Several replicators have stated that the output on a BR line is less than that of an HD-DVD line.
I did not see any replicator with numbers. I also did not question that HD DVD could be more, I only said I don’t think it is 1/3 QOL is not a replicator but a mastering house. So I was wondering if they had real numbers or numbers they got from their HD DVD rep :)

Ouput needs to be considered when we're dealing with costs I would think.
agree, but we need to know what it is

While the cost per line might only be 50% delta, the cost per disc would certainly be higher if the BD line has less output per day.

agree but if you look at (for example) http://www.pacificdisc.com/PricingHD-DVD.html there is a 0.14$ difference between BD25 and HD DVD30 and if you look at http://www.proactionmedia.com/hd_br_replication.htm BD is 0.06$ cheaper so there is no big difference between these two that you would assume should be there if BD lines are much more expensive and HD DVD lines are more productive.



I'm also not so sure that they make more on an HD disk than an SD disc.
pacificdisc charges 0.92$ for DVD-9 and 1.69$ for HD DVD-15, I don’t know if the yield is the same, but material wise there is no difference.

And considering the state of the market, I would think that a replicator would have less risk in adding a line that can always be used to produce a format that is selling millions of discs per week.
agree
So, even if they make .50 more on a HD Disc, they sell so much more volume of SD discs that the overall revenue streams would be night and day.
but that is the point, they could have bought a cheaper DVD only line. The HD disks are suppose to pay for that difference, and if they did not really need that extra DVD capacity then that line did not buy them anything

don't have a problem with that. I think you should take this up with Anthony though as I know he doesn't agree.

not me 2ch, but Steve and RTO, I fully know and agree that there is hardly a difference between DD and DD+ the discussion is DD+ and DTHD.

i.e

all else being equal

my graph
worst quality…………………………………best quality
DD..DD+..................................................... ..........DTHD

Agrees with Roger, not much difference between DD and DD+

Mistaken graph
DD.......................................................... ....... DD+=DTHD

or to put it a different way

DD is not acceptable, DD+ is slightly better but still not acceptable, DTHD is acceptable

once something is not acceptable who cares, or again once you fail an exam does it matter if you have 25% or 30%?

not me 2ch, but Steve and RTO, I fully know and agree that there is hardly a difference between DD and DD+ the discussion is DD+ and DTHD.

i.e

all else being equal

my graph
worst quality…………………………………best quality
DD..DD+..................................................... ..........DTHD

Agrees with Roger, not much difference between DD and DD+

Mistaken graph
DD.......................................................... ....... DD+=DTHD

or to put it a different way

DD is not acceptable, DD+ is slightly better but still not acceptable, DTHD is acceptable

once something is not acceptable who cares, or again once you fail an exam does it matter if you have 25% or 30%?

Just so I clearly understand you.....are you saying that in your personal opinion, there is no difference between a DD+ 1.5Mbps audio encode and a DD 640kbps audio encode? That's what we were discussing.

no, there is an actual difference but it is small, that is why

1) I did DD..DD+ and not DD=DD+
2) I wrote DD+ is slightly better
3) if you fail an exam does it matter if you have 25% (DD) or 30% (DD+)?

there is just not a big difference and in the end neither sounds the way it should. Can't see where you would get that I said there is no difference.

no, there is an actual difference but it is small, that is why

1) I did DD..DD+ and not DD=DD+
2) I wrote DD+ is slightly better
3) if you fail an exam does it matter if you have 25% (DD) or 30% (DD+)?

there is just not a big difference and in the end neither sounds the way it should. Can't see where you would get that I said there is no difference.

Ok. So from your perspective.....

DD 640kbps-----small difference----->DD+ 1.5mbps--------------big difference----------->DTHD

To bring it back to the original topic, would it be accurate to say that both versions of Dream Girls fail the exam but the HD-DVD version should have a slightly higher failing score than the BD version? If they had both used DTHD they would have both received a passing score for audio.

So you're judging the audio quality of a title based on the codec used, and other factors like quality of the original source material is not relevant to you.

My perspective is very different, but I am trying to better understand how you view things.

Anthony-

I'm bowing out. You may have the last word on this, as I don't think much is being accomplished here.

Furthermore, after charactererizing a number of people and/or the ideas they've presented as "stupid", you've made some allegations about my participation that I take issue with and which I asked you to address, and you ignore.

Therefore, I'm done. I'll continue to comment on posts (by anybody) where I believe technically incorrect or misleading information is being stated, but unless you are interested in having a constructive dialogue, I'm probably not going to be comment much further after that. And by "constructive" I mean actually attempting to understand the issues at hand without attempting to construct cases wherein the person can be "technically correct" (see DVD & Dynamux), and instead are interested in the real world application of the technology in the formats. Oh, lack if insult would help as well.

The floor is yours.

my graph
worst quality…………………………………best quality
DD..DD+..................................................... ..........DTHD

1. On what, are you basing your version of this graphic?
2. Are you seriously suggesting that the scale and relative positions accurately reflect qualitative SQ differences?

I'm not sure I've seen an entire corporate division go through a nervous breakdown. What is going on at SCEI?

Sony finally goes mad
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39259

Slaughter: Horror at Sony's depraved promotion stunt with decapitated goat
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=451414&in_page_id=1770&ct=5


A spokesman said: "We are always opposed to any senseless killing of an animal and this sounds like a gruesome death. We condemn Sony’s actions. It is stupid and completely unjustified."

The party features across two pages of the latest edition of the company’s PlayStation magazine, which was due to hit newsstands on Tuesday but has already been sent to subscribers.

We have reproduced the spread – headlined Sony’s Greek Orgy – here, but have pixellated the image to spare readers the sight of the goat’s decapitated head hanging by a thread of tissue from its corpse, with blood dripping to the floor.

But the magazine’s readers were shown the picture in its full horror.

The article, based on a Sony Press release, shows more vivid pictures from the event under headlines such as Topless Girls! and Flesh Eating?

It asks readers how far they would go to get hold of Sony’s next-generation console, the PlayStation 3.

"How about eating still warm intestines uncoiled from the carcass of a freshly slaughtered goat? At the party to celebrate God Of War II’s European release, members of the Press were invited to do just that . . ."

Simply amazing, and I though the stunt in Boston for the Cartoon Channel was stupid.

I guess Sony just gained PETA and the ASPCA as enemies.

They actually had a dead goat on display..... :eek:

A good retrospective

Farewell, Father - Charting the rise and fall of Ken Kutaragi.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=24620 This may begin to explain how Sony could have got into a bet the business (or at least a lot of money ) situation with the PS3 and the Blu-ray format .

Anyone contemplate that often the successor CEO in a organization often stops subsidizing the failures of the past leadership?

What affect would that have on the PS3 and the format war? ;)

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6437705.html

On the subject of kicking a dead trojan horse. :D j.k :)

I’VE OFTEN WONDERED how committed Sony Computer Entertainment chairman Ken Kutaragi was to the decision to include a Blu-ray Disc drive in every PlayStation 3 console...

He is enough of an engineer to have known that including a Blu-ray drive would significantly increase the cost of PS3 consoles, putting PlayStation at a competitive disadvantage to the Xbox 360...

Had the strategy worked, of course, and the marriage of Blu-ray and PS3 proved a competitive advantage for both, Kutaragi might have emerged as twice the hero he already was, responsible for the triumph of Sony’s two most important strategic initiatives of the past decade: PlayStation and Blu-ray Disc....

But the strategy has so far not been notably successful (ahem). PlayStation 3 remains mired in third place in the console wars, struggling with the high-price imposed on it by Blu-ray....

Component shortages and production delays related to Blu-ray also delayed the launch of PS3, letting Xbox enjoy a full year head start in the market....

At the same time, manufacturers of stand-alone Blu-ray players are finding it hard to compete with the (relatively) lower priced PS3 console, forcing some to resort to introducing dual-format high-def players to differentiate their products, undercutting Blu-ray’s position in its battle against HD DVD.

It asks readers how far they would go to get hold of Sony’s next-generation console, the PlayStation 3.

"How about eating still warm intestines uncoiled from the carcass of a freshly slaughtered goat? At the party to celebrate God Of War II’s European release, members of the Press were invited to do just that . . ." [/I]

That is the nuttiest $hit I have ever heard, I thought people were making this up until now.

If they think they have to do some bizzaro promo, why in the hell wouldn't they fabricate all of this stuff?

By all reports, it was a real goat :confused: . :eek:

I'm not sure I've seen an entire corporate division go through a nervous breakdown. What is going on at SCEI?Well first off I am not sure why you decided to post this here since it has nothing at all to do with the format war. Also I believe it was SCEE since it was a European event held in Athens for God of War 2 though I somewhat doubt the people behind the event announced what they were exactly planning.


A spokesman said: "We are always opposed to any senseless killing of an animal and this sounds like a gruesome death. We condemn Sony’s actions. It is stupid and completely unjustified."I am not exactly surprised that a spokesman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare was horrified about what happened. From what I have read in the article the goat was dead long before it came to the party and they just warmed up some offal and put it in the goat before the party started. It was an over the top stunt but I get the impression that most of the people outraged over this event are people who already had a bone to pick with Sony. The editorial against Sony sounded like it came from someone who was against God of War 2 in principle because of the effects it has on "youngsters".

By all reports, it was a real goat

Presuming you had any objective concerns on the issue and cared about the goat enough to follow the links (though I admit the Inquirer was as far as I needed to reach without rolling my eyes), you'd find at the first link referred from the inquirer (for reference, it's dailymail.co.uk)

The Sony spokesman said the animal had not been slaughtered for the event but had been bought from a local butcher by the Greek company hired to stage the event.

What purported to be warm intestines was actually warm offal

Stupid, if creative, stunt and I'll bet that Greek company is probably never hired again... unless of God of War 3 decides to do a similar bash. ;) All the animal rights loonies getting involved just makes me want to go eat some KFC and a burger, though. :D

Well first off I am not sure why you decided to post this here since it has nothing at all to do with the format war. Also I believe it was SCEE since it was a European event held in Athens for God of War 2 though I somewhat doubt the people behind the event announced what they were exactly planning.

I am not exactly surprised that a spokesman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare was horrified about what happened. From what I have read in the article the goat was dead long before it came to the party and they just warmed up some offal and put it in the goat before the party started. It was an over the top stunt but I get the impression that most of the people outraged over this event are people who already had a bone to pick with Sony. The editorial against Sony sounded like it came from someone who was against God of War 2 in principle because of the effects it has on "youngsters".

I did stray a bit off topic, but we do that from time to time in this thread with talk about PS2 and Wii, in addition to the PS3 and Xbox360/add-on.

I don't actually have a problem with killing or eating goats, and if this was a private party....well, whatever floats your boat. But gee whiz, this is a marketing event for the press. How did no one in a position of responsibility say, "Maybe this is a little over the top, especially with the recent renewed outcry of too much sex and violence in video games. Let's put the pretty girls in togas and loose the goat carcass with the bloody head."

I just find this story amazing.

To bring it back to the original topic, would it be accurate to say that both versions of Dream Girls fail the exam but the HD-DVD version should have a slightly higher failing score than the BD version? If they had both used DTHD they would have both received a passing score for audio.

don't know about dream girl, never watched it (in any format). The graph was DD vs DD+ 1.5, as far as I know the only one that uses that is Universal on some titles. The discussion was also on all else being equal. For example you can't compare a lossless 16/48 to lossy 24/192

So you're judging the audio quality of a title based on the codec used, and other factors like quality of the original source material is not relevant to you.


not at all. That will be like saying you base a movie just on PQ. A bad boring movie with good PQ won't make it good.

the question is simply taking a particular movie and master how would it compare if it is DD, DD+ 1.5 and DTHD.

Stupid, if creative, stunt and I'll bet that Greek company is probably never hired again... unless of God of War 3 decides to do a similar bash. ;) All the animal rights loonies getting involved just makes me want to go eat some KFC and a burger, though. :D

It's about as creative as coprophagia IMO.

I actually do think it's fair thing for cruelty to animals groups to address, not because the animals life was taken (I'm not a vegetarian), but because it's remains were trotted out and used for some mock sacrifice baloney, and to promote a video game for crying out loud.

Why sink this low?

All the animal rights loonies ...

And exactly why are you calling a group of people loonies ? :rolleyes:

I think this goat episode illustrates the disconnect some people working for Sony have with the real world.

This is the most bizarre thing I've ever read in the history of consumer electronics.

And exactly why are you calling a group of people loonies ? :rolleyes:

If you really want to know, PM me. Otherwise, I'll add that I did have some KFC yesterday in their honor. :D Burger will probably have to be today at lunch, though. ;)

Sony did not orchestrate this, a company they hired did. The animal was already dead and bought from a local butcher shop by the company paid to do the promo for God of War. If anyone doesn't understand the practices of the ancient greeks that's one thing... if they don't think it's appropriate for a God of War celebration, then they're of course entitled to their opinion (as if anyone could do anything about that anyways).

All the mock incredulity from known HDDVD Nazi's would be hilarious... if I didn't think they were "serious." :rolleyes:

Sony did not orchestrate this, a company they hired did. The animal was already dead and bought from a local butcher shop by the company paid to do the promo for God of War. If anyone doesn't understand the practices of the ancient greeks that's one thing... if they don't think it's appropriate for a God of War celebration, then they're of course entitled to their opinion (as if anyone could do anything about that anyways).

All the mock incredulity from known HDDVD Nazi's would be hilarious... if I didn't think they were "serious." :rolleyes:

Actually, I don't know why something that's frankly this questionable should boil down to format support, weather you care to believe it or not I'm a member of my local Humane Society, and I kind of get weary of people slapping the "PETA loony" label on anyone who finds this sort of exploitation completely gratuitous. I just dismissed it as a new "Urban Legend" the first few times I heard reference to it, until I saw the stills.

It's also got nothing to do with slaughtering and eating animals for food, but everything to do with slaughtering them for a prop in the promotion of a video game. I also don't buy the "it was already dead," excuse, because they had special "innards" prepared for the the spectacle, so the goat was no-doubt ordered (and slaughtered) for this use.

Sony didn't know. Well what else are they going to say? If in the unlikely event hey didn't sanction this display, then they really should be a little more involved in what they sign off on. They also seemed to think it was OK enough to publish the photos in their gaming magazine.

So you're condoning the spectacle of Sony encouraging people to pull intestines out of a freshly slaughtered goat and eating them?

Just because you think the Greeks did it does not make it ok.

Someone in the European branch of Sony knew about this promotion and did not stop it.

Just like the PR disasters of the Euro PS3 launch when nobody showed up and the press outnumbered the skimpy lines of PS3 buyers.

The Sony PR people could of should of known about this event because its getting play and bad publicity for the PS3 and just giving the press a chance to revisit how bad the PS3 is doing in Europe.

No matter how you justify it, it was a poor decision for the PS3.

It only highlights the fact that Sony seems to be a bit uncoordinated and flailing in its promotional activities of the PS3 and that may affect future sales of that Blu-ray player.

Seriously though, have you ever seen another promotion of an internationally branding item be so weird and have the potential of involving mass market outrage from consumer or special interest groups?

You just gotta question the decision making or their review of their sub-contracted promotional activities. You just can't sully a billion dollar or more brand identity with this kind of stupidity.

Someone was not doing their job.

Or maybe Anti-Blu-ray and/or anti-Sony partisans are jumping on top of whatever excuse(s) they can to try to beat a dead horse ... errr... goat... into smithereens? Nah, I'm sure it couldn't be anything like THAT. :rolleyes:

A new meaning to the word Gutsy

I think even the most ardent defenders of all things Sony would have to admit that this promotion exhibited extremely poor taste and a fair amount of stupidity.

If you really want to know, PM me. Otherwise, I'll add that I did have some KFC yesterday in their honor. :D Burger will probably have to be today at lunch, though. ;)

Sony did not orchestrate this, a company they hired did. The animal was already dead and bought from a local butcher shop by the company paid to do the promo for God of War. If anyone doesn't understand the practices of the ancient greeks that's one thing... if they don't think it's appropriate for a God of War celebration, then they're of course entitled to their opinion (as if anyone could do anything about that anyways).

All the mock incredulity from known HDDVD Nazi's would be hilarious... if I didn't think they were "serious." :rolleyes:
Sorry, no. I'd be equally disappointed if it were HD DVD, cuz well... it's disappointingly stupid.

P.S. I'm amused you're defending it, as even others within Sony itself agree it's bizarre and overwhelmingly stupid.

He said Sony’s UK office had been shocked to see the report in the official PlayStation magazine, which the company licenses to publishing house Future. Sony is this weekend recalling the entire 80,000 print run of the magazine.

It only highlights the fact that Sony seems to be a bit uncoordinated and flailing in its promotional activities of the PS3 and that may affect future sales of that Blu-ray player.


I don't even care about the whole PS3 thing, and I doubt this is gonna hurt BD/PS3 one way or another, Sony's name only adorns part of this markets products anyway, it's probably the game that is taking the heat.

I think it's more telling that only one BD supporter has anything to say about it, and thinks it's a big partisan joke.

Frankly, I think there is really odd contrast to safe-guarding your medium against pornography on the one hand, then condoning this sort of thing. Publishing the photos as promo is condoning by the way, even if ya gotta scramble around to grab un-circulated copies for damage control.

Id rather have my kids catch a glimpse of pornography than a staged act of sadism using a dead animals carcass.

I think this "goat" issue has more to do with predominant US sensibilities than anything else. Mediterranean cultures aren't as squeamish about seeing their next meal, dead on the hoof, as it were. We're used to sanitized, pre-portioned products lined up neatly in our local grocery refrigerated section which bear almost no resemblance to the animals which were slaughtered to obtain them. I suspect many Americans wouldn't even be able to identify one kind of red meat from another without a label. I hope the goat in question was eventually consumed by someone or something, because if it was simply tossed out after this silly promotion, that really would have been a stupid, useless waste of its' life.

This stunt was a mistake, primarily because word of it was almost bound to spread beyond the region where it occurred, but I'd guess that most of the local populace wasn't offended, again, assuming the animal was used in some other more useful way, after the event.

P.S. I'm amused you're defending it, as even others within Sony itself agree it's bizarre and overwhelmingly stupid.


I'm not actually, just pointing out that the people harping on it are the same people who would harp on Sony doing anything. I have my own opinions on the appropriate... censure/proscription for paganism (serious or not). Especially if it were done in NYC or LA.

That it was done in Greece brings to mind the point demonstrated by rto. This would not really be considered all that shocking anywhere else.

I'm not actually, just pointing out that the people harping on it are the same people who would harp on Sony doing anything. I have my own opinions on the appropriate... censure/proscription for paganism (serious or not). Especially if it were done in NYC or LA.

That it was done in Greece brings to mind the point demonstrated by rto. This would not really be considered all that shocking anywhere else.

I'm one of the offendee's. I've hunted, fished, gutted, and chopped the heads off chickens (for food). I love meat, game and domestic.

However, this isn't some age-old regional, cultural ceremony that the the culture-shocked are are trying to suppress. It's a cheezy promotion for a video game, and the minute they published pictures of it in their own publication, they imported it to any culture that gets the magazine. That they pulled the plug on it makes no difference, because they had to be told to.

Really it still makes no sense to me when your speaking of a product that is to be sold the world over, and is already under fire for promoting violence. It makes me think that the controversy is intentional, and of the school that any publicity is good publicity.

I'll bet you copies of Sony's gaming magazine are probably more in demand than the PS3 right now.

I'm one of the offendee's. I've hunted, fished, gutted, and chopped the heads off chickens (for food). I love meat, game and domestic.

However, this isn't some age-old regional, cultural ceremony that the the culture-shocked are are trying to suppress. It's a cheezy promotion for a video game, and the minute they published pictures of it in their own publication, they imported it to any culture that gets the magazine. That they pulled the plug on it makes no difference, because they had to be told to.

Really it still makes no sense to me when your speaking of a product that is to be sold the world over, and is already under fire for promoting violence. It makes me think that the controversy is intentional, and of the school that any publicity is good publicity.

I'll bet you copies of Sony's gaming magazine are probably more in demand than the PS3 right now.

I agree...and I would be just as upset with this promotion if it was Toshiba OR Microsoft. Crass is crass! :mad:

2Ch:

told you I don't disagree with Roger Dressler, Director, Technology Strategy but RTO does

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10432362&&#post10432362
but I also think the "+" is a bit misleading. DD+ is more significantly improved over plain vanilla DD than that symbol might lead you to expect

1. On what, are you basing your version of this graphic?
2. Are you seriously suggesting that the scale and relative positions accurately reflect qualitative SQ differences?

I guess I missed this.

1) DD+ specs and how it works :)
2) yes, DD+ is basically DD with extentions to go into areas DD can't (i.e. more channels higher frequency) in areas DD can, it does not add much. ON the other hand you don't know what DD can if yopu don't have BD because DD on DVD/HD DVD is crippled

I guess I missed this.

1) DD+ specs and how it works :)
2) yes, DD+ is basically DD with extentoions to go into areas DD can't (i.e. more channels higher frequency) in areas DD can, it does not add much. ON the other hand you don't know what DD can if yopu don't have BD because DD on DVD/HD DVD is crippled
Fortunately, HD DVD hardware has mandatory DD+ support, so it's a moot point.

Fortunately, HD DVD hardware has mandatory DD+ support, so it's a moot point.

agree. DD on BD or DD+ on HD DVD it is the same, but RTO thinks DD+ is as good as DTHD because he decided DD+ is much better then DD and if it is much better then DD then there is no room for improvement for DTHD.

Please cut and paste a quote where I've stated anything remotely close to:

"RTO (I) thinks DD+ is as good as DTHD because he (I) decided DD+ is much better then DD and if it is much better then DD then there is no room for improvement for DTHD."

............or admit that you only found it through the creative use of auto-colonoscopy.

RTO did you or did you not say

but I also think the "+" is a bit misleading. DD+ is more significantly improved over plain vanilla DD than that symbol might lead you to expect

did you or did you not say many times DTHD is not worth it because there is no audio benefit and people can't hear the difference?

It does come from an a$$ but not mine

EE Times has report that quotes Ken Kutaragi as saying he will be working on the PS4 and beyond.

It does come from an a$$ but not mine

If you cannot locate quotes which actually justify your ludicrous characterizations, I think it's pretty self-evident where you're finding them.

RTO did you or did you not say



did you or did you not say many times DTHD is not worth it because there is no audio benefit and people can't hear the difference?

It does come from an a$$ but not mine

It's at least comforting to know I'm not the only one.

If you are combining those two separate statements from rto into one context to support your allegation, then you have a future in marketing. Or law.

RTO did you or did you not say

did you or did you not say many times DTHD is not worth it because there is no audio benefit and people can't hear the difference?

It does come from an a$$ but not mine

Let's take a step back and not let this get ugly.

I'll describe my point of view and maybe you can describe yours as well. I view the law of diminishing returns as applying to audio encoding (a reverse hockey stick graph). As you go from low bit rates to high bit rates, things improve quickly in the beginning, but they quickly progress to the point where you have realized the full potential of the source material.

Dreamgirls is an interesting example because it received the same score for AQ (4/5) in both formats but with different encodes. The HD-DVD has 1.5mbps DD+ encode while the BD has a 640kbps DD encode. Now I think your point of view is similar to the reviewer (Peter Bracke) in that he wonders how much better the AQ might have been with a lossless encode. Here's the review......

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/dreamgirls.html
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/dreamgirls.html

The Audio: Rating the Sound

Sigh. I just don't get Paramount's approach to audio on their next-gen releases. This is yet another dual-format release from the studio that sees the two formats receive unequal treament, with this HD DVD edition getting a 1.5mbps Dolby Digital-Plus track, while the Blu-ray gets a 640kbps Dolby Digital 5.1 surround track. Interestingly, though, I didn't find the lower bitrate of the Blu-ray produced any truly audible drop in quality, at least enough to warrant boosting the star rating for the HD DVD. But that's not really what rankles, anyway; what really gets my goat is that 'Dreamgirls' is the one new release that really demands high-resolution audio. Why won't Paramount support Dolby TrueHD? DTS-MA? Or plain 'ol uncompressed PCM? It's a head-scratcher, and by far my biggest disappointment with this high-defrelease.

Having said that, on its own merits the Dolby track certainly sounds good. 'Dreamgirls' is an impeccably produced film, and its songs are classic. The music soars -- dynamics are excellent, from perfectly tight bass to expansive midrange. Vocal timbre is fantastic, too, with a richness and natural quality that simply cranks at high volume -- one listen to Jennifer Hudson belting out "And I'm Telling You I Am Not Going" will give you goosebumps. And, of course, the mix is perfectly balanced -- not a single word is lost to the music, or effects. Surround use, meanwhile, is surprisingly active, with punchy discrete effects that underscore the endless music montages like piercing flashbulbs.

Still, I have trouble getting around the lack of a high-resolution mix. As good as the Dolby sounds, it only makes me wonder how much better it could have been. Paramount needs to change their tune soon -- high-definition should be as much about great audio as it is about great video. The studio should heed the wishes of early adopters, or proceed at its own peril.

Now, going back to the law of diminishing returns, I firmly believe that if you are unable to detect the difference between a 640kbps DD encode and a 1.5mbps DD+ encode (of the same source material), then you won't detect the difference between the 1.5mbps encode and a lossless encode (of that same material).

I believe your viewpoint (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that instead of a reverse hockey stick, the graph looks more like a regular hockey stick. To relate back to Dreamgirls, you would expect little difference between the 640kbps and 1.5mbps encode, but you would expect a big difference between the 1.5mbps and lossless encode.

I don't share that viewpoint because after listening to the same music encoded at different bit rates, my personal experience tells me the hockey stick is reversed and there is a much bigger difference between 64kbps and 128kbps than there is between 128kbps and 192kbps (and none between 256kbps and 320kbps).

EE Times has report that quotes Ken Kutaragi as saying he will be working on the PS4 and beyond. Wonder if it will have a Blu-ray player in it? :rolleyes:

Maybe instead an HD DVD player? :D j/k

Wonder if it will have a Blu-ray player in it? :rolleyes:

Maybe instead an HD DVD player? :D j/k

Let me answer this one. The only way the PS4 will not have BD, is if Sony decides to use Memory Stick instead. Cough....HDR-CX7.....Cough.

I wonder what kind of launch party Sony will throw for the press when the PS4 comes out? ;)

EE Times has report that quotes Ken Kutaragi as saying he will be working on the PS4 and beyond.


From the grave? How eerie, Brrrr.

I wonder what kind of launch party Sony will throw for the press when the PS4 comes out?
It will probably involve a endangered species.... :p


:D :D :D

From the grave? How eerie, Brrrr. He can't be saying he thinks the PS3 is already a dead console? j/k x2 :D

agree. DD on BD or DD+ on HD DVD it is the same, but RTO thinks DD+ is as good as DTHD because he decided DD+ is much better then DD and if it is much better then DD then there is no room for improvement for DTHD.
How is DD on BD the same as DD+ on HD DVD. On BD, DD will be 640kbs, but many of the HD DVDs, I think from Paramount, Dreamworks and recent Universal titles, are 1.5mbs DD+?

How is DD on BD the same as DD+ on HD DVD. On BD, DD will be 640kbs, but many of the HD DVDs, I think from Paramount, Dreamworks and recent Universal titles, are 1.5mbs DD+?

Roger from Dolby (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8185848&&#post8185848) said so.

More specifically, DD+ came about because of the limitations HDDVD inherited from its parent DVD (otherwise it would have been limited to 448k, just like with DVD).

Blu-ray being designed as a break from DVD, had no such limitations or packet constraints.

Further, Roger posted here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8189045&&#post8189045) where he didn't think anything more than 1Mbps would be necessary for less than 7.1, and that though it certainly wouldn't hurt or make it sound worse, that it was just so much wasted fluff for the marketing types to tout.

Roger from Dolby (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8185848&&#post8185848) said so.
.
.
.

Further, Roger posted here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8189045&&#post8189045) where he didn't think anything more than 1Mbps would be necessary for less than 7.1, and that though it certainly wouldn't hurt or make it sound worse, that it was just so much wasted fluff for the marketing types to tout.

That does sort of sum up my own opion of the audio part of the format war. ;)

- Tom

I've always been more of a videophile. Not sure if they simply turned up channels but I am in awe of my PCM tracks from Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, and Crank. While The Prestige is a good solid, if mundane track for most of the movie, whenever Tesla's electric stuff is going off, it sounds crazy. It definitely sounds like more than just a volume spike but these tracks sound more... "dynamic" I guess would be the word.

If/when I get a Toshiba player, I hope to be able to experience the same from my HDDVDs, but right now it's a night and day difference.

If/when I get a Toshiba player, I hope to be able to experience the same from my HDDVDs, but right now it's a night and day difference.
It's night and day because you chose the player that's incapable of outputting the full-bitrate tracks. It has nothing to do with the formats or their capabilities at all. The BD tracks sound more "dynamic" because your HD DVD player is in "night mode."

...


............or admit that you only found it through the creative use of auto-colonoscopy.

wow, it's been a while...i see that i've been missing out on my education :D

that's a keeper ;)

Roger from Dolby (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8185848&&#post8185848) said so.

More specifically, DD+ came about because of the limitations HDDVD inherited from its parent DVD (otherwise it would have been limited to 448k, just like with DVD).

Blu-ray being designed as a break from DVD, had no such limitations or packet constraints.

Further, Roger posted here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8189045&&#post8189045) where he didn't think anything more than 1Mbps would be necessary for less than 7.1, and that though it certainly wouldn't hurt or make it sound worse, that it was just so much wasted fluff for the marketing types to tout.
Note the 1 Mbps.

1 Mbps is 56% more bits than 640 Kbps. And that's not even accounting for encoding efficiency, which is theoretically superior on DD+.


I've always been more of a videophile. Not sure if they simply turned up channels but I am in awe of my PCM tracks from Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor, and Crank. While The Prestige is a good solid, if mundane track for most of the movie, whenever Tesla's electric stuff is going off, it sounds crazy. It definitely sounds like more than just a volume spike but these tracks sound more... "dynamic" I guess would be the word.

If/when I get a Toshiba player, I hope to be able to experience the same from my HDDVDs, but right now it's a night and day difference.
Actually, even DD 448 Kbps on DVD is VASTLY superior to DD+ of any bitrate on HD DVD with the 360... because the implementation of DD+ on the 360 is totally borked at the moment.

DD+ on the Toshiba players sounds great though.

Note the 1 Mbps.

1 Mbps is 56% more bits than 640 Kbps. And that's not even accounting for encoding efficiency, which is theoretically superior on DD+.


From my second link:

It is not necessary in our view to use even 1 Mbps until 7.1-ch is available, but it’s their choice to make, and it certainly will not hurt the sound.

And Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197873&&#post8197873) he says:

I’m sure we can find some challenging program material that will show 1.5 Mbps has some subtle advantage over 640 kbps in a clinical situation, but that does not mean 640 doesn’t sound transparent on most material, most of the time, for most users. When it comes to use of perceptual audio or perceptual video, these issues do come into play. It is not practical to take what sounds good or looks good and then double the bitrate “just to make sure.”

1 Mbps is 56% more bits than 640 Kbps. And that's not even accounting for encoding efficiency, which is theoretically superior on DD+.Actually from what Roger Dressler has said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8053727&&#post8053727) the new encoding tools in DD+ only operate at bit rates under 448 Kbps. He has also said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8185848&&#post8185848) that the packet constraint level of Blu-ray allows both DD and DD+ to operate at its highest efficiency using 6 block frames. On the other hand HD DVD has a lower packet constraint level for both DD and DD+ and must use shorter 2 to 3 block frames. Because of this DD+ is slightly more efficient with Blu-ray.

And Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197873&&#post8197873) he says:
I’m sure we can find some challenging program material that will show 1.5 Mbps has some subtle advantage over 640 kbps in a clinical situation, but that does not mean 640 doesn’t sound transparent on most material, most of the time, for most users. When it comes to use of perceptual audio or perceptual video, these issues do come into play. It is not practical to take what sounds good or looks good and then double the bitrate “just to make sure.”
So, if what he says is correct and DD or DD+ @640kbps "sounds transparent on most material, most of the time, for most users" ...why do we need DTHD at all? Wouldn't doubling the bitate to 1.5mbps take care of the corner cases (aka the challenging program material mentioned above?) And would "most users" include the geeks like us? I have to be missing something here...

Maybe one also wants to sell product to people who are not "most" people and/or have setups better than them and want that improvement ALL of the time instead of just "most of the time."

For the majority of J6p with his 27" SDTV, maybe he shouldn't bother with either format unless he wants to be able to choose his menus while the feature plays? There would be other uses (using the greater capacities and throughput to condense 5-6 DVD disc sets into 1-2 HD discs, etc but that would probably defy the marketing goons), but do you really want to be held back by the lowest common denominator or are you paying your money for the Look and Sound of Perfect? :shrug:

Just about everything was presented in that thread, so I'd just stick with that. It's certainly an entertaining read. :)

So, if what he says is correct and DD or DD+ @640kbps "sounds transparent on most material, most of the time, for most users" ...why do we need DTHD at all? Wouldn't doubling the bitate to 1.5mbps take care of the corner cases (aka the challenging program material mentioned above?) And would "most users" include the geeks like us? I have to be missing something here...

Because this one goes to 11. You've got to have something new to sell after all. ;)

For the majority of J6p with his 27" SDTV
Perhaps, but lots of JQPs have HDTVs. Hell, even my 73 year-old mom just got an HDTV, simply because they're less than $1000 these days.

And after only 5 minutes with an SD cable box on the thing, she wanted HD.


From my second link:

And Here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197873&&#post8197873) he says:Actually from what Roger Dressler has said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8053727&&#post8053727) the new encoding tools in DD+ only operate at bit rates under 448 Kbps. He has also said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8185848&&#post8185848) that the packet constraint level of Blu-ray allows both DD and DD+ to operate at its highest efficiency using 6 block frames. On the other hand HD DVD has a lower packet constraint level for both DD and DD+ and must use shorter 2 to 3 block frames. Because of this DD+ is slightly more efficient with Blu-ray.
OK revised then:

Say ~800 Kbps. That's 25% more bits than 640 Kbps.

Don't get me wrong. I actually find 640 Kbps DD quite OK. I just find it odd that some here are somehow trying to spin 640 Kbps DD support on Blu-ray into some sort of an advantage over HD DVD.

Blu-ray's 640 Kbps DD support being better than HD DVD's 448 Kbps DD support really is an irrelevant point, considering that HD DVD has much higher bitrate DD+ support, which is mandatory in all HD DVD players.

Maybe one also wants to sell product to people who are not "most" people and/or have setups better than them and want that improvement ALL of the time instead of just "most of the time."
Obviously, most of us (the early adopters) would fall into the latter category. But was he including "us" in his "most people" comment? If not, how would it be pertinent to the discussion, since these formats are, by their very nature, geek-only at this point (for the most part, there are some PS3 owners who don't give a crap about this stuff, but I digress.) What we need to know is if DD or DD+ at 640kbps is supposed to be transparent (most of the time, for most material) to "us" as well. If not, it kinda destroys the 640kbps is virtually as good as 1.5mbps argument (imo.)

For the majority of J6p with his 27" SDTV, maybe he shouldn't bother with either format unless he wants to be able to choose his menus while the feature plays?
J6P isn't really what we're talking about here, is it? Aren't we discussing advanced audio codecs for the HD optical disc formats?
There would be other uses (using the greater capacities and throughput to condense 5-6 DVD disc sets into 1-2 HD discs, etc but that would probably defy the marketing goons), but do you really want to be held back by the lowest common denominator or are you paying your money for the Look and Sound of Perfect? :shrug:
I absolutely do not want to be held back by the lowest common denominator. That's why I chose to use standalone players - I'm paying good money for the "Look and Sound of Perfect" (like you said) and don't want to be shortchanged. It just seems like we're hearing different arguments here:
1. DD/DD+ @ 640kbps is transparent for most people in most cases and therefore DD+ at 1.5mbps is overkill.
2. DD+ (at any bitrate) is insufficient and only lossless or uncompressed is acceptable (what happened to 1.5mbps being overkill?)

I guess I'm just having a tough time keeping things straight. It seems like people just like to argue for whatever their respective format supports/allows and against anything that the other format may have or do better.

FWIW, with all things being equal, I would prefer DTHD or uncompressed PCM to be used on every title for both formats (screw DTS-HD MA - no one can decode it, time to kill it off and let the others move on.) I want this for piece of mind, more than anything else. It would probably be more placebo than anything else, but at least I would know that the soundtrack would be theoretically as good as it could get. That's just me, but I'm not all there.

What I've learned from HD-DVD supporters is that the difference between 1Mbps DD+ and 640 Kbps DD is critical, but lossless audio is worthless.

Also, the difference between 25 GB and 30 GB is critical, but anything beyond 30 GB is worthless.

I learn so much here.

What I've learned from HD-DVD supporters is that the difference between 1Mbps DD+ and 640 Kbps DD is critical, but lossless audio is worthless.

Also, the difference between 25 GB and 30 GB is critical, but anything beyond 30 GB is worthless.

I learn so much here.
That really didn't add anything to the discussion, but thanks anyway for that. :rolleyes:

Seriously - spiteful, partisan crap like that helps no one.

What I've learned from HD-DVD supporters is that the difference between 1Mbps DD+ and 640 Kbps DD is critical, but lossless audio is worthless.

Also, the difference between 25 GB and 30 GB is critical, but anything beyond 30 GB is worthless.

Strawman.

I learn so much here.

We learnt from you that initial BD releases like 5E had better PQ than what HD DVD had at that time - like Serenity and POTO :p

What we need to know is if DD or DD+ at 640kbps is supposed to be transparent (most of the time, for most material) to "us" as well. If not, it kinda destroys the 640kbps is virtually as good as 1.5mbps argument (imo.)


The argument Roger presented is that there was no effective improvement going to 1.5M from 640k, and that there was improvement going to 640 from 448. With the caveat that we're talking about 6 Channels (5.1 - it seems clear to me that Roger, if not Dolby, forsees more channels up to 7.1 being used eventually).

If you read the thread, Roger from Dolby quite strenuously denies several times that neither he nor Dolby make any claims to DD or DD+ being perceptually lossless, merely that the two are indistinguishable from EACH OTHER. He is clear that DD+ does have superior attributes, but that these are only apparent at lower bitrate and that DD+ was employed by HDDDVD to address what would otherwise would be a shortcoming (DD performance identical to that of DVD - 448k max for 6Ch). IOW, it's DD versus DD+ is a draw and the increased bitrate afforded DD+ is effectively irrelevent. I suppose it's possible that he's wrong, but I'm not making that argument, either... is anyone?

In any case, it has never been my claim that either reach the performance or theoretical perfection achieved by lossless compression (TrueHD), to say nothing of pure uncompressed PCM. Roger certainly didn't make any argument to that effect and indeed has several explicit quotes to the contrary position.

J6P isn't really what we're talking about here, is it? Aren't we discussing advanced audio codecs for the HD optical disc formats?

Indeed. I thought it a foregone conclusion J6P and particuarly more mundane/mediocre material (if not equipment) that would dull the difference in the real effectiveness in the new codecs , was implicitly included in Roger's reference to "most material, most of the time, for most users." Maybe I was mistaken...


It just seems like we're hearing different arguments here:


Not from me. Hopefully I've clarified how I feel about the matter. :)


FWIW, with all things being equal, I would prefer DTHD or uncompressed PCM to be used on every title for both formats (screw DTS-HD MA - no one can decode it, time to kill it off and let the others move on.)

We definitely agree on that. Since very few BD titles that have used up their full capacity & bandwidth allocation, it's a shame we haven't seen more use of PCM at the very least (giving benefit of the doubt to the encoders for any additional time/expense involved in encoding TrueHD... but there is no good excuse other than a lack of capacity/bandwidth to leave out PCM).

ROFL @ www.digg.com right now

What I've learned from HD-DVD supporters is that the difference between 1Mbps DD+ and 640 Kbps DD is critical, but lossless audio is worthless.
What I've learned from Blu-ray supporters is that lossless audio is critical, but anything beyond 640 Kbps DD is pointless.

Also, the difference between 25 GB and 30 GB is critical, but anything beyond 30 GB is worthless.
Also, the difference 30 and 50 GB is critical, but features such as PiP are worthless.

I learn so much here.
Ditto.

ROFL @ www.digg.com right now

There appears to be some mysterious force causing 16 numbers to be reposted every 108 milliseconds. ;)

- Tom

What I've learned from Blu-ray supporters is that lossless audio is critical, but anything beyond 640 Kbps DD is pointless.We BD supporters have this silly notion that Dolby employees understand Dolby technology. We're weird that way. Not having lossless is one thing. Not having enough bandwidth for it is entirely another.

It's at least comforting to know I'm not the only one.

If you are combining those two separate statements from rto into one context to support your allegation, then you have a future in marketing. Or law.


...or proctology.

I believe your viewpoint (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that instead of a reverse hockey stick, the graph looks more like a regular hockey stick. To relate back to Dreamgirls, you would expect little difference between the 640kbps and 1.5mbps encode, but you would expect a big difference between the 1.5mbps and lossless encode.

yes, like I said, I agree with Roger Dressler there is almost no difference between DD and DD+

I don't share that viewpoint because after listening to the same music encoded at different bit rates, my personal experience tells me the hockey stick is reversed and there is a much bigger difference between 64kbps and 128kbps than there is between 128kbps and 192kbps (and none between 256kbps and 320kbps).

let me ask you this if the reviewer reviewed an other movie and he wrote the 35mbps MPEG-2 version looked the same as the 22 VC-1 would you say the MPEG-2 has higher bitrate so it should look better? no, you are comparing apples and oranges.

when DD was created it was created with some limits such as 5.1 channels, 24/48 max....

when DD+ was created it was created to add and change DDs limits (i.e. even though DD+ on BD/HD DVD is limited to 7.1 it cango to 13.1ch.) and not to get better play back in what is covered by DD

The way DD+ works is that anything that falls into <24/48 5.1 gets the DD treatment and becomes what is called the DD core. Then there are extensions to cover anything that does not fit (for example 24/48 7.1 DD+ will physically have 24/48 DD 5.1 + 24/48 for the 4 back speakers - yes I know 4+5.1=9.1 but the two back of the 5.1 are not good so it becomes 4+5.1-2 =7.1 the two back ones of the 5.1 are actually a composition of the back 4). If it is 24/92 the extension packets will contain the information on how to correct the 24/48 to get it to 24/96. Because it uses extension packs DD+ actually needs a bit more headway because of the overhead (like MPEG2 vs VC-1 it is a bit less efficient)

the next thing becomes HD DVD vs BD

before we start with this let's go back to DVD

when the DVD forum chose DD for DVD, they decided it should be included with the video signals in the MPEG-2 stream, why is that important? because the MPEG-2 stream has its own limits and so they became DDs constraints. All the data is in blocks of a fixed size and so even though DD can go up to 640 VBR on DVD it became 448 CBR (think of it like a box of Popsicles, when you go to the store, even if you want to buy 3 Popsicles the store only sells them in a 6 pack so your choices are buy 6 or buy 0 since you must buy at least 3 you are forced to 6)

Now HD DVD was implemented in the same way. DD and DD+ is implemented in the exact same way (MPEG-2 program stream). Something using DD would be stuck to be almost as bad as DVD – the MPEG-2 blocks on HD DVD are .5mbps and for DD+ they allow for more then one block (so 1.5 really means up to 3 blocks) so a “1.5”mbps DD+ , would have a max of 1.5 but can be at some time .5 or 1 (to go back to the Popsicle example, the store has a max of 3 boxes/client. So someone that has a party and needs 15 will need to buy 3 boxes and get 18, later when he has a 7 people party he buys two boxes).

When Universal says it is 1.5mbps what they are really saying is 3 blocks and so it takes 1.5 on the disk but to the decoder it is not actually 1.5. The added headroom needed for DD+ (empty extension) and the fact that it gets split into blocks does the rest.

Now what about BD? Simply put, BD did not put the audio in the MPEG-2 stream. The DD is there in its natural form. So the BD disks can hold 640kbps DD and they don’t need to embed it the DD+ stream. So in essence DD on BD is the same as DD+ on HD DVD

What I've learned from Blu-ray supporters is that lossless audio is critical, but anything beyond 640 Kbps DD is pointless.


Also, the difference 30 and 50 GB is critical, but features such as PiP are worthless.


And hardware price is irrelevant, the first Samsung didn't count...

And that's not even accounting for encoding efficiency, which is theoretically superior on DD+.

considering there is a DD core in DD+ can you explain how DD+ can be more efficient.

snip...........
Now HD DVD was implemented in the same way. DD and DD+ is implemented in the exact same way (MPEG-2 program stream). Something using DD would be stuck to be almost as bad as DVD – the MPEG-2 blocks on HD DVD are .5mbps and for DD+ they allow for more then one block (so 1.5 really means up to 3 blocks) so a “1.5”mbps DD+ , would have a max of 1.5 but can be at some time .5 or 1 (to go back to the Popsicle example, the store has a max of 3 boxes/client. So someone that has a party and needs 15 will need to buy 3 boxes and get 18, later when he has a 7 people party he buys two boxes).

When Universal says it is 1.5mbps what they are really saying is 3 blocks and so it takes 1.5 on the disk but to the decoder it is not actually 1.5. The added headroom needed for DD+ (empty extension) and the fact that it gets split into blocks does the rest.

Now what about BD? Simply put, BD did not put the audio in the MPEG-2 stream. The DD is there in its natural form. So the BD disks can hold 640kbps DD and they don’t need to embed it the DD+ stream. So in essence DD on BD is the same as DD+ on HD DVD

So are you suggesting that the 640kbps DD (BD encode) and the 1.5mbps DD+ (HD-DVD encode) are actually using the same bit rate? It's Paramount, by the way. Universal isn't releasing in both formats. ;)

We BD supporters have this silly notion that Dolby employees understand Dolby technology. We're weird that way. Not having lossless is one thing. Not having enough bandwidth for it is entirely another.

I believe he was pointing out that BD supporters are not in agreement on the question of audio. That's understandable, different people have different points of view on some points.

So are you suggesting that the 640kbps DD (BD encode) and the 1.5mbps DD+ (HD-DVD encode) are actually using the same bit rate? It's Paramount, by the way. Universal isn't releasing in both formats.

not at all. would you say MPEG-2 @30 is using the same bitrate as VC-1@20

considering there is a DD core in DD+ can you explain how DD+ can be more efficient.

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DDPlus_Overview.pdf

Dolby Digital Plus

Technical advances

The core of Dolby Digital Plus is based on the Dolby Digital format. It achieves its' improved audio performance, coding efficiency, and channel and program extensions through several unique technical advances.

Transient pre-noise processing virtually pre-noise distortions often associated with "difficult to encode" transient material. A time scaling synthesis technique improves the "definition" of transient signals to give the listener a more accurate representation of the original signal.

Enhanced channel coupling adds phase compensation to the channel coupling process. Adjusting interchannel phase improves the dimensionality of the reproduced signal by restoring the original phase relationships at the decoder outputs. This improves the performance of matrix-based systems that rely on phase and amplitude information, such as Dolby Pro Logic II.

Adaptive transform processing improves coding efficiency and quality by combining improved spectral resolution, higher resolution bit allocation, and improved quantization techniques for pseudo-stationary signals. This also simplifies compatibility with existing Dolby Digital decoders.

I believe he was pointing out that BD supporters are not in agreement on the question of audio. That's understandable, different people have different points of view on some points.
Well, at least you got it. ;)


The way DD+ works is that anything that falls into <24/48 5.1 gets the DD treatment and becomes what is called the DD core. Then there are extensions to cover anything that does not fit (for example 24/48 7.1 DD+ will physically have 24/48 DD 5.1 + 24/48 for the 4 back speakers - yes I know 4+5.1=9.1 but the two back of the 5.1 are not good so it becomes 4+5.1-2 =7.1 the two back ones of the 5.1 are actually a composition of the back 4). If it is 24/92 the extension packets will contain the information on how to correct the 24/48 to get it to 24/96. Because it uses extension packs DD+ actually needs a bit more headway because of the overhead (like MPEG2 vs VC-1 it is a bit less efficient)
Translated: DD has several limitations, which are removed with DD+.

not at all. would you say MPEG-2 @30 is using the same bitrate as VC-1@20

I'm trying to follow your analogy. Are you saying that DD+ on HD-DVD is less efficient than DD on BD? That the efficiency on HD-DVD is so much worse that a 1.5mbps encode on HD-DVD has as much "effective" bit rate as the 640kbps DD encode on BD?

I'm trying to follow your analogy. Are you saying that DD+ on HD-DVD is less efficient than DD on BD? That the efficiency on HD-DVD is so much worse that a 1.5mbps encode on HD-DVD has as much "effective" bit rate as the 640kbps DD encode on BD?
I don't think he's trying to say that, at least in terms of the content of the post. It suggests that bit for bit, 640 Kbps on Blu-ray may not be the same as 1.5 Mbps on HD DVD.

However, 1.5 Mbps is 134% more bits than 640 Kbps, and his post does seem to try to obfuscate the basic truth that there are limitations in the mandatory audio format support of Blu-ray, and that there are advantages to HD DVD's choice to make DD+ mandatory.

Translated: DD has several limitations on HD DVD, which are removed with DD+. DD on Blu-ray does not share these limitations and only needs DD+ for more than 5.1 Ch.

Fixed for you. ;)

Translated: DD has several limitations on HD DVD and Blu-ray. These limitations are removed with DD+, which is a mandatory format only on HD DVD.
Really fixed.

It doesn't sound like you've seen what Roger Dressler had to say (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=1&pp=30):

"Due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets, the only way to offer advanced capabilities--higher quality sound and option for more channels--was to adopt a different codec than DD, which was locked at 5.1 and 448 kbps, same as DVD. DD+ was specifically designed to address HD DVD's structure--the DD+ coding frames become progressively shorter (from 6 to 3 or 2) to allow more of them to pass thru the framing structure in a given time, thereby raising the data thruput.

Blu-ray, on the other hand, has no such packet constraint. That allows DD to be used in its full 6-block frame for maximum coding efficiency (efficiency drops slightly as the frame size is reduced), and to use its full 640 kbps capability for the very first time on optical media, thereby bringing higher quality.

If you look at the DD+ structure when delivering a 7.1 program (someday), you will see a 2-frame pairing. The first frame is the usual complete 5.1 mix. The second frame has the new channels for the 7.1 mix. The second frame also has all the new metadata and channel management DD+ info needed to control the overall reconstruction process. This explanation is identical for HD DVD and BD. The only difference is that both frames in HD DVD are DD+ because they must have a shorter frame duration, whereas in BD the first frame is standard DD because it does not have to be shorter. Both frames in the BD pair are full 6-blocks, highest efficiency mode.

Furthermore, while HD DVD discs generally do not let you stream the DD+ to an output without going thru the mixer (and yes, the Toshiba player has the DD+ to DD640 converter, FWIW), BD does allow that option. So you have a chance to get the 640 DD stream right off the disc and into your AVR via S/PDIF. One might prefer that option to DD+ transcoded to DTS.

Given distinctly different circumstances, Dolby was able to adapt its coding technologies to bring improved quality and more channels to both formats. The goal was not to make the end results different, but the same in spite of the situation."

I just find it odd that some here are somehow trying to spin 640 Kbps DD support on Blu-ray into some sort of an advantage over HD DVD.Well because of frame block limitations technically it is, but I don't think that is the issue in question here. I think the issue in question is at what point does an increase in bit rate no longer matter in terms of a noticeable improvement in audio quality. Some people think that requires PCM/lossless audio, other people think it requires high bit rate lossy audio (1.5 Mbps DD+/DTS), and others think that 640 Kbps DD is sufficient. It depends on your personal opinion.

For the most part, I tend to believe that 20/48 is really the limit of vast majority of us here on AVS. Some of the professionals and ballers have the training, perception, and/or budget to appreciate 20+ bits while J6p is more than happy with 448k 5.1 DD, if not mono output! :eek:

Most 24 bit stuff is going to be outside of the range of most listeners, but I do love FilmMixer's self-described rant on or around page 15. I certainly wouldn't deny that some people most definitely do have the ear, gear, and room to hear the difference. Maybe I have 1 or 2 of the 3 at most... If someone can't hear the difference between the TrueHD and DD+ track on the HDDVD release of the Superman Returns, let's pity them. We should all strive to get at least the gear and the room. Nothing you can really do about the "ear" but we can take care of 2 out of the 3. :D

The key is that with 24/48 PCM you KNOW that's as good as it gets. Period. No requirement for a Ouija board encoding voodoo or the necessity of a Masters Degree to understand. Shouldn't we all strive for such, especially when the bit bucket and capacity on disc allow it? As in, say... Superman Returns on Blu-ray with 20+ gigs free? :whistles:

It doesn't sound like you've seen what Roger Dressler had to say (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=1&pp=30):
Of course we have seen it, especially since you guys have repeatedly posted it in this thread. More importantly though, you guys keep ignoring the fact that DD+ offers much more than simple equivalency to 640 Kbps DD support. Dolby achieved equivalency in DD+, and then added a whole lot more.

DD+ on HD DVD has a greatly expanded feature set over 640 Kbps DD on Blu-ray, but you argue it's irrelevant, while many Blu-ray supporters here argue at the same time that lossless audio is highly preferable. I find it amusing that now you guys are suggesting that nobody should need anything beyond 640 Kbps DD.

Ironically, I've always held the belief that 640 Kbps DD is sufficient for most needs, and that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is needed simply to cover the outlier cases and to add additional channel support, only to be told by some (but not all) Blu-ray supporters that it's not sufficient until it's uncompressed PCM.

Basically, I think that DD+ is the best baseline mandatory audio format available on either format.

Blu-ray has the advantage for disc size, which is beneficial for uber long movies. However, in most cases it's irrelevant. "Most" does not equal "all" though.
HD DVD has the advantage for mandatory audio support in DD+. It could be arguable that its advantages are irrelevant for many or even most movies. However, again, "most" does not equal "all".

considering there is a DD core in DD+ can you explain how DD+ can be more efficient.

Explanation of efficiency improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital_Plus#Codec_changes)

Interesting quotes:

Dolby claims that these changes can result in bitrate improvements of up to 50% while still allowing for the signal to be converted to AC-3 for backwards compatibility.


On HD DVD, DD+ is designated a mandatory audio-codec. ... Since DD+ is allowed as a primary audio track, the bitstream is stored as an independent, self-contained unit, with no companion "core" (legacy) AC-3 audio track.


On Blu-ray Disc, DD+ is an optional codec. If DD+ is present on a Blu-ray movie, a "core" AC-3 bitstream must accompany it

Of course we have seen it, especially since you guys have repeatedly posted it in this thread. More importantly though, you guys keep ignoring the fact that DD+ offers much more than simple equivalency to 640 Kbps DD support. Dolby achieved equivalency in DD+, and then added a whole lot more.

Apparently you have seen it but haven't READ it since Roger directly contradicts your position numerous times throughout that thread. The only reason DD+ was created at all was so that they could exceed the limitations HDDVD inherited from DVD. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on it, then.



DD+ on HD DVD has a greatly expanded feature set over 640 Kbps DD on Blu-ray, but you argue it's irrelevant, while many Blu-ray supporters here argue at the same time that lossless audio is highly preferable. I find it amusing that now you guys are suggesting that nobody should need anything beyond 640 Kbps DD.


A Dolby employee telling us that DD+ was created to have the SAME EFFECT as DD on Blu-ray is not good enough for you? Somehow you keep thinking there's an advantage to it when Dolby themselves didn't design it for that and don't think DD+ offers any advantage over full capacity DD that DVD was never able to implement (but that Blu-ray does).

Lossless is an entirely different enchilada. It's obviously aesthetically & mathematically superior... Subjectively, it is superior depending on ear, gear, & room. If the space and bandwidth are available, then it should be included. BD50 makes this very possible, particularly with use of advanced video codecs. DD/DD+ is meat & potatoes. Often very satisfying, but sometimes one craves an exotic dish like lobster, filet mignon, or caviar.


is[/i] sufficient for most needs, and that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is needed simply to cover the outlier cases and to add additional channel support, only to be told by some (but not all) Blu-ray supporters that it's not sufficient until it's uncompressed PCM.


I would prefer PCM whenever possible but TrueHD is more than acceptable to me when that's not feasable. Basically, I want something that I MUST use over the HDMI connection to my AVR whenever possible. If it can go through the toslink, I'm not saying it's bad... it's just not as good as it can be and we all know it.



Basically, I think that DD+ is the best baseline mandatory audio format available on either format.


Right. I'm just think it's misplaced given the statements from Dolby's own employee as posted and you claim to have read, but for some reason disregard. It is perfectly possible that DD/DD+ would have a "sweet spot" at 768k or some other semi-arbitrary bitrate, for example.... Unfortunately for that hypothesis, Roger indicated vastly diminishing returns beyond 640k except for additional channels beyond 5.1 (which also should be our goal). There is simply no basis for claiming superiority of DD+ over DD unless you have some DBT evidence that points out otherwise.

Explanation of efficiency improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital_Plus#Codec_changes)

On HD DVD, DD+ is designated a mandatory audio-codec. ... Since DD+ is allowed as a primary audio track, the bitstream is stored as an independent, self-contained unit, with no companion "core" (legacy) AC-3 audio track.




Roger from Dolby:

If you look at the DD+ structure when delivering a 7.1 program (someday), you will see a 2-frame pairing. The first frame is the usual complete 5.1 mix. The second frame has the new channels for the 7.1 mix. The second frame also has all the new metadata and channel management DD+ info needed to control the overall reconstruction process. This explanation is identical for HD DVD and BD. The only difference is that both frames in HD DVD are DD+ because they must have a shorter frame duration, whereas in BD the first frame is standard DD because it does not have to be shorter. Both frames in the BD pair are full 6-blocks, highest efficiency mode.

Right. I'm just think it's misplaced given the statements from Dolby's own employee as posted and you claim to have read, but for some reason disregard. It is perfectly possible that DD/DD+ would have a "sweet spot" at 768k or some other semi-arbitrary bitrate, for example.... Unfortunately for that hypothesis, Roger indicated vastly diminishing returns beyond 640k except for additional channels beyond 5.1 (which also should be our goal). There is simply no basis for claiming superiority of DD+ over DD unless you have some DBT evidence that points out otherwise.
You guys also conveniently ignore my previous posts about outlier cases and additional channels.

Any way you try to spin it, DD+ offers significant advantages over DD, even if those advantages may not be realized on many or even most discs. The bottom line is that Blu-ray chose to limit itself in terms of audio support. HD DVD does not suffer from this limitation.

Roger from Dolby:

If you look at the DD+ structure when delivering a 7.1 program (someday), you will see a 2-frame pairing. The first frame is the usual complete 5.1 mix. The second frame has the new channels for the 7.1 mix. The second frame also has all the new metadata and channel management DD+ info needed to control the overall reconstruction process. This explanation is identical for HD DVD and BD. The only difference is that both frames in HD DVD are DD+ because they must have a shorter frame duration, whereas in BD the first frame is standard DD because it does not have to be shorter. Both frames in the BD pair are full 6-blocks, highest efficiency mode.

This seems to indicate that the base 5.1 channels (out of a possible 7.1 should there ever be content mastered as such) on BR (i.e. "first frame") will be DD. Are you stating that the efficiency improvements noted in the article apply to those "non-plus" 5.1 channels as well?

I got the impression from Roger's comments that he was addressing the "extensions in an additional second frame" aspect of the architecture on both platforms.

DD 640K sounds great. DD+ 1.5MBit sounds great. Lossless sounds better than both, but some people might not hear the difference. It really is that simple, no?

It doesn't sound like you've seen what Roger Dressler had to say (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=1&pp=30):

"[i]Due to the way HD DVD structures audio data in packets, the only way to offer advanced capabilities--higher quality sound and option for more channels--was to adopt a different codec than DD, which was locked at 5.1 and 448 kbps, same as DVD. DD+ was specifically designed to address HD DVD's structure--the DD+ coding frames become progressively shorter (from 6 to 3 or 2) to allow more of them to pass thru the framing structure in a given time, thereby raising the data thruput.


Thanks for posting this information, I never read that tread. Now I understand the reason why DD+ is mandatory on HD DVD and the difference between DD/DD+ on BD and DD+ on HD DVD.

rto: this is what happens when you highlight the right parts

The core of Dolby Digital Plus is based on the Dolby Digital format. It achieves its' improved audio performance, coding efficiency, and channel and program extensions through several unique technical advances.

Transient pre-noise processing virtually pre-noise distortions often associated with "difficult to encode" transient material. A time scaling synthesis technique improves the "definition" of transient signals to give the listener a more accurate representation of the original signal.

Enhanced channel coupling adds phase compensation to the channel coupling process. Adjusting interchannel phase improves the dimensionality of the reproduced signal by restoring the original phase relationships at the decoder outputs. This improves the performance of matrix-based systems that rely on phase and amplitude information, such as Dolby Pro Logic II.

Adaptive transform processing improves coding efficiency and quality by combining improved spectral resolution, higher resolution bit allocation, and improved quantization techniques for pseudo-stationary signals. This also simplifies compatibility with existing Dolby Digital decoders.

1) coding efficency= faster to encode not lower bitrate

2) Transient pre-noise processing = cleaning the audio and getting rid of sounds that are problematic. This is the encoder and is done before the encoding. Basically it means "these sounds look odd and might be noise, let's get rid of them" so that the encoder can have an easier time to create the encoding.

3) Enhanced channel coupling. can you explain why you think this is a benefit to anyone here and why you think it will reduce the bitrate?

4) Adaptive transform processing. do you see where it says "simplifies compatibility with existing Dolby Digital decoders". How can something that simplifies compatibility help get lower bitrate?

DD 640K sounds great. DD+ 1.5MBit sounds great. Lossless sounds better than both, but some people might not hear the difference. It really is that simple, no?

It is that simple, but I would probably add that many will not hear the difference and many will simply not care.

Translated: DD has several limitations, which are removed with DD+.

yes, that's true but irrelevent and missleading since I don't think that any movie has had 7.1 HD DVD or 24/96 and kind of started by 2CH asking how can DD on BD sound as good as 1.5mbps DD+ on HD DVD. Personnaly considering the lossy is there for backwards compatibility and the lower end movie buyer. I would rather they keep the 7.1 24/96 for the lossless codecs. Anyone that cares wants better then lossy and anyone that does not, does not, so DD is good enough

I'm trying to follow your analogy. Are you saying that DD+ on HD-DVD is less efficient than DD on BD? That the efficiency on HD-DVD is so much worse that a 1.5mbps encode on HD-DVD has as much "effective" bit rate as the 640kbps DD encode on BD?

Anthony, I was hoping to get your feedback on these two qestions.

I'm trying to follow your analogy. Are you saying that DD+ on HD-DVD is less efficient than DD on BD?
yes as well as Dolby and Roger Dressler and anyone that knows anything.

That the efficiency on HD-DVD is so much worse that a 1.5mbps encode on HD-DVD has as much "effective" bit rate as the 640kbps DD encode on BD?
I don't know what you mean by "effective" bit rate , but you were the one that linked to the reviewer that said they could not hear the difference (it is not somethingh I made up). There can be a small differnce, but for a master that is @5.1 and @24/48 (or less for any of the three specs) DD and DD+ won't be very different after decoding even when there is a difference.

The other issue is that a studio/person releasing on HD DVD can give the encoder/decoders DD or DD+ bitrate or the on disk muxed DD+ bitrate (they can be different, on disk >= e/d). It is a bit like the question, "why does windows say my 250GB HDD is much smaller, did I get ripped off?" or the discussion a few pages back BD is 67% larger then HD DVD and HD DVD is 40% smaller then BD. It is all a matter of perspective. On HD DVD the audio is in blocks, these blocks can't be just any size, so if the encoder reaches past the threshhold then it moves to a new block and so a partially filled block will still be one block on the disk.

Another "War" article.

No punches pulled in high definition war


Sony's dream of an early victory in the next-gen DVD
format fight has been dashed by poor PS3 sales

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2070610,00.html

yes as well as Dolby and Roger Dressler and anyone that knows anything.


I don't know what you mean by "effective" bit rate , but you were the one that linked to the reviewer that said they could not hear the difference (it is not somethingh I made up). There can be a small differnce, but for a master that is @5.1 and @24/48 (or less for any of the three specs) DD and DD+ won't be very different after decoding even when there is a difference.

The other issue is that a studio/person releasing on HD DVD can give the encoder/decoders DD or DD+ bitrate or the on disk muxed DD+ bitrate (they can be different, on disk >= e/d). It is a bit like the question, "why does windows say my 250GB HDD is much smaller, did I get ripped off?" or the discussion a few pages back BD is 67% larger then HD DVD and HD DVD is 40% smaller then BD. It is all a matter of perspective. On HD DVD the audio is in blocks, these blocks can't be just any size, so if the encoder reaches past the threshhold then it moves to a new block and so a partially filled block will still be one block on the disk.

So because of the wasted space, you are suggesting that when you look at how much real music data is actually in the 1.5mbps DD+ encode, it is no more than in the 640kbps DD encode?

Of course we have seen it, especially since you guys have repeatedly posted it in this thread.
maybe you should try reading it as well

More importantly though, you guys keep ignoring the fact that DD+ offers much more than simple equivalency to 640 Kbps DD support. Dolby achieved equivalency in DD+, and then added a whole lot more.

not ignoring it, but the discussion is about 5.1 16/48 or 24/48. If Paramount used DD+ to get 24/96 or 7.1 on the HD DVD then you could talk about the improvement. The problem, is some see DD+ and assume that it must sound much better, especially when they see it is 1.5mbps.

DD+ on HD DVD has a greatly expanded feature set over 640 Kbps DD on Blu-ray, but you argue it's irrelevant, while many Blu-ray supporters here argue at the same time that lossless audio is highly preferable. I find it amusing that now you guys are suggesting that nobody should need anything beyond 640 Kbps DD.

yes it is irrelevant. The issue is that unless you move to 24/96 or 7.1 DD+ does not have a benefit over DD as implemented by the BDA. On the other hand lossless is lossless it is the perfect representation of the digital master used to create it. It is the best sound we can have at home. It is not messed up sound screwed during compression. It is the richest experience possible.


Ironically, I've always held the belief that 640 Kbps DD is sufficient for most needs, and that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is needed simply to cover the outlier cases and to add additional channel support, only to be told by some (but not all) Blu-ray supporters that it's not sufficient until it's uncompressed PCM.

that's the difference, DD is good enough for most needs, that means most people/moost movies and most set-ups. Most people don't care enough. And if they don't then why should I care about them (they are happy). But this is AVS for people that do care and DD/DD+ is not the ultimate experience even if it is 24/96 7.1 DTHD/DTS-HD MA/LPCM are

Blu-ray has the advantage for disc size, which is beneficial for uber long movies.
or more extras, or more movies (there was a BD with 2 movies), or more languages or better audio......

Gotta love it.

yes it is irrelevant. The issue is that unless you move to 24/96 or 7.1 DD+ does not have a benefit over DD as implemented by the BDA. On the other hand lossless is lossless it is the perfect representation of the digital master used to create it. It is the best sound we can have at home. It is not messed up sound screwed during compression. It is the richest experience possible.
DD+'s added benefits are useless, but lossless is "the richest experience possible". That's rich all right.


not ignoring it, but the discussion is about 5.1 16/48 or 24/48. If Paramount used DD+ to get 24/96 or 7.1 on the HD DVD then you could talk about the improvement. The problem, is some see DD+ and assume that it must sound much better, especially when they see it is 1.5mbps.
No it isn't. The real discussion is whether or not DD+ is superior to DD. Unfortunately, some people in this thread have tried to focus the arguments to only a subset of DD+ for the comparison. However, unlike DD, DD+ is not bound by such limitations.

Interesting quotes:

not as interesting as you imply


Dolby claims that these changes can result in bitrate improvements of up to 50% while still allowing for the signal to be converted to AC-3 for backwards compatibility.


can I ask you 50% of what?
Hint: it is not DD

It is DD+ without some of the techs they use (like ATP). For example one of the issues is that DD was 5.1, DD+ allows for more channels (so let's look at 7.1 since that is all the disks can do)

in 5.1 you have FL,FC,FR and RL,RR in 7.1 you have FL,FC,FR and ML,MR and BL,BR
RL is a combination of ML/BL and RR is a combination of MR/BR. One option is for the core to have 5.1 and the none core to have 4 channels and then when you release the 7.1 DD+ to just throw away RL,RR. But that would mean throwing away RL,RR and wasting their BW needs. What they did is that in the extra code they don't add 4 full channels but it is a more concise adding some info that is missing but how to split the RL and RR into ML, BL and MR, BR




On HD DVD, DD+ is designated a mandatory audio-codec. ... Since DD+ is allowed as a primary audio track, the bitstream is stored as an independent, self-contained unit, with no companion "core" (legacy) AC-3 audio track.

On Blu-ray Disc, DD+ is an optional codec. If DD+ is present on a Blu-ray movie, a "core" AC-3 bitstream must accompany it


not at all what you think it means. You might want to try the white paper on Dolby's site(it is better written). To get you started why does DTHD and PCM need a lossy codec while DTS HD MA does not ? The DD core in DD+ can't be taken out of DD+ and decoded by a DD decoder. All that those two quotes are saying is that because DD+ is not mandatory on DD a BD disk that has DD+ will also need DD, the same way as every disk with PCM or DTHD needs DD(on BD) or DD+. The BD player can't be guaranteed to strip out the DD part of DD+ and send it to a receiver (assuming you have DD as the output) on HD DVD you don't need to add DD (DD+ is enough), the DD+ decoder strips out the core and then sends it to the receiver for decoding, so it does not need DD

DD 640K sounds great. DD+ 1.5MBit sounds great. Lossless sounds better than both, but some people might not hear the difference. It really is that simple, no?

yup Nilsp, that simple


It is that simple, but I would probably add that many will not hear the difference and many will simply not care.


AV Doogie : and why should we care that others might not?

rto: this is what happens when you highlight the right parts



1) coding efficency= faster to encode not lower bitrate

2) Transient pre-noise processing = cleaning the audio and getting rid of sounds that are problematic. This is the encoder and is done before the encoding. Basically it means "these sounds look odd and might be noise, let's get rid of them" so that the encoder can have an easier time to create the encoding.

3) Enhanced channel coupling. can you explain why you think this is a benefit to anyone here and why you think it will reduce the bitrate?

4) Adaptive transform processing. do you see where it says "simplifies compatibility with existing Dolby Digital decoders". How can something that simplifies compatibility help get lower bitrate?

Anthony, if you really believe DD+ is not a more flexible, efficient, technically sophisticated codec than its' AC-3 predecessor, you need to read more "white papers," but it's much easier for me to accept the notion you're simply playing games, and/or being intellectually dishonest, than it is to believe you're really that monolithically obtuse..... However, my reservoir of patience has finally run out, and you've earned the dubious distinction of my first ever ( and hopefully, only )

*plonk* :(

So because of the wasted space, you are suggesting that when you look at how much real music data is actually in the 1.5mbps DD+ encode, it is no more than in the 640kbps DD encode?

if I understand correctly, the answer is yes, but with one small correction.

I would state

"So because of the wasted space, you are suggesting that when you look at how much real music data is actually in the 1.5mbps DD+ encode, it is not much more than in the 640kbps DD encode? "

even though I don’t have any proof, I am not sure if it is always the case? I am guessing there might be some instances where there might be some differences. That is why I think (if there are) that you would need to know exactly what you are looking for. i.e use an spectrum analyser to analyse the output, take the few clips that show the biggest difference (if there are any) and then play back just those clips (1min clips for example) in an A/B test where you flip between the A and B versions a few times and the test subject must end up with the same sequence (i.e. if you play back ABBAAAB he must have written down ABBAAAB)

Anthony, if you really believe DD+ is not a more flexible...

no, Iwas tyhe one that first pointed out it can do 7.1 that DD can't, it can do 24/48 that DD can't

what it can't do is make 24/48 5.1 or 16/48 5.1 sound much better then DD 5.1

no, Iwas tyhe one that first pointed out it can do 7.1 that DD can't, it can do 24/48 that DD can't

what it can't do is make 24/48 5.1 or 16/48 5.1 sound much better then DD 5.1

Despite 2.5X the data rate? :rolleyes:

not as interesting as you imply



can I ask you 50% of what?
Hint: it is not DD

It is DD+ without some of the techs they use (like ATP). For example one of the issues is that DD was 5.1, DD+ allows for more channels (so let's look at 7.1 since that is all the disks can do)

in 5.1 you have FL,FC,FR and RL,RR in 7.1 you have FL,FC,FR and ML,MR and BL,BR
RL is a combination of ML/BL and RR is a combination of MR/BR. One option is for the core to have 5.1 and the none core to have 4 channels and then when you release the 7.1 DD+ to just throw away RL,RR. But that would mean throwing away RL,RR and wasting their BW needs. What they did is that in the extra code they don't add 4 full channels but it is a more concise adding some info that is missing but how to split the RL and RR into ML, BL and MR, BR


You seem to be stating here that the efficiency improvements of DD+ are NOT over DD for 5.1 encodes, but ony when additional channels (i.e. 7.1) are present?

if so, why does te Dlby paper say: "Dolby Digitial Plus can deliver the same high-quality signal even more efficiently that traditional Dolby Digital, with data rate iprovements of up to 50 percent."?

If we are only talking 7.1 encodes (which DD can't do), then that statment makes no sense.

The key is that once you've reached a threshold bandwidth point, putting "more" just doesn't have an appreciable effect. DD+ was designed to match DD at full bandwidth, and it's tools are explicitly said to only be effective at low bitrates that don't apply to either HD movie format. Wash/tie since one isn't meant to be better than another. Regular ol DD is more efficient. Lossless is what separates the wheat from the chaff.

More importantly though, you guys keep ignoring the fact that DD+ offers much more than simple equivalency to 640 Kbps DD support.I never said that. DD+ can do more than DD in terms of number of channels it can support and that is a nice feature. Personally I think 6.1/7.1 channel support is a good thing to have even if it is very rare at the moment for movies. Of course a DD+ audio track could always be used with Blu-ray with the DD stream being the main 5.1 channels and the DD+ stream being the additional channel(s).


Ironically, I've always held the belief that 640 Kbps DD is sufficient for most needs, and that 1.5 Mbps DD+ is needed simply to cover the outlier cases and to add additional channel support, only to be told by some (but not all) Blu-ray supporters that it's not sufficient until it's uncompressed PCM.Just curious but do you think that 1.5 Mbps DTS is worse than 1.5 Mbps DD+ and if so than why?


Explanation of efficiency improvements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital_Plus#Codec_changes)scaesare, just to mention this again but Roger Dressler has said (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8053727&&#post8053727) the new encoding tools in DD+ only operate at bit rates under 448 Kbps.

if I understand correctly, the answer is yes, but with one small correction.

I would state

"So because of the wasted space, you are suggesting that when you look at how much real music data is actually in the 1.5mbps DD+ encode, it is not much more than in the 640kbps DD encode? "

even though I don’t have any proof, I am not sure if it is always the case? I am guessing there might be some instances where there might be some differences. That is why I think (if there are) that you would need to know exactly what you are looking for. i.e use an spectrum analyser to analyse the output, take the few clips that show the biggest difference (if there are any) and then play back just those clips (1min clips for example) in an A/B test where you flip between the A and B versions a few times and the test subject must end up with the same sequence (i.e. if you play back ABBAAAB he must have written down ABBAAAB)

Here's my point of view Anthony. There is in fact more "effective" (used for audio) bit rate in the 1.5mbps DD+ audio encode than the 640kbps DD encode, as you grudgingly concede. I understand you believe the difference between the two isn't 860kbps because of differences in efficiency as you describe below.

When Universal says it is 1.5mbps what they are really saying is 3 blocks and so it takes 1.5 on the disk but to the decoder it is not actually 1.5. The added headroom needed for DD+ (empty extension) and the fact that it gets split into blocks does the rest.

Your description differs a bit from what Dolby says....
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

We can argue the exact difference and minutia for days on end, but the exact numbers are not actually important.

What is important is the quote from Roger Dressler of Dolby
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8053727&&#post8053727

There is indeed a clearly discernable difference in openness and transparency between DD+ 768 vs DD at 448. DD at 640 is not identical to DD+ 768, but it is extremely close.

Now considering his statement and all of the above information, why do these two discs sound the same? Let's look at another Roger Dressler quote that Uxi posted.

Roger indicated vastly diminishing returns beyond 640k except for additional channels beyond 5.1

This is what I've been saying. The curve is a reverse hockey stick and despite the fact that the HD-DVD has additional bit rate, the BD has enough that the reviewer could no longer discern an audible difference. So if adding additional bit rate doesn't give us an audible improvement at the left side of the graph, that answers the question of what lossless would give us on this particular title.....no difference discernable.

But I do understand that you have a different point of view.

According to Wiki (which must have some agreement, or it would be changed)

"In the consumer (home theater) market, AC-3 and DTS are closer in terms of audio performance. When the DTS audiotrack is encoded at its highest legal bitrate (1.5 MBps), most technical experts regard DTS as achieving perceptual transparency (i.e. indistinguishable to the uncoded source in a double blind test.) At AC-3's maximum bitrate of 640 Kbps, Dolby claims similar transparency."

What exactly more do you want than transparency?

Just curious but do you think that 1.5 Mbps DTS is worse than 1.5 Mbps DD+ and if so than why?
I never mentioned DTS in any of my recent posts, AFAIK.

However, I do believe that DD+'s support for additional discrete channels is beneficial, but I don't know how that compares to DTS's extended surround support.

According to Wiki (which must have some agreement, or it would be changed)

"In the consumer (home theater) market, AC-3 and DTS are closer in terms of audio performance. When the DTS audiotrack is encoded at its highest legal bitrate (1.5 MBps), most technical experts regard DTS as achieving perceptual transparency (i.e. indistinguishable to the uncoded source in a double blind test.) At AC-3's maximum bitrate of 640 Kbps, Dolby claims similar transparency."

What exactly more do you want than transparency?

What has become clear to me is that this is about religion. It doesn't matter what Dolby says if it goes against Dogma.

What has become clear to me is that this is about religion. It doesn't matter what Dolby says if it goes against Dogma.

That's gotta be sig worthy. Someone should tell HDDVD they should remove the requirement for TrueHD since DD+ is transparent enough.

Seriously though, the only reasonable conclusion from that thread is that DD+ and full bitrate DD have similar performance and neither has an inherent advantage over the other, which was explicitly the design goal of DD+.

Nor should it be inconceivable that some people in the HD market have the ear, gear, and environment that they can perceive the merits of lossless over the best "perceptually transparent" material. Those unable to distinguish the differences lack 1 or more of those 3 prerequisites.

Seriously though, the only reasonable conclusion from that thread is that DD+ and full bitrate DD have similar performance and neither has an inherent advantage over the other
Again, even if we completely disregard bitrate, you conveniently ignore the other advantages of DD+ already commented upon in this thread.

Someone should tell HDDVD they should remove the requirement for TrueHD since DD+ is transparent enough.
Yes, and ????? You haven't shown it isn't.

Yes, and ????? You haven't shown it isn't.

It's a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative.

So it is your opinion that HDDVD should remove it's mandated requirement for 2.0 TrueHD support? That would certainly make it easier to get the cheaper Shinco some people around here are supposedly dying for...

So it is your opinion that HDDVD should remove it's mandated requirement for 2.0 TrueHD support? That would certainly make it easier to get the cheaper Shinco some people around here are supposedly dying for...
Not really, since the completed lower cost SoC-based reference HD DVD design was announced 4 months ago.

They'd be even cheaper. My point is that if you don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio, why would you want support for such mandated in your hardware?

It's a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative.

So it is your opinion that HDDVD should remove it's mandated requirement for 2.0 TrueHD support? That would certainly make it easier to get the cheaper Shinco some people around here are supposedly dying for...
No one has taken the time to prove it is better. That isn't trying to prove a negative. Without proof there is no logical justification for lossless anything.

They'd be even cheaper. My point is that if you don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio, why would you want support for such mandated in your hardware?
Interestingly, this is the same argument that was used for DTS on DVD.

Now DTS is a defacto standard, even though it isn't required.

I personally like the concept of having a future-proofed baseline. OTOH, I'd be perfectly satisfied with DD+ as the baseline. However, I'd be a bit disappointed if DD were the baseline, given its limitations.

It's not under dispute that lossless is mathematically superior. If you don't think some people around here have the ear, gear, and environment to be able to perceive the difference from lossless and not, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Anyone lacking those would know that their ear, gear, and equipment were to blame from any loss, not the vague uncertainty of how good the encoder was and if he was having a bad day or some such...

And answer the question, please. :)

Imagination + E^3 (ear, euip., env.)

They'd be even cheaper. My point is that if you don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio, why would you want support for such mandated in your hardware?
Speaking of "gear," have you ever actually listened to a 1.5mbps (or 640kbps) DD+ track before? The "gear" listed in your sig would be insufficient, so it would have to have been in a showroom or at a buddy's house, right?

In your opinion, do you think that it's possible to throw enough bits at a lossy codec to make a given track perceptually lossless (for everyone, experts and J6P alike) when compared to the master? If so, where would you draw the line?

not ignoring it, but the discussion is about 5.1 16/48 or 24/48. If Paramount used DD+ to get 24/96 or 7.1 on the HD DVD then you could talk about the improvement. The problem, is some see DD+ and assume that it must sound much better, especially when they see it is 1.5mbps.


Wow ... so when the Blu-ray side goes to '11', it's better because it goes to '11'. But when DD+ goes to '11', it's irrelevent?

The problem, is some see 'Lossless' and assume that is must sound much better. :p

Speaking of "gear," have you ever actually listened to a 1.5mbps (or 640kbps) DD+ track before? The "gear" listed in your sig would be insufficient, so it would have to have been in a showroom or at a buddy's house, right?


Can you elaborate on why his "gear" would be insufficient to hear the best sound quality that DD+ 1.5mbps can offer?

What's needed to hear the best that a codec like DD+ can do in your opinion?

Can you elaborate on why his "gear" would be insufficient to hear the best sound quality that DD+ 1.5mbps can offer?
He's using the 360 add-on as his HD DVD player. Not only is it incapable of outputting DD+ without re-encoding it to legacy DD (soon you'll be able to choose legacy DTS as well, once the update shows up,) it's also stuck in "night mode." There are no DD+ tracks (to my knowledge) on any BD releases, so the only experience he would have with DD+ would be on HD DVD.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. ;)

I'll add that I have heard DD+ (and TrueHD) in what I consider reference level setups, FWIW.

I'll answer your question if you answer mine. ;)
Since you didn't address anyone in particular and didn't quote the post you were replying to, I can only assume you're speaking to me. Is the question you're referring to this one: "My point is that if you don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio, why would you want support for such mandated in your hardware?"

If so, where have I ever said that I "don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio?" In fact, I dare say my "gear" is better equipped to handle the advanced codecs than yours, since mine can actually output the full bitrate tracks without a re-encode step.
I'll add that I have heard DD+ (and TrueHD) in what I consider reference level setups, FWIW.
In a buddy's house? In a showroom? In the HD DVD demo trailer they drive around?

It's a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a negative.

So it is your opinion that HDDVD should remove it's mandated requirement for 2.0 TrueHD support? That would certainly make it easier to get the cheaper Shinco some people around here are supposedly dying for...


It's like when I ask a Christian to prove there's a "God" and they can't. All they can come up with is, prove there isn't a "God". You don't have to prove that something is NOT there, when there is no physical evidence that it exists. It's like if you told me you had $20 and I said, no you don't, you pull out the $20 and there you go...proof. I rely on fact, not rumor, or belief.

What we need to know is if DD or DD+ at 640kbps is supposed to be transparent (most of the time, for most material) to "us" as well. If not, it kinda destroys the 640kbps is virtually as good as 1.5mbps argument (imo.)

If you read the thread, Roger from Dolby quite strenuously denies several times that neither he nor Dolby make any claims to DD or DD+ being perceptually lossless, merely that the two are indistinguishable from EACH OTHER.
Actually, he clearly says that, while Dolby makes no claims that DD is transparent, it will still sound transparent to most in most cases. Here's (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8210881&&#post8210881) the direct quote:
I never said DD is transparent. Dolby never claims its lossy codecs are transparent. I said for most people, most of the time, with most program material, it sounds transparent. In my opinion, DD 640 sounds darn good.
I still haven't found any reference stating that "we" were included in that "most."

He also said that there were rapidly diminishing returns when going higher than 640kbps, which suggests that there are, in fact, "returns" (which kinda hurts the whole "they're indistinguishable from each other" theory.) In fact, he said the following: (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8292776&&#post8292776)
I hope you are not interpreting my statement of “It is indeed rapidly diminishing returns beyond 640 kbs” as no gain. No means zero. I allow for the possibility, however small it may be under real world conditions.

Since you didn't address anyone in particular and didn't quote the post you were replying to, I can only assume you're speaking to me. Is the question you're referring to this one: "My point is that if you don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio, why would you want support for such mandated in your hardware?"

If so, where have I ever said that I "don't have the ear, gear, and/or environment necessary to appreciate lossless audio?" In fact, I dare say my "gear" is better equipped to handle the advanced codecs than yours, since mine can actually output the full bitrate tracks without a re-encode step.


That was the question and was intended for everyone on the "No Lossless necessary" team. :) My main point of interest is if <anyone on that team> thinks Lossless (TrueHD) should be mandated on HDDVD hardware, and if so, why.

I fully appreciate my own HDDVD player is not up to snuff as I've known that for some time. I'm am living with it while I watch and wait to decide on the next course of action. I am still most inclined to try to Frankenstein an XA1 with my add-on (and some other computer parts) since I"m a techno tinkerer by nature... I may try that and STILL get an A2 anyways.... Decisions decisions.

The only reason one wouldn't appreciate lossless audio is if they lack the "ear, gear, and/or environment." FWIW, I know my own rooms acoustics are not optimized beyond the Audyssey MultiEQ...

I certainly believe that SOME people have the ear (training and/or natural perceptual acuity), gear (equipment is the easiest as it only takes $$$), and environment (only takes $$$ but often significantly more than the electronic equipment). Don't you? Or is it all snake oil and ouija boards to you?


In a buddy's house? In a showroom? In the HD DVD demo trailer they drive around?

Dedicated home theater setups. Friends / associates. One an AVS Member's, but that was more aimed at video than audio. I don't consider showrooms or even most demo setups to be ... appropriate... certainly not realistic.

That was the question and was intended for everyone on the "No Lossless necessary" team. :) My main point of interest is if <anyone on that team> thinks Lossless (TrueHD) should be mandated on HDDVD hardware, and if so, why.
I don't know that lossless is "necessary," but as I've said before, I'd prefer all discs include a losslessly compressed or uncompressed audio track. I don't know if that puts me on that team or not.

I certainly believe that SOME people have the ear (training and/or natural perceptual acuity), gear (equipment is the easiest as it only takes $$$), and environment (only takes $$$ but often significantly more than the electronic equipment). Don't you? Or is it all snake oil and ouija boards to you?
I would like to think so, but I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to be sure. I'd love to see some experts submit themselves to some controlled, level-matched, double-blind tests to see what the results really are. The geek in me wants it to be true, but the realist in me warns me to be wary of deceptive marketing (see Monster Cables, etc.)

Since we have no tests to confirm one way or the other, I'd prefer to hedge my bets and get the lossless/uncompressed tracks. Likewise, I'd prefer to have DD+ at 1.5mbps rather than DD (or DD+) at 640kbps - even if the differences are slight and imperceptible to most.

He's using the 360 add-on as his HD DVD player. Not only is it incapable of outputting DD+ without re-encoding it to legacy DD (soon you'll be able to choose legacy DTS as well, once the update shows up,) it's also stuck in "night mode." There are no DD+ tracks (to my knowledge) on any BD releases, so the only experience he would have with DD+ would be on HD DVD.

I see. I thought you might be referring to his audio gear directly, receivers, speakers etc.

I wonder how much of this discussion of squeezing the last bit quality out of audio, which I can certainly appreciate, becomes utterly moot on so many of the audio setups people are using to watch their movies on.

I don't know that lossless is "necessary," but as I've said before, I'd prefer all discs include a losslessly compressed or uncompressed audio track. I don't know if that puts me on that team or not.


It doesn't sound like it since you want one of the two. :) On principle, I would prefer there be an uncompressed track whenever possible and have a hard time thinking of a reason that a compressed lossless track couldn't fit for those occassions the uncompressed isn't feasable (which should be pretty rare themselves).



I would like to think so, but I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to be sure. I'd love to see some experts submit themselves to some controlled, level-matched, double-blind tests to see what the results really are. The geek in me wants it to be true, but the realist in me warns me to be wary of deceptive marketing (see Monster Cables, etc.)


As Roger noted in that thread:

"If Dolby provided subjective test data, would you believe it? I presume not. If someone wants to conduct tests they would believe themselves, what’s stopping them? And even if they believed their own tests, would others at large automatically accept their conclusions? "

This issue is as much philosophy, if not religion, as 2Channel noted. Some folks are burned-out audiophiles who feel they were had and spent a brazillion dollars on snake-oil they didn't need. Meanwhile the numbers say that lossless is most definitely better. I would prefer anything I myself was losing to be to my equipment (which I can replace as I budget accordingly) or environment (likewise). If I don't have the golden-ear, I don't have it but solving 2 out of those 3 is definitely better than suspecting the content on my disc is not up to snuff with the master. We know that uncompressed PCM is as good as the master.

As Roger noted in that thread:

"If Dolby provided subjective test data, would you believe it? I presume not. If someone wants to conduct tests they would believe themselves, what’s stopping them? And even if they believed their own tests, would others at large automatically accept their conclusions? "
Ideally, Dolby wouldn't be the one conducting the tests. If it's an independent company running the show (with a Dolby representative or two on-hand to make sure everything's set up properly) with known experts (including Dolby employees and real-world compressionists) as the test subjects, I think a lot of people would find the data credible.

This issue is as much philosophy, if not religion, as 2Channel noted. Some folks are burned-out audiophiles who feel they were had and spent a brazillion dollars on snake-oil they didn't need. Meanwhile the numbers say that lossless is most definitely better. I would prefer anything I myself was losing to be to my equipment (which I can replace as I budget accordingly) or environment (likewise). If I don't have the golden-ear, I don't have it but solving 2 out of those 3 is definitely better than suspecting the content on my disc is not up to snuff with the master. We know that uncompressed PCM is as good as the master.
I don't know. If the tests were done properly and were conclusive one way or the other, I'd say the issue would quickly cease being a matter of "philosophy" or "religion" and return to where it belongs - "science." "Burned out audiophiles" aren't the only ones interested in the results of such a test.

This issue is as much philosophy, if not religion, as 2Channel noted. Some folks are burned-out audiophiles who feel they were had and spent a brazillion dollars on snake-oil they didn't need. Meanwhile the numbers say that lossless is most definitely better. I would prefer anything I myself was losing to be to my equipment (which I can replace as I budget accordingly) or environment (likewise). If I don't have the golden-ear, I don't have it but solving 2 out of those 3 is definitely better than suspecting the content on my disc is not up to snuff with the master. We know that uncompressed PCM is as good as the master.I generally agree with this, especially if you include Dolby TrueHD and yet to be delivered as a decoder, dts-HD MA -- but with a caveat. The encode should not be limited to 16 bit depth but rather at least have 20 bits if the master was a 24 bit source.

so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?

so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?
Touché :D

so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?

Exactly. Looks like a lot of people have more faith in SnakeOil than science ...

I don't know that lossless is "necessary," but as I've said before, I'd prefer all discs include a losslessly compressed or uncompressed audio track. I don't know if that puts me on that team or not.


I would like to think so, but I'd really like to see some scientific evidence to be sure. I'd love to see some experts submit themselves to some controlled, level-matched, double-blind tests to see what the results really are. The geek in me wants it to be true, but the realist in me warns me to be wary of deceptive marketing (see Monster Cables, etc.)

Since we have no tests to confirm one way or the other, I'd prefer to hedge my bets and get the lossless/uncompressed tracks. Likewise, I'd prefer to have DD+ at 1.5mbps rather than DD (or DD+) at 640kbps - even if the differences are slight and imperceptible to most.



I think that's a reasonable stance. Likewise, I'm skeptical of absolute superiority claims WRT PCM vs. lossless, or even perceptual lossless encoded material. Would I like the option of having lossless or PCM? Well, of course, but I have no empirical data to validate my desire.

Outside of this forums inhabitants and people of like mind, few if any will even care. Within the context of mass market forces I understand the angst that some people have when they argue for PCM, but I think their evidence is shaky. What turns me off are the people who use the PCM vs. LPCM debate for brinkmanship. Without strict ABX measurements across a statistically valid population no real conclusions can be drawn IMO.

As an aside, if I were to conduct such an ABX test, all relevant samples would have to be recordings of sounds very familiar to the test subjects- not random music samples of some wayward artist. My theory is that familiarity with an auditory sample can influence ones success in discerning differently encoded samples.

There's lots of A/B video testing (even in this forum), but not for audio - it's all anecdotal

I never mentioned DTS in any of my recent posts, AFAIK.I know, but I am somewhat curious to how what you believe when it comes to 1.5 Mbps DTS. It just seems to me if you are thinking that high bit rate lossy audio is good for DD+ than that should apply to DTS as well.


However, I do believe that DD+'s support for additional discrete channels is beneficial, but I don't know how that compares to DTS's extended surround support.Both DD+ and DTS-HD (lossy) have ways of handling additional channels but I was only referring to 1.5 Mbps DTS compared to 1.5 Mbps DD+ with 5.1 channel audio. In that case do you think that 1.5 Mbps DTS is worse than 1.5 Mbps DD+ and if so than why?


No one has taken the time to prove it is better. That isn't trying to prove a negative. Without proof there is no logical justification for lossless anything.Which is why in my opinion audio is mainly a matter of personal opinion. For instance Peter Bracke recently reviewed the HD DVD version of Alice Cooper (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/alicecooperliveinmontreux.html) to be better since he preferred the DTS-HD MA track that was provided with it. Which might not sound that strange except for the small fact that the HD-XA2 can't actually decode DTS-HD MA yet.

I don't know. If the tests were done properly and were conclusive one way or the other, I'd say the issue would quickly cease being a matter of "philosophy" or "religion" and return to where it belongs - "science."

Unfortunately, that goes to the last line in that quote from Roger. Some people still wouldn't buy it and would vociferously equate them with $1000 power cables. I'll bet nataraj would still call it SnakeOil, for example, and that rdjam would still say that 3.0Mbps DD+ is just as good as 20/48 LPCM. :D

I generally agree with this, especially if you include Dolby TrueHD and yet to be delivered as a decoder, dts-HD MA -- but with a caveat. The encode should not be limited to 16 bit depth but rather at least have 20 bits if the master was a 24 bit source.

Definitely agreed


so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?

Kinda like representative democracy. It sucks, but unfortunately the only thing better than every other option. If/when Holographic Versatile Discs take off, I'll then be stating my support of uncompressed video. :D

Unfortunately, that goes to the last line in that quote from Roger. Some people still wouldn't buy it and would vociferously equate them with $1000 power cables. I'll bet nataraj would still call it SnakeOil, for example, and that rdjam would still say that 3.0Mbps DD+ is just as good as 20/48 LPCM. :D
Imo, there's a world of difference between in-house testing (which would always have the suspicion of shenanigans hanging over the results) and independent, unbiased testing using a group of experts. I just don't buy that there shouldn't be any tests performed, simply because some people won't believe/accept the results. There will always be some who will reject the conclusions derived from such tests (regardless of what the results are,) but at least we'd have some data to work with. If nothing else, it would certainly be an interesting read.

I see. I thought you might be referring to his audio gear directly, receivers, speakers etc.

I wonder how much of this discussion of squeezing the last bit quality out of audio, which I can certainly appreciate, becomes utterly moot on so many of the audio setups people are using to watch their movies on.

I'm sure it is on mine. And that includes my biological equipment.

I'm thrilled with most of the soundtracks I've heard this far... most of which are lossy.

so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?

Given the "self evident truth" you've just stated, I'd venture there's no real data on this either.

Shame.

;)

That was the question and was intended for everyone on the "No Lossless necessary" team. :) My main point of interest is if <anyone on that team> thinks Lossless (TrueHD) should be mandated on HDDVD hardware, and if so, why.

Of course it should. There are people on both sides of the format war that want lossless audio. With this generation of technology it's not difficult (or expensive) to deliver lossless. It's a loosing game for any manufacturer to fight against peoples philosophy/religion on the subject.


I fully appreciate my own HDDVD player is not up to snuff as I've known that for some time. I'm am living with it while I watch and wait to decide on the next course of action. I am still most inclined to try to Frankenstein an XA1 with my add-on (and some other computer parts) since I"m a techno tinkerer by nature... I may try that and STILL get an A2 anyways.... Decisions decisions.

The only reason one wouldn't appreciate lossless audio is if they lack the "ear, gear, and/or environment." FWIW, I know my own rooms acoustics are not optimized beyond the Audyssey MultiEQ...

I believe those who think they have the ear, gear and environment are kidding themselves. After you've spent a lot of money on your audio system you are invested in your belief system.


I certainly believe that SOME people have the ear (training and/or natural perceptual acuity), gear (equipment is the easiest as it only takes $$$), and environment (only takes $$$ but often significantly more than the electronic
equipment). Don't you? Or is it all snake oil and ouija boards to you?

I believe, it's snake oil. But then again I'm jaded and have seen far too much snake oil in the 2 channel world.


Dedicated home theater setups. Friends / associates. One an AVS Member's, but that was more aimed at video than audio. I don't consider showrooms or even most demo setups to be ... appropriate... certainly not realistic.

The best audio environments I've seen are the high end audio retailers in NYC (at least back in the 80s and 90s). I'm sure there are some home environments that compare, but I've never had the good fortune of seeing one yet.

As an aside, if I were to conduct such an ABX test, all relevant samples would have to be recordings of sounds very familiar to the test subjects- not random music samples of some wayward artist. My theory is that familiarity with an auditory sample can influence ones success in discerning differently encoded samples.
I understand why you say that but it doesn't seem real world to me. How many times does anyone re-listen to a movie track to gain that kind of familiarity? Music is also incidental, so you're seldom focusing on it anyway.

This whole discussion is fixation on undocumented and at best marginal effects. Sort of "wouldn't it be nice if...."

Of course it should. There are people on both sides of the format war that want lossless audio. With this generation of technology it's not difficult (or expensive) to deliver lossless. It's a loosing game for any manufacturer to fight against peoples philosophy/religion on the subject.

Comparative bullet points in a sales pitch are important, no doubt.

I believe those who think they have the ear, gear and environment are kidding themselves.

I think there's a very good chance that they are in the vast majority of cases, but I'd really, really like to see these issues addressed in a methodical, comprehensive series of scientifically rigorous tests, using large population samples. It's a curious fact that we don't have access to such data, because results of independently contracted empirical testing would convey scientific credibility to marketing claims, which would presumably make them more convincingly effective. However, I suspect that this is a can of worms the industry would just as soon avoid, and that in itself, is suggestive.

After you've spent a lot of money on your audio system you are invested in your belief system.

It would be terribly foolish to argue with this point, IMO. Psychological issues are crucially important; absolutely central to this discussion, though you'd think they were entirely irrelevant, given how often they're brought up. :confused:

I believe, it's snake oil. But then again I'm jaded and have seen far too much snake oil in the 2 channel world.

If this is the definition of a "burned out audiophile," then I'm charbroiled. I do understand the appeal of some of the more esoteric gear. Though in many cases, diminishing returns have reached a vanishing point which has then been exceeded by several orders of magnitude, a few of the most beautifully over-engineered and constructed classic audio components have achieved a level of design aesthetics commensurate with their asking prices.

The best audio environments I've seen are the high end audio retailers in NYC (at least back in the 80s and 90s). I'm sure there are some home environments that compare, but I've never had the good fortune of seeing one yet.

Absolutely. The "high end" really hasn't been the same since the eighties.

snip........

If this is the definition of a "burned out audiophile," then I'm charbroiled. I do understand the appeal of some of the more esoteric gear. Though in many cases, diminishing returns have reached a vanishing point which has then been exceeded by several orders of magnitude, a few of the most beautifully over-engineered and constructed classic audio components have achieved a level of design aesthetics commensurate with their asking prices.

Absolutely. The "high end" really hasn't been the same since the eighties.

Yes, there are many beautiful high end components. Some day I may abandon transistors and switch to tubes simply for the physical beauty of some of those high end designs, and the fact that they distort audio in pleasant ways. ;)

I understand why you say that but it doesn't seem real world to me. How many times does anyone re-listen to a movie track to gain that kind of familiarity? Music is also incidental, so you're seldom focusing on it anyway.

This whole discussion is fixation on undocumented and at best marginal effects. Sort of "wouldn't it be nice if...."


Yeah, that's the sticky part. ;)

Ideally, the test samples would only involve familiar sounds particular to that individual. No music would be involved unless you have a relative who plays a mean dobrow at the local bingo parlor you frequent. :) The samples would range from common environmental sounds, or the test subject's child's laugh. Hell, maybe we could sample the disapproving groan of a spouse up to her ears in AV gear. :D

The point is, if a codec can faithfully reproduce your child's laugh, spouse's sigh/groan of disapproval, or whatever, then it must be doing something right (or wrong as they case may be). As long as the test subject is personally familiar with natural sound sample, then I think that the protocol could work.

I say all of this because I think that an ABX test involving unfamiliar material may negatively bias the results. I think too many confounding variables are introduced by putting a test subject into an unfamiliar situation with unfamiliar samples. My proposition is to establish a baseline, or a situation for which we can or cannot say whether people are able to discern different codecs. After that, one could broaden the test factors to reveal psychoacoustic limits.

Such a ABX test protocol would be difficult to say the least, but I think it would make for an interesting study. Anyway, my ideas are based upon certain theories. My theories may be completely unfounded, but I think that too many people believe that ABX's are a cure-all. They aren't unless you control for every confounding variable that you can think of beforehand.

Amir's comments: (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10460519&&#post10460519)
As I have written extensively in the past, detecting compression artifacts is a very challenging thing. Unless one is trained in it, one cannot hear these artifacts after some point. Indeed, even audiophiles have trouble in this regard. So I am not surprised that Peter did not hear improvement in quality. By his ears, DD at 640kbps had already achieved transparency.

I know that he has angst over lack of “high resolution audio” and hence the 4 star rating. But our goal in life is to achieve transparency. And if he can’t hear the difference beyond 640bkps, I submit that he would not hear the difference with lossless either, in a blind test. So the rule of automatically giving one less start due to lack of lossless audio, doesn’t do justice to the fidelity presented. This is especially so if the reviewer has no way of hearing the original to know what could have been there, but was not.

This is absolutely incorrect (it is pretty much non-sense but don’t want to say that and insult someone :)). DD encoder when told to product 1.5 mbit/sec as its output, most definitely uses those extra bits to preserve the nuances of transients. Dolby would be the laughing stock of the audio compression community to have done what is claimed above to say nothing of the fact that there is no reason whatsoever to pad the output this way. Whoever thinks DD+ at 640bks and 1.5 mbit/sec sound the same, has no business arguing about lossless audio having merit. As there is far more difference between DD at 640k and 1.5 mbit/sec, than there is between 1.5 mbit/sec and lossless.

At 1.5mbit/sec, the lossy codec is running near the data rate of lossless codec. As such, it is applying so little quantization to the audio samples as to have no detectable effect on them. So the output is going to sound pretty much the same as lossless case. At 640kbps though, we are dealing with 2.5X higher compression ratio and skilled listeners will be able to hear the difference on transients. Non-skilled listeners though, will find the audio to be far better than anything DVD had and enjoy it just the same :).

It is really simple. DD has a limitation in how it packetizes its output. To understand this, one needs to keep in mind that even though we use audio codecs in constant bit rate mode (i.e. we specify a fixed data rate like 640bksp), the codecs operate in variable bitrate internally. On steady-state signals (think of a constant tone), the efficiency is quite high and the codec outputs far fewer bits than what it inputs. When transients come, like guitar strings, then the codec must spend considerably more bits to avoid distortions such as pre-echo. So the data rate peaks.

To deal with these variations and output a constant bitrate, the codec uses an output buffer which packs the bits (i.e. averaging peaks and valleys). With right feedback loop from the output buffer, one can assure the target bit rate is hit, even with high and low variations. Turns out this is pretty tricky code to write in the generic sense. The codec has certain boundaries which must be obeyed even with this output buffering as sending incomplete fragments could cause problems if some data is lost (i.e. the receiver cannot recover properly). And this is the problem with DD bitstream syntax. When used in the MPEG transport stream in HD DVD, DD is not able to support data rates above 440kbps because that breaks its packetization logic. The fault here though, is NOT with HD DVD but with the way the codec output buffer system was designed.

DD+ fixes the above restriction, allowing any data rate to be used. As it should be because competing codecs such as our WMA Pro, also can output their data stream at any rate into MEPG transport stream without trouble.

Now, why BD stays with the older and more restrictive syntax is beyond me. Yes, by not using transport stream, they can get around some of the limitations in the DD packetization but they still wind up with a kludgey system when it comes to supporting higher channels which DD+ does natively.

If the above is the reason for hypothesis #2, then I can tell you that people are barking at the wrong tree :). Packetization just determines how you pack the bits to be stored. The encoder works the same in both scenarios except that in the case of 1.5 mbit/sec, is able to “breath” a lot better and produce much cleaner transients. Per above though, the reduction in distortion may not be audible to most people. But the encoder definitely is working a lot less in compressing bits when given the larger pipe.

Imo, there's a world of difference between in-house testing (which would always have the suspicion of shenanigans hanging over the results) and independent, unbiased testing using a group of experts. I just don't buy that there shouldn't be any tests performed, simply because some people won't believe/accept the results. There will always be some who will reject the conclusions derived from such tests (regardless of what the results are,) but at least we'd have some data to work with. If nothing else, it would certainly be an interesting read.

This sounds like a job for Mythbusters ;)

Yeah, that's the sticky part. ;)

Ideally, the test samples would only involve familiar sounds particular to that individual. No music would be involved unless you have a relative who plays a mean dobrow at the local bingo parlor you frequent. :) The samples would range from common environmental sounds, or the test subject's child's laugh. Hell, maybe we could sample the disapproving groan of a spouse up to her ears in AV gear. :D

The point is, if a codec can faithfully reproduce your child's laugh, spouse's sigh/groan of disapproval, or whatever, then it must be doing something right (or wrong as they case may be). As long as the test subject is personally familiar with natural sound sample, then I think that the protocol could work.

I say all of this because I think that an ABX test involving unfamiliar material may negatively bias the results. I think too many confounding variables are introduced by putting a test subject into an unfamiliar situation with unfamiliar samples. My proposition is to establish a baseline, or a situation for which we can or cannot say whether people are able to discern different codecs. After that, one could broaden the test factors to reveal psychoacoustic limits.

Such a ABX test protocol would be difficult to say the least, but I think it would make for an interesting study. Anyway, my ideas are based upon certain theories. My theories may be completely unfounded, but I think that too many people believe that ABX's are a cure-all. They aren't unless you control for every confounding variable that you can think of beforehand.
Wasn't there an early test of recorded stereo music where a band and the recording of a band both played behind a curtain? I think this is the problem with your approach - unless your ABX includes an unrecorded sound, the reference sound may well be different than the test sound, but it still doesn't accurately reflect the original unrecorded sound. If you don't have an immediate unrecorded sound, the reference sound will always sound subjectively better (or in fact just different, and could be worse) than the other sounds.

So an ABX can only give the collected subjective results of the listeners. Could be an expert group, or a general group.

This sounds like a job for Mythbusters ;)

I thought I had heard (a few years ago) that one of the hosts posts here at AVS, anyone know if that is true?

I'm no expert, but I did some personal testing with Fraunhofer, Xing, and Lame MP3 way back, when I was starting to rip all my CDs to my computer.

Not surprisingly, the type of material made a huge difference. Some material seemed to compress very well, while others had specific artifacts that could be noticed in specific areas of the song, even at high bitrates.

Not very many people claim that 160 Kbps MP3 is transparent (cuz it isn't), but I was heartened to learn that I could distinguish 160 Kbps MP3 from the source very consistently on a very wide range of content, regardless of the encoder used. Things got much tougher with 192 Kbps, especially with certain encoders, but after learning what to look for, I could still do it with with certain songs in specific spots. At 256 Kbps however, I could not reliably tell the difference (at least with Fraunhofer and Lame), and thus I encoded all my MP3 stuff at 256 Kbps. There were times I wondered if I could tell the difference, but I couldn't consistently pick the right one. However, even though I thought 192 (with my settings) wasn't enough, it was clear that 192 was still pretty damn good, and probably would be transparent to some people, especially if they weren't used to that particular music.

I don't know what is the case with DD at 640 Kbps, but with 5.1 channels and very complicated content, I suspect that on very specific material in very specific spots, a studied ear could hear some differences. Amir seems to agree, according to his post. That said, again, 640 Kbps would sound pretty damn good to most people most of the time. Indeed, I think 640 would satisfy me just fine most of the time too.

However, as I've said several times before in this thread, 1.5 Mbps DD+ is still superior, as it gives an extra cushion to take care of those outlier cases, and it offers the ability to use new features as well.

"Everything Apple" yet you used MP3 instead of AAC?

"Everything Apple" yet you used MP3 instead of AAC?
Yes, because at the time AAC support was not very widespread (and I didn't own an iPod at the time either). I use AAC exclusively now, since I find it is more efficient than Fraunhofer MP3, and most of the hardware I use on a regular basis (including my Xbox 360) supports AAC. (I don't use LAME cuz it's a pain to use.)

Wasn't there an early test of recorded stereo music where a band and the recording of a band both played behind a curtain? I think this is the problem with your approach - unless your ABX includes an unrecorded sound, the reference sound may well be different than the test sound, but it still doesn't accurately reflect the original unrecorded sound. If you don't have an immediate unrecorded sound, the reference sound will always sound subjectively better (or in fact just different, and could be worse) than the other sounds.

So an ABX can only give the collected subjective results of the listeners. Could be an expert group, or a general group.


No, in my suggested protocol, all test subjects would only listen to recordings. Their 'job' would be to determine which (PCM or Lossless PCM) sample sounds most like the source. The source being so familiar to them that a reference isn't needed. I wouldn't assume that anyone could be tricked by a recording of their child's laugh. Whether PCM or LPCM, they would probably know that it's a recording.

I do like your idea (or recollection) about the band behind a curtain though. I wouldn't use a multi-piece band because I don't believe that a recording could capture the acoustic space accurately enough with so many different sources playing all at once in a confined space. A single point source sound event might offer a more fair comparison.

Examples:

Solo instrument performance
Solo vocal performance
Environmental sounds: hammer impact against a steel drum, drumsticks tapping against a 5 gallon bucket

and so on....

My major in college was Industrial & Organizational psychology, so my orientation was towards psychometrics, statistics, etc... My curriculum's coverage of psychoacoustics was cursory at best, so I may be talking about ground already covered here. BuGsArEtAsTy's quote of Amir *sounds similar to what I'm trying to convey.

*pun intended :)

Which would have the greatest impact on the format war?

1. A Blu-Ray exclusive studio announcing HD DVD support, i.e. Disney, Lionsgate

or

2. A format neutral studio announcing they are dropping Blu-Ray support for HD DVD exclusivity


I think Warner Bros. or Paramount announcing HD DVD exclusive support would be a bigger blow than a Blu-Ray exclusive studio moving neutral.

2. A format neutral studio announcing they are dropping Blu-Ray support for HD DVD exclusivity


I think Warner Bros. or Paramount announcing HD DVD exclusive support would be a bigger blow than a Blu-Ray exclusive studio moving neutral.

why would they go exclusive now? warner is making more money selling to blu ray. number one is more likely than two.

#1. #2 would be seen as a cost-saving move only, but #1 would be seen as an indicator of mistrust in BD. So far it would be nice if some of those BD-only studios would actually release films at all. If it's not on BD then there's no point in wishing for it to be on HD-DVD someday too.

topics merged.

Which would have the greatest impact on the format war?

1. A Blu-Ray exclusive studio announcing HD DVD support, i.e. Disney, Lionsgate

or

2. A format neutral studio announcing they are dropping Blu-Ray support for HD DVD exclusivity

I think Warner Bros. or Paramount announcing HD DVD exclusive support would be a bigger blow than a Blu-Ray exclusive studio moving neutral.
If we were to use today's sales as a gauge of potential movement it would be from HD DVD --> Blu-ray, not the other way around, considering that Blu-ray sales is currently ahead.

However, that said, I don't think these early numbers are enough to determine the outcome of the war. At these levels, they are still stalemate numbers. I think the bigger battle will begin in Q4.

why would they go exclusive now? warner is making more money selling to blu ray.

How did you come to this conclusion? According to Sony's released data from March 18th, Warner has sold 334,290 HD DVD's to 159,012 BD's. If you multiply each disc by it's MSRP, Warner has sold $10,593,730 worth of HD DVD's and $5,130,953 worth of BD's.

__________________
RIP MSPEED6: First Post 09/14/06 - Last Post 04/15/07

I can see the role of lossless in the professional recording/mixing process, and I can understand professionals who do it for a living being being able to hear minute changes from the original.

Question to the professionals: do you consider any compression schemes transparent? Are you concerned that compression degrades program material to the point where you wish it wasn't done?

I could post this in the experts forum, but I see the purists are there already with loaded questions.

Amir's comments: (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10460519&&#post10460519)
...Interesting claims, but I see two things that he says that I have to point out. First off the difference between 1.5 Mbps and lossless can easily be larger than 2.5 times depending on the number of channels, bit depth, and sampling rate. The second thing is what he said about 1.5 Mbps DD+ would just as easily apply to 1.5 Mbps DTS for 5.1 channel audio.


Which would have the greatest impact on the format war?

1. A Blu-Ray exclusive studio announcing HD DVD support, i.e. Disney, Lionsgate

or

2. A format neutral studio announcing they are dropping Blu-Ray support for HD DVD exclusivityI would say the second one. Also though not an option I believe that Universal announcing support for Blu-ray would have the greatest impact on the format war.


According to Sony's released data from March 18th, Warner has sold 334,290 HD DVD's to 159,012 BD's.True, but Warner releases more titles on HD DVD and has been selling titles on that format long before the PS3 was released. Today though when Warner releases titles on both formats, even though they sometimes favor the HD DVD version with lossless audio, it is the Blu-ray version that usually sells the best. In my opinion that says a lot and if Warner ever became serious about treating both HD formats equally I personally think they would do even better in terms of Blu-ray sales.

True, but Warner releases more titles on HD DVD and has been selling titles on that format long before the PS3 was released. Today though when Warner releases titles on both formats, even though they sometimes favor the HD DVD version with lossless audio, it is the Blu-ray version that usually sells the best. In my opinion that says a lot and if Warner ever became serious about treating both HD formats equally I personally think they would do even better in terms of Blu-ray sales.

Richard,

I appreciate your post so I thought I would dig a little deeper. Of the 16 titles that were released on both formats the same day by Warner, HD DVD sold more on 9 of them while BD sold more on the remaining 7.

Although BD had the higher disk sales of 89,377 to 75,632, I believe that can be attributed to one title 'The Departed' as the MSRP was $5 higher for the HD DVD while providing lossless for both formats. It appears Warner gives HD DVD lossless to "even things out" while being able to charge more for the combos.

If Warner were even on both price and specs, I personally believe HD DVD would sell better except maybe on the action titles that favor the PS3 crowd.



TITLE TYPE MSRP RELEASE DATE STUDIO SI-3/18 TOTAL SALES
ANT BULLY BRY $34.99 11/28/2006 WHV 388 $13,576.12
BEERFEST-UNRTD BRY $28.99 1/30/2007 WHV 2,728 $79,084.72
BULLITT BRY $28.98 2/27/2007 WHV 432 $12,519.36
CHRISTMAS STORY BRY $28.99 12/5/2006 WHV 430 $12,465.70
CHRISTMAS VAC. BRY $28.99 12/5/2006 WHV 498 $14,437.02
DEPARTED BRY $34.99 2/13/2007 WHV 38,993 $1,364,365.07
GETAWAY BRY $28.98 2/27/2007 WHV 224 $6,491.52
LADY IN WATER BRY $34.99 12/19/2006 WHV 2,193 $76,733.07
LAKE HOUSE BRY $34.99 9/26/2006 WHV 2,288 $80,057.12
SCOOBY-DOO BRY $28.99 1/16/2007 WHV 309 $8,957.91
SOPRANOS-S6 BRY 129.95 12/19/2006 WHV-HBO 977 $126,961.15
SUPERMAN-MOVIE BRY $28.99 11/28/2006 WHV 2,893 $83,868.07
SUPERMAN 2 BRY $28.99 11/28/2006 WHV 3,237 $93,840.63
SUPERMAN RETRNS BRY $34.99 11/28/2006 WHV 30,845 $1,079,266.55
UNDER SIEGE BRY $28.99 10/31/2006 WHV 1,473 $42,702.27
WICKER MAN-2006 BRY $28.99 1/30/2007 WHV 1,469 $42,586.31
============================================================ =============
BD TOTALS 89,377 $3,137,913


TITLE TYPE MSRP RELEASE DATE STUDIO SI-3/18 TOTAL SALES
ANT BULLY HDD $39.99 11/28/2006 WHV 625 $24,993.75
BEERFEST-UNRTD HDD $28.99 1/30/2007 WHV 1,547 $44,847.53
BULLITT HDD $28.98 2/27/2007 WHV 508 $14,721.84
CHRISTMAS STORY HDD $28.99 12/5/2006 WHV 1,106 $32,062.94
CHRISTMAS VAC. HDD $28.99 12/5/2006 WHV 1,156 $33,512.44
DEPARTED HDD $39.99 2/13/2007 WHV 23,454 $937,925.46
GETAWAY HDD $28.98 2/27/2007 WHV 267 $7,737.66
LADY IN WATER HDD $39.99 12/19/2006 WHV 2,091 $83,619.09
LAKE HOUSE HDD $39.99 9/26/2006 WHV 1,799 $71,942.01
SCOOBY-DOO HDD $28.99 1/16/2007 WHV 340 $9,856.60
SOPRANOS-S6 HDD 129.92 12/19/2006 WHV-HBO 1,038 $134,856.96
SUPERMAN-MOVIE HDD $28.99 11/28/2006 WHV 4,942 $143,268.58
SUPERMAN 2 HDD $28.99 11/28/2006 WHV 5,649 $163,764.51
SUPERMAN RETRNS HDD $39.99 11/28/2006 WHV 28,440 $1,137,315.60
UNDER SEIGE HDD $28.99 10/31/2006 WHV 1,645 $47,688.55
WICKER MAN-2006 HDD $28.99 1/30/2007 WHV 1,025 $29,714.75
============================================================ =============
HD DVD TOTALS 75,632 $2,917,828

Thanks for the rundown huntaar. Some interesting stuff there. The 2 Christmas movies look like they did much better on HD DVD. And the Superman comparison is interesting. The most recent one sold better on Blu-ray, but the first 2 sold significantly better on HD DVD. And for the last one the HD DVD version got lossless and the Blu-ray didn't.

--Darin

I appreciate your post so I thought I would dig a little deeper. Of the 16 titles that were released on both formats the same day by Warner, HD DVD sold more on 9 of them while BD sold more on the remaining 7.Interesting, though it is unfortunate we don't have sales data on recent Warner releases like Happy Feet and A Scanner Darkly.


Although BD had the higher disk sales of 89,377 to 75,632, I believe that can be attributed to one title 'The Departed' as the MSRP was $5 higher for the HD DVD while providing lossless for both formats.I notice though that the only other big seller on that list is Superman Returns which only provided lossless audio on the HD DVD version. As such even if you believed that dual format owners made a difference with The Departed, which I think would have been small, it would have had the opposite effect with Superman Returns.

I notice though that the only other big seller on that list is Superman Returns which only provided lossless audio on the HD DVD version. As such even if you believed that dual format owners made a difference with The Departed, which I think would have been small, it would have had the opposite effect with Superman Returns.

Superman Returns was a combo and thus the MSRP was $5 higher on the HD DVD. Yes, if the BD had lossless and the prices remained the same, Superman Returns would have buried the HD DVD version in sales, but if you dropped the combo and had even pricing, I think it would have been a wash or HD DVD ahead. Same with Departed, price is king if specs match and I think dual format owners would have made a difference but the PS3 effect would most likely have taken this one for BD but not by it's current margin.

I'd like to see what would happen if Warner gave BD the lossless and dropped $5 off a big name HD DVD.

I'd like to see what would happen if Warner gave BD the lossless and dropped $5 off a big name HD DVD.To be fair, they should drop the combo part too if they are going to do that. It is a feature that is bound to sell copies to some people who wouldn't have bought if it wasn't a combo.

--Darin

To be fair, they should drop the combo part too if they are going to do that. It is a feature that is bound to sell copies to some people who wouldn't have bought if it wasn't a combo.

--Darin

I agree. Drop the combo and give BD the lossless and HD DVD the price advantage on one action(ps3) movie and one non-action movie. I'd love to see those results. It seems like Warner has been testing the waters with different specs, release dates and pricing - might as well try this one out too.

I agree. Drop the combo and give BD the lossless and HD DVD the price advantage on one action(ps3) movie and one non-action movie. I'd love to see those results. It seems like Warner has been testing the waters with different specs, release dates and pricing - might as well try this one out too.There's "Planet Earth". I believe those are the same. According to Nielsen for the first week I think they had the HD DVD selling about 30% more. Hopefully we will continue getting data about how it is selling on each. I think a big title like this is likely to sell more of the least expensive players, since those who are mostly looking for a player for that title are likely to gravitate toward the least expensive ones. Same kind of thing for box sets of "The Matrix", even if they were coming out on both formats at once, big series from TV and other big box sets. What I'm basically saying is that a person who is looking for a player for movies in general is likely to care about which movies will come out for that player, while a person just looking for a player for a big set they want isn't as likely to be swayed toward the more expensive player by what other things it can play or do. So, as long as it plays the set they are getting or just got, price is likely to be very important to which player they pick up.

--Darin

a person just looking for a player for a big set they want isn't as likely to be swayed toward the more expensive player by what other things it can play or do. So, as long as it plays the set they are getting or just got, price is likely to be very important to which player they pick up.

Interesting thought, the cart dragging the horse. I'm sure this is why the BDA bent over backwards giving studios everything they asked for (BD+, Region Coding, rumored subsidies on BD50, etc.) as without exclusive studios, most people would gravitate to the lowest cost player regardless of specs.

From another one of Amir's posts (#4345 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10468026&&#post10468026)):

We have tested hundreds of "subjects" in the last 10 years that we have been doing audio codec development. We have run large scale tests of listeners at Microsoft. We have tested the common man. We have tested audiophiles with golden ears. And we have tested "expert listeners." The only people who can reliably detect codec artifacts in small amounts are the last category (i.e. people who are trained specifically to detect codec artifacts and know what to listen for). This fact has remained constant in all of our testing.

--

I find this quite interesting, and it supports what I have suspected all along. He obscures it in his post, but he specifically notes that some so-called "golden ears" really don't have much more insight into this than the rest of us.

P.S. I will mention again that with my own (amateur) MP3 tests, the only reason I could detect differences at some of the higher bitrates was because I had sorta trained myself to listen for them. After much testing, I began to use specific problematic tracks, and listened to them over and over and over and over again. I must have listened to some tracks > 25 times during this second round of testing. :eek: I guarantee you that if I hadn't, I wouldn't have noticed many of the differences. (Damn. I should have written everything down, cuz now I don't remember most of the spots in the songs that helped the most.)

One may argue (correctly) that I never listen to movie tracks with that level of criticality, and thus, 640 Kbps DD (or 640 DD+) ought to be fine. And I would actually agree with that: At least for 5.1 16/48 tracks, 640 Kbps DD/DD+ would probably satisfy me just fine for the vast majority of cases.

Still, I find it odd that some almost try to spin Blu-ray's 640 Kbps DD support as an advantage over HD DVD, since HD DVD only supports DD at 448 Kbps. The bottom line is that HD DVD does away with DD's channel and bandwidth limitations altogether, by adding DD+ as another baseline mandatory format.


Roger's comments: (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10468581&&#post10468581)

The issue with DD bitrate in DVD and likewise on HD DVD has nothing to do with MPEG streams breaking the DD audio. One of the very first DVDs made, the Delos DVD Spectacular, has a hidden DD 640 track on it, which plays fine in Sony DVD players--maybe others, new and old. Then why can’t DVDs use 640? The DVD Forum establishes rules for how the format works. One of the rules requires every elementary stream packet to have a start header in it. It helps with trick play, branching, etc. But the format doesn't break if that rule is violated, as was shown with our secret test disc. (By the way, the Pink Floyd concert DVD "Pulse" also has a 640 track on it.)

In DVD, the audio packets are 2048 bytes, or 16 kbits. One frame of DD is 32 ms long, so 16kb/32ms = 500kb/s. That is the maximum allowed. The highest supported rate for DD is 448 kb/s. The next higher bitrate of 512 kbps would not fit.

So how is it that DTS can have 1.5 Mbps, 3x the 500 kbps rate we calculated? DTS uses a 10ms coding frame (1/3 the duration of the DD frame). Hence, three times the bitrate. (16kb/10ms = 1.6Mbps.)

What we did with DD+ was design the syntax to support frames of 32, 16, 10, and 5 ms, thus allowing up to 3 Mbps in the HD DVD structure.

The BD format is not limiting DD+, per se, except that since DD+ is optional rather than mandatory, Dolby worked out a way to allow the disc to carry the benefits of DD+ (higher bitrates and more channels) while also ensuring the stream can be decoded by standard DD chips. Since standard DD is designed with a max bitrate of 640 kbps, that is the limit for the core 5.1 portion of the stream.

And just so no one thinks I’m seeking to disagree with Amir, I totally agree with his views in Post 4345. It mirrors my own findings. Well said.

--

Interesting claims, but I see two things that he says that I have to point out. First off the difference between 1.5 Mbps and lossless can easily be larger than 2.5 times depending on the number of channels, bit depth, and sampling rate.
No. He claimed that DD+ 1.5 Mbps is approaching the bitrate of lossless. That is only really true for 5.1 16/48 so I believe that is what he is referring to.

http://www.eugbanana.com/files/Pix/TrueHD.png


The second thing is what he said about 1.5 Mbps DD+ would just as easily apply to 1.5 Mbps DTS for 5.1 channel audio.
No, unless you're claiming that DTS's compression is as efficient as DD+'s (or DD's). AFAIK, not even DTS claims that.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a FAQ thread where someone condenses discussions like this?

An interesting article. I happen to agree with it.

HD Format Wars: Declaring a Winner
http://www.dailytech.com/HD+Format+Wars+Declaring+a+Winner/article7163.htm


The second possibility-- one format wins, one loses. But both have already sold over a million discs each. The odds of either dying before doubling that are zero. That's a lot of discs...discs that are going to be around forever. Their owners are going to want something to play them on. Each user base is already past "critical mass" for major releases-- the point at which a studio can pay back mastering and production costs, and still make a profit on the release. So new movies will continue to arrive.

That brings us to the final option. Both remain. Dual-format players become cheap and ubiquitous. The average consumer buys an HD movie without caring (or in some cases, knowing) its format. Just as they buy recordable DVDs today. Is there any doubt this is the eventual outcome? It won't be this year of course, and probably not in 2008. But eary 2009-- look out!

Here's my point of view Anthony. There is in fact more "effective" (used for audio) bit rate in the 1.5mbps DD+ audio encode than the 640kbps DD encode, as you grudgingly concede. I understand you believe the difference between the two isn't 860kbps because of differences in efficiency as you describe below.

When Universal says it is 1.5mbps what they are really saying is 3 blocks and so it takes 1.5 on the disk but to the decoder it is not actually 1.5. The added headroom needed for DD+ (empty extension) and the fact that it gets split into blocks does the rest.

Your description differs a bit from what Dolby says....
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tec..._whitepaper.pdf

We can argue the exact difference and minutia for days on end, but the exact numbers are not actually important.

What is important is the quote from Roger Dressler of Dolby
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...7&&#post8053727

There is indeed a clearly discernable difference in openness and transparency between DD+ 768 vs DD at 448. DD at 640 is not identical to DD+ 768, but it is extremely close.

Now considering his statement and all of the above information, why do these two discs sound the same? Let's look at another Roger Dressler quote that Uxi posted.

Roger indicated vastly diminishing returns beyond 640k except for additional channels beyond 5.1

This is what I've been saying. The curve is a reverse hockey stick and despite the fact that the HD-DVD has additional bit rate, the BD has enough that the reviewer could no longer discern an audible difference. So if adding additional bit rate doesn't give us an audible improvement at the left side of the graph, that answers the question of what lossless would give us on this particular title.....no difference discernable.

But I do understand that you have a different point of view.

2Ch funny you link to that post by Roger and you missed

Yes. The various new tools in DD+ are indeed powerful. But they don't come into play at 448 kbps or higher.

i.e. not what we are talking about. Since we are discussing 640 and 1.5

The problem is you are too buisy looking at 1.5 and 640 and missing that we are not talking the same codec or on the same format.

I also did not grudgenly concede there can be a slight difference, I have always said so. The problem is that you don'tr understand the differences and don't realize you are comparing apples to oranges.

Because of the way HD DVD is structured (the data) a DD and DD+ track must be encoded in a MPEG-2 format, that means that even if you are not at 1.5 and you are (for example 1.1) the player, the studio and on the disk it will say 1.5. BD does not have the same restrictions. This makes it a bit like CBR. There is no use for the technicien to ask for less (except if he wants to limit it to <1mbps) and even if it never reaches 1.5 it will say it is 1.5 and take the space of 1.5.

The problem is that you then extend the fallacy that if there is not much benefit to 1.5 then there is none to go to lossless. And that is where you are wrong.

Let me give you a simple example. Let's move from audio to video (I think it might be easier to comprehend). MPEG-2 has 2 sizes of information, single pixels or an 8x8 block of pixels (if I remember correctly). Now let’s say I create a program where I make the screen black except for randomly picking one pixel in the first block and making it a different colour and then making the same change to every other similar pixel in each block but that the pixel is a different colour.

Because mpeg-2 can only do sizes of 8 or 1, the only way to accurately represent this is by not having any blocks, in other words it will need the same BW as uncompressed, and if it is not that high (much higher then anyone will use) the only other option is all black which won’t need much BW at all.

Now you might say who cares about 1 pixel/block or over 32k pixels being off.

OK, what if my program instead of making one pixel be colourful/block I go with 2 or 3, or 2 groups of 4…. They become more and more visible while the codec can’t handle it any more.

What you need is new codec rules, and new rules means new codecs. For example VC-1 has more options for the encoder to use 1x1, 8x8, 4x4, 2x2.

The same is here. DD+ does not have much more in the 24/48 5.1 to build on and for what it did (lossy) DD was extremely good (full DD not the DVD/HD DVD version)

That is why Roger is saying that from 440-768 you gain a lot but not from 640-768

It does not mean that he thinks there is no benefit to get, just that DD+ is almost as hampered as DD and so you can't get to lossless.

He's using the 360 add-on as his HD DVD player. Not only is it incapable of outputting DD+ without re-encoding it to legacy DD (soon you'll be able to choose legacy DTS as well, once the update shows up,) it's also stuck in "night mode." There are no DD+ tracks (to my knowledge) on any BD releases, so the only experience he would have with DD+ would be on HD DVD.

Steeb: but BuGsArEtAsTy has been praising HD DVDs foresight of including DD+ as a mandatory decoder in all players. Do you mean that all a player needs to do is strip out the DD from the DD+? So in other words the mandatory does not add anything because the additional DD+ features might not be accessible, the same way they would not be on a BD player without DD+.

Steeb: but BuGsArEtAsTy has been praising HD DVDs foresight of including DD+ as a mandatory decoder in all players. Do you mean that all a player needs to do is strip out the DD from the DD+? So in other words the mandatory does not add anything because the additional DD+ features might not be accessible, the same way they would not be on a BD player without DD+.
I think what I meant was pretty clear in my post.

snip.............

That is why Roger is saying that from 440-768 you gain a lot but not from 640-768

It does not mean that he thinks there is no benefit to get, just that DD+ is almost as hampered as DD and so you can't get to lossless.

Let's agree that we disagree on this subject. For me personally I thought Amir and Roger covered this pretty well on the insider's thread. By the way, I would encourage all studios to use lossless audio. It never makes sense to argue with your customers, and the studios are in the business of producing content that people want to pay for. (Rule #1 The customer is always right. Rule #2 If the customer is wrong, re-read Rule #1)

Amir: snip.....I know that he has angst over lack of “high resolution audio” and hence the 4 star rating. But our goal in life is to achieve transparency. And if he can’t hear the difference beyond 640bkps, I submit that he would not hear the difference with lossless either, in a blind test. So the rule of automatically giving one less start due to lack of lossless audio, doesn’t do justice to the fidelity presented. This is especially so if the reviewer has no way of hearing the original to know what could have been there, but was not. snip........

Roger: snip......And just so no one thinks I’m seeking to disagree with Amir, I totally agree with his views in Post 4345. It mirrors my own findings. Well said.

Ideally, Dolby wouldn't be the one conducting the tests.
Steeb, not that I think they should, but curious why you think they should not. If it is a test of DD, DD+ and DTHD what does Dolby win by messing it up? I could understand if we were discussing DTS or PCM, but if it is all Dolby I can't see how it will hurt objectivcity

I don't know. If the tests were done properly and were conclusive one way or the other, I'd say the issue would quickly cease being a matter of "philosophy" or "religion" and return to where it belongs - "science."

I disagree, the problem is that some are saying quality counts others it does not because the extra is not needed. All you can do is prove the obvious, there is a difference. Once you do that what will stop the "yes but it does not matter because it is not enough of a difference" people, after all if that 90% deaf teenager making out with his girlfriend during a movie can't hear it, it is not important enough.

Let's agree that we disagree on this subject. For me personally I thought Amir and Roger covered this pretty well on the insider's thread. By the way, I would encourage all studios to use lossless audio.I recall that last summer Amir was a big fan of lossless audio and even took credit for pushing it for HD DVD. The spin sure seems to have changed since back then, despite the only real change seeming to be HD DVD running into problems providing lossless audio as standard.

--Darin

so can someone explain to me why either of these formats are worth buying since they both are gimped by lossy video compression?

because it is much less gimped then DVD :)

No one has taken the time to prove it is better. That isn't trying to prove a negative. Without proof there is no logical justification for lossless anything.

wayne, the problem is no one will pay to prove the obvious.

why the obvious, because everyone knows that DD/DD+ is not lossless, that means that under the right circumstances once it is decoded it won't sound the same as what you encoded. Don't forget encoders are just math so you know the result. The problem is once you realize one is called lossy and the other lossless for a reason, what is left is "Does the person care". If they do care they go with lossless because they know that the decoded should sound like the master and if they don't then they are OK with the lossy one.

Let’s say you made a DB test and a large group of 1k people with different settings (equipment room) 50 passed and 950 people failed in finding an acceptable difference (not real interested in getting into the details of what is an acceptable difference).

Steeb, not that I think they should, but curious why you think they should not. If it is a test of DD, DD+ and DTHD what does Dolby win by messing it up? I could understand if we were discussing DTS or PCM, but if it is all Dolby I can't see how it will hurt objectivcity.
I sort of addressed this in a later post. I'll just repost what I said there: Imo, there's a world of difference between in-house testing (which would always have the suspicion of shenanigans hanging over the results) and independent, unbiased testing using a group of experts.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that Dolby would try to pull something, just that there would always be those who would claim shenanigans, especially if the results did not match their expectations. For instance, say that their results show that their subjects can readily discern the differences between DTHD and high bitrate DD+. What's to stop the naysayers from accusing Dolby of skewing the results out of fear that it would tarnish the reputation of (and possibly lessen the desire for) DTHD?

I disagree, the problem is that some are saying quality counts others it does not because the extra is not needed. All you can do is prove the obvious, there is a difference. Once you do that what will stop the "yes but it does not matter because it is not enough of a difference" people, after all if that 90% deaf teenager making out with his girlfriend during a movie can't hear it, it is not important enough.
While it's obvious that there's a mathematical difference, it's not quite as obvious that there's a perceptual difference. In case you didn't notice, that's why the discussion is even occurring.

What would you say if a group of experts were unable to consistently choose the lossless version over a high-bitrate lossy track? I'm not saying it would or would not happen, but it's certainly possible. I would just really like to see some scientific evidence to back up our assumptions - is that so wrong?

As for the "yes but it does not matter because it is not enough of a difference" people, wouldn't that apply to the people claiming that 640kbps = 1.5mbps DD+ as well?

I don't think the obvious point is the point. The point is to hear the difference you have to spend a lot of money on the equipment and the room. Then you have to be expert enough to hear the difference.

For all but a select few the promise of lossless is false hope. By insisting on lossless you are making a promise and suggesting a lot of people spend a lot of money on something they can't hear anyway. (Although after spending all that money, they'll believe with all their heart they can)

All some of us are trying to say is that DD+ is more than adequate under the vast majority of conditions.

Some people turn this around and say BD is superior because of lossless even when they can't tell the difference. Different argument.

I say all of this because I think that an ABX test involving unfamiliar material may negatively bias the results. I think too many confounding variables are introduced by putting a test subject into an unfamiliar situation with unfamiliar samples. My proposition is to establish a baseline, or a situation for which we can or cannot say whether people are able to discern different codecs. After that, one could broaden the test factors to reveal psychoacoustic limits.

Such a ABX test protocol would be difficult to say the least, but I think it would make for an interesting study. Anyway, my ideas are based upon certain theories. My theories may be completely unfounded, but I think that too many people believe that ABX's are a cure-all. They aren't unless you control for every confounding variable that you can think of beforehand.

Mobius, my personal opinion is that the test should be real clips from movies, some of the hardest parts (i.e. where the DD+ and DTHD are the most dissimilar) then you take those clips and play them to the audience A, B,A,B (training) then the test you play a random sequence of A/B (I.e. let's say AABAB) and if the test subject reproduces the sequence then it passes, (if he puts down ABABA then he could not hear the difference and randomly picked A and B)

The problem with known sounds is that it would be too small (the sound of a kid crying, someone laughing is much simpler then what you might have in a movie)

What would you say if a group of experts were unable to consistently choose the lossless version over a high-bitrate lossy track? I'm not saying it would or would not happen, but it's certainly possible. I would just really like to see some scientific evidence to back up our assumptions - is that so wrong?

If people could not hear a difference then I guess there is no issue. But I want to know what you mean by consistently first (if you want a straight forward answer).

1) Do you mean that they only found the difference in let's say 5% of cases?
then not good enough give me lossless like I said way back I want a guarantee that I am not missing anything

2) that in some questions some got it right but it is shown to be random?
then I agree with you


As for the "yes but it does not matter because it is not enough of a difference" people, wouldn't that apply to the people claiming that 640kbps = 1.5mbps DD+ as well?

not at all, I never said they are =. What you are missing is the mathematical nature of what we are discussing. We know there is a significant difference between DTHD and DD+ and that there is none between DD and DD+. So assuming that these difference will not only be mathematical and measurable on instruments but also acoustical it stands to reason that there is most likely a bigger difference between DD+ and DTHD then DD+ and DD. Further more if someone is interested in quality and since lossless playback is possible with DTHD, neither DD+ or DD are enough.

For all but a select few the promise of lossless is false hope. By insisting on lossless you are making a promise and suggesting a lot of people spend a lot of money on something they can't hear anyway. (Although after spending all that money, they'll believe with all their heart they can)

so why not ask for DD? isn't DD+ just as false hope? in 24/48 5.1 there is practically no difference and most people don't have 7.1 to get something more out of DD+.

I also don't understand your whole premise. You don't need expensive cryogenically manufactured gold tipped cables and other stuff to benefit. Yes a pair of old PC speakers are probably not good enough, but I am sure most set-ups would benefit (to varying degrees) from lossless (much more then 7.1).

The problem is that studios release one movie for everyone and if we (AVSers) want quality we should be the ones asking for it. Did J6P ask for movies at home? no, but when they came they enjoyed them. Did J6P ask for DVD? no but then he liked the bonuses and no rewinding? is J6P asking for HD disks? no but as they see them they are enjoying it. Did J6P ask for CD over record? no but then he liked that it did not have the noise, that it was more durable and that it was smaller. Did J6P ask for 5.1? no but eventually he found out it was a good idea. It is our job to ask for what we want, make stuff better and then he can move on to it when it gets cheaper.

Some people turn this around and say BD is superior because of lossless even when they can't tell the difference. Different argument.

and some people say DD+ is better then DD even though they did not hear a difference and that nmaking DD+ mandatory is a good move that means better audio even though the most popular HD DVD player can only strip out and pass the DD core.

If people could not hear a difference then I guess there is no issue. But I want to know what you mean by consistently first (if you want a straight forward answer).

1) Do you mean that they only found the difference in let's say 5% of cases?
then not good enough give me lossless like I said way back I want a guarantee that I am not missing anything

2) that in some questions some got it right but it is shown to be random?
then I agree with you
I meant number two.

not at all, I never said they are =. What you are missing is the mathematical nature of what we are discussing. We know there is a significant difference between DTHD and DD+ and that there is none between DD and DD+. So assuming that these difference will not only be mathematical and measurable on instruments but also acoustical it stands to reason that there is most likely a bigger difference between DD+ and DTHD then DD+ and DD. Further more if someone is interested in quality and since lossless playback is possible with DTHD, neither DD+ or DD are enough.
I disagree with your assertion that there's no difference (mathematical or otherwise) between DD & DD+. There are siginificant differences, one of which being the maximum allowable bitrate. While there may be more of a difference between DD+ and DTHD than there is between DD and DD+, that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference. Diminishing returns does not mean "no returns." I believe that 1.5mbps DD+ is superior to 640kbps DD - it may be only a slight difference, but when given the choice, I would prefer to have the better of the two. Likewise, I'd prefer DTHD or uncompressed PCM over DD+ (or any other lossy codec) at any bitrate. What I would really like are some DBT results to either confirm or deny what we believe.

What I don't get are the people who, on the one hand clamor for lossless, but on the other defend DD at 640kbps as being "just as good" as DD+ at 1.5mbps.

even though the most popular HD DVD player can only strip out and pass the DD core.
I don't think it's actually doing what you're describing. I could be wrong, but I believe the addon is decoding the DD+ track and then re-encoding it t DD at 640kbps. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're using DD cores with DD+ on HD DVD.

Regardless, I agree 100% that it's extremely lame that the addon doesn't truly support the advanced audio codecs - even with the new elite 360. It was a poor decision, imo. Not as poor as putting the addon in "night mode" (and taking months to fix it after the issue was identified,) but still poor.

Interesting thought, the cart dragging the horse. I'm sure this is why the BDA bent over backwards giving studios everything they asked for (BD+, Region Coding, rumored subsidies on BD50, etc.) as without exclusive studios, most people would gravitate to the lowest cost player regardless of specs.You mean like VMD and EVD? Note that HD DVD is by no means the cheapest HD format out there. It is cheaper than Blu-ray but it is not cheaper than many of the other HD formats, which would be doing a heck of a lot better if they had major studio support. There are a lot of studio politics involved since a video format without content isn't much of a video format.


No. He claimed that DD+ 1.5 Mbps is approaching the bitrate of lossless. That is only really true for 5.1 16/48 so I believe that is what he is referring to.Maybe, but he never specified that in his post and wasn't the reason that DTS was supposed to be better than DD based on the same logic? The idea that less compressed audio would be closer to the original audio in terms of audio quality.


No, unless you're claiming that DTS's compression is as efficient as DD+'s (or DD's). AFAIK, not even DTS claims that.Hold on a second. How exactly do you know that DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps? Just my opinion but a skeptic shouldn't get to pick and choose what he is skeptical about. If you are skeptical about the benefits of lossless audio you can't just turn around and tell us that DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps without any proof.

Maybe, but he never specified that in his post and wasn't the reason that DTS was supposed to be better than DD based on the same logic?
Yes, the argument in the past was DTS 1.5 Mbps was supposed to be better than DD 448 Kbps. However, that is at least a reasonable argument, considering it's three times the bitrate.


Hold on a second. How exactly do you know that DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps? Just my opinion but a skeptic shouldn't get to pick and choose what he is skeptical about. If you are skeptical about the benefits of lossless audio you can't just turn around and tell us that DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps without any proof.
I don't, but I find it curious that DTS has never claimed to be as efficient as DD, at least that I've seen.

Anyways, that wasn't my point. My point is that I think DD+ is superior to DD.


so why not ask for DD? isn't DD+ just as false hope? in 24/48 5.1 there is practically no difference and most people don't have 7.1 to get something more out of DD+.

I also don't understand your whole premise. You don't need expensive cryogenically manufactured gold tipped cables and other stuff to benefit. Yes a pair of old PC speakers are probably not good enough, but I am sure most set-ups would benefit (to varying degrees) from lossless (much more then 7.1).
I agree with Amir's statement here. If you don't believe one can hear the difference between DD 640 and DD+ 1.5, then you have no business claiming lossless is better.

Yes, the argument in the past was DTS 1.5 Mbps was supposed to be better than DD 448 Kbps. However, that is at least a reasonable argument, considering it's three times the bitrate.


So you're willing to go with an MPEG2 Blu-ray is better than a VC1 HDDVD (or Blu-ray) if it has three times the bitrate? Gotcha. :o

So you're willing to go with an MPEG2 Blu-ray is better than a VC1 HDDVD (or Blu-ray) if it has three times the bitrate? Gotcha. :o
You guys like spinning the arguments don't you?

As you are well aware: MPEG2 isn't DTS, and VC1 isn't DD.

Just in case some readers might be fooled by your spin, here's a little background:

The complaints in the past were that 384 Kbps and 448 Kbps DD were too limited to provide an accurate representation of the source material.

Some believed that DTS was the answer, because although many believed it may not be quite as efficient as DD, it had a distinct advantage because it could use up to 1.5 Mbps. ie. The reduced efficiency was more than compensated for in this case by the 235% increase in bitrate.

Whether that is completely true or not is a different question, but the argument is at least somewhat believable, given the available tracks on existing DVDs.

P.S. If one were to use your flawed analogy, then it would be obvious that DD+ is the only answer, as 1.5 Mbps DD+ (analogous to high bitrate VC1) would be vastly superior to both 1.5 Mbps DTS (your high bitrate MPEG2) and 640 Kbps DD (your low bitrate VC1).

One additional point to keep in mind. While lossless is easier (and more common) on BD-50, it presents more of a challenge on BD-25 as you have trade offs to make in the space available for audio and video.

Current stats show 71.6% of all BD titles reviewed on highdefdigest are BD-25, while 70% of the last 20 titles reviewed are BD-25.

One additional point to keep in mind. While lossless is easier (and more common) on BD-50, it presents more of a challenge on BD-25 as you have trade offs to make in the space available for audio and video.

Current stats show 71.6% of all BD titles reviewed on highdefdigest are BD-25, while 70% of the last 20 titles reviewed are BD-25.
This is especially true because lossless on Blu-ray generally means uncompressed PCM. It would be easier if more studios would use TrueHD, but the lack of mandatory TrueHD support means that some studios may be less inclined to use it.

So you're willing to go with an MPEG2 Blu-ray is better than a VC1 HDDVD (or Blu-ray) if it has three times the bitrate? Gotcha. :o

Sure, where do I find those Blu-ray movies and players that have 3 times the bitrate of HD DVD? :p

Yes, the argument in the past was DTS 1.5 Mbps was supposed to be better than DD 448 Kbps. However, that is at least a reasonable argument, considering it's three times the bitrate.Technically that is an assumption but why than do you believe that DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps? Considering they would be at the same bitrate why do you believe that one would sound better than the other? Honestly I don't see why you believe that.


I don't, but I find it curious that DTS has never claimed to be as efficient as DD, at least that I've seen.DTS was never designed for low bitrates and in fact the bitrate it was originally made for was 1.5 Mbps.


One additional point to keep in mind. While lossless is easier (and more common) on BD-50, it presents more of a challenge on BD-25 as you have trade offs to make in the space available for audio and video.Note that technically that statement would apply to HD DVD as well. Also from what I have heard Blu-ray titles are far more likely to have PCM/lossless audio than HD DVD titles though I don't know what the current figures are.

DTS was never designed for low bitrates and in fact the bitrate it was originally made for was 1.5 Mbps.
Indeed. Its goal was not efficiency.

I disagree with your assertion that there's no difference (mathematical or otherwise) between DD & DD+. There are siginificant differences, one of which being the maximum allowable bitrate. While there may be more of a difference between DD+ and DTHD than there is between DD and DD+, that doesn't negate the fact that there is a difference. Diminishing returns does not mean "no returns." I believe that 1.5mbps DD+ is superior to 640kbps DD - it may be only a slight difference, but when given the choice, I would prefer to have the better of the two. Likewise, I'd prefer DTHD or uncompressed PCM over DD+ (or any other lossy codec) at any bitrate. What I would really like are some DBT results to either confirm or deny what we believe.

sorry, I guess I could have written it better, the none applied to significant differnece and not just difference

What I don't get are the people who, on the one hand clamor for lossless, but on the other defend DD at 640kbps as being "just as good" as DD+ at 1.5mbps.

I don't think people are getting as much back as they think with DD+ for 24/48 5.1

I also think the reason the lower level (DD/DD+) exist are for people that will eventually have lower end systems. You know the guy for whom the add-on is enough because he is a student, or the guy that connects it to his 5y old receiver or TV speakers and so there won't be a difference if it ios DD or DD+. In this teared approach where lossy for masses that don't care and lossless for the people that do. DD+ does not have an advantage, it is as simple as that.

I don't think it's actually doing what you're describing. I could be wrong, but I believe the addon is decoding the DD+ track and then re-encoding it t DD at 640kbps. I could be wrong, but I don't think they're using DD cores with DD+ on HD DVD.

Regardless, I agree 100% that it's extremely lame that the addon doesn't truly support the advanced audio codecs - even with the new elite 360. It was a poor decision, imo. Not as poor as putting the addon in "night mode" (and taking months to fix it after the issue was identified,) but still poor.

it probably decodes (to add beeps and stuff), but I hope it is on the core and not DD+, that would require more work for nothing, and could mess things up more. My point was that when BuGsArEtAsTy (hope I got the right person) said that HD DVD requiring DD+ decoding on the player adds something, it is not true. In the end lower level players won’t give you anything better then DD. In essence if a studio wants to make a 7.1 DD+ they can do it on either format (so does not affect the disk) if you bought yourself a player that just does DD, then 7.1DD+ on the HD DVD or 5.1DD on the BD it should sound the same because the player only outputs DD. It is a bit like DTS-HD MA. Because DTS-HD MA is backwards compatible, Fox puts MA on the disk, the player says you are listening to MA but the receiver (or player) treats it like DTS and plays it like DTS.

it probably decodes (to add beeps and stuff), but I hope it is on the core and not DD+, that would require more work for nothing, and could mess things up more.
That makes no sense whatsoever, except as wishful spinning by someone hoping to discredit Dolby Digital Plus.

P.S. DD+ on HD DVD does not have a DD core anyway. There is no need for it, because true DD+ decode support is mandatory on HD DVD.


My point was that when BuGsArEtAsTy (hope I got the right person) said that HD DVD requiring DD+ decoding on the player adds something, it is not true.
Of course it adds something. It adds the ability of every single HD DVD player ever made to support a superior audio format.

I agree with Amir's statement here. If you don't believe one can hear the difference between DD 640 and DD+ 1.5, then you have no business claiming lossless is better.

that is a stupid comment.

1) according to Dolby for 16/48 the max is 3mbps that is 1.5 more then the DD+ used and the average is 1.5mbps that means that a lot more needs a bit more, a bit more needs a lot more or around 1/2 need more and 1/2 need less. If ytou go ith 24/28 (some of them) it is 5 for peak and 3.4 average (both higher then 1.5). so the 1.5 is not close to DTHD BW

2) that statement makes no sense what so ever. Let me ask you this, you this
a person goes to a store and sees "Was 5k$, make a bid". A customer asks idf he can have it for 500$ and the sales person says no, then he asks how about 2k$ and the sales person says no, does that mean that if he asks for 3k$ or anything above 2k$ that the answer will be no?

3) you miss the obvious, just because it is DD+@1.5 on the disk, it does not mean that it is DD+@1.5 coming out

P.S. If one were to use your flawed analogy, then it would be obvious that DD+ is the only answer, as 1.5 Mbps DD+ (analogous to high bitrate VC1) would be vastly superior to both 1.5 Mbps DTS (your high bitrate MPEG2) and 640 Kbps DD (your low bitrate VC1).

not at all DD and DD+ are different lossy codecs just like MPEH-2 and VC-1, whne there is a none lossy codec then you can compare it to DTHD

Current stats show 71.6% of all BD titles reviewed on highdefdigest are BD-25, while 70% of the last 20 titles reviewed are BD-25.

2ch: you forgot and dropping :), that is one of the nice things about having a choice. If 50 is needed it can be used.

This is especially true because lossless on Blu-ray generally means uncompressed PCM. It would be easier if more studios would use TrueHD, but the lack of mandatory TrueHD support means that some studios may be less inclined to use it.


but if it is efficency you want, it is much better to drop PiP and go to DTS-HD MA, because DTS does not require two versions (a lossy and a lossless)

Of course it adds something. It adds the ability of every single HD DVD player ever made to support a superior audio format.

no it does noty because the most popular most sold HD DVD player does not. It does not do anything more then DD

but if it is efficency you want, it is much better to drop PiP and go to DTS-HD MA, because DTS does not require two versions (a lossy and a lossless)
How is dropping PiP gaining efficiency? Rhetorical question... It isn't. It's simply dropping a feature, and I personally think it's a great feature to have.

It's unfortunate that most existing Blu-ray players can't support PiP (and never will be able to), but all current and future HD DVD players support it.

HD DVD types are quite happy they don't have to deal with serious Blu-ray limitations such as this one. In fact, I consider Blu-ray's current lack of mandatory PiP support a bigger issue than the the lack of mandatory DD+ support.


no it does noty because the most popular most sold HD DVD player does not. It does not do anything more then DD
Every single HD DVD player must support DD+ decoding. No matter how you spin it, that is an absolute requirement. Sure, some players can't output it at full resolution, but the point is that it means that studios have no qualms on using it as the baseline audio track on a disc. And indeed, that's what they do.

Posted in the news by EFRALOPE, does this mean the deadline for BD specs has been extended?



- also, BD-Live stuff will be up for testing soon, but 1st-gen players lack the ethernet connection for compatibility:

Quote:
As for rival Blu-ray's BD-Live networked interactivity, that won't arrive this year, sources told us. Compatibility tests for it begin in June, with another round in Oct., pushing the introduction into 2008.

How is dropping PiP gaining efficiency? Rhetorical question... It isn't. It's simply dropping a feature, and I personally think it's a great feature to have.

you had a problem that lossless audio would take too much important BW and space from the video. I was just pointing out what is lost by adding lossless is no where near to what is lost for PiP.


Every single HD DVD player must support DD+ decoding. No matter how you spin it, that is an absolute requirement. Sure, some players can't output it at full resolution, but the point is that it means that studios have no qualms on using it as the baseline audio track on a disc. And indeed, that's what they do.

lol, so I guess by that logic since DTS is mandated on BD and since DTS-HD MA can be decoded (lossyly) by a DTS decoder every BD player mandates as a min requirement lossless. :)

you had a problem that lossless audio would take too much important BW and space from the video. I was just pointing out what is lost by adding lossless is no where near to what is lost for PiP.
Lossless PCM takes a lot of space. TrueHD 16/48 5.1 actually doesn't take that much space.

But like I said before, TrueHD is not of primary concern to me in the first place. You're the one trying to convince us that lossless is necessary, while at the same time trying to convince us that DD+ 1.5 offers no advantages over DD 640.

It's quite a ironic stance IMO.


lol, so I guess by that logic since DTS is mandated on BD and since DTS-HD MA can be decoded (lossyly) by a DTS decoder every BD player mandates as a min requirement lossless. :)
Nope. That makes no sense of course. Again, stop spinning. It's making me dizzy.

snip.....
Note that technically that statement would apply to HD DVD as well. Also from what I have heard Blu-ray titles are far more likely to have PCM/lossless audio than HD DVD titles though I don't know what the current figures are.

That's true, though the typical HD-DVD has a bit more space to play with than the typical BD. I've started collecting the audio codec stats. When I have time to finish up I'll pust an update with more details.

snip.......

2) that statement makes no sense what so ever. Let me ask you this, you this
a person goes to a store and sees "Was 5k$, make a bid". A customer asks idf he can have it for 500$ and the sales person says no, then he asks how about 2k$ and the sales person says no, does that mean that if he asks for 3k$ or anything above 2k$ that the answer will be no?

snip.........


Your analogy seems wrong to me Anthony. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say....

A person goes to a store and sees "Was 5k$, make a bid", he observes different people coming in to talk to the salesperson. The first customer comes in and asks if he can have it for 640$ and the sales person says yes, the second person comes in and says how about 1.5k$ and the sales person says yes. The third person comes in and says how about 3k$? Our observer would find it a safe bet that the salesperson will say yes.

not at all, I want studios to use it, I don't care what a bunch of morrons think on a board.
Oh, the irony....

Indeed. Its goal was not efficiency.True, the goal of DTS was audio quality. And in that respect I have seen no evidence for why you believe DD+ is better than DTS at 1.5 Mbps.


Posted in the news by EFRALOPE, does this mean the deadline for BD specs has been extended?No, assuming that the information he posted (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10474916&&#post10474916) is accurate it looks to only apply to BD-Live and not to BD-Video 1.1 specs. Also I am not so sure that it would actually delay the launch of BD-Live players or if it would merely delay their ability to use internet features. After all remember that it took a while before HD DVD players got a firmware update to allow them to use internet features.

I found these posts from the insiders thread educational.


two small questions about DD+ on HD DVD
is DD+ CBR (I guess this could apply to BD as well)? and if not is it truly VBR (i.e. can it be 1.2mbps)

If it needs 1.2mbps would that mean that it would need to use on the disk 1.5 (i.e the frame size is fixed)
DD and DD+ are both CBR.



No, there is no padding added to fill out the bitstreams or packets. No wasted space--if that is what you were asking.



Hi Roger, thanks for answering but I am not sure I understand.

Obviously some things are easier to encode then others. (i.e. a silent part in the movie while two love struck lovers gaze in each others eyes, compared to a band playing when all of a sudden a bomb goes off). If it is CBR that would mean that the silent part will take as much bandwidth as the complex part, right? So if a frame is 5ms for the hard part, it will be 5ms for the easy part as well?

Don’t mean padding, but if the divisions are 5,10,16,32ms/frame and a frame is a predetermined amount of bits then what will happen, then doesn’t it mean that there are only specific bitrates that are available?



The frame size does not directly dictate the bitrate--although in certain delivery formats, it limits it. Current Dolby Digital is a fixed frame of 32 ms, and it supports bitrates from 64 kbps to 640 kbps. Whatever bitrate is chosen for the program is used for the whole program. And in the case of DD+, once the frame size is chosen, it too remains fixed for the whole program.

not at all, I want studios to use it, I don't care what a bunch of morrons think on a board.
if you don't care what we think, why don't you take your attitude and hateful comments somewhere else? you won't be missed.

Huh I don't understand reading through that conversation between Anthony and Roger, I'm just more confused, too techincal for me.

So DD+ is CBR or VBR?

Huh I don't understand reading through that conversation between Anthony and Roger, I'm just more confused, too techincal for me.

So DD+ is CBR or VBR?

The frame size does not directly dictate the bitrate--although in certain delivery formats, it limits it. Current Dolby Digital is a fixed frame of 32 ms, and it supports bitrates from 64 kbps to 640 kbps. Whatever bitrate is chosen for the program is used for the whole program. And in the case of DD+, once the frame size is chosen, it too remains fixed for the whole program.

Constant Bit Rate

PCM is 4.5 mbps PiP is 4mbps (VC-1/AVC) that leaves .5mbps some of which will be the audio. DTHD has a VBR of (if we use Dolby's numbers) 1.5mbps add the DD+ you want is 1.5mbps.

Yes there are better things (more efficient) then PCM. My point was that PCM is way better then PiP and PiP takes up around the same.I'm pretty sure VC-1 PiP is 2Mb average with 4Mb peaks, since you're talking average for everything else you should probably use 2Mb. So, in fact, PiP takes half of a PCM stream, and I would argue about the "PCM is way better than PiP" statement. I doubt PCM will sell movies to J6P, whereas PiP might just do so (I've bought a number of movies just to watch the extras, and I doubt I'm alone).
In fact, you could fit a movie length PiP stream, and a Dolby TrueHD track into less space than a PCM track would take.

it makes perfect sense. If you have the add-on can you use the 7.1 if a disk was made with DD+ 7.1? how about 24/96? ..... at the end if you have the add-on (and I will guess in the future other HD DVD players) all you will get from the DD+ track is DD.Why would you think that future players would only be able to output DD? The Addon's reason is technical limitations, a standalone player wouldn't have any reason to have those limitations.
And since you've implied pretty strongly in other posts that you don't see DD+ as being any better than DD or DTS 1.5, what's the problem? The update allows us to output DTS 1.5, which according to you is as good as DD+, right?

You can't have it both ways. Either DD+ is better, or the Addon is just as good as any other player :)

if you don't care what we think, why don't you take your attitude and hateful comments somewhere else? you won't be missed.
When you see an abusive post, just report it. That's what the mods are for, and it cleans up the garbage for everyone. Unfortunately, you will not get satisfaction by appealing to the 'better nature" of those who routinely craft such posts.

I'm curious as to why BD Live would be postponed until next year. Why is it so hard to implement? What other issues are involved besides an ethernet port?

Steeb: but BuGsArEtAsTy has been praising HD DVDs foresight of including DD+ as a mandatory decoder in all players. Do you mean that all a player needs to do is strip out the DD from the DD+? So in other words the mandatory does not add anything because the additional DD+ features might not be accessible, the same way they would not be on a BD player without DD+.

What?

You realize this comment is about the hardware limitations for output connections, right?

2Ch funny you link to that post by Roger and you missed



i.e. not what we are talking about. Since we are discussing 640 and 1.5

The problem is you are too buisy looking at 1.5 and 640 and missing that we are not talking the same codec or on the same format.

I also did not grudgenly concede there can be a slight difference, I have always said so. The problem is that you don'tr understand the differences and don't realize you are comparing apples to oranges.

Because of the way HD DVD is structured (the data) a DD and DD+ track must be encoded in a MPEG-2 format, that means that even if you are not at 1.5 and you are (for example 1.1) the player, the studio and on the disk it will say 1.5. BD does not have the same restrictions. This makes it a bit like CBR. There is no use for the technicien to ask for less (except if he wants to limit it to <1mbps) and even if it never reaches 1.5 it will say it is 1.5 and take the space of 1.5.

The problem is that you then extend the fallacy that if there is not much benefit to 1.5 then there is none to go to lossless. And that is where you are wrong.



Are you suggesting that studios are not taking advantage of the additional bitrate available with DD+ on HD DVD and simply stuffing some lesser bitrate in the frames?

Steeb, not that I think they should, but curious why you think they should not. If it is a test of DD, DD+ and DTHD what does Dolby win by messing it up? I could understand if we were discussing DTS or PCM, but if it is all Dolby I can't see how it will hurt objectivcity



I disagree, the problem is that some are saying quality counts others it does not because the extra is not needed.

Mmm, I've not really seen anybody state that.

The argument seems to be more that "quality" is A) subjective, and b) not a binary quality, but rather a scale.

and some people say DD+ is better then DD even though they did not hear a difference and that nmaking DD+ mandatory is a good move that means better audio even though the most popular HD DVD player can only strip out and pass the DD core.

Would you please post a reference that says DD+ on HD DVD has a DD core?

Thanks.

Posted in the news by EFRALOPE, does this mean the deadline for BD specs has been extended?


Interesting Q... but you specifically mention a "deadline", which has only been specified for BD-Video 1.1 (aka PiP capable) models introduced by 10/07 (pushed back from 6/07).

There never had been a deadline for -Live players... but this post certainly gives us evidence that we won't see (many of) them this year.

Thanks.

I'm curious as to why BD Live would be postponed until next year. Why is it so hard to implement? What other issues are involved besides an ethernet port?

This may be more of a sales/marketing issue. I expect that first they'll want to ship BD-video 1.1 players to capitalize on that upgrade cycle. Then after that they can start a second upgrade cycle to move people from BD-video 1.1 to BD-Live.

The spoiler in all of those plans are universal players.

You can't have it both ways. Either DD+ is better, or the Addon is just as good as any other player :)

Maybe once there's a fix for "night mode" we may be able to ascertain exactly that... or it may be some of the other problems reported still need to be addressed.... until then, the only thing keeping me from ditching my add-on is the prospects of frankensteining it in an XA1...

In any case, I trust Roger's claim that Dolby didn't design DD+ to be better than DD. ;)

Maybe once there's a fix for "night mode" we may be able to ascertain exactly that... or it may be some of the other problems reported still need to be addressed.... until then, the only thing keeping me from ditching my add-on is the prospects of frankensteining it in an XA1...

In any case, I trust Roger's claim that Dolby didn't design DD+ to be better than DD. ;)

Do you mean for any given bit rate? Or are you saying there's no advantage to the higher bit rate encodes that DD+ makes possible?

Why would you think that future players would only be able to output DD?

I don't, can’t see how you would assume that from what I said.

Some players will do better then DD and some won’t. The guy said that mandating decoding of DD+ means that HD DVD has a lower common denominator and so studios can release better content. The LCD for both formats is DD. That’s the worst a player must output (and the best the add-on can handle today- so it makes a good example of the point). A studio that wants DD+ (for let’s say 7.1) can put it on both formats, if you have a player that can handle it or if it will be just 5.1 DD it can happen on both.

What?

You realize this comment is about the hardware limitations for output connections, right?

right. what's your point? what is coming out (what can come to you) is what is important.

right. what's your point? what is coming out (what can come to you) is what is important.

Anthony P, give it up, you've been owned like a Sony PS3 20 GB system!

Are you suggesting that studios are not taking advantage of the additional bitrate available with DD+ on HD DVD and simply stuffing some lesser bitrate in the frames?

not sure what you mean. But to answer it from two perspectives

1) you can't compare bitrate of two different codecs (why I put up the VC-1/MPEG-2 analogy) or weven the same one on both formats because they treat it differently. what I am saying is that it is not a 1.5/640 difference that you are getting

2) actually not all DD+ are 1.5 many are not. On some titles it is DVD DD quality mascarading as DD+ (mainly in Europe because they want to add more tracks.

Your analogy seems wrong to me Anthony. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say....

A person goes to a store and sees "Was 5k$, make a bid", he observes different people coming in to talk to the salesperson. The first customer comes in and asks if he can have it for 640$ and the sales person says yes, the second person comes in and says how about 1.5k$ and the sales person says yes. The third person comes in and says how about 3k$? Our observer would find it a safe bet that the salesperson will say yes.

no

Would you please post a reference that says DD+ on HD DVD has a DD core?
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

not sure what you mean. But to answer it from two perspectives

1) you can't compare bitrate of two different codecs (why I put up the VC-1/MPEG-2 analogy) or weven the same one on both formats because they treat it differently. what I am saying is that it is not a 1.5/640 difference that you are getting

snip........

We've already heard from Roger on DD+

Roger Dressler - No, there is no padding added to fill out the bitstreams or packets. No wasted space--if that is what you were asking.

He's also explained that it's CBR. Can you explain what is less efficient about DD+ compared to DD?

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

The only discussion I can find of the "core" bistream on HD DVD in DD+ is this comment:

Dolby Digital Plus was designed to employ an altogether new technique to address the
downmix compatibility issue, and is the only perceptual coder thus far to do so. In its “core plus
extension” structure, the Dolby Digital Plus core is a complete 5.1-channel mix; the extension
contains the new channels, plus any channels that have been modified between the 5.1 and
7.1 renditions. (See Figure 3.)"

Notice it calls it a DD+ core, not a DD core.

Where do you have support for your stance that HD DVD DD+ contains a DD core?

right. what's your point? what is coming out (what can come to you) is what is important.

The point is that the hardware is converting DD+ to DD*.

There is no basis for your assertion that the player is just "stripping the DD core" out of DD+ to send.


* See the whitpaper YOU cited for a discussion of DD+ to DD conversion for output of SPDIF

not sure what you mean. But to answer it from two perspectives

1) you can't compare bitrate of two different codecs (why I put up the VC-1/MPEG-2 analogy) or weven the same one on both formats because they treat it differently. what I am saying is that it is not a 1.5/640 difference that you are getting

2) actually not all DD+ are 1.5 many are not. On some titles it is DVD DD quality mascarading as DD+ (mainly in Europe because they want to add more tracks.

My point is: you are contending that DD+ tracks in a 1.5Mbs "container" may be something less than 1.5:

Because of the way HD DVD is structured (the data) a DD and DD+ track must be encoded in a MPEG-2 format, that means that even if you are not at 1.5 and you are (for example 1.1) the player, the studio and on the disk it will say 1.5.

What is the evidence that this is happening?

Further more, how can studios be using this in Europe to "add more tracks" if the on-disc size reamins 1.5Mbs despite your claims of having a lesser-quality encode inside those frames?

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

Thanks for the link. The paper is a very good read, but I don't think it supports your argument. It clearly explains that "HD DVD discs will use Dolby Digital Plus bitstreams" while on Blu-Ray discs "the Dolby Digital Plus bitstream will be constructed as a hybrid of a 5.1 Dolby Digital core frame followed by a Dolby Digital Plus extension frame."

It sounds like they intentionally gimped DD+ on Blu-Ray to accomodate players with only the mandated DD supoprt; otherwise they would have to include both a DD and DD+ stream on the disc.

It sounds like they intentionally gimped DD+ on Blu-Ray to accomodate players with only the mandated DD supoprt; otherwise they would have to include both a DD and DD+ stream on the disc.I thnk that is one of the example of Blu-ray taking a long-term view on how player cost reductions can be done without sacrificing user experience. They worked very closely with SoC suppliers on how to implement many features, with the goal of lowest possible SoC costs in the near future. For this specific example, no transcode from DD+ to DD is needed to drive the SPDIF outout. Might seem trivial, but all the little things can add up.

Do you mean for any given bit rate? Or are you saying there's no advantage to the higher bit rate encodes that DD+ makes possible?

He didn't make any qualifier. Maybe you should ask him unless you'd prefer to find a hair to split? :)