In the Insider's Thread, "paidgeek" from Sony Pictures suggested a thread be started so that he could gain feedback on the use of Dialog Normalization for the Dolby True HD tracks on their BD releases.

I didn't see that anyone started it yet, so here's my attempt.

Here is what he wrote:
There are two primary uses for Dial Norm, the first is to allow different Dolby streams to have the same apparent loudness level. I think this has worked well on SPE DVD titles because we actually take a measurement to determine the correct value to assign using an appropriate loudness meter. Note that this value only affects the decoder through this meta data value. It is really no different than an automatic adjustment of the receivers volume knob. Of course if you compare a Dolby stream to a DTS or LPCM stream, the levels will not match because those coding systems do not support this function.

The other use for the dial norm value is to establish a reference point for DRC (compression). Audiophiles (and I am one) get annoyed at the thought of any compression taking place, but any receiver worth its salt will let you turn this function off.

If you think many posters are opposed to the use of Dial Norm, then I recommend taking a poll. If the respondents are in favor of disabling it (which is actually just setting the value to -31), then we can try it on a few titles and see how it goes.


I put an emphasis on the part that concerns me the most. In essence, this implies that the decoded PCM track wouldn't be exactly like the input one, because of the variance on the channel levels. This is most annoying if one has a perfectly fine calibration to work with PCM or DTS.

Edit:
Post 5 contains additional information regarding dialog normalization, courtesy of David Boulet.

And I kindly ask anyone voting for 'on', to please expose your reason for doing so.

Oops, the question on the pool was misspelled, can I edit my own poll?

It was supposed to be "Dialog Normalization on DTHD tracks, 'OFF' or 'ON'?"

Sorry, it's my first time :p

Can one of the mods please fix it?

By instinct - I also think that unnecessary altering of the PCM track is to be avoided.
If you want your dialog louder, turn the channel up.

Oops, the question on the pool was misspelled, can I edit my on poll?

It was supposed to be "Dialog Normalization on DTHD tracks, 'OFF' or 'ON'?"

Sorry, it's my first time :p

Can one of the mods please fix it?

Alex,

Thanks for getting this started. I will be anxious to see what the results are. These polls are one of the features I like best about the AVSforum.

I absolutely want Dialog norm. and other "features" of Dolby Digital to be left UNUSED on high-fidelity encodes.

Dialog normalization forces the decoding chip to perform amplitude-recalculations to the ENTIRE PCM SIGNAL after extraction. In other words, it's impossible to get a bit-for-bit PCM result out from the output of the decoder when dialog normaliztion is used even in the case of lossless compression schemes.

the fact that the possibly of using it for high-fidelity lossless encodes is even entertained by the studios just boggles the mind. Not to mention it has no real purpose on a single-title stream like you get watching a movie on a Blu-ray/HD DVD disc. It makes sense for OTA or cable content which needs to be "normalized" one program to the next and channel-to-channel. But a single program? Why compromise fidelity when it has only itself to reference to in level???

This is NOT an audiophile feature. In fact, it's one of the reasons that Dolby Digital often sounds inferior to other codecs in practice, such as DTS.

I'll never forget being so surprised by how good a particular Dolby Digital track sounded on DVD with a particular title I reviewed. It sounded "like DTS" and I was so amazed I contacted the audio engineer who had prepared the mix to ask him way this Dolby Digital track sounded so much better than what I had grown accustomed to hearing on DVD.

His answer was quick: he said "Oh, the reason it sounded better was because we didn't set the Dialog Normalization flag for that mix.".

Think about that.

It was *hearing* how much better this D.N.-free DD track sounded that compelled me to learn more about this process (ie, not some hypothetical thought process about the issue in an abstract debate). When I learned that the Dialog Norm flag forces digital recaluclation of the entire waveform after PCM extraction is wasn't too hard to imagine why DD sounds so inferior on so many titles.

All things being equal i'd prefer dialnorm "off", just on the chance their could be compromised quality.

Just one of the small reasons why I do not like buying Dolby encoded titles! I have been happy with the improvement of sound quality of Dolby True HD. And I feel that turning the Dialog Normalization off would be a big improvement! At this point in time I still prefer DTS over Dolby and I have been buying alot more DTS and DTS-HD Master Audio titles.

To Dolby Labs: Please turn Dialog Normalization OFF.

Ditto

Just give us dts.

I think the best bet (currently at least) is to go DTHD lossless w/o DN + 1.5 DTS lossy track!

I voted Off... I'd rather avoid having the PCM track messed with as much as possible.

Absolutely, positively, OFF! For every reason Dave gave.

There is no good reason for it at all.

Alex,

Thanks for getting this started. I will be anxious to see what the results are. These polls are one of the features I like best about the AVSforum.

You're welcome paidgeek ;) I'm anxious to see the results as well, and even more to see them implemented :)

I also want to thank you and tell you again that I really appreciate you taking the time to listen to our concerns. I know we're just a niche market for now, but if the studios can appease this audience with their releases, I'm sure it will please the mass market as well.

And make them 48/24 while you're at that :D

Agreed,

Paidgeek,

thanks for actually requesting and considering our input. We very much appreciate your openness and hope that our feedback helps improve Sony Blu-ray product as a result. Certainly, it would be dissappointing if future Dolby TrueHD encodes on Sony BD sounded inferior to their early PCM counterparts due to something as easy-to-rectify as dialog normalization. And for the future of Dolby TrueHD, PCM, and DTS-HD MA on Sony titles, please do urge your mastering department to consider the highest bit-rate possible to ensure bit-accuracy to the master (ie, 20 and 24 bit when possible).

This is NOT an audiophile feature. In fact, it's one of the reasons that Dolby Digital often sounds inferior to other codecs in practice, such as DTS.

I'll never forget being so surprised by how good a particular Dolby Digital track sounded on DVD with a particular title I reviewed. It sounded "like DTS" and I was so amazed I contacted the audio engineer who had prepared the mix to ask him way this Dolby Digital track sounded so much better than what I had grown accustomed to hearing on DVD.

His answer was quick: he said "Oh, the reason it sounded better was because we didn't set the Dialog Normalization flag for that mix.".

Think about that.

It was *hearing* how much better this D.N.-free DD track sounded that compelled me to learn more about this process (ie, not some hypothetical thought process about the issue in an abstract debate). When I learned that the Dialog Norm flag forces digital recaluclation of the entire waveform after PCM extraction is wasn't too hard to imagine why DD sounds so inferior on so many titles.


Question: is this why the DD dialogue tracks sound so weak, and I'm forced to use subtitles, or crank the volume all the way up to be able to understand what the people are saying?

I voted for "off".

I would like to see LOTS of votes cast on this issue! :)

OFF, please :) .

While I am not at all certain Dave's facts are completely accurate, I none the less have never seen any good use for dialnorm outside of broadcast television (it has a very good use there). For prerecorded content, we are quite capable of setting our own volume level.

I voted "off" of course, just in case Dave is correct ;).

While I am not at all certain Dave's facts are completely accurate, I none the less have never seen any good use for dialnorm outside of broadcast television (it has a very good use there). For prerecorded content, we are quite capable of setting our own volume level.


Amen.

I prefer PCM tracks now that I finally have an HDMI receiver, but my Denon also lets me enable/disable the dialog normalization feature, so I voted "on."

UxiSXRD,

Your denon? Are you talking about a BD player or a receiver? If you're talking about a receiver, it won't help you because the dialog-norm will already have been processed in the player prior to HDMI output. Also, my understanding was that to be in-spec consumer gear had to honor the dialog-norm instructions. Are you certain your device can bypass dialog-norm processing? Can you share more info?

BTW, why would you want it applied in any case?

I'm talking about my Denon AVR (4306). I remember seeing an option, but I'm actually thinking I was confusing it with the Dynamic Range Compression. Reading through the PDF manual of my receiver, I'm thinking I have to change my votes on this one, since it does appear that it is not selectable on it's own.

The AVR will apparently tell me what the offset is (by db), so I suppose that could be countered from the Channel adjustment.

That'll teach me to vote before reading the thread. :o

I would have voted "on" because I prefer to have the control over my selections... even if it's not "pure to the source." I definitely do prefer pure LPCM tracks whenever possible.

BTW, why would you want it applied in any case?

And I add, 'to the detriment of us all '

I also use Denon's for AVRs and never I encountered such feature. Can you please share more information, like David asked?

Edit: Sorry, you beat me to it. Thanks for the info

I'm talking about my Denon AVR (4306). I remember seeing an option, but I'm actually thinking I was confusing it with the Dynamic Range Compression. Reading through the PDF manual of my receiver, I'm thinking I have to change my votes on this one, since it does appear that it is not selectable on it's own.

The AVR will apparently tell me what the offset is (by db), so I suppose that could be countered from the Channel adjustment.

That'll teach me to vote before reading the thread. :o

I would have voted "on" because I prefer to have the control over my selections... even if it's not "pure to the source." I definitely do prefer pure LPCM tracks whenever possible.

You are forever banned from any further HT meets in SoCal! :p

Doh! :D

Sounds like Paidgeeks' taken this thread to heart as overwhelming evidence against, anyways. Phew. ;)

Why does my Pioneer 84txsi display DIAL NORM (and a number) at times. Is this dialog normalization?? Is it just displaying what is happening or is it adjustable.

Sorry, don't really understand what dialog normalization is or how it is implemented.

I voted "NO"/"OFF" regarding Dialog Normalization on any or all Dolby/DTS formats digital or analog, On all dvd's not just sony's but for all studios to disable this sorce setting, and give it to us at 196/24 and leave the Compressing to us!

p.s.
And I like to thank all those who agree

Before I vote...

Just so I fully understand this, is this connected to the issue thats brought up so often in the Dolby vs. DTS debates? IOW, are we talking about the process whereby the center channel level is attenuated lower relative to highest peak in a given soundtrack?

Here is a link for a description of dialnorm. (http://etvcookbook.org/audio/dialnorm.html)

I voted for No Dialnorm. But keep the audio at the maximum quality - IE if the master is at 24-bit/48 kHz, then that's what we should be getting.


fuad

Why does my Pioneer 84txsi display DIAL NORM (and a number) at times. Is this dialog normalization?? Is it just displaying what is happening or is it adjustable.

Sorry, don't really understand what dialog normalization is or how it is implemented.

Same here, what gives?

As far as adding or messing with the original sound in any way, do not do it!

I have problems with my ears and loud noise can further damage them so I find the voice center channel track very low in most movies and cannot turn it up in fear of the loud passages. The Pioneer has a compensation switch for this but not sure if it works with pcm. Still I say NO to changing the original sound track in anyway on the disc itself.

Only 5 people have said YES to dialog normalization? Do people know what it is they are voting against? Or do they just assume if it alters the original track in any way it must be bad? Personally I think dialog normalization greatly enhanced dialog clarity.

Also: Please respond only to the topic at hand. This has nothing to do with your preference of LPCM or DTS over Dolby formats.

Only 5 people have said YES to dialog normalization?

Actually 4, one has been converted. He voted in a hurry :D


Personally I think dialog normalization greatly enhanced dialog clarity..

Well, just tweaking the level of the center channel on your AVR or surround processor sould do the trick. As David Boulet pointed out, there's really no need to mess with the audio tracks at an audiophile level. I'll quote bellow some debate that's going on the insider thread

Originally Posted by paidgeek
There are two primary uses for Dial Norm, the first is to allow different Dolby streams to have the same apparent loudness level. I think this has worked well on SPE DVD titles because we actually take a measurement to determine the correct value to assign using an appropriate loudness meter. Note that this value only affects the decoder through this meta data value. It is really no different than an automatic adjustment of the receivers volume knob

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

This is not true.

Most high-end decoders, pre-amps, and receivers adjust volume in the analog domain. Cheap electronics that use digital-domain control to save money typically sound inferior. And high-end devices that use digital-volume control do so using very well designed algorithms and taking great care not to produce any audible degradation in the process.

I hardly think that's the sort of transparency coming out of the Dolby decoding chips on board the typical DVD, HD DVD, or BD player.

Dialog-normalization forces a recalculation of the ENTIRE waveform after PCM extraction. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a bit-for-bit datastream from the output of a Dolby decoder when dialog normalization has been set, even with Dolby True HD titles.

I've heard Dolby Digital without dialog normalization applied and my first thought was "wow... sounds like DTS". In fact, I was so intrigued with the "DTS sound" of a particular Dolby track on a certain DVD that I contacted the recording engineer to find out why it sounded so much better than the sound of Dolby Digital on DVD that I had been accustomed to hearing.

He said: "Oh, that track sounded better because we didn't apply any dialog normalization to it".

In further conversations with this individual, it became clear that around the studio there was an opinion that the primary audible improvement with DTS over DD in practice on DVD was due to the dialog normalization setting typically being applied to Dolby Digital while DTS was left alone.


The use-case for Dialog-norm is when there are different programs streamed together that need to all be "normalized" in level to avoid playback discrepencies. Several programs on the same cable channel would be a good example. High-fidelity isn't as important in this case as level-matching across programs.

However, in a high-end AV application like Blu-ray or HD DVD were a single program item is delivered on a contained format like a disc, the use-case for dialog norm is moot and it shouldn't even be considered. It's legacy is one of the iconic examples of how the "more is better" approach to mastering, so rampant in the industry, contradicts the basic principle of high-fidelity mastering: lessons that the recording industry learned in the 1960's and managed to forget.


Originally Posted by paidgeek

David,

I understand your points, but please note from my earlier post that dial norm also serves a critical function for compression if that function has been selected (heresy for you, I know...) . The ability to surf audio channels on DVD or BD is also a reason that J6P may appreciate it.

That said, in monitoring the poll on this topic, there is clearly an overwhelming desire to encode streams without it that we were not aware of. We will almost certainly experiment with turning it off on upcoming titles and see if there is a backlash.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Paidgeek,

yes, I can understand that the context of toggling audio tracks might seem a use-case for dialogue-normalization. However, since all such audio tracks are under the care of your mastering engineers during disc-authoring, why not just record them so that their levels match to begin with, using the highest-fidelity track (the film's original soundtrack) as your point of reference? Or leave it set to "off" for that main track and leave it set to "on" for the other tracks but with a dialog-norm setting that will match the perceived volume of the film's master-track?

Compression and the other "features" of Dolby Digital have NO PLACE in an audiophile application. What other application (other than audiophile) do you consider a high-resolution lossless audio track to have? It's purpose should be transparency to the master. That's all. That's the audience that such a track is provided to satisfy.

Only 5 people have said YES to dialog normalization? Do people know what it is they are voting against?

Nope.

Nothing but morons voting here.

:rolleyes:

Personally I think dialog normalization greatly enhanced dialog clarity.

We don't want to hijack a poll thread, but just for the record, dialnorm, IN THEORY, does not do anything that would either enhance or degrade clarity or sonics of the source material. All dialnorm is is a feature that allows the content producer to instruct the AC-3 decoder to attenuate the audio by a given amount. This is little different from simply adjusting the volume knob on one's receiver or pre/pro by a few dB.

I still voted to not use it, though. At least not on prerecorded stuff like DVD or HD-whatever.

:eek: I refrained from voting because I dont know what the hell is going on. lol

I think it is terrific that insiders want to consider the opinions of AVS readers in their decisionmaking. It really goes to show how important AVS members' opinions are to the HD content providers. We enthusiasts really can make a difference when we funnel our energy positively.

Thanks to Paidgeek for considering our views.

I think it is terrific that insiders want to consider the opinions of AVS readers in their decisionmaking. It really goes to show how important AVS members' opinions are to the HD content providers. We enthusiasts really can make a difference when we funnel our energy positively.

Thanks to Paidgeek for considering our views.

Well said Rich! :cool:

While I am not a big Dolby fan and prefer the competitions product. Dolby has always been great about responding to email and they always seem interested in solving problems. I really do hope that Dolby is watching this thread at considers ether letting the user shut off dialog normalization or maybe even getting rid of it on consumer discs all together.

This is also a heated topic over at hometheaterforum as well!

I really do hope that Dolby is watching this thread at considers ether letting the user shut off dialog normalization or maybe even getting rid of it on consumer discs all together.

Dolby really doesn't have much to do with this as being discussed. Dolby provides the tools for content producers. It is pretty much up to those producers how to implement those tools. Dialnorm does not have to be used.

Dolby really doesn't have much to do with this as being discussed. Dolby provides the tools for content producers. It is pretty much up to those producers how to implement those tools. Dialnorm does not have to be used.


Then Dolby should just take away the Dialnorm tool! ;)

Dolby really doesn't have much to do with this as being discussed. Dolby provides the tools for content producers. It is pretty much up to those producers how to implement those tools. Dialnorm does not have to be used.

Its strange that hardware companies can not give us the ability to shut it off or they can not use the Dolby emblem. And according to your response Dolby is not responsible for it implementation ether. I can see why they use it for the broadcast arena and it would be up to the broadcasters if they used it or not. But to force it on commercially sold discs and say that the consumer can not shut it off is ridiculous! IMHO Dolby has everything to do with it and it is up to them to make changes if enough of us ask them to do so. Dialog normalization has no place in dvd's and HD discs sold to the general public, it honestly serves no purpose in the home sector.


Dolby should only offer the dialog normalization tool to broadcasters and not to dvd or HD authoring houses. ;)

But to force it on commercially sold discs and say that the consumer can not shut it off is ridiculous! IMHO Dolby has everything to do with it and it is up to them to make changes if enough of us ask them to do so.

Your post reeks of ignorance. Dude, you are so out there on this I don't know what to say. Obviously, facts mean little to you.

Dialog normalization has no place in dvd's and HD discs sold to the general public, it honestly serves no purpose in the home sector.

Fine. Tell it to Warner, Fox, MGM, Universal, Disney, and Sony. They are the companies that use it. Dolby doesn't make DVDs.

Your post reeks of ignorance. Dude, you are so out there on this I don't know what to say. Obviously, facts mean little to you.

Tell me Robert if dialog normalization was created for broadcasters. And it is being used on DVD's and HD discs, why shouldn't we be able to shut it off? How does that make me ignorant and how am I lacking facts? I am just wondering what you answer is to why hardware companies are not allowed to place Dolby emblems on there gear if they include the option to turn off dialog normalization? In Dolby's view the decoder is not in spec if they have the ability to turn off the DN! I think this thread speaks volumes that most of us hear do not want dialog normalization and feel it is bad! Your post would mean more if you could say more than "Dude, you are so out there on this I don't know what to say. Obviously, facts mean little to you".

Fine. Tell it to Warner, Fox, MGM, Universal, Disney, and Sony. They are the companies that use it. Dolby doesn't make DVDs.

You are right Dolby does not make the DVD's but they to make the tools to encode Dolby Digital DVD's. And when the tools are made to encode Dolby a certain way then thats the way the studios are going to author the discs. I have no idea if they are encoding them a certain way on purpose or if they just are not aware they can turn DN off? I am under the impression that they ether have to use DN or feel it is necessary because Dolby sold them on it? I do not know, but I do know that I feel that DN is not necessary for comercial DVD's or HD discs and the consumer should have the right to turn it off it they do not want DN.

Tell me Robert if dialog normalization was created for broadcasters. And it is being used on DVD's and HD discs, why shouldn't we be able to shut it off?

First off, dialnorm was not created for broadcasters. Dolby Digital was created for any digital audio delivery medium where bandwidth constraints dictate an efficient compression codec for audio. Dialnorm is a feature of the codec that is intended simply to give a content producer a mechanism to preset the overall level of an audio track that may have been mixed or recorded above what may be a desirable threshold for a particular delivery medium. Broadcasting is a good example of a medium where it is desirable to have relative volume levels consistent between programs.

Why shouldn't it be user selectable and the end of the chain? Because Dolby designed the codec to work the same with all decoders that meet their spec. The tool is for the use of the content producer, not for the end user who may well not even understand (or care) what it is. The process is supposed to be transparent to the end user. The content producer decides how the material is best presented within the limits of the technology. Dialnorm was designed to be but one of many tools to aid the production community in some level of standardization.

How does that make me ignorant and how am I lacking facts?

Because you are placing blame where it does not belong despite the very obvious lack of logic of your position.

I am just wondering what you answer is to why hardware companies are not allowed to place Dolby emblems on there gear if they include the option to turn off dialog normalization? In Dolby's view the decoder is not in spec if they have the ability to turn off the DN!

For a DVD or DVD player to carry the "DVD" logo, both the hardware and software are required to meet the specifications set down by the DVD Forum. Deviation from that spec precludes the use of the logo. That is the very nature of technology licensing. The same holds true of Dolby products, DTS products, and just about any other licensed technology you would care to name.

Dolby says it is not allowed to make the dialnorm function of their decoders user selectable because the technology was not designed to work that way. As I said, if you don't like dialnorm, the place to complain is the people that are actually using it, because that is their option. BTW, not everyone does use dialnorm.

I have no idea if they are encoding them a certain way on purpose or if they just are not aware they can turn DN off? I am under the impression that they ether have to use DN or feel it is necessary because Dolby sold them on it?

Of course the people that create this content know how to use Dolby Digital. Most of them do what they do for a reason, even if we don't always agree with it. At worst, there may be a lazy technician that will not bother to check to levels of the audio master and simply leaves the encoder in its default setting (-27dBfs). I believe that person is the except, not the rule.

I do not know, but I do know that I feel that DN is not necessary for comercial DVD's or HD discs and the consumer should have the right to turn it off it they do not want DN.

I don't feel region coding and copy protection are necessary for commercial DVDs or HD discs and the consumer should have the right to turn it off.

You can't always get what you want. (Mick Jagger)

I don't know much about this stuff but why can't we have a choice of True HD, DTS MA, and PCM all on one disk?

Article regarding Dolby's Dialog Normalization:

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/optimode/page3.html

True HD, DTS MA, and PCM all on one disk?

A waste of disc space.
Only need one of the 3 (in theory, the AQ should be the same for each).

:eek: I refrained from voting because I dont know what the hell is going on. lol

lol, same here.

Dolby really doesn't have much to do with this as being discussed. Dolby provides the tools for content producers. It is pretty much up to those producers how to implement those tools. Dialnorm does not have to be used.

Dolby does bear some responsibility in my mind. It has to do with two things:

1. Dialog Normalization is activated by *default* when encoding a Dolby Digital stream.

2. The re-attenuation of the PCM after extraction cannot be defeated by the user.


Robert,

while I respect your comments and agree with much of what you have to say, I'm curious why you feel that Dolby couldn't have permitted a user to bypass the processing for dialog normalization? it would make perfect sense for the application of a program in an isolated context/medium like a movie on a DVD, BD, HD DVD etc. Why not? It seems to me that since the authoring tools apply it by default, the "intention" behind it's presence on the part of the studio is often less motivated than the intention of the audiophile to hear the original extracted PCM signal.

Exactly how would allowing audiophile aplications to access the original extracted PCM prior to data-recalculation be problematic? If a user can selectively turn on/off dynamic range compression, why not dialog normalization?

IMO, for Dolby to completely be rid of any accountability, they need to design an authoring platform that requires that an engineer turn dialog normalization *on* manually if they desired to apply it. Chances are that this would render most Dolby Digital encodings dialog-free as a result.

Oh... and while they're at it, they should default standard 2.0 tracks to utilize the 384 datarate rather than 192 kbps. I have yet to hear an audio engineer suggest that 192 achieves transparancy to the source, yet it's ubiquitously used even when only a single 2.0 DD track is on the disc and there's an abundance of bandwidth to be had. Why? Because it's the default datarate that's provided by the authoring tools... that's why.

I say this to illustrate that in many instances it's default encoding behavior that decides what we hear, not an audio engineer's desire for sonic transparancy, especially given that most audio engineers don't have a very high regard for sonic transparency or even if they do, they don't always stop to consider the cumulative effects of multiple DSP cycles on a souce PCM encode. Many engineers have been fooled by the myth that "once it's digital, it can't degrade". Funny... we wouldn't say that about a digital image that gets sent through a chain of successive downscaling... yet we pretend it's a transparent process with an audio signal.

I'm curious why you feel that Dolby couldn't have permitted a user to bypass the processing for dialog normalization?

Not exactly what I said. Of course Dolby COULD have designed their decoders this way. What I did say was that my opinion is that the reason they DIDN'T design the decoders with this level of end user functionality is likely because this "feature" of AC-3 was designed to be transparent to the end user, not something a layman would have to understand enough to try to decide whether to turn it on or off. Just reading some of the responses in this thread I can understand that line of thinking. This said, I should point out that is merely my opinion why htis may have been done this way. I have never spoken to Dolby about this so I don't want anyone to presume I have any particular knowledge about how Dolby approaches this issue.

IMO, for Dolby to completely be rid of any accountability, they need to design an authoring platform that requires that an engineer turn dialog normalization *on* manually if they desired to apply it. Chances are that this would render most Dolby Digital encodings dialog-free as a result.

Actually, more simply, Dolby could just change the default setting on encoders to -31dBfs instead of -27. That would accomplish the same thing. I happen to think they should do that, though I don't hold them "accountable" in any negative way that they don't. They (Dolby) designed the technology and they are the best experts on its use. I can't blame them for trying to get the people that use their tools to try to use them as they were designed.

Oh... and while they're at it, they should default standard 2.0 tracks to utilize the 384 datarate rather than 192 kbps.

You will get no argument from me on that. I would also add that I would prefer to see industry practice for encoding mono soundtracks to be what Warner does. Encode as 1.0 and use 192 kb/s data rate (minimum).

No option for No Preference. I'm fine with things the way they are. I don't have any problems running the HDMI audio through my Denon 3806. I've never had any difficulty hearing the dialog and don't need to constantly adjust the volume. So for me things are fine the way they are.

Robert,

sounds like we're basically in agreement.

Actually, more simply, Dolby could just change the default setting on encoders to -31dBfs instead of -27. That would accomplish the same thing. I happen to think they should do that, though I don't hold them "accountable" in any negative way that they don't. They (Dolby) designed the technology and they are the best experts on its use. I can't blame them for trying to get the people that use their tools to try to use them as they were designed.


Yes, that's what I'm thinking (default setting to -31 db).

I would, however, disagree that their implicit design decisions should be trusted because they are "experts". I use the default bit-rate for 2.0 DD of 192 as an example. Given that the use-case for Dolby TrueHD lossless is for providing a bit-for-bit copy of the master track upon decoding, the fact that this result is made impossible with dialog normalization active, it seems to me to be a poor choice of default settings for Dolby TrueHD encodings.

Does anyone else see the irony here? That with Dialog Normalization on a Dolby TrueHD track, it is impossible to achieve a bit-for-bit PCM output via the decocder? (not saying that you or anyone else desputes that point, just that it really strikes me as irony that Dolby's own default settings, which are typically left alone by encoding engineers, negates the very point of using the lossless codec!!!)

I'd propose that they leave their dialogue-norm default in place with conventional lossy Dolby tracks at 384 kbps or less. Those are the bitrates used for commonly streamed media like broadcast, cable, or other programs where the dialog normalization feature is most appropriate, and where audiophile considerations are secondary to the desire to match perceived level from program to program.

But certainly with Dolby TrueHD, the default should be -31db (off), since this use-case is specifically intended for bit-for-bit reproduction for an audiophile market.

Personally, I'd like to see any Dolby encode at 448 or higher also have the default set to -31 db since encodes at those rates tend to also be for applications like DVD, HD DVD, BD etc. which make less of a use of Dialog Normalization, but I would be content knowing that my lossless Dolby tracks are really providing me with bit-accuracy.

Of course, if Dolby would just modify the spec to allow audiophile hardware designs to bypass dialog normalization altogether, the topic would be instantly moot.

Great posts David, I completely agree ;)

Is it true if you set DN to -31db that it effectively turns DN off?

While I would prefer not to use DialNorm in my cinema, my vote is for DialNorm information to remain present in the metadata because it actually has it's uses. What I'd really like to see is the ability to disable DialNorm processing in the players or receivers so that we can, if we choose to, ignore it.

Also, if we start seeing some titles without it, and we have no way to defeat it on our processors, we're all going to be jumping on our volume controls with those discs. I want to be able to calibrate my room to "reference level" and have that work for all well-mastered discs.

Mark

While I would prefer not to use DialNorm in my cinema, my vote is for
DialNorm information to remain present in the metadata because it
actually has it's uses. What I'd really like to see is the ability to
disable DialNorm processing in the players or receivers so that we can,
if we choose to, ignore it.


Dolby's spec REQUIRES that the playback hardware not allow the user to adjust this (though permitting it would solve all the problems).

What purpose Does Dialog Normalization have with a *lossless* high-resolution soundtrack? You don't need to compress it. You don't need to level-adjust it. Any seconary audio track could "level adjust" to the reference of the primary lossless track so you can leave the lossless track unmodified. What purpose does Dialog Normalization have with the application of high-end, high-resolution, lossless audio on BD or HD DVD?

What purpose Does Dialog Normalization have with a *lossless* high-resolution soundtrack? You don't need to compress it. You don't need to level-adjust it. Any seconary audio track could "level adjust" to the reference of the primary lossless track so you can leave the lossless track unmodified. What purpose does Dialog Normalization have with the application of high-end, high-resolution, lossless audio on BD or HD DVD?

I don't disagree in theory, but in practice, where our HD players may be part of TV setup with various audio sources, DialNorm has an important role to play. But as I said, in my cinema, which only screens movies, I'd prefer to defeat it entirely.

Mark

Dolby's spec REQUIRES that the playback hardware not allow the user to adjust this (though permitting it would solve all the problems).

That's the bit that needs to change then, not removing DialNorm from discs, which would impact the majority of J6P's out there.

Mark

I don't disagree in theory, but in practice, where our HD players may be part of TV setup with various audio sources, DialNorm has an important role to play. But as I said, in my cinema, which only screens movies, I'd prefer to defeat it entirely.

It would make no difference as you have to adjust volume with each disc you play anyway.

The point of DN was to "level match" program material that's streamed together... like when you switch channels on the TV... so one channel doesn't sound twice as loud as another forcing you to constantly have to adjust it manually.

With movie media, it's a moot feature, because you adjust the volume for each movie regardless. The only case for DN on BD/HD DVD would be if you had several players hooked up at once and you wanted to flip between movies. Not a very common scenario. ;)

Again... secondary streams like commentary can use DN and be set to level-match to the primary lossless track which is left as an unmodified reference, so the need to stream multiple audio tracks on a single BD or HD DVD is still not a use-case for DN on lossless high-res audio.

With movie media, it's a moot feature, because you adjust the volume for each movie regardless.

You may do. In my cinema, I generally use the same calibrated volume for every film, unless I feel there is something wrong with the master, eg the early HD-DVD releases... other than that any of the rare changes I make are never more than +/- 2dB from that reference volume.

The fact remains that DialNorm is a useful feature, but a defeat should be available in the processors.

Mark

Hmm. Even *with* dialog normalization I find I have to adjust volume for quite a few DVDs... well beyond the +/- 2 db. Seems a pretty lacking objetive to force data-reprocessing in the decoder prior to d/a.

Agreed that user-defeatable DN is the best solution. But since Dolby requires it to be honored by spec, no product bearing the Dolby Digital logo can do otherwise. That's not likely to change.

Hmm. Even *with* dialog normalization I find I have to adjust volume for quite a few DVDs... well beyond the +/- 2 db.

Interesting.


Seems a pretty lacking objetive to force data-reprocessing in the decoder prior to d/a.

It's perfectly reasonable within the scope of DialNorm. I think you'd be *very* hard pushed to detect any loss of fidelity with the general range used for movies. Default is -31dB and movies are generally -27dB? Which means 4dB attenuation. In my audio system (Mark Levinson Reference Kit/Revel Salon speakers) I have a digital pre-processor (TacT room-correction system) and an analogue pre-pro. I can lower the digital output by +20dB and still not be aware of any degradation other than a lower volume...


Agreed that user-defeatable DN is the best solution. But since Dolby requires it to be honored by spec, no product bearing the Dolby Digital logo can do otherwise. That's not likely to change.

Yup, but the solution you propose here, that Sony disable DialNorm because we have their insider interested, is a band-aid solution. It would do nothing but confuse the average user who would wonder why their Sony discs always sound louder and why they always have to turn down the volume with them.

There are millions of discs out there with DialNorm encoding which would still be stuck with it. The only all-encompasing way to remove DialNorm is to disable it within the processor. This will allow us to "correct" our entire collections. Our efforts need to be focussed on Dolby to change their mandatory status of DialNorm processing...

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

a mastering engineer could simply record the original at the proper level so that it's not too loud, and not too soft.

We never had scores of consumers becoming confused with the PCM on laserdisc or the analog audio on VHS... both of which lacked the dialog-normalization flag. Consumers and reviewers aren't bereft with confusion over the volume-differences among their DVD DTS tracks, or PCM and DTS-HD on Blu-ray either. The call-centers have thankfully been spared...

;)

Besides, dialog-norm isn't a magic solution for level-matching. The default setting is just left alone 99% of the time by the mastering engineers. Is that really supposed to magically "level match" given the varitety of program material that's now been flagged wtih the same DN setting? Only careful comparison to a known reference with human ears (bcs a more compressed signal will sound subjectively louder... can't rely on a computer to tell you) would result in a meaningful, and consistently performing, DN setting with each audio stream. Most engineers I've spoken with didn't ever touch DN and just left it at the default setting... which does basically nothing in terms of acheiving "level" parity between program material.

It's perfectly reasonable within the scope of DialNorm. I think you'd be *very* hard pushed to detect any loss of fidelity with the general range used for movies. Default is -31dB and movies are generally -27dB? Which means 4dB attenuation. In my audio system (Mark Levinson Reference Kit/Revel Salon speakers) I have a digital pre-processor (TacT room-correction system) and an analogue pre-pro. I can lower the digital output by +20dB and still not be aware of any degradation other than a lower volume...

Yes.

Bcs I can hear the degrdeation to the waveform from the *processing* applied to every bit-word even if the signal is adjusted just one db. It's not the degree of adjustment (bit resolution lost) that's the question here, it's the *processing*.

I have two "audiophile" applications on my PC for mastering CDs. Whenever I level-adjust or "normalize" a song, which is supposed to merely apply a simple mathematical algorithm to adjust the amplitude to change level, the sonic character of the audio always gets a little brighter, harsher, and more "digital" versus the original unmodified waveform.

If your processor allows for digital volume/signal-processing that's more transparent that's great. I don't want the decoding chip that's part of the Dolby decoding engine to be forced to apply such processing.

Unsurprisingly, we come to that point where we agree to disagree. I'm outvoted anyway, so my opinion doesn't matter, even if my solution is the correct one ;)

And while I find it *very* hard to believe that you can hear a difference, I have to defer to your word on this. Perhaps there is something wrong with your software ;)

Mark

Dialogue normalization is the pan and scan of audio it seems. Personally I think it's worthless for high end audio.

"Perhaps there is something wrong with your software"

"They" said the same thing in 1997 when many of us suggested we could hear the sonic signature of Dolby Digital at the 384 kbps bit-rate in comparison to the PCM we had been used to on Laserdisc...

;)

I'm a 100% there with Kram and David

Personally I feel that DN is best used for broadcast networks or cable/satellite stations. I honestly do not feel it is necessary to have on a DVD or HD movie where the movie is shown from beginning to end. And there are no commercials and the consumer is going to listen to it at the volume they are comfortable with. To this day I still prefer to not listen to the Dolby Digital track unless I have to. I would rather listen to a DTS/DTS-ES track any day over Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus! Now I do like what I am hearing so far from Dolby True HD even though I love my DTS. As soon as I am able to buy my Blu-ray player I will see how I like the PCM tracks and the DTS-HD Master Audio.

I say, say no to Dialog Normalization !!!

agreed lets just use the dialog norm on the TV based items

Only 5 people have said YES to dialog normalization? Do people know what it is they are voting against? Or do they just assume if it alters the original track in any way it must be bad? Personally I think dialog normalization greatly enhanced dialog clarity.

Also: Please respond only to the topic at hand. This has nothing to do with your preference of LPCM or DTS over Dolby formats.

The big thing for me is that I want "realistic sound" I hate this idea where people want crystal clear dialogue that is heard on the same level as effects. I want my sound to come out in a barely audible whisper when someone is whispering and when a gunshot or explosion happens to literally sound deafening, like it would if it were in the room with you. HUUUUUUGE dynamic range. And that is killed with Dial norm

Next time, why not wait 2 more months and make it a full year before resurrecting a dead thread? :) wormraper, please read what dialnorm is again. It's not what you think.

Holy threads returned from the dead Batman!

Funny thing is I was looking for this thread the other day.

Wow, a thread dedicated to my name! :D

The big thing for me is that I want "realistic sound" I hate this idea where people want crystal clear dialogue that is heard on the same level as effects. I want my sound to come out in a barely audible whisper when someone is whispering and when a gunshot or explosion happens to literally sound deafening, like it would if it were in the room with you. HUUUUUUGE dynamic range. And that is killed with Dial norm

You have no concept of what dial norm does.

Dynamic range is set by sound mixers prior to dial norm. You can have a track with dial norm a a dynamic range that goes for inaudible to ears bleeding loud. You can also have a track mixed that has virtually no dynamic range (whispers, gunshots, planes, soundtrack, background noise) are all roughly the same loudness( and no dial norm flag.

Dialnorm is the boogieman of AVS. 99% of the people who think it is horrible make up their own concept of what it does.

Here is a brief summary.
1) Take a movie
2) Mix it however you want (giant or small dynamic range)
3) Make 2 copies of the master
4) Run Dial norm algorithm one track it returns a dial norm value (say -5db)
5) Set Dialnorm flag of -5db on one track.
6) Burn each track to a disc.

Now you have two exactly identical tracks one with dial norm flag of -5 and the other of +0db.

Now if you play the +0db track it will have a certain loudness. If you play the -5db track it will be constantly -5db. The lowest point will be -5db from lowest point. The highest point will be -5db from the highest point. Every milisecond of the track will mirror the +0db track except it is 5db lower.

You know how to match the two tracks? Raise volume knob on the -5db +5db. The two tracks are exactly identical.

Dial Norm doesn't adjust the mix.
Dial Norm doesn't adjust dynamic range.
Dial Norm doesn't boost the dialog.
Dial Norm doesn't change speaker levels.

Dial norm. What is it good for in high end audio?

Dial norm. What is it good for in high end audio?

It's good for nothing. It should only be used for the varying volume of television audio. Studios should never use it on any of their home video releases, period. Sony listened and never uses it on their BDs.

Dialnorm is the boogieman of AVS. 99% of the people who think it is horrible make up their own concept of what it does.

I for one do not care for it no mater what, I can not put my finger on it but something sounds off when dialog normalization is used. And while this should be impossible from what Dolby would tells us. Why is it that so many fell the same way about Dolby's DN? I understand how it is supposed to work and have seen the explanations of how DN works. But to be honest I prefer the Dolby THD tracks with no DN applied over the Dolby THD tracks where DN is applied. IMHO one of the reasons high end audio sounds so good that it usually uses the most direct circuit paths without over processing the audio. Why does audio need to have all this extra processing, dialog normalization etc.... ? For example when watching a movie I would rather use the standard surround setting on my receiver over the specialty sound fields in my receiver.

I honestly do not feel DN is necessary for home video optical formats. Now I have no problem if they use it for broadcast television.

It's good for nothing. It should only be used for the varying volume of television audio. Studios should never use it on any of their home video releases, period. Sony listened and never uses it on their BDs.Apparently you cannot disable dialnorm and it is in the Dolby specification. You can only set it to -31db which essentially is "off", but it is still used, even by Sony.

The big thing for me is that I want "realistic sound" I hate this idea where people want crystal clear dialogue that is heard on the same level as effects. I want my sound to come out in a barely audible whisper when someone is whispering and when a gunshot or explosion happens to literally sound deafening, like it would if it were in the room with you. HUUUUUUGE dynamic range. And that is killed with Dial norm

No, dynamic range is killed by Dynamic Range Compression, not Dial Norm.

The only correlation inside the Dolby encoder between Dial Norm and DRC is that the encoder will compile the metadata for DRC based on where the Dial Norm value is set.... while you may not like having to compensate for the DN offset, in my experience it does nothing to the sound quality, and having DRC is still important to some users in all media applications, HDM included.

No, dynamic range is killed by Dynamic Range Compression, not Dial Norm.

The only correlation inside the Dolby encoder between Dial Norm and DRC is that the encoder will compile the metadata for DRC based on where the Dial Norm value is set.... while you may not like having to compensate for the DN offset, in my experience it does nothing to the sound quality, and having DRC is still important to some users in all media applications, HDM included.

My apologies, I was mistaking DN for Dynamic Range Compression. My humblest apologies. My mistake.

My apologies, I was mistaking DN for Dynamic Range Compression. My humblest apologies. My mistake.

To help stop all this confusion it should have been named "Volume Normalization". My receiver tells me every time it is applied and the amount. It it used on a lot on network channels like HDNET. This is how a show like Nothing but Trailers all have about the same sound level despite the different mixes.

Sad most people are ignorant to DN. I was playing Spiderman 2 BD the other night (around 12AM) and I normally set my volume to 60. I noticed that during playback, everything was just loud. I mean really loud. I had to set my receiver to around 55 and it was still loud.

Popped in the DVD and had to raise the volume, but they were completely identical in quality. I also did a few test encodings of music in Sony Vegas and set Diag Norm to off and then re-encoding the same tracks at different levels of DN, and the only thing that was different was that I had to raise the volume a little.

Sad most people are ignorant to DN. I was playing Spiderman 2 BD the other night (around 12AM) and I normally set my volume to 60. I noticed that during playback, everything was just loud. I mean really loud. I had to set my receiver to around 55 and it was still loud. Popped in the DVD and had to raise the volume, but they were completely identical in quality.

What's even sadder are folks who can't hear the improvement of lossess TrueHD or even 640 kbps Dolby over the inferior 448 kbps Dobly on DVD... regardless of dialog normalization issues...

Seriously man, your hearing must be challenged in some way if you can't tell the difference between the low bit-rate Dolby on DVD and high-bit-rate Dolby/losses TrueHD on the BD!

;)

Even though I am not crazy about DN. I can hear a big difference between lossy DD and lossless Dolby True HD! :cool: With DVD I was and still am a DTS supporter. I still am not to crazy about the old Dolby Digital as it was lacking. But I am very impressed with Dolby True HD along with DTS-HD MA and uncompressed PCM.

So I to am surprised that there are some out there that can not tell the difference between the old lossy DD and the new DTHD. :confused:

I've found that when playing games I have my receiver volume set to about -55. But when playing BDs I have to crank it up to -35. Is DN the reason there's such a big volume difference?

I'm with namechamps. "ON" because I'm lazy and don't want to adjust the amp level for each movie. And since it's only metadata and therefore does not do anything to the source quality - why not?

Everyone who claims to have a problem with it: simply disable it in you amp. No reason to bother the other people. But be aware of using the volume knob of your amp: it will lower the quality of the sound. ;)

I'm with namechamps. "ON" because I'm lazy and don't want to adjust the amp level for each movie. And since it's only metadata and therefore does not do anything to the source quality - why not?

Everyone who claims to have a problem with it: simply disable it in you amp. No reason to bother the other people. But be aware of using the volume knob of your amp: it will lower the quality of the sound. ;)

You cannot disable Dialog Normalization, which is what name, and this discussion, is talking about.

I've found that when playing games I have my receiver volume set to about -55. But when playing BDs I have to crank it up to -35. Is DN the reason there's such a big volume difference?

Probably not. If you play a BD w/ PCM & TrueHD and have to raise the vol on TrueHD track compared to the PCM track on the same disc then DN is likely causing the drop.

Games like pop CD are generally pushed very "hot": almost no dynamic range with a near constant stream of sound at very high level.

Compare the game to a DVD or well authored CD (classical music) and you will notice the same thing.

but, but, but, but, dial-norm is good right? Dolby would never give us something we don't need to help the studios save time and money in the mixing sessions. Would they?

but, but, but, but, dial-norm is good right? Dolby would never give us something we don't need to help the studios save time and money in the mixing sessions. Would they?

Dial norm has nothing to do with mixing.. it is a post mix process that is applied during mastering. It isn't something that anybody in the creative process, on the film side of things, deals with, and is only a part of the delivery for tv and home video masters.

If I detect a note of sarcasm, which I think I do :), you should know that studios aren't in the habit of limiting the creative intent of their directors or producers by saving a couple of dollars on the mixing stage, and Dolby isn't in that business either..

As a matter of fact, it takes longer to mix with level or dynamic range constraints, which we don't concern ourselves with when mixing films in 5.1...

Dial norm has nothing to do with mixing.. it is a post mix process that is applied during mastering. It isn't something that anybody in the creative process, on the film side of things, deals with, and is only a part of the delivery for tv and home video masters.

If I detect a note of sarcasm, which I think I do :), you should know that studios aren't in the habit of limiting the creative intent of their directors or producers by saving a couple of dollars on the mixing stage, and Dolby isn't in that business either..

As a matter of fact, it takes longer to mix with level or dynamic range constraints, which we don't concern ourselves with when mixing films in 5.1...

Thank you film mixer! I like to learn!

But how come it is used on DVD "effectively" and where it should be used, cable/sat broadcasts, it doesn't work. Some commercials still blow my ears off when the actual show is at a good volume level.

TV shows w/commercials are the only real need I can see for dial-norm.

The Dialog Normalization was defeatable on early Denon and Ovation products[receivers and pre/pro], so the argument that DD wasn't designed that way, is bogus. What happened is, manufacturers simply removed that option of no doubt by Dolby's "request". Dolby THD however is different thing alltogether. I did voted for "off".

Thank you film mixer! I like to learn!

But how come it is used on DVD "effectively" and where it should be used, cable/sat broadcasts, it doesn't work. Some commercials still blow my ears off when the actual show is at a good volume level.

TV shows w/commercials are the only real need I can see for dial-norm.

Because most networks don't use it and espcialy don't want it used on commercials (this is their life blood and the more compressed (and louder) the better for the revenue stream). Watch HDNET and you will see DN used "effectively". ;)

Dolby THD however is different thing alltogether. I did voted for "off".

How is TrueHD different?

What's even sadder are folks who can't hear the improvement of lossess TrueHD or even 640 kbps Dolby over the inferior 448 kbps Dobly on DVD... regardless of dialog normalization issues...

Seriously man, your hearing must be challenged in some way if you can't tell the difference between the low bit-rate Dolby on DVD and high-bit-rate Dolby/losses TrueHD on the BD!

;)

I should have said levels.

Oh, I can definitely tell the difference between lossy and lossless, but it is not the dramatic jump in Audio Quality that most people seem to think.

I vote for Off personally. :D

Voted.

I would like Sony to add a DTS-HD Master Audio track to some of their high-profile title's though.
Loved the option on the Close Encounters discs and I think it would sound nice on say The Da Vinci Code :D

How is TrueHD different?
The dialnorm can't be defeated unlike on DD with some early equipment.

The dialnorm can't be defeated unlike on DD with some early equipment.

Once again, you stated it is a "different thing altogether..."

I hardly think that a couple of processors that let you "defeat" the dialog normalization offset in the early days of DD processors qualifies that argument.

Is that the only criteria you are basing your statement on?

In practical terms, DialNorm on DD, DD+ and TrueHD are the same.

Oh, I can definitely tell the difference between lossy and lossless, but it is not the dramatic jump in Audio Quality that most people seem to think.

To your ears, apparently.

To my ears, it's so obvious that when we started watching accross the Universe the other night and selected the Dolby TrueHD track at a friend's house, I stopped the movie five minutes into the film because something just wasn't right with the sound... it wasn't opening up and it didn't have that natural inner-detail that I had remembered from my home (an entirely different listening session). Low and behold, my friend didn't have his PS3 set up for proper passing of the lossless TrueHD to his sound system. We made the correction, and replayed the film. All three guests (not techie audiophiles) went "oh, that *does* sound better... more detailed and more natural".

We then enjoyed the film with lossless audio.

Once a trained audiophile points out certain cues to look for I've found most people can tell the difference between lossless and lossy virtually all the time, even on lower end equipment. Most people just aren't used to listening for differences in audio because a large percentage of stuff they hear is through tiny tv speakers and they become accustomed to it.

Once again, you stated it is a "different thing altogether..."

I hardly think that a couple of processors that let you "defeat" the dialog normalization offset in the early days of DD processors qualifies that argument.

Is that the only criteria you are basing your statement on?

In practical terms, DialNorm on DD, DD+ and TrueHD are the same.
What are you getting at? :rolleyes:

The point I was making that somebody claimed that DD was designed to begin with that the user can't manipulate DN, only the content provider, now that is not true as we all know, however accordibg to David Boulet's post, DTHD doesn't offer that from day one, because once the player unpacks DTHD the PCM signal no longer carries that metadata, as it it is already the "recalculated" PCM data, so the DN's
contribution" can't be undone.

Of course if people would make a lot of noise about this, like this thread,I'm sure a solution could be found, to defeat it, or studios could just stop using it altogether.

What are you getting at? :rolleyes:

The point I was making that somebody claimed that DD was designed to begin with that the user can't manipulate DN, only the content provider, now that is not true as we all know, however accordibg to David Boulet's post, DTHD doesn't offer that from day one, because once the player unpacks DTHD the PCM signal no longer carries that metadata, as it it is already the "recalculated" PCM data, so the DN's
contribution" can't be undone.


How is that any different than a player that decodes DD and passes it out of the HDMI port as PCM? It isn't, and that argument also doesn't work when you pass the THD stream to a processor for decoding...

For my education, can you point out the equipment that let you defeat Dial Norm?


Of course if people would make a lot of noise about this, like this thread,I'm sure a solution could be found, to defeat it....

There is a solution... it's called a volume knob ;)

Call me silly but I see no reason for using DN when watching DVD or HDM titles. I realize that all we have to do is turn up the volume a little more but IMHO it serves no purpose. Now if the real point of DN was to make every title have the same base volume. Wouldn't it need to use different settings depending on the actual audio levels used to create the master before replication? I do not know this for a fact and am asking because I would like to know. Otherwise it seems to me that the use of DN on physical media is kinda pointless. Even if you have to just turn up the volume.

Call me silly but I see no reason for using DN when watching DVD or HDM titles. I realize that all we have to do is turn up the volume a little more but IMHO it serves no purpose. Now if the real point of DN was to make every title have the same base volume. Wouldn't it need to use different settings depending on the actual audio levels used to create the master before replication? I do not know this for a fact and am asking because I would like to know. Otherwise it seems to me that the use of DN on physical media is kinda pointless. Even if you have to just turn up the volume.

As I stated earlier, Dynamic Range Compression is still important to some users....

Dialog Norm and DRC are intertwined on the encoding side of the equation.

Granted, I am one of those that don't find it terribly useful for most users, but besides the inconvenience of having to adjust for it, I haven't heard it have any adverse effect on the quality of my work to date.... but I'm not every user, so I understand it's place in the audio universe, be it for broadcast, DVD or HDM :)

How is that any different than a player that decodes DD and passes it out of the HDMI port as PCM? It isn't, and that argument also doesn't work when you pass the THD stream to a processor for decoding...

For my education, can you point out the equipment that let you defeat Dial Norm?



There is a solution... it's called a volume knob ;)

........................anyway,


These are the ones I know for sure that does defeat dialnorm, none of these been in production in years though.


Denon AVR 3600-5600 receivers, Denon AVP-8000 pre/pro, Ovation Preamps[not the pro guitar stuff] But I think they no longer exist. There might be more too.
I did own the Denon 3600, and when the dialnorm was set to off, indeed all it did to the track was, it made it louder about 4db.

Here is the spec sheet PDF:


http://oldusa.denon.com/catalog/pdfs/avr3600Lit.pdf

^^^ Thanks for the information...