with LPCM audio?

And dont take that as a jab on HD DVD - it really does fill an important gap in HD disk playback. Most people cant afford to be dual format supporters, and even more cant afford the high cost of entry into blu ray.

If you can get past the issues plaguing playback, or if you dont need 1080p, or if your the type of guy that would rather watch a netflix download as opposed to a DVD, HD DVD may be for you. ;) ok that last part was a joke.

But ultimately it doesnt really matter. Lossless audio codecs are equal to uncompressed. Lossless means it has (bit for bit) the same audio as an uncompressed track.

Due to HD DVD's extremely limited bandwidth and paltry disk size, the lossless helps maximize the potential video encode.

Is PCM audio even part of the spec?

Mandated? Sure. Im pretty sure all DVD/HDDVD/BR players are mandated to playback PCM. Doesnt mean its mandated to be on every release.

I personally dont have a preference. I cant tell a difference between the two (lossless VS PCM) even on a high end audio setups.

I personally dont have a preference. I cant tell a difference between the two (lossless VS PCM) even on a high end audio setups.

I thought LPCM was lossless?!

I thought LPCM was lossless?!

Nope, it is uncompressed. Big difference.

Think of lossless as WinZip or WinRar compression. Doesnt change the file whatsoever, just requires overhead to uncompress it.

Think of PCM as the file itself.

There really isnt a difference if the player handles it properly, which HD DVD players do most of time (minus the audio synch issues a few experience).

*MP3, DD, DD+ are all lossy codecs, meaning they lose data for every byte that is compressed.
PCM is the actual master quality audio without any codecs to reduce its size. Any reciever can play it back as well.

Nope, it is uncompressed. Big difference.

Think of lossless as WinZip or WinRar compression. Doesnt change the file whatsoever, just requires overhead to uncompress it.

Think of PCM as the file itself.

There really isnt a difference if the player handles it properly, which HD DVD players do most of time (minus the audio synch issues a few experience).

*MP3, DD, DD+ are all lossy codecs, meaning they lose data for every byte that is compressed.
PCM is the actual master quality audio without any codecs to reduce its size. Any reciever can play it back as well.

I don't think you understood what I just wrote;

I wrote PCM is lossless - NOT that some lossless formats are uncompressed!

(you seem to be assuming that all lossless formats are compressed - they are definitely not!)


I have owned (used) and understood lossless formats since last millennium (e.g. DSD and MLP).

I thought LPCM was lossless?!

Then why say this? if you knew this, why even ask or state it (according to you).

Of course LPCM is lossless, no one was saying otherwise.

I was speaking in terms of compression.

Is PCM audio even part of the spec?

Yes

Why are there zero HD-DVD movies with LPCM audio?

Actually there are titles with LPCM. My Pat Metheny Group HDDVD has it. But if you want to know why it's not common, it's because TrueHD (lossless codec that provides exact same quality as LPCM, just consumes less space) decoding is mandatory for all HDDVD players.

Accommodating LPCM track in HD DVD depends upon the running time of the presentation. With the current format space constraint I don't think LCPM would be a viable option for HD DVD.

I don't think you understood what I just wrote;

I wrote PCM is lossless - NOT that some lossless formats are uncompressed!

Yes, you did, which is inaccurate. Then the other guy said...

Nope, it is uncompressed. Big difference.

Which is accurate.

PCM is not lossless, it is uncompressed and there is a difference. While there is no compression applied to PCM mastering, the resolution of the source file may indeed be lost. Most modern film soundtracks are archived in forms that are 24-bit resolution. Some 20-bit, and some older masters 16-bit. If a 20-bit or 24-bit audio master is down rezzed to a 16-bit PCM track for disc, as most Blu-ray PCM tracks are, that is not "lossless".

with LPCM audio?

TrueHD offers the same exact audio (mathematically identical/lossless) as LPCM but takes up over 3 times less space. Think of TrueHD as LPCM in a ZIP file. Because of this, it is much smarter to use TrueHD as the extra bits can be used for video quality instead of wasted on LPCM.

Blu-Ray uses LPCM because TrueHD is not included as a requirement in the specs, therefore in order to ensure that the person can playback the lossless soundtrack they throw on an LPCM soundtrack even though it wastes space.

Just to add that LPCM is also a mandatory component of HD DVD players, that is they have to playback LPCM audio tracks.

However, HD DVD titles need only to include audio tracks encoded in at least one of the following formats - DD+, DD, DTS, MPEG Audio, LPCM or Dolby TrueHD.

Personally, I think Bluray started using PCM at start up due to them being behind in development and knowing they needed to get their players out there. It ended up being great for enthusiasts but I'm guessing you'll see less and less of it on BD as time goes by.

From a marketing standpoint, J6P would be confused by LPCM but recognize Dolby Digital thus understanding Dolby TrueHD.

Soundwaves are analogue, not digital. Of course PCM is "compressed" and "lossless" (as much as technically possible.) It's just much less compressed than other formats.

The real mystery is: why are there zero Blu-ray Discs with DSD? :cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

LCPM I think is not mandatory as per HD DVD spec.
Actually, it is mandatory. Same with DVD.
All HD DVD players are required to decode linear (uncompressed) PCM, Dolby Digital AC-3, Dolby Digital EX, DTS, Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD.[11] A secondary soundtrack, if present, can be stored in any of the aforementioned formats, or in one of the HD DVD optional codecs: DTS-HD High Resolution Audio and DTS-HD Master Audio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD#Audio

It was also used for DVD-Audio:
Audio is stored on the disc in Linear PCM format, which is either uncompressed or losslessly compressed with Meridian Lossless Packing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Audio

As for Meridian Lossless Packing:
It is also known as Packed PCM (PPCM) and with the next generation of DVDs will be known as Dolby TrueHD, adding higher sample rates, higher bit rates, 8 full-range channels, extensive metadata, custom speaker placements (as specified by SMPTE), and timecode.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian_Lossless_Packing

EDIT: Actually, that above quote appears to be a little dated:
A Dolby TrueHD bitstream can carry up to 14 discrete sound channels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD

The important thing to know is that Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio HD provide equal quality sound to LPCM, and do it while using much less disc space.

Blu uses a lot of PCM because most of the current players won't play either of the lossless formats. I keep waiting for this "more advanced format" Blu is promising, but I haven't seen it!

Due to HD DVD's extremely limited bandwidth and paltry disk size, the lossless helps maximize the potential video encode.

Paltry disk size? You do know that more than two thirds of all bluray disks are BD 25. And more than 90% of all HD DVDs are HD 30.

PCM is stoneage. Why do 75% of the bluray user wish to get Dolby True HD instead of PCM? Its a poll by paidgeek in the bluray section.

The only thing bluray can do is talking, but it delivers crap when it comes to the reality. Actually it can not even talk, its the drones that talk for it.

My PS3 can not even output PCM tracks as 5.1 multi-channel through the optical out. Not even as a mediocre DD - not talking about the DD+ every HD DVD can deliver and which every HD DVD player can deliver as maxed DD or DTS. If I would like to watch the original language track of my Kung Fu Hustle bluray I would have to listen to 2.0 sound! Stereo! Stone-age! Bluray = yesterday; HD DVD = the format of the future! And I am not even talking about the really advanced stuff bluray can only dream off.

The exclusive bluray users should have sticked to DVD when they are not interessted in a real next generation HD media. Which is HD DVD. And only HD DVD.

Where is there banding on Planet Earth? The only thing I noticed was some scenes are shot in SD and in dark scenes sometimes see some grain. The broadcasted version just sucked and was full of artifacts. Sure at times it looked good. I never see artifacts with VC1 encoding although I have not scene a lot of HD DVD's yet. I have The Discovery Atlas disc's and some of those are converted with AVC and I see artifacts on those discs but its pretty minor. So far VC1 has been outstanding and by far the best.

Ron

Paltry disk size? You do know that more than two thirds of all bluray disks are BD 25. And more than 90% of all HD DVDs are HD 30.

PCM is stoneage. Why do 75% of the bluray user wish to get Dolby True HD instead of PCM? Its a poll by paidgeek in the bluray section.

The only thing bluray can do is talking, but it delivers crap when it comes to the reality. Actually it can not even talk, its the drones that talk for it.

My PS3 can not even output PCM tracks as 5.1 multi-channel through the optical out. Not even as a mediocre DD - not talking about the DD+ every HD DVD can deliver and which every HD DVD player can deliver as maxed DD or DTS. If I would like to watch the original language track of my Kung Fu Hustle bluray I would have to listen to 2.0 sound! Stereo! Stone-age! Bluray = yesterday; HD DVD = the format of the future! And I am not even talking about the really advanced stuff bluray can only dream off.

The exclusive bluray users should have sticked to DVD when they are not interessted in a real next generation HD media. Which is HD DVD. And only HD DVD.
Yeah... because you're totally taking advantage of all that advanced audio through your optical out right?

And dont take that as a jab on HD DVD - it really does fill an important gap in HD disk playback. Most people cant afford to be dual format supporters, and even more cant afford the high cost of entry into blu ray.


:rolleyes:

Price isn't always the deciding factor. Just because I can afford both options, doesn't mean I'll pick the more expensive one.

with LPCM audio?
Because they are advanced audio/video discs, and can have better audio quality without using the space that PCM uses.

with LPCM audio?
LPCM is bloated, unnecessary and a waste of space. This is the 21st Century, we have much better formats than LPCM like TrueHD.

Yeah... because you're totally taking advantage of all that advanced audio through your optical out right?

Actually I do not see the big advantage of the new audio formats (including the old uncompressed PCM). For me a well done DD or DTS track was and is good enough (as long as it is at least in 5.1!). Even though I do know how PCM sounds from listening to music CDs. But for movies I do not need this extra bit of quality. The moving pictures tend to distract me from the sound. BTW: Otherwise I could not stand using a noisy PS3 as a bluray player. It simply does not matter that it is noisy when a movie is running (but a cannot use it to listen to a music CD, because the noise would drive me crazy).

So in my eyes (or better ears) lossless/uncompressed is great when you listen with closed eyes (!) to classical music and do nothing else at that time - but when you watch a movie... get real. It is just a marketing blurp.

As has been said, it is definatly not needed and a waste of space. Not that space is actually an issue, most discs stay under 28gigs.

If you want to talk about limited, check out the MPEG2 BD25 titles with LPCM tracks, not only wasting space on the disc, but hindering the PQ dramatically by limiting the amount of disc space and bandwidth that can be used for PQ, which needs to be high for the codec, hence, fugly BD titles.

I appreciate the better sound localization from the surrounds during quiet level passages using TrueHD. There have been just a few movies have soundtracks where I have been really able to notice the difference versus a 640 kbps DD+ track. Phantom of the Opera is one.

It seems to me that there are very few HD-DVD titles with TrueHD - browsing through my collection, only about 1/3 of them. However when I am browsing the BR section in the stores, it seems quite a high percentage have LPCM.

I am HD-DVD exclusive, but that is the impression I get.

Actually I do not see the big advantage of the new audio formats (including the old uncompressed PCM). For me a well done DD or DTS track was and is good enough (as long as it is at least in 5.1!). Even though I do know how PCM sounds from listening to music CDs. But for movies I do not need this extra bit of quality. The moving pictures tend to distract me from the sound. BTW: Otherwise I could not stand using a noisy PS3 as a bluray player. It simply does not matter that it is noisy when a movie is running (but a cannot use it to listen to a music CD, because the noise would drive me crazy).

So in my eyes (or better ears) lossless/uncompressed is great when you listen with closed eyes (!) to classical music and do nothing else at that time - but when you watch a movie... get real. It is just a marketing blurp.
I love it. You're talking about how HD DVD has all these advanced features then you go on to say lossless and uncompressed audio is useless. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you don't even have a receiver that supports HDMI, and you're just another rationalizing fanboy. If everyone took that kind of attitude towards home theater, we would be forever stuck with 720p since, after all, who needs that extra bit of quality afforded by 1080p?

BTW, the ps3 isn't the only Blu-ray player available, and if you think it's noisy then you obviously haven't heard the 360.

Why are there zero HD-DVD movies with LPCM audio?

Because LPCM is not necessary, and is a less efficient technology for audio storage than TrueHD. Both result in the exact same audio output, but TrueHD consumes less storage space and bandwidth.

As long as a lossless format is chosen then there is no difference between uncompressed audio and the compressed version, except the compressed would use less space and more cpu power to decode on the fly. Sound wise there is no difference.

Some HD DVDs with LPCM:

- Cream - Royal Albert Hall (2.0)
- Eagles - Farewell 1 Tour: Live from Melbourne (2.0)
- Freedom, Vol. 1 (2.0)
- Naqoyqatsi: Life as War (5.1)
- Patlabor: 1 (2.0)
- Parlabor: 2 (2.0)
- Project PAPO (2.0)
- Royal Space Force (2.0)

Some HD DVDs with LPCM:

- Cream - Royal Albert Hall (2.0)
- Eagles - Farewell 1 Tour: Live from Melbourne (2.0)
- Freedom, Vol. 1 (2.0)
- Naqoyqatsi: Life as War (5.1)
- Patlabor: 1 (2.0)
- Parlabor: 2 (2.0)
- Project PAPO (2.0)
- Royal Space Force (2.0)

Is there different kinds of PCM? Japanese HD DVD releases use PCM a lot, I'm not sure if that is the same as LPCM?

Waste of space though since TrueHD could get the results with less used.

Edit: Sorry about mentioning MI3, I remembered incorrectly it being PCM in the Japanese release - just checked again and it was DD+. That said, PCM has been used in Japanese HD DVD releases so it certainly is possible to use it.

Because HD DVD isnt capable of doing so without sacrficing video quality.

With a 15gb disk - you only have a couple gigs left after a decent movie encode (video only). Add in extras, or multiple languages, well there simply isnt room. Even with the 30gb disk, space is a precious commodity on HD DVD's. A good example of this is the planet earth series, or the happy feet. Banding, noise, etc all occur due to heavily compressed VC1 stream, which simply was not present on the decent cable rips floating around (well the mp2 caps on the web had some of the same banding, but not the AVC)

So the typical answer for HD DVD release are to compress the hell out of the video, sacrafice some PQ, and then add a lossless audio codec.

This kind of falls in with Toshiba's value based business model. Think of HD DVD to Blu ray like MP3 to DVD audio. Same fundamentals.

The Eagles: Farewell tour: Live from Melbourne has LPCM on it!
and what I highlighted in red is not true, LPCM is UN-compressed not lossless, Dolby True HD is lossless and which Many HD DVDS have.

Soundwaves are analogue, not digital. Of course PCM is "compressed" and "lossless" (as much as technically possible.) It's just much less compressed than other formats.
How true. I always get a laugh out of people getting all excited about loss-less. The whole point of an analog to digital converter is to approximate a analog signal with a digital bit stream that can eventually be decoded back into the analog domain to drive some speakers.

Mission Impossible 3 HD DVD (Japanese import) here with PCM track 5.1, works great.
Really?

Wow, first I've heard of this. Can anyone else confirm?

Paltry disk size? You do know that more than two thirds of all bluray disks are BD 25. And more than 90% of all HD DVDs are HD 30.

PCM is stoneage. Why do 75% of the bluray user wish to get Dolby True HD instead of PCM? Its a poll by paidgeek in the bluray section.

The only thing bluray can do is talking, but it delivers crap when it comes to the reality. Actually it can not even talk, its the drones that talk for it.

My PS3 can not even output PCM tracks as 5.1 multi-channel through the optical out. Not even as a mediocre DD - not talking about the DD+ every HD DVD can deliver and which every HD DVD player can deliver as maxed DD or DTS. If I would like to watch the original language track of my Kung Fu Hustle bluray I would have to listen to 2.0 sound! Stereo! Stone-age! Bluray = yesterday; HD DVD = the format of the future! And I am not even talking about the really advanced stuff bluray can only dream off.

The exclusive bluray users should have sticked to DVD when they are not interessted in a real next generation HD media. Which is HD DVD. And only HD DVD.

Here's a tip, get a HDMI receiver. The PS3 has no analog outs. Even a dying lemur knows that. Name a player that outputs 5.1 LPCM through Optical? Noobs on rants. Splendid. :rolleyes:

A good example of this is the planet earth series, or the happy feet. Banding, noise, etc all occur due to heavily compressed VC1 stream, which simply was not present on the decent cable rips floating around (well the mp2 caps on the web had some of the same banding, but not the AVC)

Funny that I see the exact same banding on the SD DVD and BD too (comparing the same titles: Happy Feet, Superman Returns and Planet Earth)


This kind of falls in with Toshiba's value based business model. Think of HD DVD to Blu ray like MP3 to DVD audio. Same fundamentals.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Freedom Vol. 1 has a 2.0 PCM track. LPCM is just a waste of capacity and bandwidth

Here's a comparison
LPCM 5.1 16/48 has a 4.6 mbps CBR
Dolby TrueHD 5.1 16/48 has a 1.4 mbps ABR w/ 3 mbps peak

So take a standard two hour movie. The LPCM uses 4.14 GB, however the Dolby TrueHD track uses roughly 1.26 GB. The capacity TrueHD uses can very depending on the movie because it's actual bitrate varies depending on the audio at a specific part in the movie. Silence takes up much less bandwidth and space and the big battle scene most likely uses the 3 mbps peak and thusly more space is needed for that part. LPCM on the other hand users a constant bitrate irregardless of the audio present, silence uses as much bandwidth and capacity as the big battle scene does.

A good example of this is the planet earth series, or the happy feet. Banding, noise, etc all occur due to heavily compressed VC1 stream

Happy Feet, a 109 min movie with no extras on a 30GB HD DVD had noise? But the 25GB BD using the exact same VC1 encode didn't? Have you even watched it??

Happy Feet, a 109 min movie with no extras on a 30GB HD DVD had noise? But the 25GB BD using the exact same VC1 encode didn't? Have you even watched it??


he is a self-procalimed BD Fanboi, what do you expect? Facts mean squat to him. ;)

Happy Feet, a 109 min movie with no extras on a 30GB HD DVD had noise? But the 25GB BD using the exact same VC1 encode didn't? Have you even watched it??
Watched Happy Feet on both - your observations are plain wrong. The HD DVD imagery was not more consistent throughout the whole movie, and the audio far more robust. Some day, Blu Ray will grow up and maybe come equal, but for now - it ain't so.

By the way, those "discounted" Blu Ray players will become semi-obsolete when BD finally adopts some standards for audio codecs as of 10/31/07. Good thing that the HD DVD folks have had standards since day one.

Any reciever can play it back as well.not completely true

Watched Happy Feet on both - your observations are plain wrong. The HD DVD imagery was not more consistent throughout the whole movie, and the audio far more robust. Some day, Blu Ray will grow up and maybe come equal, but for now - it ain't so.

By the way, those "discounted" Blu Ray players will become semi-obsolete when BD finally adopts some standards for audio codecs as of 10/31/07. Good thing that the HD DVD folks have had standards since day one.your saying the audio on the hd-dvd version was better than the audio on the blu-ray version?

Here's a tip, get a HDMI receiver. The PS3 has no analog outs. Even a dying lemur knows that. Name a player that outputs 5.1 LPCM through Optical? Noobs on rants. Splendid. :rolleyes:Toslink does not have enought bandwidth for 5.1 PCM, only 2.1.

Here's a tip, get a HDMI receiver. The PS3 has no analog outs. Even a dying lemur knows that. Name a player that outputs 5.1 LPCM through Optical? Noobs on rants. Splendid. :rolleyes:

But I like my Marantz PS 17 amp. It sounds awesome with (stereo) music CDs. And even with multichannel DD or DTS through the optical in it sounds good enough for movies. So I don't see why I should upgrade to a different HDMI amp, which will probably not even improve the perceived quality. Perceived quality - I know there are on paper advantages.

BTW I wrote: "Not even as a mediocre DD - not talking about the DD+ every HD DVD can deliver and which every HD DVD player can deliver as maxed DD or DTS." -

I do not want 5.1 PCM through optical! I do not care about PCM or lossless sound - I would even say that in my home theater with optimized room acoustics DD sounds probably leagues better than the PCM/lossless of most of the HDMI setups you find in a lot of other houses.

And I know that it is not possible to send multi-channel PCM through an optical cable. But the xbox for example can transcode PCM or Dolby True HD or Dolby Digital Plus into 5.1 DD or DTS. Why isn't the PS3 able to do the same VERY basic thing? Every other HD DVD player is able to do the same.

Not being able to transcode PCM into some kind of format that you can send as real multichannel through the optical out is a HUGE flaw of the PS3. One wonders if there is not enough CPU power left to do the task.

Not being able to transcode PCM into some kind of format that you can send as real multichannel through the optical out is a HUGE flaw of the PS3. One wonders if there is not enough CPU power left to do the task.

Yup, it would be nice if the PS3 could transcode PCM into, say, DTS even if it is pseudo DTS.

I might be weird, but I actually prefer to listen to a PCM track in stereo with Logic 7 applied than a regular DD track.

I do not want 5.1 PCM through optical! I do not care about PCM or lossless sound - I would even say that in my home theater with optimized room acoustics DD sounds probably leagues better than the PCM/lossless of most of the HDMI setups you find in a lot of other houses.


Huh? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: You don't need an optimized room to be able to hear the difference between regular DD vs uncompressed/lossless. All you need is a good pair of... ears. :o

How true. I always get a laugh out of people getting all excited about loss-less. The whole point of an analog to digital converter is to approximate a analog signal with a digital bit stream that can eventually be decoded back into the analog domain to drive some speakers.

I can hear a distinct difference, good or bad, listening to TrueHD versus DD+. In my case and my friend's, we consistently prefer the TrueHD tracks, even in blind listening experiments. Are you are unable to hear the differences, or are the differences are minor enough that you do not prefer one over the other? People that listen to my setup consistently prefer the sound of TrueHD. That is why I am excited to see TrueHD audio tracks are on an album.

But if you want to know why it's not common, it's because TrueHD (lossless codec that provides exact same quality as LPCM, just consumes less space) decoding is mandatory for all HDDVD players.

+++

When every player made MUST be able to decode TrueHD and output it as lossless PCM streams over HDMI; what is the point of LPCM tracks on the disc?

As far as your receiver is concerned the disc does have LPCM as that's all its seeing coming from the player.

I might be weird, but I actually prefer to listen to a PCM track in stereo with Logic 7 applied than a regular DD track.

That would seem strange. You're loosing literally all the discrete surround channel information. Panning, hovering, point effects, etc. None of them would be working correctly except for the front L/R channels.

I might be weird, but I actually prefer to listen to a PCM track in stereo with Logic 7 applied than a regular DD track.Logic 7? Whats that?

When every player made MUST be able to decode TrueHD and output it as lossless PCM streams over HDMI; what is the point of LPCM tracks on the disc?I'm not sure what you are referring to here as HD DVD players are not required to be able to decode TrueHD and output it as lossless (the output as lossless part isn't mandatory). The XBOX360 plus add-on accounts for close to half the HD DVD players out there and it can't take 5.1 TrueHD tracks and output them as 5.1 lossless. It can decode it internally though. The XBOX360 with add-on might be able to output 2.0 from a TrueHD track losslessly, but there is no requirement for outputting those TrueHD tracks as lossless, only decoding 2.0 of TrueHD (and then they can convert to something else before output like the XBOX360 plus add-on does).

From a document I saw HD DVD is adding to their specs (despite people claiming their specs are final) and adding a version 2.0 spec for players. Those players will be required to decode 5.1 TrueHD, not just 2.0. I know, too may 2.0s here as one refers to the channels and one is a new version for players that also have to support 1080p24 output.
PCM is not lossless, it is uncompressed and there is a difference. While there is no compression applied to PCM mastering, the resolution of the source file may indeed be lost. Most modern film soundtracks are archived in forms that are 24-bit resolution. Some 20-bit, and some older masters 16-bit. If a 20-bit or 24-bit audio master is down rezzed to a 16-bit PCM track for disc, as most Blu-ray PCM tracks are, that is not "lossless".This all gets a little confusing with the technical term "lossless" meaning compressed without loss in one sense or the track being without loss in another sense, but with a 24/48 original, would you call a 16/48 TrueHD track "lossless"? In other words, when adding up the percentage of HD DVDs that include lossless audio, would you include those releases that have 16/48 tracks where the original was 24/48? I'm wondering if you would include the tracks if they were TrueHD, but wouldn't if they were PCM (even with the same result).

--Darin

your saying the audio on the hd-dvd version was better than the audio on the blu-ray version?

"Happy Feet" - HD DVD - English Dolby TrueHD 5.1 Surround & English Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround EX (640kbps)

'Happy Feet' is really a musical, but it uses modern pop and rock favorites which tend to need far more kick than Broadway show tunes to be effective. I'm happy to report that the included Dolby TrueHD audio track on this HD DVD release does not disappoint.

From the opening sequence, which uses Prince's classic 'Kiss' to hilarious effect, the dynamic nature of this TrueHD track is obvious. Frequency response is terrific, from the drum-tight low bass to very spacious mid-range. All the voices sound fantastic, with a smooth clarity to the highs that really soars. Surrounds are also nice and aggressive, from all manner of discrete effects (the sea lion and whale attack sequences are particular standouts) to excellent integration of the score and songs. Movement is often directed all around the soundfield with pinpoint accuracy, and imaging is seamless. I also have nothing to complain about in terms of ambiance, with even milder scenes usually having something going on in the rears, which keeps the soundtrack alive and immersive. In both video and audio, 'Happy Feet' hits an home run.



"Happy Feet" - Blu-ray - English Dolby Digital Surround EX (640kbps)


Alas, Warner continues to give Blu-ray short thrift when it comes to audio. It's been a sorry trend, with the studio failing to offer Dolby TrueHD tracks and/or comparable DTS-HD or uncompressed PCM mixes on their A-list Blu-ray titles, while their HD DVD counterparts boast high-resolution audio. (The PCM track that Warner included on the Blu-ray edition of 'The Departed' last month appears to have been an anomaly.) As such, all that the Blu-ray of 'Happy Feet' gets is a Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround EX track in English, French and Spanish. Unfortunately for audiophiles, this just can't compare to the full-blown Dolby TrueHD mix on the HD DVD.

On the bright side, 'Happy Feet' boasts excellent sound design, and without the TrueHD track to compare it to, this track sounds perfectly good. From the opening sequence, which uses Prince's classic 'Kiss' to hilarious effect, the dynamic nature of the soundtrack is obvious. Frequency response is very good on the EX mix, from the drum-tight low bass to wide mid-range. All the voices sound quite good, with a smooth clarity to the highs. Surrounds are also aggressive, from all manner of discrete effects (the sea lion and whale attack sequences are particular standouts) to excellent integration of the score and songs. Movement is often directed all around the soundfield with pinpoint accuracy, and imaging is near-seamless. I also have no complaints regarding the ambiance, with even milder scenes usually having something going on in the rears, which keeps the soundtrack alive and immersive.

Unfortunately, where this EX mix falters next to TrueHD is in the lowest bass, which never quite packs the same heft. The depth of the soundfield is also flatter on the EX, a drawback that is not immediately noticeable to the ears, but becomes quite clear after a few direct comparisons. To be clear, the average listener likely won't recognize what they're missing, but when it comes to delivering the best audio high-definition can offer, Warner continues to sell Blu-ray short.

Source: HD DVD Review (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html) ; Blu-Ray Review (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/happyfeet.html)

uneducated rant

:rolleyes:

Logic 7? Whats that?

surround processing system found in JBL Synthesis, Lexicon and (IIRC) Harman Kardon receivers. Proprietary to Harman International companies.

Toslink does not have enought bandwidth for 5.1 PCM, only 2.1.

Not true at all. Fiber can transmit gigabits of info. The SPDIF spec limits the peak of data.

Yeah... because you're totally taking advantage of all that advanced audio through your optical out right?

If you're trying to be facetious, think before you type.. My "olde" receiver "only" has HDMI 1.2 and needs my XA2 to decode to 5.1 channel PCM over HDMI. Presumably, PS3 should decode anything Bluray has into a 5.1 channel format that can be handled by a receiver over S/PDIF. The XA1 would transcode to DTS, the XA2 transcodes to Dolby Digital 5.1 (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/hreview_hdxa2030207.html#audio) (though I have my XA2 feeding PCM, so I don't really mind the 'downgrade').

Will PS3 take a supported audio track, transcode it to DD or DTS and feed it out the S/PDIF, like HDDVD players can?

Might as well get the best possible audio performance out of 'legacy' audio hardware for as long as you need.. And some of us older folks don't have the same auditory acuity that we used to (natural degradation of high-freq sensitivity ftl :/)...

Not true at all. Fiber can transmit gigabits of info. The SPDIF spec limits the peak of data.

Affirmative. Using ADAT spec you can pass through 8 tracks of full spectrum PCM through the same cable.

Not true at all. Fiber can transmit gigabits of info. The SPDIF spec limits the peak of data.

Actually what was written was 'Toslink' - which is the Toshiba SPDIF spec, so technically they were right :-P

If you're trying to be facetious, think before you type.. My "olde" receiver "only" has HDMI 1.2 and needs my XA2 to decode to 5.1 channel PCM over HDMI. Presumably, PS3 should decode anything Bluray has into a 5.1 channel format that can be handled by a receiver over S/PDIF. The XA1 would transcode to DTS, the XA2 transcodes to Dolby Digital 5.1 (http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/hreview_hdxa2030207.html#audio) (though I have my XA2 feeding PCM, so I don't really mind the 'downgrade').

Will PS3 take a supported audio track, transcode it to DD or DTS and feed it out the S/PDIF, like HDDVD players can?

Might as well get the best possible audio performance out of 'legacy' audio hardware for as long as you need.. And some of us older folks don't have the same auditory acuity that we used to (natural degradation of high-freq sensitivity ftl :/)...
So what exactly is it that I'm supposed to "think about before I type"? You're talking about legacy audio, I specifically said advanced audio. I think YOU need to start thinking before you type. And yes, I AM trying to be facetious. :cool:

PS. I love how you're trying to downplay lossless audio on the basis of "natural degradation of auditory acuity". Maybe I should scratch up my corneas and save myself some money.

Actually what was written was 'Toslink' - which is the Toshiba SPDIF spec, so technically they were right :-P

Not really. TOS-Link is the Toshiba spec and has the bandwidth to transmit up to 128mb/s. More than enough bandwidth for 6 uncompressed PCM streams. It is just limited to 3 channels of simultaneous audio in their implementation, just like SPDIF.

So what exactly is it that I'm supposed to "think about before I type"? You're talking about legacy audio, I specifically said advanced audio. I think YOU need to start thinking before you type. And yes, I AM trying to be facetious. :cool:

So the choice is to throw away your "decrepit" receiver and get something with HDMI and an advanced decoder or live with 2.0 audio if the disc doesn't have a 'legacy' track? That's a pretty lame weakness if you ask me. If the PS3 is so powerful why doesn't it give you the intermediate option of taking an advanced audio track and mixing it into a DD or DTS stream? And say the XBox 360 doesn't do it either, it's only a game console.. Isn't the PS3 supposed to be the all-conquering all-doing miracle machine? How is it that my XA2 and others' even cheaper HDDVD players can accomodate both people using advanced audio-capable receivers and 'the rest of us' as well?

Maybe this will be something that a future PS3 update will fix, adding DDLive or DTSConnect capability, like how they fixed the whole 480p/1080i disaster in firmware 1.8?

PS. I love how you're trying to downplay lossless audio on the basis of "natural degradation of auditory acuity". Maybe I should scratch up my corneas and save myself some money.

Hey, it saves me $$$ since I don't have to bother with antialiasing on my video cards!

surround processing system found in JBL Synthesis, Lexicon and (IIRC) Harman Kardon receivers. Proprietary to Harman International companies.Whats it do?

It's a processing system that creates 7.1 channel from stereo or 5.1 input. It's far more effective that of the Dolby and DTS variety.

So the choice is to throw away your "decrepit" receiver and get something with HDMI and an advanced decoder or live with 2.0 audio if the disc doesn't have a 'legacy' track? That's a pretty lame weakness if you ask me. If the PS3 is so powerful why doesn't it give you the intermediate option of taking an advanced audio track and mixing it into a DD or DTS stream? And say the XBox 360 doesn't do it either, it's only a game console.. Isn't the PS3 supposed to be the all-conquering all-doing miracle machine? How is it that my XA2 and others' even cheaper HDDVD players can accomodate both people using advanced audio-capable receivers and 'the rest of us' as well?

Why are you setting up a straw man argument? I never said the ps3 was a great Blu-ray player. Caurus was talking about how HD DVD is better because it has all these advanced features, and I pointed out the fact that he doesn't even have the equipment to take advantage of the advanced audio formats. Basically, he was saying that lossy DD and DTS tracks are "good enough", which is the lamest excuse one can make when comparing anything between two next-generation formats. At some point you jumped in and started arguing about something completely different. :rolleyes:

Personally, I think Bluray started using PCM at start up due to them being behind in development and knowing they needed to get their players out there. It ended up being great for enthusiasts but I'm guessing you'll see less and less of it on BD as time goes by.

From a marketing standpoint, J6P would be confused by LPCM but recognize Dolby Digital thus understanding Dolby TrueHD.
BINGO!

i wish HD-DVD would have atleast more Dolby True HD tracks. I wish we would get some PCM tracks. The one thing that Bluray gets right is that almost every movie has PCM tracks.

i wish HD-DVD would have atleast more Dolby True HD tracks. I wish we would get some PCM tracks. The one thing that Bluray gets right is that almost every movie has PCM tracks.

Luckily Universal Studios is finally jumping on the TrueHD bandwagon. Most of their new announcements have TrueHD and it would be awesome to see the re-release of some films with a TrueHD track.... Maybe Universal will have a box set of The Bourne Trilogy with TrueHD on every movie?

Funny that I see the exact same banding on the SD DVD and BD too (comparing the same titles: Happy Feet, Superman Returns and Planet Earth)



:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your joking right?

I never said it wasnt present. Please quote the line I said ti wasnt. And your talking about flicks compressed for the lowest common denominator, HD DVD, so with identical crappy vc1 encodes, why wouldnt it be present?

Happy Feet, a 109 min movie with no extras on a 30GB HD DVD had noise? But the 25GB BD using the exact same VC1 encode didn't? Have you even watched it??

Where did I say that?

You HD DVD nuts are playing stupid, right? You do know that was the same encode, and thus will be the same on each machine, once again, since it was coded for the least capable hardware (HD DVD), so it could play back in both formats w/o re-encoding.

lol, I almost thought these post were from complete idiots, but you must be joking.. .right? right?

Watched Happy Feet on both - your observations are plain wrong. The HD DVD imagery was not more consistent throughout the whole movie, and the audio far more robust. Some day, Blu Ray will grow up and maybe come equal, but for now - it ain't so.

By the way, those "discounted" Blu Ray players will become semi-obsolete when BD finally adopts some standards for audio codecs as of 10/31/07. Good thing that the HD DVD folks have had standards since day one.

OMFG... this is like the short bus kids being led like the fiddler and the rats, all because of one misinterpreted post.

Where did I say one version was different than the other?

LMAO - with the same encodes, how could one be better than the other?

*crickets*

*crickets*

Wow you waited 8 whole minutes in the middle of the night and that constitutes crickets? Didn’t 2 minute load times on POTC BDs teach you any patience? You must have a very frustrated wife/girlfriend.

Yes if it is the same encode then it is going to be the same quality. It’s funny how HD DVD gets blamed for encodes, but Blu-bois don’t bother to respond when the subject of missing IME material crops up. Now let’s discuss facts:

1. Over 95% of HD DVD releases are on HD30 disks.
2. Over 60% BDs are BD25s.

Knowing those two facts how can any clear thinking person blame HD DVD for lack of capacity leading to less than stellar encodes? If capacity is to blame it is low capacity BD25s that are holding up HDM right now. Tell you what when more than 50% of BDs are BD50s let’s have this discussion again; at least then you’ll have a cogent point.

Furthermore there have been a number of HD DVDs that were hobbled because of Blu-ray.

Question: Why does the Superman Returns HD DVD lack IME when SR director Bryan Singer has gone on record stating that he recorded an IME introduction?

Answer: Warner felt guilty for not releasing V, BB and many other titles on Blu-rot Disc so they released a hobbled version of Superman Returns. One that would look equal on technologically advanced 1st Gen HD DVD players and on “obsolete when they left the assembly line” 2nd Gen BD players.

Thankfully Warner has seen the light of day and 300 on HD DVD will be a feature rich release. I’m sure they will double-dip and release a full featured BD version when the BDA CEs catch up to 2006 tech and release a fully functional HDM device.

Wow you waited 8 whole minutes in the middle of the night and that constitutes crickets? Didn’t 2 minute load times on POTC BDs teach you any patience? You must have a very frustrated wife/girlfriend.

Yes if it is the same encode then it is going to be the same quality. It’s funny how HD DVD gets blamed for encodes, but Blu-bois don’t bother to respond when the subject of missing IME material crops up. Now let’s discuss facts:

1. Over 95% of HD DVD releases are on HD30 disks.
2. Over 60% BDs are BD25s.

Knowing those two facts how can any clear thinking person blame HD DVD for lack of capacity leading to less than stellar encodes? If capacity is to blame it is low capacity BD25s that are holding up HDM right now. Tell you what when more than 50% of BDs are BD50s let’s have this discussion again; at least then you’ll have a cogent point.

Furthermore there have been a number of HD DVDs that were hobbled because of Blu-ray.

Question: Why does the Superman Returns HD DVD lack IME when SR director Bryan Singer has gone on record stating that he recorded an IME introduction?

Answer: Warner felt guilty for not releasing V, BB and many other titles on Blu-rot Disc so they released a hobbled version of Superman Returns. One that would look equal on technologically advanced 1st Gen HD DVD players and on “obsolete when they left the assembly line” 2nd Gen BD players.

Thankfully Warner has seen the light of day and 300 on HD DVD will be a feature rich release. I’m sure they will double-dip and release a full featured BD version when the BDA CEs catch up to 2006 tech and release a fully functional HDM device.

Your two "facts" are non relational. Thats like saying because the Sun obviously only shines for 16 hours or less per day, it obviously turns off at night.

You did go to some form of secondary school, took ethics, learned about fallacious arguments, did you not? If not, Ill forgive your ignorance. But its generally considered rude and unethical to do so knowingly. So we will just assume your ignorant.

The subject of IME missing has zilch to do with BR, unless if they are from a dual format release. How many dual format releases vs HD DVD exclusive releases are missing IME? That would make point, but you have taken a long jump from reality or any form of logic.

And your response has nothing to do with my question, its just a illogical rant, and we forgive you for that.

My point is very valid and very logical (when we get back on topic instead spouting nonsensical crap and blatant lies) -

HD DVD does not use LPCM because of space limitations. The video suffers enough with low bitrate VC1 encodes and LPCM would simply devour too much space. Add in extras, and the crippled bandwidth, HD DVD simply isnt capable of doing a HQ 30mbit + LPCM. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me.

So my question still stands, where the hell did I claim the BR versions of those movies were better or not suffering from the banding, or is the typical comprehension manner of HD DVD fanatics?

Format fans are like religious fanatics.

Comprehension in either camp is limited to what they are fed by their cult leader.

Add in extras, and the crippled bandwidth, HD DVD simply isn't capable of doing a HQ 30mbit + LPCM.
You are correct, as you typically are. :)

That said, why any HD media format would want to take that bit rate path is beyond me. 30 GB of storage is hardly "limited".

Any time you create any storage facility, the first thing that happens is people find new ways to fill it up, even if much of it is crappola - some of us remember when a 20 MB drive was going to satisfy all our data needs forever.

The HD Forum folks were smart enough up front to avoid that mistake and set the best standards out of the gate, and unlike Blu Ray, they actually have standards.