When you are considering double dipping or buying a BD movie, how much is because of video upgrade and how much is sound upgrade?

I am somewhat underwhelmed by the video of my first two BDs - BHD and Reservoir Dogs on a 40" 1080P over HDMI from a PS3. Yea its nicer and I am glad I got it, but I am not blown away video wise. Currently I have a crappy reciever and havnt bothered to hook up rear speakers since I moved. I wonder when I do get a new reciever and hook up rear speakers if I will become blown away.

So what % of upgrading is because of video and how much is audio?

When you are considering double dipping or buying a BD movie, how much is because of video upgrade and how much is sound upgrade?

I am somewhat underwhelmed by the video of my first two BDs - BHD and Reservoir Dogs on a 40" 1080P over HDMI from a PS3. Yea its nicer and I am glad I got it, but I am not blown away video wise. Currently I have a crappy reciever and havnt bothered to hook up rear speakers since I moved. I wonder when I do get a new reciever and hook up rear speakers if I will become blown away.

So what % of upgrading is because of video and how much is audio?


If good Hi def video (either format) is twice as good as DVD, then good HD audio sounds 50% better (IMO)

For me it is mostly about the image. Otherwise, I probably would never have upgraded to HD DVD and then Blu-ray. My sound set up is decent but I am of the opinion that unless you have a room set up specifically with acoustics in mind, the minute differences in higher definition audio will "fall on deaf ears." Though audio definitely enhances any home theater experience there is just a limit to what the human ear can realize while casually watching a movie. For me, the improved image really adds to the viewing experience on my HDTV (some titles more than others). But in all cases the images are much improved over their DVD counterparts.

I think the difference from DVD to BD is much more apparent in video than audio on most releases.

I like the inclusion of lossless audio, but it is much easier to see the difference in DVD and BD than it is to hear the difference in most 5.1 and lossless. (especially for guests)

Better audio= upgrade.

For me it's 90% video, 10% audio. I think that for most folks with high-end audio setups, the incremental jump in AQ is going to be less than the PQ jump from upconverted DVD to HD (assuming the HD-DVD or BR is of decent quality).

Movies are primarily a visual experience... *shrug*

PQ for me

100% video for me...

I dont get how people gripe so much about audio - unless they have canine hearing, I can't tell two licks of a diff between audio formats.

To me, the video is something you notice immediately, but then get used to it. Good audio will remind you that you're listening to good audio - every minute.

So for me: 40/60 for Video/Audio.

EDIT: However, for HD formats to become successsful, the picture quality has to be MUCH more improved than what is possible on DVD now, to a point where ordinary people will say WOW right away and not need a comparison feed to show the difference.

90% video,

10% audio (Because even though I don't own an HT audio setup now, I will soon. Saving up for it)

Difficult to put it numerically, but since I heard the PCM Casino Royale track, using DD 5.1 is PAINFUL.

When you are considering double dipping or buying a BD movie, how much is because of video upgrade and how much is sound upgrade?

I am somewhat underwhelmed by the video of my first two BDs - BHD and Reservoir Dogs on a 40" 1080P over HDMI from a PS3. Yea its nicer and I am glad I got it, but I am not blown away video wise. Currently I have a crappy reciever and havnt bothered to hook up rear speakers since I moved. I wonder when I do get a new reciever and hook up rear speakers if I will become blown away.

So what % of upgrading is because of video and how much is audio?
It's mostly about the video, but the new audio is pretty fantastic too. Disney's Dinosaur is one of the rare 24 bit PCM tracks. It's unbelievably rich and powerful. Unfortunately the video does not look remarkably better than the SD DVD.

I personally think it is 60% video/ 40% audio.

If you have good audio setup it might even be more noticeable. I think that the surround sound steering is much more apparent with the new formats. Very realistic. Also, gunshots (departed, all the kings men) are so realistic it is scary. I have never heard a gunshot on another dvd sound real, sounded muffled to me.

i think the problem is that most of us have tv's that take pretty good advantage of hte PQ enhancements of blu-ray, but most of us dont have the high tech audio setups that will help us really differenciate between an uncompressed pcm 5.1 soundtrack and a good dts or dolby 5.1 track.

for most of us, the upgrade in PQ is more evident, and thus the main reason for getting blu ray

Video: 1%
Audio: 99%

Video: 1%
Audio: 99%

Roflz! That is so me. Hehehe. I tell my friends all the time...the feature about both Blu-ray AND HD-DVD that I care least about is.....*duh duh* the video! Yep, they be high def....but I've been waiting 10 years for a new audio format. And I never thought I'd be this young and have plentiful 5.1 or greater PCM tracks. Plus some that are 24bit?! Unbelievable!

Its mostly video for me. SD bothers me now to the point I generally dont watch them anymore.

Its mostly video for me. SD bothers me now to the point I generally dont watch them anymore.

I agree with you. I tried to watch Charlotte's web with my son the other night and couldn't handle it. Of course it could have been a bad transfer, but it looked horrible.

It is amazing how much better the colors are on Blu Ray/HD DVD.

BHD and Reservoir Dogs on a 40"

these are far from the best the format has to offer. keep trying ....

To me, the video is something you notice immediately, but then get used to it. Good audio will remind you that you're listening to good audio - every minute.

I can agree with this, now I am spoiled and expect the video the look a certain way, the audio still pleasantly suprises me over and over.

Roflz! That is so me. Hehehe. I tell my friends all the time...the feature about both Blu-ray AND HD-DVD that I care least about is.....*duh duh* the video! Yep, they be high def....but I've been waiting 10 years for a new audio format. And I never thought I'd be this young and have plentiful 5.1 or greater PCM tracks. Plus some that are 24bit?! Unbelievable!

Sertanly not alone there, i know plenty like you.
Been waiting 10 years too, lets not wait any more bring on more 24 bit tracks!

Mostly video for movies but when you factor in concert material and the like where you focus much more your attention on the audio, the smaller degrees of quality make a significant impact IMO.

Just listened to BD Legends of Jazz and switching between TruHD, DD5.1 and PCM, the PCM really brought something extra to the table for the great music on that disk.
Being a musician myself, 'clean' and 'tight' lows really mean something to my listening experience.

Image first. I'm buying all my new movies on Blu-ray, or HD DVD if unavailable on Blu-ray, or DVD if unavailable in HD at all. I've double-dipped on a few favorites to get them in HD (The Terminator movies, The Last Waltz, etc), but it's all about the picture. Seeing a movie I love in HD gets me to buy the disc, but then I turn my attention to the sound. I love me some uncompressed PCM, but I'll still get a movie with a DD 640 kbps track just to get the 1080p image.

70/30 audio/video. The video is a nice upgrade, but the lossless sound is stunning!

Quote:
Video: 1%
Audio: 99%

Roflz! That is so me. Hehehe. I tell my friends all the time...the feature about both Blu-ray AND HD-DVD that I care least about is.....*duh duh* the video! Yep, they be high def....but I've been waiting 10 years for a new audio format. And I never thought I'd be this young and have plentiful 5.1 or greater PCM tracks. Plus some that are 24bit?! Unbelievable!I'm with you guys. I am in it for the audio.

98% video and 2% audio. Even the 640 Dolby and 1500 DTS that some folks detest so much, compared to lossless, is an upgrade from DVD. I'd rather have all lossless but that's no dealbreaker!

The folks who are in it for audio must be the dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles or have 20-40 vision? ;)

So heres a question for you guys - I would tell people that its not worth upgrading to BD/HD unless you have a 42" or above TV as anything smaller will be barely noticable above upscaled SD.

Also unless you have a 1080P TV its not really as worth it.

But I know NOTHING about the sound. What kind of sound system do you need to apprecaite the lossless sound? Its easy for me to tell someone 1080P and 42" for TV minimum to appreciate it (about $1500 and above but rapidly dropping), but I know only little about the audio side.

Two parts to this question - what audio components do you need and what is a rough estimate of price? example do you need a $1k reciever and $2k of speakers or what for minimum to have good experiance and make it much better than regular DVD audio.

The folks who are in it for audio must be the dyed-in-the-wool audiophiles or have 20-40 vision?

Must be dyed-in-the-wool.... I don't have that terrible vision. I just think of the 1080p picture as the "special feature". (I've played games @ 1600x1200 for years. And I don't have an HDTV yet but I have a very decent sound system.) Honestly, I still find dvds to look pretty decent. Improvement in sound is more noticeable, to me.

Im all video. I dont understand the different sounds. They all sound the same to me.

I dont understand the different sounds. They all sound the same to me.


Well, look at it this way...

Does an mp3 @ 128kbps sound as good as the CD it came from? "CD quality" my ass!

100% video. If the audio had not changed at all from DVD, I would still buy it.

Quote:
BHD and Reservoir Dogs on a 40"
these are far from the best the format has to offer. keep trying ....

not if he is referring to black hawk down. Isn't BHD one of the high end BDs out there? Like others may say, it could be a calibration issue that you are not yet wowed by Blu Ray.

Well, look at it this way...

Does an mp3 @ 128kbps sound as good as the CD it came from? "CD quality" my ass!

Maybe to some folks...? There must be folks with "20-40" hearing.... ;)

Roflz! That is so me. Hehehe. I tell my friends all the time...the feature about both Blu-ray AND HD-DVD that I care least about is.....*duh duh* the video! Yep, they be high def....but I've been waiting 10 years for a new audio format. And I never thought I'd be this young and have plentiful 5.1 or greater PCM tracks. Plus some that are 24bit?! Unbelievable!

One more here folks. Can't put to words how much I wanted to go back to the PCM LD days. Now they're here, and with much improved PQ.

I am going to be playing BD on a PS3 (80 GB) on a Dell 37" HDTV (1080i).

I have a Dolby Pro-Logic Surround Sound system with center, subwoofer, L/R, and rear speakers. Will I still get an audio difference (upgrade) with BD, or will it just sound like my normal home theatre (DVD/Satellite Dish, etc.)?

Please advise. Thank you.

Ray
Boston, MA

I am going to be playing BD on a PS3 (80 GB) on a Dell 37" HDTV (1080i).

I have a Dolby Pro-Logic Surround Sound system with center, subwoofer, L/R, and rear speakers. Will I still get an audio difference (upgrade) with BD, or will it just sound like my normal home theatre (DVD/Satellite Dish, etc.)?

Please advise. Thank you.

Ray
Boston, MA

You should still hear an upgrade as DD on Blu-Ray is typically 640kbps vs 448 on DVD and 1.5mbps for DTS on BD vs (typically) 754kbps for DVD.

And if you upgrade to a better receiver in the future you should hear another nice jump from lossy to lossless :)

If we had gotten HD-PQ with DVD-AQ I would have bought into this.

If we gotten DVD-PQ with HD-AQ I wouldnt have bothered.

90% video/10% audio for me. I can tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and CD, but once the bitrate gets beyond 256kbps, it's a coin toss for me.

As for me... I feel that audio is a big part of the overall movie watching experience. So I would say:
70% video
30% audio

But it depends on the movie too :) If the movie is a dialogue driven comedy or chick flick, lossless it really no big deal. If it is an intense action/war type movie then I would much prefer lossless :)

For me, with most films, it's probably around 85% video, 15% audio. With lossy DD and DTS, we were getting sound that matches or even surpasses the quality of most theaters, while with HD video we still haven't quite reached it. A much more film-like image, better colors, and a dramatic reduction in compression artifacts trumps the benefits of better audio for me.

Now, for a music concert it's a different story. :)

For me its probably 98% video. While I do appreciate good audio, its about the picture. I have a separate audio system for music.
J

For me its 50/50.

You should still hear an upgrade as DD on Blu-Ray is typically 640kbps vs 448 on DVD and 1.5mbps for DTS on BD vs (typically) 754kbps for DVD.

And if you upgrade to a better receiver in the future you should hear another nice jump from lossy to lossless :)

Thanks for responding. So, with Dolby Pro Logic (I also have a Sony setup with wireless rear speakers, but I believe they are also Dolby Pro Logic (SAVA something or other)), the best audio I'll get is the 640 kbps? Will I really hear a detailed difference? My computer does have a 5.1 setup, so I'm wondering if it's better to run it through there.

The question being, should I really be buying Blu-Ray discs instead of DVD movies, if I'm not going to get a significantly different experience. Also, the max resolution on the Dell is 1080i. Is 1080p really that much of a noticeable difference? I don't see myself going out and buying a new set just to get 1080p. I already have a 60" Mitsubishi rear projection hooked up to Satellite, that's been giving me digital quality since 1996 (I know it's not HDTV...but the picture is still unbelievable for the size and age).

Thanks for all the pointers.

Ray
Boston, MA

if we had gotten hd-pq with dvd-aq i would have bought into this.

If we gotten dvd-pq with hd-aq i wouldnt have bothered.

+1

I have re-bought stuff on bd/hd dvd 100% for the improved PQ with improved audio the icing on the cake. Make no mistake, I love having superior audio and audio is a huge part for me in the whole movie experience but I wouldn't re-buy a title on blu ray simply for that if the PQ was the same as dvd or only slightly superior.

It's fair to say most come with an audio update and even my lowly Onkyo SR605 can show a difference when I go back and forth with the SD DVD.

I'm more an audioholic than videophile what with vinyl, remastered CDs, SACDs, DVD-A and the like.

I check more for the audio than the video cause I only have a Panny 37" plasma to date till I can afford better. Put me down for the audio being more of the priority for me. BTW, I started a thread a year ago or so about this.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925354

I added a Blue-Ray player recently (see my sig links for details) -- initially because of the PQ increase. However, when I added it, I decide to upgrade my receiver as well to gain the addition of lossless audio formats at the receiver and the HDMI connections. While I was at it, I decided to add two surrounds to go from 5.1 to 7.1. So, the addition of the new receiver and the addition/placement of the new speakers -- along with the lossless formats in Blu-Ray have added a great deal to my AQ experience as well. So for me, it's about 60% PQ and 40% AQ -- due to my specific circumstances.

50/50 here,

Video is the most immediatly apparent

Audio is what sinks me in the movie more

at 137 inches the extra image resolution is a massive improvement even at 720p. But I feel the improvement of the audio is equally important in the whole movie experiance, it makes even crappy movies much more immersive. Like the latest scorpion king, it was pretty zena warrior princess but I still enjoyed it.

Fwiw I have a pretty budget audio system, details are in sig so you don't need an super high end setup to get the improvement.

Must be dyed-in-the-wool.... I don't have that terrible vision. I just think of the 1080p picture as the "special feature". (I've played games @ 1600x1200 for years. And I don't have an HDTV yet but I have a very decent sound system.) Honestly, I still find dvds to look pretty decent. Improvement in sound is more noticeable, to me.

Well, look at it this way...

Does an mp3 @ 128kbps sound as good as the CD it came from? "CD quality" my ass!

I only have a 1080i/720p TV, and I must confess that the difference between SD DVD picture and Blu-Ray picture is much more significant than the difference between a 128kb mp3 and CD audio.
sure I can notice the differences in the compression on the audio, but I still find the difference in PQ jaw-droppingly good at times. to me, a dts track at 1.5 sounds pretty sweet already.

for me, watching movies is more about the picture than the sound - but this all depends on your film tastes. if you are into films such as The Searchers, Great Expectations, Black Narcissus etc, then it would be 100% Video 0% Audio. While I love those films, and will be buying as many Criterion Blu's as I can, I also enjoy Transformers ;)

if you were go out and get a 50"+ HDTV, you would not be saying DVD still looks pretty decent... you would see it from our side of the fence. :D

I don't have a HD receiver, had I not bought my 7.1 Pioneer receiver 2 years ago I probably would have upgraded to a new one by now, but if I have to live with HD image and 1.5 audio on most discs, I think I can live with that.
for the record, I spent $1000 AUD on my receiver, and $1000AUD on my 7 speakers, and $700AUD on my subwoofer - so my setup is decent for a non HD audio setup, but still not top of the range.

so to answer the question, from what I have seen and heard, I would say 90% video 10% audio.

this will be argued forever though, it is completely subjective to individual likes/dislikes.

When I first got into HD-DVD, I had a 37'' tv. I could easily see the difference, but DVD was still watchable.

Then, I bought a projector. DVDs now look like a blurry mess.

I really dont understand when people say they expect the picture quality on blu-ray to be even better

For new movies, they are nearly transparent from the movie theater. However, I will admit that alot of catalog titles have been butchered as well.

Anyone saying BHD doesnt look impressive should A/B test it with the DVD. Believe me, its easy to see.

The lossless audio is just a nice feature. Movies like Shooter still sound great even though they have a lossy track.

I think those that are rating highly the importance of high def audio would see more of an improvement by upgrading their speakers to large full range towers, 15" to 18" subwoofers, etc, than upgrading their receiver to a HD audio model.

If we had gotten HD-PQ with DVD-AQ I would have bought into this.

If we gotten DVD-PQ with HD-AQ I wouldnt have bothered.
Same here, which makes it 100% video for me.

I probably have the aforementioned "20-40 hearing" too. I can sometimes hear differences between mixes and if there are outright issues like clipping and static or similar, but as far as audio compression and bit depth goes I don't really have much of a clue. And the intangibility and not easily quantifiable nature of audio makes it very difficult to gauge any difference in quality, and define what is a good sound and what is not.

This also tends to make psychology a bigger part of it, something that isn't appealing to me. Just ask people why track A sounds better than track B and you'll probably get a wide range of mind-bogglingly vague descriptions like "fuller", "richer", "tighter bass" and so on, whereas with video it's easy to point out "this has grain, this does not" or "there's ringing in this part, but none here".

I would assume it would be important to know if the person is even accessing lossless at this point. I bet at least some of those might then increase their percentage on the audio importance once they have that access.

...Just ask people why track A sounds better than track B and you'll probably get a wide range of mind-bogglingly vague descriptions like "fuller", "richer", "tighter bass" and so on,....

My reason to upgrade was also 100% video. As you so well point out, the typical descriptions of better audio are very vague.

Seldom do you read posts which describe precisely how an audio comparison was made. When I compared DD from a DVD to TrueHD on the corresponding HD DVD, I found subtle improvements. It was hard to do what I thought might be a reasonably valid comparison. Writeup: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12122143#post12122143

Purely video on my side, largely because I don't have a sound system that can take full advantage of the new audio formats. But, on the plus side, at least I'm future-proofing.. eventually, when I upgrade my sound system, I'll be able to enjoy all the better audio as well. :)

I look at it this way. I have a 1080p TV. DVDs look great on it, better than I expected before I bought it. But quite often, I find myself noticing that the picture is soft, black levels are "meh", that I'd like to see more detail in such-and-such an object, etc. I don't get any of that when I watch something on Blu-ray. :)

It is about 40% video and 60% audio for me. I think once people hear the difference from lossless audio on a good surround setup they'll never go back.

I'm not sure what "adjectives" for description would have to do with defining the better audio. Just listen to the SD DVD and then the BD lossless track where applicable. Use whatever adjectives you like, however vague your description there is still a difference! :)

100 percent video, 0 percent audio.

Have to go with PQ. Regarding audio, all I ask is that it's mixed properly and that older movies either don't have any attempt at updating effects, OR go the other way and do a complete 'from the ground up' remix. None of this half-assed splitting the music across the surrounds and not bothering to re-foley gunshots, explosions, etc. I'm looking at you, Lionsgate...

I came for the video and stayed for the audio. Honestly when I upgraded my speakers and kicked in the lossless audio, I was hooked. Any compressed audio grates against my ears... now that I've heard the good stuff. Don't get me wrong. I want a great picture. So I would say 60/40... though going to bluray did get me to upgrade every single component of my system. :D

I came for the video and stayed for the audio. Honestly when I upgraded my speakers and kicked in the lossless audio, I was hooked. Any compressed audio grates against my ears... now that I've heard the good stuff. Don't get me wrong. I want a great picture. So I would say 60/40... though going to bluray did get me to upgrade every single component of my system. :D

I didn't quite upgrade everything but after hearing the lossless audio of BD, I -- like you -- upgraded a very sizable amount of my components and virtually all of my speakers.

Better audio= upgrade.

precisely, but for ME, must be DTS HD-MA 5.1 / 7.1

I skip PCM, TrueHD, DD+, etc..,

With a good projector and a good upconverting DVD player I always found a pretty nice image but the sound I could always see being advanced to a new level. A blu-ray is nice in my theater but when people leave rarely comment on the picture but the sound I always hear something...on action flicks in any case. PCM is my choice I am not a fanboy of any of the compression ones but I will take em!

So its sound for me, I will take the better picture but I think that is the next step, improving picture. My 2c.

I'm an audio guy.

The picture looks great, but people have seen HDTV for a few years but very few people that I know have heard anything like what they hear in my basement.

Usually when friends come over this is their reaction:

PQ: Wow!
AQ: Oh.....mah......God!!!!!

50/50 me loves some lossless audio!

LOSSLESS AUDIO!

It is the reason why Toshiba's plan will not work! :)

precisely, but for ME, must be DTS HD-MA 5.1 / 7.1

I skip PCM, TrueHD, DD+, etc..,
DTS-HD MA better than PCM and TrueHD? Because it's not about what's actually contained on the disc--it's about how it's branded! :rolleyes:

As for the question, I'd say 70:30 video:audio for me..

DTS-HD MA better than PCM and TrueHD? Because it's not about what's actually contained on the disc--it's about how it's branded! :rolleyes:



I am an audio all the way but I don't really get it when people say "DTS-MA > PCM". That's like saying Apple (or Windows Media) Lossless is better than CD quality (ie PCM). Hahaha. I love DTS too but what the heck? Another funny one is when people call DTS-MA/TrueHD uncompressed and PCM "lossless". Lolz!

For me as long as the main audio on disc is PCM, DTS-MA, or TrueHD 5.1 I am happy. 16bit, 24bit, 5.1 or 7.1. All sounds damn better than a dvd or 640k Dolby on the non-lossless discs.

I have to have both I have top end audio Equipment I have bought more for my audio than my picture. My AMP is Musical fidelity A5-5 2ch only to run the front & onkyo to run C.SURR. A good picture has to have good audio equipment to go that me.

When it comes to BD it's for the lossless audio.

Video-wise I could be content with the HD programming I get from satellite TV and not have a major problem with it. However when it comes to audio, the DD present on satellite can't compare to the power of a lossless audio track. Even when i've tried to watch some of the same films on cable that I have on BD, it just comes up short in the audio department.

Video: 49%
Audio: 51%

50/50

So heres a question for you guys - I would tell people that its not worth upgrading to BD/HD unless you have a 42" or above TV as anything smaller will be barely noticable above upscaled SD.

Also unless you have a 1080P TV its not really as worth it.

I have a 65" 1080i RP and have been loving Blu. I still have a couple of DVDs I haven't given away yet because they haven't been released on BD yet. I haven't watched a DVD since just before Xmas last year. I was thinking the other day I would take one of the DVDs for a spin as the new firmware in my player was supposed to improve upconverting. So I threw in Lost in Translation. Up comes the opening scene before the credits and I couldn't focus on the movie at all. That is a scene that usually gets my full attention but I was yanked right out of the movie going "What the hell is with all these compression artefacts?" I will never make the mistake of putting a DVD in player ever again. Ever. I used to have some sympathy for people who didn't like grain on BD but after seeing that, give me a freaking break.

As for audio it is kind of funny. I have a good 5.1 speaker set up and a top end Yammy receiver. The switch between lossy and lossless is often the difference between watching a movie and being in the movie. The number of times I have hit mute on the remote to make sure what I was hearing wasn't happening in my house is embarrassing.

On the other hand I had to send my receiver into the shop. So I broke out my old crappy Sony and swapped it in. It doesn't decode any lossless codecs internally so all I can do is bit stream. The difference between the PCM tracks and lossy codecs is marginal at best. When I put the Yammy back in it was "Ya, baby" time.

100% PQ, 0% AQ----at least for now.

I have a pretty good Denon receiver going into a Rotel 5 channel amp that is only a few years old. I just can't bring myself to replace it at this point just to get the new codecs.

I know I will eventually, since that is the way the sickness of "upgradeitis" works in me. For the time being, the difference in Blu-ray vs standard DVD was significant enough for me to have bought the Panny BD30 (you know, the one without the onboard high res decoders!).

PQ - .5%
AQ - 99.5%

Video Quality is great but nothing pulls you into a movie more and makes the movie watching experience better than great Audio. Hands down audio all the way.

Mostly video for me. Listening to master quality audio is great, as is experiencing some well-done 7.1 re-mixes, but the image quality improvement is usually much more significant.

Definitely 100% PQ.

Remove the visual aspect from and film and you've got absolutely nothing. Remove the sound aspect from a film and you can still be entertained. As I'm sure most people are aware, motion pictures started with silent films.

That's not to say what films have evolved in today make sound unimportant. I good sound mix is very important. But, I feel that the PQ stands out more for me.

When it comes to BD it's for the lossless audio.

Video-wise I could be content with the HD programming I get from satellite TV and not have a major problem with it. However when it comes to audio, the DD present on satellite can't compare to the power of a lossless audio track. Even when i've tried to watch some of the same films on cable that I have on BD, it just comes up short in the audio department.

I can agree with this. In the beginning is was all about PQ and to some extent PQ is the main focus, but audio with my receiver and speakers really completes the experience.

I get great HD PQ from my fiber cable provider and DD is good, but not near as good as HD audio.

It's mostly video. Lossless soundtracks are as good as it gets but if it's not attached to a HD picture then who cares. There are exceptions though (28 Days Later, etc).

Picture quality to me,I'm not so much an audio person,not to understate it's importance,but PQ plays a 100X bigger factor in whether I decide to double dip. I don't have the equipment to take advantage of lossless sound anyways,when that day arrives I'm sure audio will be more important to me.

At first, the newcomer's preference would be for better picture quality. I mean, you're watching it on your HDTV, why not, right? And that's what the purpose of high-def media was as well. Initially, anyway... But like someone said, you get used to the high-def video pretty fast. Now, I just go for the audio. I do expect great quality images, but audio can never be left out. Audio is an important part of the experience. I still become amazed quite often when it comes to excellent audio.

But I will make an exception to catalog titles. Older movies do not have quite as good audio, so PQ has to be in their favor. Some old titles do have both great audio and video, though.

95% video, 5% audio (is it me or is the audio on Blu-ray a lot louder than on DVD - and if so why?)

DTS-HD MA better than PCM and TrueHD? Because it's not about what's actually contained on the disc--it's about how it's branded! :rolleyes:

As for the question, I'd say 70:30 video:audio for me..

Yeah, that's right. It's my preference so shove YOUR opinion, and shove YOUR rolling eye's, too.

Yeah, that's right. It's my preference so shove YOUR opinion, and shove YOUR rolling eye's, too.

So it's my "opinion" that lossless compression schemes decompress to the exact same PCM data stream that was input into them? I'm sure that all the mathematicians, scientists, and engineers out there would be interested to know that mathematical proofs are subject to "opinion". But hey, I suppose a warehouse supervisor knows better than any of them.... :rolleyes:

I can agree with this. In the beginning is was all about PQ and to some extent PQ is the main focus, but audio with my receiver and speakers really completes the experience.

I get great HD PQ from my fiber cable provider and DD is good, but not near as good as HD audio.


Thank you for agreeing.

Sometimes I think about the concerts I collected on DVD and wonder how much an improvement would be to have the sound in lossless audio. I'd even be content if they released those concerts in 4x3 480, just to get a lossless audio track (24/96 of course).

Thank you for agreeing.

Sometimes I think about the concerts I collected on DVD and wonder how much an improvement would be to have the sound in lossless audio. I'd even be content if they released those concerts in 4x3 480, just to get a lossless audio track (24/96 of course).


I borrowed the live U2 Go Home DVD from a friend. I had never listened to it before, but to my surprise it has a 755kbs DTS track. All I can say is wow as it is a great track, but being that it is live is even more incredible, it sounds that good. It maybe one of the best live recorded tracks I have heard. I would love to see that DVD in BD with DTS MA, not to mention many others. :eek: :D

So heres a question for you guys - I would tell people that its not worth upgrading to BD/HD unless you have a 42" or above TV as anything smaller will be barely noticable above upscaled SD.

Also unless you have a 1080P TV its not really as worth it.

But I know NOTHING about the sound. What kind of sound system do you need to apprecaite the lossless sound? Its easy for me to tell someone 1080P and 42" for TV minimum to appreciate it (about $1500 and above but rapidly dropping), but I know only little about the audio side.

Two parts to this question - what audio components do you need and what is a rough estimate of price? example do you need a $1k reciever and $2k of speakers or what for minimum to have good experiance and make it much better than regular DVD audio.

you need about 15 shakti stones, silver conductive paste, and gold plated optical cable, oh and an anechoic chamber :P

60% video, 40% audio. If you can't hear the difference, your equipment sucks. ;)

37" 1080p at four feet viewing distance- the difference between dvd (using htpc and Nvidia decoder) and Bluray PQ is unmistakable. SD tv is nearly unwatchable, though I can still watch some DVD, though I find it is much less immersive than Bluray.

I am one of those who can easily tell the difference between 320k mp3's and the original cd (I've A/B compared and I can always pick the mp3)

Being poorer than most here, I currently only have a el cheapo 5.1 HTIB surround system from 5 years ago that has 5 full range speakers (not even two ways) and a tiny sub that I can only feel if it's right in front of the couch(the whole HTIB was 150$ new) using optical from my htpc. Now, I don't know how the standalone Bluray players do, but using Arcsoft TMT to watch BD's on an htpc, I can have it downconvert all the HD audio formats to DTS 1.5mbps (which thankfully my el cheapo reciever accepts). Very, very few DVD's have DTS and almost none of them use the full 1.5mbps possible, so I have not had much experience with DTS. So even though I don't have hdmi audio, 1.5 DTS is still 3 times the bitrate of the DD AC3 I was used to. And I can say, without even upgrading my crappy cheap speaker setup, the audio quality increase over DVD is still 3 times better with Blu! Everyone who has been over says, yeah the HD video is nice, but holy crap! what's that awesome new sound system! They can't believe its the same speakers I used for DVD's before. I A/B compared Iron Man BD and DVD last week and the audio difference is right around 3x better for Blu.

I'm saving for an HDMI reciever with 3-way speakers and a large sub, but frankly I'm worried the AQ increase may not justify the cost.

So, to sum it up, even with an old surround system, depending on your setup, you can still get a huge jump in AQ. And in my experience at least, audio is more immersive and noticeable than just good video. (even my non-A/V obsessed friends notice the audio is drastically better, even if the video seems only mildly better to them)

30% video / 70% audio

70% Audio
30% Video (increasing by the day...read on)

I upgraded my pre/pro last november from a Marantz AV550 to an Integra DTC-9.8. I also upgraded to an Oppo DV-980h and a Panasonic DMP-BD30. At the time I had a 32" Hitacht CRT TV but I could still see the difference that Blu-ray provided. The first Blu-ray I watched was Dave Matthews at Radio City Music Hall and I could not believe how clear and detailed the TrueHD soundtrack was. Even my wife, who is tone deaf by the way, said it sounded amazing. Every Blu-ray I own I bought mainly for the audio (unless it is one of my favorite movies in which case both audio and video will be an improvement over SD-DVD). I don't know how much better CE companies can improve on sound after DTS-MA and Dolby-TrueHD.
This past July I finally upgraded to my first HDTV. I picked up a Pioneer Elite PRO-151FD from Robert at Value Electronics. This set is UNREAL. The black levels, color accuracy and even the sound from the stock speakers are beyond anything I've ever seen. It puts you right into everything you happen to be watching. When I get it properly calibrated I'm sure I will love it even more hence the increase in percentage of video. Planet Earth is nothing short of breathtaking. I remember watching one scene where they showed a blue sky with some trees in the foreground and thinking how clear it seemed. The next day the weather here was exactly the same as that scene and I looked up at the sky and saw some trees and thought to myself "...wow this looks EXACTLY like what I saw on Planet Earth last night!"
For me, when I watch a movie, the soundtrack has to be clear and accurate as to what is happening on the screen. For example, I watched The Incredible Hulk the other day and when the army started to use the soundwaves to try to contain him, the sound rushed at me from front to back and immersed me in a world of bass for the duration. Another example is from Black Hawk Down. I feel like I have to duck when I watch this movie because it sounds like I'm caught in a crossfire. You can clearly hear every word that is spoken and hear every bullet flying across the sweet spot in your theater.

I used to be a video only person for a looong time. After finally upgrading all my equipment including speakers/sub I am now a 50 video/50 audio guy. Being able to hear the lossless audio really opened up my eyes (or should I say ears:D) to how good audio could be and how it greatly enhanced the movie experience.

i think the problem is that most of us have tv's that take pretty good advantage of hte PQ enhancements of blu-ray, but most of us dont have the high tech audio setups that will help us really differenciate between an uncompressed pcm 5.1 soundtrack and a good dts or dolby 5.1 track.

for most of us, the upgrade in PQ is more evident, and thus the main reason for getting blu ray

I'd have to agree with this assessment. Although I do have a pretty decent sound system and definitely hear and appreciate the audio differences between the lossless and lossy formats (just like I could hear the differences between DTS and DD), the audio probably only accounts for 25% of the reason I would upgrade to a Blu-Ray from a DVD I already own, at least for normal movies. For concert films and music videos, it's ALL about the audio.

Most of my non-audiophile guests don't even know that Blu-Ray supports superior soundtracks over DVDs. They see a big, sharp picture and can compare it to their smaller or nastier-looking sets at home and can appreciate the difference. Since most of them have very basic sound systems or even use the speakers in the TV (shudder), even lossy DVDs sound way better at my place than Blu-Rays would at theirs, so the audio differences between DVD and Blu-Ray are lost on them.

I'd have to agree with this assessment. Although I do have a pretty decent sound system and definitely hear and appreciate the audio differences between the lossless and lossy formats (just like I could hear the differences between DTS and DD), the audio probably only accounts for 25% of the reason I would upgrade to a Blu-Ray from a DVD I already own, at least for normal movies. For concert films and music videos, it's ALL about the audio.

Most of my non-audiophile guests don't even know that Blu-Ray supports superior soundtracks over DVDs. They see a big, sharp picture and can compare it to their smaller or nastier-looking sets at home and can appreciate the difference. Since most of them have very basic sound systems or even use the speakers in the TV (shudder), even lossy DVDs sound way better at my place than Blu-Rays would at theirs, so the audio differences between DVD and Blu-Ray are lost on them.

I would definitely agree with this. For those with 'basic' sound systems, the lossless audio formats are not going to matter as much -- if at all. Therefore, the emphasis for those that fall in this category (maybe most people) will be on the video improvement that BD affords them. However, for those with better than 'basic' audio systems, the sound improvement will be very obvious -- or at least I think so. When I upgraded, I also added quite a bit of new equipment -- mostly for the audio improvements.

So. For me, I can say that the PQ is quite a bit better on my system with BD disks. The AQ is much, much better. I now find myself looking for BD disks with as high a PQ as possible. I want both of course but the PQ is first.

For concert films and music videos, it's ALL about the audio.


I wouldn't say that those are "ALL" about the audio. For something like the Shakira BD, I find the improved image quality to be very important. :D

For something like an AC/DC concert, good image quality isn't nearly as important to me (but still appreciated nonetheless).

95% about the video; 5% about the audio.

The vast majority of people will not hear a difference between audio on DVD and audio on BluRay either because of gear or ears! I have a significant 'investment' in audio equipment and find the differences to be sublte at best.

The video differences, on the other hand, are readily apparent to almost everyone on even smaller sized screens.

Well put, ca1ore.

I can see (and point out to anyone) the difference between DVD and HD video instantly, but I have yet to hear a big difference between audio formats on my system or any other. The changes from mono to stereo to Dolby Surround were good, the jump to 5.1 was best of all, but what kind of 5.1, well, it has been pretty much irrelevant. Maybe to people who sit and compare the same sections over and over it is important, but in the real world they are all good.

95% about the video; 5% about the audio.

Sounds about right to me. Some people forget that movies are primarily a visual medium. You can have a movie without audio, or mono audio, but there is no movie without the visuals.

For movies:
Video 100%, sound 0%, which means:

Would I upgrade for better video only ? Yes
Would I upgrade for better audio only ? No.

Of course I like the better audio, too - it is a nice bonus.

For me, its 100% video. I don't have an amp capable of HD sound, so i've never heard tru hd or dtsma. I have a 42" tv, 1080p, and the video upgrade stuns me. However, it all depends on the type of viewer you are and what set up you have got. For people like me who have a living room set up, audio isn't really an issue. Audio is also not an issue if you have not got good equipment. It is the people that have dedicated home theaters, set up with thousands of dollars worth of equipment with 100" odd screens that would want the audio, because they are trying to replicate a cinema environment. I on the other hand am only looking to watch a movie.

You may argue that if i just want to watch a movie, why have Blu Ray, and not just stick with DVD? The reason is, for me at least, BD has been a reasonably inexpensive investment, and the postives outweigh the cost. I enjoy watching films. I enjoy them even more when the video quality is perfect and they use my 1080p TV to its full ability. In short the reason why I like BD is that it makes the movie watching experience a hell of a lot better than watching a DVD.

I agree with many here. The Video trumps audio almost all of the time for me. The human eye is simply capable of more perception than the ear for the most part or at least visual differences are certainly more apparent to most people than sound based ones.

Heck, look at the size of video files versus audio files on computers. That sums it up most concisely.

I may be revising my earlier post real soon. The optical inputs in my Denon 2805 have all gone dead and I've just ordered a 2808CI as a replacement (good deals on them at this point since the new 09 models are appearing).

Once I get the new unit connected, I'll be able to hear for myself what the differences are in the new audio codecs.

65% Video, 35% Audio. Of course I'll check out the video stats first (review's, tier thread, etc...) but if a movie doesn't have decent sound, I die a little inside. I guess sound is important to me. I don't even watch TV without the sound system on, I couldn't imagine watching a DVD or Blu-Ray without it.

Now I don't know if I can actually tell the difference or not (between lossy and lossless), I haven't really tested my self. But I THINK I can and that's what matters most.

It really surprises me how many people could care less about the audio portion of a movie. If it wasn't important we'd still be watching silent movies.

65% Video, 35% Audio. Of course I'll check out the video stats first (review's, tier thread, etc...) but if a movie doesn't have decent sound, I die a little inside. I guess sound is important to me. I don't even watch TV without the sound system on, I couldn't imagine watching a DVD or Blu-Ray without it.

Now I don't know if I can actually tell the difference or not (between lossy and lossless), I haven't really tested my self. But I THINK I can and that's what matters most.

It really surprises me how many people could care less about the audio portion of a movie. If it wasn't important we'd still be watching silent movies.


make sure you get out your sound meter and level match the different audio formats before you evaluate them. It's amazing how many people equate a volume difference with a difference in quality.

It really surprises me how many people could care less about the audio portion of a movie. If it wasn't important we'd still be watching silent movies.

I don't think it's that people don't care, obviously we need SOME kind of soundtrack. I think the bigger issue is that you can compare visuals side by side and clearly see that hi-def beats standard-def. You can't really do a "side-by-side" comparison of audio, meaning you can't listen to both a lossy and lossless track simultaneously and pick a winner. You need to listen to both, one after the other, and trust your memory to tell you which you thought was better.

I don't think most people can tell the difference on their current equipment between a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and a lossless 5.1 track, especially if they both were mixed well. This is still my biggest obstacle, I think a DD 5.1 track that has a good mix sounds pretty darn good, whereas I often cringe watching DVD blown up on my large plasma. I NEED a hi-def picture, much more than I NEED higher resolution audio.

I still maintain that a clear sound mix is more important than the lossy vs. lossless debate for the average (non-forum reading) consumer.

I don't think it's that people don't care, obviously we need SOME kind of soundtrack. I think the bigger issue is that you can compare visuals side by side and clearly see that hi-def beats standard-def. You can't really do a "side-by-side" comparison of audio, meaning you can't listen to both a lossy and lossless track simultaneously and pick a winner. You need to listen to both, one after the other, and trust your memory to tell you which you thought was better.

I don't think most people can tell the difference on their current equipment between a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and a lossless 5.1 track, especially if they both were mixed well. This is still my biggest obstacle, I think a DD 5.1 track that has a good mix sounds pretty darn good, whereas I often cringe watching DVD blown up on my large plasma. I NEED a hi-def picture, much more than I NEED higher resolution audio.

I still maintain that a clear sound mix is more important than the lossy vs. lossless debate for the average (non-forum reading) consumer.

I can see where your coming from. I'm sure that in my situation I'm having some placebo affect. But that's fine with me. I guess I got off on a bit of a tangent, as I know a few people that watch DVD's in 2.0 TV speaker surround. arrghh. It drives me nuts.

If its a movie I enjoy, and it seems unlikely that a new release is going to come with a lossless encode, I'd pick it up, as long as the video was good.

I still maintain that a clear sound mix is more important than the lossy vs. lossless debate for the average (non-forum reading) consumer.

A competent sound mix is more important than the format for everyone. Any lossy boycotter just needs to listen to the THX trailer(Dolby 640kbps) on the Indy 4 BR vs the movie itself (True-HD).

A competent sound mix is more important than the format for everyone.

That is very true, but I would like to add that the new codecs do allow for the tangible benefit of discrete 7.1 remixes. While there aren't many 7.1 tracks out there, there are some very good sounding ones available that appropriately use the extra two channels to fill the rear soundstage with more convincing precision.

PQ is obviously the biggest factor but sound can sometimes be equally important. For example I think everyone has seen the Dracula thread here, and everyone can agree its a modest upgrade at most in PQ. But the lossless track is absolutely amazing and well worth the money to upgrade.

Guys dont be discouraged about upgrading your sound equipment, you dont have to go big. Any upgrade to lossless audio(cheapest HDMI receiver should be about $250 now) and even a cheapo speaker set up is a huge upgrade, that isnt my opinion, thats a fact...

I think everyone has seen the Dracula thread here, and everyone can agree its a modest upgrade at most in PQ. But the lossless track is absolutely amazing and well worth the money to upgrade.
The comments I've read about the Dracula BD make it clear that a number of people think it's simply wrong in a number of ways. You may not agree, but if someone feels that way, it's not the least bit clear that the "amazing" audio makes wrong video acceptable.