. I was addressing the other arguments in here about loseless versus lossy period. Nothing about low bitrates was said by me. And if you can prove otherwise, it'll be more words that you claim I said but didn't.

Ipods don't have to have low bitrates. So it was you dreaming about low bitrates that must have put that into your head.
you claimed studios "should cater to the majority" right after your paragraph rhapsedying about ipods. since the vast majority of people use ipods with low bitrate mp3 files it's a little disingenuous to come back after the fact and claim ipods can also use high bitrates. when you mention people "walk around in their pocket a few thousand songs" it's pretty clear you're implying low bitrates.

"Several links have been provided already (not just the wikipedia one)" (which implies I was not just talking about the wikipedia one, in fact that one I didn't care for at all). Everyone seems to refer to that link, but I was trying to say there are others.
"Several links have been provided already (not just the wikipedia one) where blind tests were done..."
there were other blind tests conducted in this area of research (not just the one reference on wiki) and linked to in this thread?

This argument has nothing to do with the euro standards that you are so stuck on.
what euro standards? there is no seperate standard for europe in either of these formats, that i'm aware of. the issue at hand is universal's use of sub 400k DD+ tracks for their non-english audio on european releases. while this may be of only theoretical interest to many on these forums i'd guess it will be quite important to the french, german, italian, and spanish consumers. not to mention all the other nations.

Isn't this really just about BD supporters insisting that BD offers perceivably better audio than HD DVD because of the greater GB?

Absolutely. Suddenly all BD fans have turned golden ears and have become devout audiophiles, peddling snakeoil :p

you claimed studios "should cater to the majority" right after your paragraph rhapsedying about ipods. since the vast majority of people use ipods with low bitrate mp3 files it's a little disingenuous to come back after the fact and claim ipods can also use high bitrates. when you mention people "walk around in their pocket a few thousand songs" it's pretty clear you're implying low bitrates.

snip......


Off topic, but I use apple lossless compression on all the music on my iPod. If you have a 30G (or bigger) iPod you can have thousands of songs stored in a lossless format.

Absolutely. Suddenly all BD fans have turned golden ears and have become devout audiophiles, peddling snakeoil :p

Isn't it intersting that they'd much rather talk about AQ rather than PQ? ;)

Or better yet, the combined package of AQ and PQ. They're not mutually exclusive options for the home theater enthusiasts. Maybe for the "95% good enough" HDDVD Nazis... :p

Off topic, but I use apple lossless compression on all the music on my iPod. If you have a 30G (or bigger) iPod you can have thousands of songs stored in a lossless format.
i've got the 8gb 2nd gen nano, and a real beauty it is. i appreaciate the point, though the poster being referenced was talking about the general public as a whole "all" walking around with thousands of tunes in their pockets. i doubt many have 30gb ipods, or that many use lossless compression.

Isn't it intersting that they'd much rather talk about AQ rather than PQ? ;)
i'm happy to talk about all three: aq, pq, and extras. some on here don't want to hear about the first at all. pun intended - so swivel! ;)

I certainly agree on that, but there is a flaw in the way DBTs are conducted with audio gear: duration.

Some differences are subtle, and it takes time to process them. For example, I purchased 2 years ago some very expensive amps after listening them at home, in my own setup, for almost one hour. I really liked them.

But after owning them for 2 days, I could not stand them anymore. Over time, they were showing an harshness that I would not have been able to detect on any short term DBT.

The psychological factor you speak about was against what I was ultimately hearing in that case. I took quite a bath with these amps, and if what you say about audiophiles was always true, I should have kept the amps and rave about them after spending so much money over them.

DBTs should be done over several days for each test, not several seconds as it is always done.

I understand your objection, but the use of various testing methods informs us that people are generally better at perceiving small differences in sensory stimuli, very shortly after the onset of the initial stimulus. The principle is similar to what all of us have experienced upon entering a room in which a woman is wearing a strong fragrance. The longer we're exposed, the less we tend to notice it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thomopolis
My third semester of physics at UC Berkeley (not just dropping names, this does have relevance) our optics professor showed how mathematically (optically, whatever) if you stood at Sather Tower and looked out over the SF Bay at the Golden Gate Bridge, it was physically impossible to see the vertical cables holding up the bridge. They were just too skinny for the resolution of the human eye to discern at that distance, by a factor of two in fact. However if anyone with moderately good vision went and stood there they could see the cables - because the human mind new they were there.
EXACTLY! You know they're there, so your brain paints them in. It does the same thing with audio and video. If someone told you sample A was lossless and sample B was lossy, you would find sample A better every time, even after the person switched the samples and played the lossy one to you as sample A. Thus the need for double blind tests, although the "bait and switch" type tests are great to show people how much their "knowledge" of data changes their perception of it. There also is a issue of not only the brain "filling in the gaps perceptially" but also using incomplete pieces of information and previous observations to understand fragments of information.

In the case of the wires, its possible that some people actually could see some shadows or by moving their perspective see some fragments of data that by itself would not be resolved but could not be explained in anyother way than a cable in a straight line. So although the actual cable could not be seen at one time, the tiniest variations in the picture gave indications of the cable, which the brain to a degree legitimately interpeted as "seeing the cable".

I do absolutely agree that people all the time will report seeing what they expected to see. The power of suggestion is massive.

But there are some individual results that cannot be explained in any other manner than individual people having extraordinary perceptional gifts.

Absolutely. Suddenly all BD fans have turned golden ears and have become devout audiophiles, peddling snakeoil :p
Regardless of the golden ear or not (I can't hear the diff, but I know people who can).

There is something to be said about scientific objectivity. Yet when the subject of higher peak video bitrates come up, these things are always ducked and not dealt with in purely scientific methods.

The question of the incremental gain for audio going from 448kbps to 640kbps is not even up for discussion here, I mean, even decoding both and measuring their difference from the original is clear enough of a difference for those without golden ears.

Yet if I take a VC-1 encode and reduce quantization index for all macroblocks by 1, there are people who would argue that it looks the same, and the reason it looks the same is not because the PSNR or PQM says that they are measured the same. It "looks the same" because HD DVD spec had the misfortune of being written when 28Mbps was all they could set aside for the video stream.

But opening up the box shows that this 28Mbps is an artificial limitation. Both the BDP1000 and the HD-A1 use identical Broadcomm decoder chips, so there is no question that the HD-A1 should be able to handle 40Mbps peak video (AVC or VC-1), just that the spec is deliberately crippling it.

So why shouldn't we expect a VC-1 reencode that lowers the max quantization index for the stress segments of the video? If quantization numbers have to be that high to fit under the 28Mbps envelope, then isn't that enough of an indication that there are problem areas in that stream that does not allow it to be encoded properly?

Isn't this really just about BD supporters insisting that BD offers perceivably better audio than HD DVD because of the greater GB?

Why should this be a tie-breaker for the majority who find no appreciable difference VS the extreme minority who say they can? It's not like these formats exist in the theoretical realm any longer, we've had a year to kick the tires and decide which we prefer. :D :D :D

At least is different than my 50GB is better than your 30GB, so na na na na na nonsense.

Its at least an attempt to justify why it is significant.

The fact remains for movie soundtracks, what HD DVD is providing is a superior experience for most people over DVDs and that the video is more significant. PCM or lossless means less for a movie souindtrack than it does for a pure musical experience.

:D :D :D

At least is different than my 50GB is better than your 30GB, so na na na na na nonsense.

Its at least an attempt to justify why it is significant.

The fact remains for movie soundtracks, what HD DVD is providing is a superior experience for most people over DVDs and that the video is more significant. PCM or lossless means less for a movie souindtrack than it does for a pure musical experience.


I've heard that extra 15GB actually allows one with acute enough senses to communicate with the dead. ;)

Let's take a look at codec performance on the media that can deliver the biggest storage and highest bit rates. BD-50.

Based on Highdefdigest reviews:

Mpeg2 - 24 titles
Avg PQ = 3.96
Lowest scoring title = 2
Highest scoring title = 4.5

AVC - 8 titles
Avg PQ = 4.25
Lowest scoring title = 3.5
Highest scoring title = 5

VC1 - 12 titles
Avg PQ = 4.29
Lowest scoring title = 4
Highest scoring title = 5

Please explain again why VC1 is the "wrong tool for the job."

Where's Spartacus and Full Metal Jacket in your list?

There is something to be said about scientific objectivity. Yet when the subject of higher peak video bitrates come up, these things are always ducked and not dealt with in purely scientific methods.



I have to say though, if a reviewer using their unaided eyes and ears was going to give a BD or HD DVD a "3" but then changed that rating to a "4" because some examination of bitrates produced numbers higher than they expected, I'd consider it a an example of science overplaying it's part.

It's like a food critic loving a meal, but docking points because after the fact, because he found out the restaurant used a different olive oil than he buys.

For the most part I have found DVD audio acceptable, in cases where it was not I never thought it was because the medium couldn't support a dynamic soundtrack, but because the studio either used inferior elements, or did an inattentive job mastering it.

So, if HD DVD has better audio than DVD, I guess I'm one of the great unwashed who says "well that's nice, how's the picture." It's certainly where I saw the most room for improvement between SD and HDM.

Ooops, Fox News Channel is saying right now Porn Industry can decide HD wars

I have to say though, if a reviewer using their unaided eyes and ears was going to give a BD or HD DVD a "3" but then changed that rating to a "4" because some examination of bitrates produced numbers higher than they expected, I'd consider it a an example of science overplaying it's part.

It's like a food critic loving a meal, but docking points because after the fact, because he found out the restaurant used a different olive oil than he buys.

For the most part I have found DVD audio acceptable, in cases where it was not I never thought it was because the medium couldn't support a dynamic soundtrack, but because the studio either used inferior elements, or did an inattentive job mastering it.

So, if HD DVD has better audio than DVD, I guess I'm one of the great unwashed who says "well that's nice, how's the picture." It's certainly where I saw the most room for improvement between SD and HDM.
That's not what I am talking about. As for reviewers, they've never been given the chance to watch KingKong again with one quant-index lower than what they've been given.

If there was a reencode of KingKong with one lower quant index, given the right monitor, and the original, in 3-way identical monitors of sufficient resolution and size, it should be easier to tell which is a more accurate match if you know which frames had problems.

How can you tell which frames have problems? That's why you have automated tools. If MSFT's PEP had flagged frames that had higher than normal quant, that should have been enough for the compressionist to look at redoing the frames.

Where's Spartacus and Full Metal Jacket in your list?


The codec analysis you were looking at covered all of the reviewed BD-50 discs at time of posting. I can provided an update if you're interested, but it will still not include Spartacus and Full Metal Jacket as Spartacus is not available on BD and Full Metal Jacket is a BD-25 disc.

Ooops, Fox News Channel is saying right now Porn Industry can decide HD wars

ROFL ... I never understood that implicit (and often un-challenged) assumption that the porn-format determines the "winner" of a format war. I guess it must be based on what happened in Beta/VHS (and I should note, I am not a pornite ... ), and I am unsure as to what actually did happen on Beta/VHS, and how it impacted the porn wars.

Wayne, or others, are there any good links/posts that can enlighten me?