Paramount's first title annoucement since the big HD DVD exclusive coup on Monday is "A Might Heart" with Angelina Jolie.

The audio specs are as follows.

Audio Formats
English PCM 5.1 Surround
English Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1094/mightyheart.html

What a waste of space using PCM!!!

What are they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

:p

You're right, it is a waste of space. Just shows you that they have plenty of space to waste regardless of the format.

The world's truly gone mad; should sound nice though.

You're right, it is a waste of space. Just shows you that they have plenty of space to waste regardless of the format.

/thread. And David is today's forum winner. Nicely done good sir.

The world's truly gone mad; should sound nice though.

Agreed it should sound nice.

You guys should read Amir's recent comments in the Insider's thread, where he is basically saying lossless isn't necessary and DD+ is good enough.

You decide if you agree or not.

That means video peaks will be around 21Mbps assuming there are no IME supplements. Strange decision.

But, but but, 30 GB is not enough for PCM! :p

Good that Paramount is putting out quality audio with this one. LPCM absolutely rocks.


You guys should read Amir's recent comments in the Insider's thread, where he is basically saying lossless isn't necessary and DD+ is good enough.

You decide if you agree or not.

What do you expect him to say when his company's products can't do lossless surround when paired up.

Personally I highly disagree as well as many other HD DVD and blu-ray owners. Though of course for many iTunes quality sound is good enough.

Not exactly a blockbuster, is it? I did mean to see it in the theater, but it wasn't there long.

What a waste of space using PCM!!!

What are they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

:p

The same thing that the BDA studios are thinking:

Perfect Stranger

Delta Farce

Remember the Titans: Director's Cut

ALL PCM AUDIO.

It's so easy to shoot you down blu . . . it really is!

You guys should read Amir's recent comments in the Insider's thread, where he is basically saying lossless isn't necessary and DD+ is good enough.

You decide if you agree or not.

WTF is all I have to say. Amir is basically admitting HD DVD bandwidth is sometimes limiting. AQ=PQ.

DD+ is OK, but not even close to full rez lossless of any kind.

If people with the power to help choose the direction a format traverses have opinions like this, it is a sad day for HDM. :(

The same thing that the BDA studios are thinking:

Perfect Stranger

Delta Farce

Remember the Titans: Director's Cut

ALL PCM AUDIO.

It's so easy to shoot you down blu . . . it really is!

Some day you'll recognize satire, until then chuckle away!

:D

Strange. Waste of space, and not necessary.

Again, please see the thread and don't take my word for it. I don't think I am misinterpreting at all. I was very surprised he would be that open with this view.

He also had some interesting views on why the 360 doesn't need to put out multi-channel PCM.

Some day you'll recognize satire, until then chuckle away!

:D


A joke thread? Hardly. You tried to smear the title in question never doing the research to see that BD is doing EXACTLY the same thing.

You got caught at your FUD and now you try to wriggle off the hook.

HOW LAME is that?

I gotta tell you I am getting more impressed with HD DVD every day. I may switch my allegiances.

Here is satire:

Hey BD fans . .. no more Paramount or Dreamworks titles for you!

But those out now will become collector items so buy them before they are gone forever!

The same thing that the BDA studios are thinking:

Perfect Stranger

Delta Farce

Remember the Titans: Director's Cut

ALL PCM AUDIO.

It's so easy to shoot you down blu . . . it really is!

Come now Lee. I think you understand that on BD using LPCM does not affect video bitrate ceilings. Using LPCM on HD DVD dramatically affects video bitrate ceilings.

On BD you can have two LPCM tracks and still have considerably higher video bitrate ceilings than a HD DVD with standard DD.

Be fair please.

A joke thread? Hardly. You tried to smear the title in question never doing the research to see that BD is doing EXACTLY the same thing.

You got caught at your FUD and now you try to wriggle off the hook.

HOW LAME is that?

Lee I think you're missing the obvious irony that this represents the first major HD DVD release to use LPCM - a standard that HD DVD fans have derided as wasteful and archaic now for months. Believe me this thread doesn't exist because DobyBlue himself thinks poorly of PCM, just because it's odd to see Paramount doing it, when you would expect HD DVD exclusivity to almost automatically be accompanied by TrueHD, if lossless at all.

Why are HD DVD owners on this thread getting upset that this title has a lossless track? If you are going to pay $27+ for a movie that costs $10+ more than the DVD version, it better have more than just better PQ. Why would you not want lossless?

Here is satire:

Hey BD fans . .. no more Paramount or Dreamworks titles for you!

But those out now will become collector items so buy them before they are gone forever!

Nevermind, I see you are probably too childish to look at things scientifically. I hope for your sake Warner doesn't go BD exclusive.

Why are HD DVD owners on this thread getting upset that this title has a lossless track? If you are going to pay $27+ for a movie that costs $10+ more than the DVD version, it better have more than just better PQ. Why would you not want lossless?
Upset? No.

Perplexed? Yes. You don't need PCM for lossless.

Why are HD DVD owners on this thread getting upset that this title has a lossless track? If you are going to pay $27+ for a movie that costs $10+ more than the DVD version, it better have more than just better PQ. Why would you not want lossless?

Spot on

Nevermind, I see you are probably too childish to look at things scientifically. I hope for your sake Warner doesn't go BD exclusive.

Seems all the under current says WB goes HD DVD exclusive. Hell - they are 1/3 of they way there already!

I'm betting that's false info and will be rectified soonish.

Lee I think you're missing the obvious irony that this represents the first major HD DVD release to use LPCM - a standard that HD DVD fans have derided as wasteful and archaic now for months. Believe me this thread doesn't exist because DobyBlue himself thinks poorly of PCM, just because it's odd to see Paramount doing it, when you would expect HD DVD exclusivity to almost automatically be accompanied by TrueHD, if lossless at all.

Thank you - I thought it would be as obvious as a swift hard kick in the bollocks with 18-hole steel-toe Doc Martens.

:rolleyes:

Lee I think you're missing the obvious irony that this represents the first major HD DVD release to use LPCM - a standard that HD DVD fans have derided as wasteful and archaic now for months. Believe me this thread doesn't exist because DobyBlue himself thinks poorly of PCM, just because it's odd to see Paramount doing it, when you would expect HD DVD exclusivity to almost automatically be accompanied by TrueHD, if lossless at all.
I don't think HD fans have characterized LPCM as wasteful and archaic as much as disputed BD fans saying that it is essential and only BD can do it. Spec-driven fandom

For all you "no lossless - it stinks" snobs . . how many people in the USA today have lossless systems? 10,000? 20,000?

If you believe this is the measure of the movie - then you better have a 120"+ FPTV to go with that AQ or else you have a fancy audio system and a TV set?

Got it?

Doby, your argument doesn't make much sense.

The truth is PCM wastes space. This is true on both formats.

DD+ can sound incredible if done correctly and the same can be said of any codec! You are going to see allot more PCM I believe in both formats due to ZERO cost to license. Its unfortunate, but that is the world we live in.

Upset? No.
Perplexed? Yes. You don't need PCM for lossless.

It is cheaper though is it not?
Here is satire:
Hey BD fans . .. no more Paramount or Dreamworks titles for you!
But those out now will become collector items so buy them before they are gone forever!

Wow, you sure have an uncanny grasp of satire.

I gotta tell you I am getting more impressed with HD DVD every day. I may switch my allegiances.

I have to assume that was said in jest?


Maybe this is the big Beatboy news!

For all you "no lossless - it stinks" snobs . . how many people in the USA today have lossless systems? 10,000? 20,000?
If you believe this is the measure of the movie - then you better have a 120"+ FPTV to go with that AQ or else you have a fancy audio system and a TV set?
Got it?

How many people in the USA have bought receivers over the last 7 years?
Most of them have analog RCA inputs.
Doby, your argument doesn't make much sense.
The truth is PCM wastes space. This is true on both formats.

It's not an argument. Again, whether it be PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA is fine by me.

Please stick to the science. LPCM is a perfectly fine choice for BD but a terrible choice for HD DVD. TrueHd or DTS-MA are the only choices for HD DVD.

Disney have used 24-bit PCM numerous times. Look at their overall SQ rating - they are #1, surprise, surprise.

Do we know if they are actually 24 bit, or just transporting 16 or 20 bit program content? As if you could hear the difference anyway :rolleyes:

Edit: BTW, I've seen reviewers give higher SQ ratings simply because a disk carried LPCM, not because they said it sounded better.

How many people in the USA have bought receivers over the last 7 years?
Most of them have analog RCA inputs.


It's not an argument. Again, whether it be PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA is fine by me.

Lol, the argument from HD DVD extremists always shifts to "Joe six pack" and what he wants.. Like we are are here for what "Joe six pack" wants:rolleyes:

I'm not here for iTunes and DVD's, I'm here for the absolute best which is why I'm very enthusiastic when I find a title is getting a lossless track and bummed when a title doesn't have a lossless track.

DD+ can sound incredible if done correctly and the same can be said of any codec! You are going to see allot more PCM I believe in both formats due to ZERO cost to license. Its unfortunate, but that is the world we live in.

It is not unfortunate for Blu-ray supporters.
You can have a 24/48 7.1 PCM track with the mandatory DD track and still have 38 Mbps left over for the video encode.

How many people in the USA have bought receivers over the last 7 years?
Most of them have analog RCA inputs.


It's not an argument. Again, whether it be PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA is fine by me.

And how many own BD SAL's? Cause we ALL know the PS3 has NO analog outs!

If you don't want J6P to get involved in HDM then you absolutely guarantee the future of HDM . . . .

HDM = Laserdisc Part 2

Do we know if they are actually 24 bit, or just transporting 16 or 20 bit program content? As if you could hear the difference anyway :rolleyes:

So you can't hear the difference between a CD and a DVD-Audio disc?
I feel for you.

You should be able to tell from the bitrate whether it was a 16-bit source or 24-bit source if using TrueHD or DTS-MA.

For example Spidey 1 is a 16-bit master, Spidey 2 and 3 are 24-bit masters.

They all will have trueHD 24/48 on them but the Spidey 1 bitrate will be that of a 16/48 track and 2 and 3 will be higher.

It's sad when someone has to try and bash the silliest of things because they're feeling a bit insecure.

My ignore list is getting some attention. And no I don't block people who disagree with me, I block attention whores.

Lol, the argument from HD DVD extremists always shifts to "Joe six pack" and what he wants.. Like we are are here for what "Joe six pack" wants:rolleyes:


And that sums up exactly the problem that the BDA and it's worker ants just don't seem to grasp. Thank you for helping make it very clear Brian.

And that sums up exactly the problem that the BDA and it's worker ants just don't seem to grasp. Thank you for helping make it very clear Brian.

Hey if you want DVD, iTunes and crappy crompressed HD lite videos from the Live marketplace your more than welcome to continue down that path. I have no problem with that.

Personally I very much enjoy experiencing much better in my home and I'm thankful for BDA delivering what I want :D I only wish MS would have gone down a similar path.

It's sad when someone has to try and bash the silliest of things because they're feeling a bit insecure.

My ignore list is getting some attention. And no I don't block people who disagree with me, I block attention whores.

Based on one thread - go ahead then Lee Harvey, pull the plug.

:rolleyes:

Why are HD DVD owners on this thread getting upset that this title has a lossless track? If you are going to pay $27+ for a movie that costs $10+ more than the DVD version, it better have more than just better PQ. Why would you not want lossless?
Exactly. What if they're already done with this title, and now it is released with the specs it would have been on BD.

By the way: you could have 4 different LPCM tracks on a HD DVD, as long as they fit in 30Gig. The maximum bitrate only has to be balanced between the video and ONE audio track at a time.

Obviously, this title leaves enough room in terms of space and bitrate for LPCM and great (hopefully) PQ.

If you don't want J6P to get involved in HDM then you absolutely guarantee the future of HDM . . . .

HDM = Laserdisc Part 2

Lee,

J6P does not care about HDM right now. Why should he? The cheapest HD DVD players costs $150-200 more than the cheapest upconverting DVD player. HD movies cost considerably more ($15+ on average). And then there is the studio support issue. J6P is not going to buy into something at a premium and then not even be able to watch the huge day and date blockbusters because he bought "the other format". This logic applies to both formats.

Both formats are destined to be niche as long as there are two competing formats with exclusive content and the high price tags (players and meida).

That said, the studios better give us top notch PQ/AQ if they want to survive even as niche formats. As long as things stay the way they are now (two competing formats) then I can guarantee you only people on forums like this really care and since this is AVS, I hope that all of us are fighting for lossless on both formats.

Lee,

J6P does not care about HDM right now. Why should he? The cheapest HD DVD players costs $150-200 more than the cheapest upconverting DVD player. HD movies cost considerably more ($15+ on average). And then there is the studio support issue. J6P is not going to buy into something at a premium and then not even be able to watch the huge day and date blockbusters because he bought "the other format". This logic applies to both formats.

Both formats are destined to be niche as long as there are two competing formats with exclusive content and the high price tags (players and meida).

That said, the studios better give us top notch PQ/AQ if they want to survive even as niche formats. As long as things stay the way they are now (two competing formats) then I can guarantee you only people on forums like this really care and since this is AVS, I hope that all of us are fighting for lossless on both formats.

But the studios do not want another LD. They want another DVD. This in itself is not going to happen either way. HDM will always be a niche format even if we started out as a single format. HDM is nothing more than an upgrade to DVD. An upgrade that many will live without because . . . .

"DVD is good enough."

Please stick to the science. LPCM is a perfectly fine choice for BD but a terrible choice for HD DVD. TrueHd or DTS-MA are the only choices for HD DVD.
Why?

5.1ch LPCM @ 48kHz/24bit gives 6.75MBit/s (correct me if I made a mistake here)

You would have plenty of bandwidth left for the video encode.

EDIT: if I'm not completely wrong then they have 29.25MBit left for the video. Most of todays OTA transmissions receive less than half of that bandwith.

Paramount's first title annoucement since the big HD DVD exclusive coup on Monday is "A Might Heart" with Angelina Jolie.

The audio specs are as follows.

Audio Formats
English PCM 5.1 Surround
English Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1094/mightyheart.html

Interesting. It shows that it can be done on HD-DVD. Whether or not it means they should do this is a different matter. We won't know till the disc is released.

Good that Paramount is putting out quality audio with this one. LPCM absolutely rocks.


Indeed.

What compromises are they making to the video bitrate, though, what with the smaller ceiling for both audio, video, and combined and all that...



Personally I highly disagree as well as many other HD DVD and blu-ray owners. Though of course for many iTunes quality sound is good enough.

Right. I certainly don't want to be counted with the lowest common denominator.

But the studios do not want another LD. They want another DVD. This in itself is not going to happen either way. HDM will always be a niche format even if we started out as a single format. HDM is nothing more than an upgrade to DVD. An upgrade that many will live without because . . . .

"DVD is good enough."

Then I cannot understand how lossless is not incredibly important to HDM. Not only can you market it, it truly shows that HDM is vastly superior to DVD in both PQ and AQ. As you said yourself, unless you give people a reason to upgrade, they will not. In addition, the people who really care about audio and video will continue to carry these niche products for years to come. That is why lossless is important.

Come now Lee. I think you understand that on BD using LPCM does not affect video bitrate ceilings. Using LPCM on HD DVD dramatically affects video bitrate ceilings.

On BD you can have two LPCM tracks and still have considerably higher video bitrate ceilings than a HD DVD with standard DD.

Be fair please.

You're asking Mr. HD-DVD to be fair? LOL.. Your post rings true to those who know better..

Oh man, another spec whore fight.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Personally I very much enjoy experiencing much better in my home and I'm thankful for BDA delivering what I want :D I only wish MS would have gone down a similar path.

do make sure and send them a christmas card

Why?

5.1ch LPCM @ 48kHz/24bit gives 6.75MBit/s (correct me if I made a mistake here)

You would have plenty of bandwidth left for the video encode.

EDIT: if I'm not completely wrong then they have 29.25MBit left for the video. Most of todays OTA transmissions receive less than half of that bandwith.

29 Mbps is the maximum video rate on HD DVD.
30 Mbps is the total a/v stream

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6.912 Mbps
Mandatory DD = 640 Kbps


That leaves roughly 22.538 Mbps for peaks of the video encode.

do make sure and send them a christmas card


Hey my tail is back, I was starting to get worried :eek:

WTF is all I have to say. Amir is basically admitting HD DVD bandwidth is sometimes limiting. AQ=PQ.

DD+ is OK, but not even close to full rez lossless of any kind.
Good that Paramount is putting out quality audio with this one. LPCM absolutely rocks.
What I find funny is that most of you guys are talking about "DD+" without specifying which bitrate you mean. In the same way you're talking about "PCM" without specifying which bitdepth you mean. And these tiny little details can make a world of a difference. There's a dramatic difference between 640Kbps DD+ and 1.5Mbps DD+. The difference is bigger than between 1.5Mbps DD+ and 24bit PCM.

I suggest that you read the Industry Insiders Thread. FilmMixer (who seems to be quite neutral as far as I can say) sais that he prefers 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ over 16bit PCM. He sais there's a noticable difference between 16bit and 20bit, but not much of a difference between 20bit and 24bit. And he sais that at 1.5Mbps DD+ is very near to the (24bit) master in his opinion. And he's comparing these things daily in his work. So instead of just hyping PCM and playing down DD+ we should be a bit more careful with judging.

Btw, it's worth noting that a 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ is nearly as big as a 16bit TrueHD track in pure file size!

Of course 20bit (or 24bit) PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is audio nirvana. But 16bit PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is not (unless the master is only 16bit).

29 Mbps is the maximum video rate on HD DVD.
30 Mbps is the total a/v stream

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6.912 Mbps
Mandatory DD = 640 Kbps


That leaves roughly 22.538 Mbps for peaks of the video encode.
Again, I might be wrong:

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6912 kilobit per second / 1024 = 6.75 Megabit per second

You don't listen to both audio tracks at the very same time, so we end up at 30-6.75=23.25 Mbps. Tell me where I'm wrong with the numbers.

PCM is wasteful theres no reason not to make it truehd and save some space.

It's only wasteful if your media lacks the space........

What I find funny is that most of you guys are talking about "DD+" without specifying which bitrate you mean. In the same way you're talking about "PCM" without specifying which bitdepth you mean. And these tiny little details can make a world of a difference. There's a dramatic difference between 640Kbps DD+ and 1.5Mbps DD+. The difference is bigger than between 1.5Mbps DD+ and 24bit PCM.

I suggest that you read the Industry Insiders Thread. FilmMixer (who seems to be quite neutral as far as I can say) sais that he prefers 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ over 16bit PCM. He sais there's a noticable difference between 16bit and 20bit, but not much of a difference between 20bit and 24bit. And he sais that at 1.5Mbps DD+ is very near to the (24bit) master in his opinion. And he's comparing these things daily in his work. So instead of just hyping PCM and playing down DD+ we should be a bit more careful with judging.

Btw, it's worth noting that a 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ is nearly as big as a 16bit TrueHD track in pure file size!

Of course 20bit (or 24bit) PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is audio nirvana. But 16bit PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is not (unless the master is only 16bit).

Part of the problem with "spec wars" is comparisons get simplified to what fits best in sound bites or on back of box labels and press releases. With so many variables affecting the real sound quality, descriptions get dumbed down & details of the actual quality get lost under buzzwords...

It's only wasteful if your media lacks the space........

obvously HD DVD doesnt lack the space........

obvously HD DVD doesnt lack the space........

WOW? :eek:

Again, I might be wrong:

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6912 kilobit per second / 1024 = 6.75 Megabit per second

You don't listen to both audio tracks at the very same time, so we end up at 30-6.75=23.25 Mbps. Tell me where I'm wrong with the numbers.

all tracks are running ALL THE TIME on the fly......... so you have to add all tracsk video and audio or to add IME if it is there....

so even if you are not listening to other track or watching IME, you are runing all of them together..

Marek

You guys should read Amir's recent comments in the Insider's thread, where he is basically saying lossless isn't necessary and DD+ is good enough.

You decide if you agree or not.


That's utter crap.

Again, I might be wrong:

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6912 kilobit per second / 1024 = 6.75 Megabit per second

You don't listen to both audio tracks at the very same time, so we end up at 30-6.75=23.25 Mbps. Tell me where I'm wrong with the numbers.

No, you're right, my bad, but you still have to include DD.
24/48 5.1 PCM = 6912 kilobit per second + DD / 1024 = 7.735 Megabit per second
30-7.735 = 22.265 Mbps.

So it has 0.273 Mbps more bandwidth than I originally calculated.

:)

I don't have an HDMI AVR, and don't plan to upgrade anytime soon... so I hope this doesn't become a trend

HD DVD = TrueHD

That's utter crap.

Then he turns around and says anything other than lossless on Amadeus and he would be more upset than anyone else here.

:rolleyes:

That's utter crap.
This is utter crap

It's only wasteful if your media lacks the space........
Such as BD25's?

Yes. That's why they have BD50s as an option. No DD+ on Blu Ray.

Then he turns around and says anything other than lossless on Amadeus and he would be more upset than anyone else here.

:rolleyes:

lol, I just went to the insider thread because I had to read it for myself. Hah, I love how people are calling out his double talk on it as well. My favorite part:

Originally Posted by amirm
....
"I am more hardcore than just about anyone here."

lmfao, yeah right..

Such as BD25's?

Vacancy - 85 minutes

PCM 5.1 = 4.5 Mbps + DD = 5.125 Mbps
High bit rate AVC encode of 30 Mbps
BD25 = 25600 MB
35.125 Mbps = 4.39 MBps
25600 / 4.39 Mbps = 5831 seconds = 97 minutes

Looks like BD25's have their place after all.

:rolleyes:

lol, I just went to the insider thread because I had to read it for myself. Hah, I love how people are calling out his double talk on it as well. My favorite part:



lmfao, yeah right..

More hardcore......but at what? That is the question.

Lossless audio is something that J6P won't be able to hear as he has $200-300 HTiB that most likely is setup wrong and has never been calibrated.

I notice that the High-Def Digest blurb still says TBA for the video codec.

And why why why include DD+ 5.1 if there is also a LPCM 5.1 track? How does the HD DVD spec require a DD+ track since it also mandates that LPCM must be able to be used by all players? This seems to be nonsense.

Film is 100 minutes at 2.35 aspect ratio per IMDB. A lot of room left over for other than the video on a HD30.
Edit: I notice the High-Def Digest also lists the aspect ratio at 1.85 -- what's with that?

More hardcore......but at what? That is the question.

oops, should have put the entire quote, it was about the lossless audio and Amedeus. Anybody who's read previous posts from him knows that he is contradicting himself. Which posts were he being honest with, who knows. Perhaps he was just defending his company's product (360/HD DVD add-on combo) and the short sited decision to not have lossless surround capabilities.

Originally Posted by amirm
.
.
.
While I am typing this, let me say that for anything musical, I want full fidelity lossless audio, period. FilmMixer talked about Amadeus. This is one of my all time favorite movies. If such a movie doesn’t have lossless audio of the highest fidelity, I would be royally upset. For content where the audio is the central score, and musical, I am more hardcore than just about anyone here.

Yes. That's why they have BD50s as an option. No DD+ on Blu Ray.

Maybe because DD+ is only up to 1.7 Mbps? Or that it is optional on BD?

From the Dolby Labs Website:


Dolby Digital Plus
Audio that completes the high-definition picture.

Dolby® Digital Plus is the next-generation audio technology for all high-definition programming and media. It combines the efficiency to meet future broadcast demands with the power and flexibility to realize the full audio potential of the upcoming high-definition experience. Built on Dolby Digital, the multichannel audio standard for DVD and HD broadcasts worldwide, Dolby Digital Plus was designed for the delivery formats of the future, but remains fully compatible with all current A/V receivers. With Dolby Digital Plus, you get even higher quality audio, more channels, and greater flexibility. Amaze your ears.

Features

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

Benefits

Can deliver 7.1 channels and beyond* of enhanced-quality audio at up to 6 Mbps.
Allows multiple languages to be carried in a single bitstream.
Offers audio professionals new creative power and freedom.
Compatible with the millions of home entertainment systems equipped with Dolby Digital.
No latency or loss of quality in the conversion process.
Maintains high quality at more efficient broadcast bit rates (200 kbps for 5.1-channel audio).
Selected by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) as the standard for future broadcast applications; named as an option by the Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB) Project for satellite and cable TV.
Selected as the mandatory audio format for HD DVD and as an optional audio format for the Blu-ray Disc.

No, you're right, my bad, but you still have to include DD.
24/48 5.1 PCM = 6912 kilobit per second + DD / 1024 = 7.735 Megabit per second
30-7.735 = 22.265 Mbps.

So it has 0.273 Mbps more bandwidth than I originally calculated.

:)
:) I think I'm still incorrect. In computer science the term "kilo" already stands for 1024 bit (not 1000, as we're in a different numbering space), and the "mega" for 1024 kilo. So 6*24*48,000=6,912,000/1024=6,750kbps/1024=6.59Mbps

However, we end up around 22Mbps for video.

I stand corrected that the combined stream of all audio and video tracks have to be read by the drive at a time, so more audio tracks come at the cost of video bitrate. Thanks for helping me to get that straight.

29 Mbps is the maximum video rate on HD DVD.
30 Mbps is the total a/v stream

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6.912 Mbps
Mandatory DD = 640 Kbps


That leaves roughly 22.538 Mbps for peaks of the video encode.

Blu-Ray folks on average seem to know their math a little better than most ;)

Here is satire:

Hey BD fans . .. no more Paramount or Dreamworks titles for you!

But those out now will become collector items so buy them before they are gone forever!

I think they are. Check out the eProduct War site. Quite a few Paramount and Dreamworks titles in in BD in their listings.

I just find it ironic that there can be multi-page debate about specs on an HD DVD title (remember you debating "A Mighty Heart") that will be lucky to sell 5,000 copies.

fitprod

What a waste of space using PCM!!!

What are they thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!



Agreed. They should use a Dolby TrueHD track to save space and bandwidth and offer a PiP commentary

But, but but, 30 GB is not enough for PCM! :p


Can't wait to see how they get PCM to fit on LOTR. Oh, that's right, VC-1 is perceptually lossless at whatever bitrate is available for an HD-DVD encode.

Can't wait to see how they get PCM to fit on LOTR. Oh, that's right, VC-1 is perceptually lossless at whatever bitrate is available for an HD-DVD encode.

Have you seen the superior version of 300 yet? You know, the feature packed HD DVD version? 2 hour movie with TrueHD, then about 3 hours of HD extras. Damn, 30GB isn't enough!

Can't wait to see how they get PCM to fit on LOTR. Oh, that's right, VC-1 is perceptually lossless at whatever bitrate is available for an HD-DVD encode.

The beauty of it is that they don't have to use PCM. EVERY HD DVD player can decode TrueHD. Since BD doesn't have that little aside they must rely on PCM to give everyone a lossless track

But, but but, 30 GB is not enough for PCM! :p

Laugh it up, but this is not great news. BD25s with a PCM track usually get a lower PQ score than a BD50 with PCM.

30gb is not enough.

The beauty of it is that they don't have to use PCM. EVERY HD DVD player can decode TrueHD. Since BD doesn't have that little aside they must rely on PCM to give everyone a lossless track

Speaking of which Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 2 only have TrueHD, no PCM... so what about all the players with no TrueHD support?

Sony also heard the pleas of the Blu-Ray fanboys on this site who constantly scream "We really hate hate hate special features!!! We hate hate hate them and don't want them!!!!" So there are no special features included on the Blu-Ray versions of Spider-Man 1 and 2. Although Spider-Man 3 still has special features so Sony still isn't giving Blu-Ray owners everything they want.

Debate the merits of the formats all you want, but it's evident HD DVD doesn't have the bandwidth to really support top notch PQ with a LPCM track.

They should just reencode the track to TrueHD and be done with it. This gives you a higher video bitrate ceiling and doesn't necessarily compromise on the audio.

It's a stupid decision no matter how you feel about either format.

What is stupid is all of the ignorant people who think LPCM is better than lossless audio.

TrueHD = LPCM

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a PS3 fanboy.

Paramount's first title annoucement since the big HD DVD exclusive coup on Monday is "A Might Heart" with Angelina Jolie.

The audio specs are as follows.

Audio Formats
English PCM 5.1 Surround
English Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1094/mightyheart.html

PCM on a HD-DVD? I'm all for it. As long as the picture is superb. That's most important. The DD+ on King Kong sounds great to me. So I could deal with DD+,if mixed right!

HD DVD - is there anything it can't do? :D

TrueHD = LPCM

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a PS3 fanboy.

QFT.

It doesn't change the fact that if this release has a LPCM track it's still a moronic move. The only reason I could see it is that it was originally slated for a BD release and was quickly ported to HD DVD. I certainly hope it doesn't become the norm for Paramount's HD DVD releases.

And to the other post, DD+ sounds nothing like a TrueHD or LPCM track. It might sound good, but it's sorely lacking compared to lossless.

The only reason I could see it is that it was originally slated for a BD release and was quickly ported to HD DVD.
I'm pretty sure someone in PR futzed up. They probably used the Word document for the Blu-ray release as a template and forgot to correct the audio specs before sending the info out to websites.

QFT.

It doesn't change the fact that if this release has a LPCM track it's still a moronic move. The only reason I could see it is that it was originally slated for a BD release and was quickly ported to HD DVD. I certainly hope it doesn't become the norm for Paramount's HD DVD releases.

And to the other post, DD+ sounds nothing like a TrueHD or LPCM track. It might sound good, but it's sorely lacking compared to lossless.

What about in the case cited below such as 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ and 16bit PCM?

What I find funny is that most of you guys are talking about "DD+" without specifying which bitrate you mean. In the same way you're talking about "PCM" without specifying which bitdepth you mean. And these tiny little details can make a world of a difference. There's a dramatic difference between 640Kbps DD+ and 1.5Mbps DD+. The difference is bigger than between 1.5Mbps DD+ and 24bit PCM.

I suggest that you read the Industry Insiders Thread. FilmMixer (who seems to be quite neutral as far as I can say) sais that he prefers 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ over 16bit PCM. He sais there's a noticable difference between 16bit and 20bit, but not much of a difference between 20bit and 24bit. And he sais that at 1.5Mbps DD+ is very near to the (24bit) master in his opinion. And he's comparing these things daily in his work. So instead of just hyping PCM and playing down DD+ we should be a bit more careful with judging.

Btw, it's worth noting that a 1.5Mbps 24bit DD+ is nearly as big as a 16bit TrueHD track in pure file size!

Of course 20bit (or 24bit) PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is audio nirvana. But 16bit PCM/TrueHD/DTS Master Audio is not (unless the master is only 16bit).

TrueHD = LPCM

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a PS3 fanboy.

Depends if the TrueHD track uses DialogNorm...if it does I would disagree

What is stupid is all of the ignorant people who think LPCM is better than lossless audio.

fanboys, nothing more.

Depends if the TrueHD track uses DialogNorm...if it does I would disagree

Dialog Normalization is part of the specs for DTHD. Don't know if you can turn it off or not.

Under Benefits:

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD.html

Yes, you can turn it off thanks be to God.

madshi - I was referring to full rez lossless. I think I mentioned that.
many others - All audio tracks contribute to the bandwidth on both formats unfortunately.

...All audio tracks contribute to the bandwidth on both formats unfortunately.

Exactly why TrueHD should be used imo.

TrueHD
5.1 16/48 is 1.4 mbps ABR (3 mbps peak)
5.1 24/48 is 3.4 mbps ABR (5 mbps peak)

PCM
5.1 16/48 is 4.6 mbps CBR
5.1 24/48 is 6.9 mbps CBR

A 24 bit TrueHD track uses less space and peaks just a tad above the bit rate of a 16 bit PCM track. So why not use advanced codecs all the time? It frees up space, bandwidth, all HD DVD players support it. It just seems like a win-win

Debate the merits of the formats all you want, but it's evident HD DVD doesn't have the bandwidth to really support top notch PQ with a LPCM track.

They should just reencode the track to TrueHD and be done with it. This gives you a higher video bitrate ceiling and doesn't necessarily compromise on the audio.

It's a stupid decision no matter how you feel about either format.

Let's see how the disc looks and sounds before we pass judgment.

TrueHD
5.1 16/48 is 1.4 mbps ABR (3 mbps peak)
5.1 24/48 is 3.4 mbps ABR (5 mbps peak)

PCM
5.1 16/48 is 4.6 mbps CBR
5.1 24/48 is 6.9 mbps CBR

A 24 bit TrueHD track uses less space and peaks just a tad above the bit rate of a 16 bit PCM track. So why not use advanced codecs all the time?

...because there is a licensing cost involved if you choose TrueHD. If the best it can save you is a "whopping" 3.2-3.5 Mb/s (worst case: 1.6-1.9 Mb/s w/o dynamic muxing with the video stream), might as well just go with "free" pcm. The only time TrueHD would really come into play is if you are absolutely in need of that last Mb/s of bandwidth or are filling the disc to the very last GB of capacity. If you are really at the limit of the spec, what little you could save from not using pcm is really not enough to make a worthwhile difference in pq, anyway. So what you are left is if you happen to want to pile on multiple lossless or lossy audio tracks to burn off any remaining unused bandwidth.

Barring that, if you still have a surplus of bandwidth and/or capacity after adding all of the features, pcm is the naturally cost-effective lossless option.

WTF is all I have to say. Amir is basically admitting HD DVD bandwidth is sometimes limiting. AQ=PQ.

DD+ is OK, but not even close to full rez lossless of any kind.

If people with the power to help choose the direction a format traverses have opinions like this, it is a sad day for HDM. :(


Do you have links to any double-blind test's which prove that statement? I'd be very interested in reading about them.

oops, should have put the entire quote, it was about the lossless audio and Amedeus. Anybody who's read previous posts from him knows that he is contradicting himself. Which posts were he being honest with, who knows. Perhaps he was just defending his company's product (360/HD DVD add-on combo) and the short sited decision to not have lossless surround capabilities.


I wouldn't say that really. To the best of my knowledge, Amir has always maintained that DD+ or TrueHD encodes will be more than sufficient for HD DVD. Then again, he's always maintained that he doesn't focus as much on SQ for a typical movie soundtrack. He's posted several times about listening to high-res audio and being particular in that regard.

As for PCM on the Paramount disks, ahh, I could care less. Whatever works for them. I'd just as soon they use the best LPCM codecs available because I doubt very few of you, or myself, could distinguish PCM from LPCM in a DBT. At least that's what my university background in Psychometrics tells me. Of course that's just my guess, riddled with bias of course. ;)

Wow HD DVD, what are you trying to do. First you stole BD 'exclusive' term and now PCM tracks? what next? "superior storage" with 51GB Disks ?

I just find it ironic that there can be multi-page debate about specs on an HD DVD title (remember you debating "A Mighty Heart") that will be lucky to sell 5,000 copies.

fitprod

The film flopped at the box-office* but it got great reviews. I can see A MIGHTY HEART being one of those movies that finds its audience on home video and does really well there.

Vincent

* Releasing a film like this during the summer season was a bad, bad idea, "counter programming" be damned.

29 Mbps is the maximum video rate on HD DVD.
30 Mbps is the total a/v stream

24/48 5.1 PCM = 6.912 Mbps
Mandatory DD = 640 Kbps

That leaves roughly 22.538 Mbps for peaks of the video encode.

Minor nitpick -- As long as there is 1 primary soundtrack in either DTS, DD, or PCM, then a standalone DD track isn't mandatory. This is true for both Bluray and HD-DVD. And HD-DVD's max-bitrate is 448 Kbps for AC-3. Anything higher (like 640Kbps) on HD-DVD forces the use of DD+, due to frame-size limitations of the logical sector format.

In theory, an HD-DVD could be released with only 1 soundtrack, TrueHD. And a Bluray coud be released with only 1 soundtrack, PCM. But in practice, every TrueHD HD-DVD movie has been released with a secondary DD+ 5.1 audiotrack, and every nearly every LPCM Bluray movie has been released with a secondary DD 5.1 audiotrack.

Hmm...so I contradicted you, only to subsequently contradict my own argument. Oh well...

Both formats are compromises in different ways. For lossy-audio, Bluray's de-facto standard audio (640Kbps AC-3) delivers the best compromise between compatibility with legacy A/V receivers, and high audio-quality. (I guess you could argue DTS 1.5Mbps delivers better quality with almost the same level of compatibility across legacy A/V receivers, but few HD-DVDs/Bluray discs use DTS.)

For lossless-audio, Bluray has delivered many more movies with losless audio in the form of LPCM. But on Sony's early 25GB titles (MPEG-2, 16/48 LPCM), one has to wonder if the extra required storage (not bandwidth) adversely affected picture-quality.

HD-DVD has the potential to deliver better lossy audio, if every non-TrueHD movie would step up to 1.5Mbps DD+. But fewer people can hear it in native-form without some kind of in-player conversion to DD/640 or DTS/1.5.

HD-DVD has the potential to deliver lossless-audio (thanks to TrueHD being a mandatory codec in players), but the scarce # of HD-DVD discs with any form of lossless-audio leads me to believe encoding-tech will need to improve further, or the studios need to see *real* market-demand (not just 5 people on avsforum ...) before they make issue it regularly.

...because there is a licensing cost involved if you choose TrueHD.

Do you mean the studio (publisher) pays a per-disc royalty to use TrueHD? I thought Roger Dressler commented on this, but I can't remember or find his comment.

I do recall Roger stated he felt DD+ 5.1 @ 768Kbps-1Mbps was 'more than enough', and DD+ 1.5Mbps was beyond diminshing returns.

Exactly why TrueHD should be used imo.

TrueHD
5.1 16/48 is 1.4 mbps ABR (3 mbps peak)
5.1 24/48 is 3.4 mbps ABR (5 mbps peak)

PCM
5.1 16/48 is 4.6 mbps CBR
5.1 24/48 is 6.9 mbps CBR

A 24 bit TrueHD track uses less space and peaks just a tad above the bit rate of a 16 bit PCM track. So why not use advanced codecs all the time? It frees up space, bandwidth, all HD DVD players support it. It just seems like a win-win

Because if we do what you suggest how on earth will these BD fanboys spend thier time?;)

The same thing that the BDA studios are thinking:

Perfect Stranger

Delta Farce

Remember the Titans: Director's Cut

ALL PCM AUDIO.

It's so easy to shoot you down blu . . . it really is!

You just don't get it Lee!!!!:p:eek:


:D

Originally Posted by Vincent Pereia
I can see A MIGHTY HEART being one of those movies that finds its audience on home video and does really well there.

I'm sure this film will do well in the rental market, but does it really scream "BUY ME!" ? Not really, and marginal DVD releases have not done well sales wise in High Def for either format. (I meant 5,000 for the HD DVD sales if there's any confusion.)

fitprod

HD DVD snagged two studios from BD and now it's taking away BD's claim to PCM soundtracks :)

Still - I agree that TruHD or DTS HD MA are the way to go.

I am guessing that this is a one-off and that they will generally use lossless compression for future titles.

Wow HD DVD, what are you trying to do. First you stole BD 'exclusive' term and now PCM tracks? what next? "superior storage" with 51GB Disks ?

If HD DVD added 51GB disks, matched BD's bandwidth and added mandatory hard-coating I'd say drop BD immediately and go with HD DVD exclusively. Unless that happens I prefer two formats indefinitely.

Minor nitpick -- As long as there is 1 primary soundtrack in either DTS, DD, or PCM, then a standalone DD track isn't mandatory. This is true for both Bluray and HD-DVD. And HD-DVD's max-bitrate is 448 Kbps for AC-3. Anything higher (like 640Kbps) on HD-DVD forces the use of DD+, due to frame-size limitations of the logical sector format.

In theory, an HD-DVD could be released with only 1 soundtrack, TrueHD. And a Bluray coud be released with only 1 soundtrack, PCM. But in practice, every TrueHD HD-DVD movie has been released with a secondary DD+ 5.1 audiotrack, and every nearly every LPCM Bluray movie has been released with a secondary DD 5.1 audiotrack.

Hmm...so I contradicted you, only to subsequently contradict my own argument. Oh well...

Both formats are compromises in different ways. For lossy-audio, Bluray's de-facto standard audio (640Kbps AC-3) delivers the best compromise between compatibility with legacy A/V receivers, and high audio-quality. (I guess you could argue DTS 1.5Mbps delivers better quality with almost the same level of compatibility across legacy A/V receivers, but few HD-DVDs/Bluray discs use DTS.)

For lossless-audio, Bluray has delivered many more movies with losless audio in the form of LPCM. But on Sony's early 25GB titles (MPEG-2, 16/48 LPCM), one has to wonder if the extra required storage (not bandwidth) adversely affected picture-quality.

HD-DVD has the potential to deliver better lossy audio, if every non-TrueHD movie would step up to 1.5Mbps DD+. But fewer people can hear it in native-form without some kind of in-player conversion to DD/640 or DTS/1.5.

HD-DVD has the potential to deliver lossless-audio (thanks to TrueHD being a mandatory codec in players), but the scarce # of HD-DVD discs with any form of lossless-audio leads me to believe encoding-tech will need to improve further, or the studios need to see *real* market-demand (not just 5 people on avsforum ...) before they make issue it regularly.



Do you mean the studio (publisher) pays a per-disc royalty to use TrueHD? I thought Roger Dressler commented on this, but I can't remember or find his comment.

I do recall Roger stated he felt DD+ 5.1 @ 768Kbps-1Mbps was 'more than enough', and DD+ 1.5Mbps was beyond diminshing returns.

I thought a Dolby True HD track HAD to be accompanyied by a Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital+ track? Due to no backwards compatibility between Dolby True HD and Dolby Digital(+)? Unlike DTS-HD MA, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is the most efficient audio codec (uncompatible equipment just playing back the 'core' track)?
Maybe the basis for all these arguments regarding audio formats is that a single commom format couldn't be aggreed on? Hence we now have this multitude of audio formats which will only serve to confuse J6P further? I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but surely the best approach would have been to use DTS-HD MA from the start? It IS the most efficient and compatible, isn't it? And yes I know equipment to playback this audio format isn't fully matured and available yet, but thats something WE should all be used to now?! lol WE are enthusiasts, at the cutting edge, and because we adopt early, we see the evolution of this technology. I dont think my first DVD player extracted the DTS track, and I remember having to get my Laserdisc player modified to output AC3! All these audio formats is gonna confuse the hell out of J6P!
Ok, rant over!:)
Steve.

Transformers being HDDVD exclusive didn't hurt me at all.

Missing out on A Mighty Heart? Surely did. :(

Angelina Jolie is amazing in it.

I thought a Dolby True HD track HAD to be accompanyied by a Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital+ track? Due to no backwards compatibility between Dolby True HD and Dolby Digital(+)? Unlike DTS-HD MA, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is the most efficient audio codec (uncompatible equipment just playing back the 'core' track)?

I don't know if TrueHD has to be accompanied by a DD or DD+ track (although every English TrueHD movie has a DD+ English audio track). All HD DVD players are mandated to decode Dolby TrueHD so compatibility isn't a problem. The XBox 360 HD DVD player transcodes TrueHD to either DD, DTS, or WMA Pro so that's not an issue either.

It's not mandated but seems to be the standard unfortunately.


edit - someone in the insider's thread stated DD+ is required.

You guys should read Amir's recent comments in the Insider's thread, where he is basically saying lossless isn't necessary and DD+ is good enough.

You decide if you agree or not.


For anyone outside of this forum DD+ is more than enough. If anyone thinks the general population cares at all about lossless/uncompressed audio look at the success of the Ipod.

For anyone outside of this forum DD+ is more than enough. If anyone thinks the general population cares at all about lossless/uncompressed audio look at the success of the Ipod.

But I'd argue that music and home theater are two different balls of wax.

In my HT, I can definately hear differences between lossy and lossless. Since on both formats we are being charged a premium, it would just makes sense from a value perspective to give premium features. Top tier PQ and Lossless audio for starters.

I don't know if TrueHD has to be accompanied by a DD or DD+ track (although every English TrueHD movie has a DD+ English audio track). All HD DVD players are mandated to decode Dolby TrueHD so compatibility isn't a problem. The XBox 360 HD DVD player transcodes TrueHD to either DD, DTS, or WMA Pro so that's not an issue either.

From Wikipedia: On Bluray, both DD+ and Dolby TrueHD are 'optional codecs.' For a title to use either, a Dolby AC-3 (DD) 5.1 primary audiotrack must accompany the them. In other words, if a Bluray movie uses either DD+ or Dolby TrueHD, then the same movie must also offer a DD 5.1 soundtrack. Furthermore, for primary-audio, DD+ can only be used to extend a 5.1 soundtrack to 6.1/7.1 channels. So for 5.1 audiotracks, no DD+ is allowed.

The mandatory AC-3 soundtrack ensures all Bluray players (including those that can't process DD+/TrueHD) can play Bluray movies with TrueHD. (They simply fallback to the AC-3 soundtrack.)

On HD-DVD, TrueHD and DD+ are both mandatory codecs. This means an HD-DVD movie can be encoded with just 1 TrueHD, or just 1 DD+ soundtrack. But there's a twist: the 'mandatory' part of (HD-DVD) TrueHD calls for a stereo (2.0) output. >2 channels is strictly optional! However, Dolby TrueHD decoders are all capable of downmixing a 5.1 (or more) TrueHD audiotrack to stereo.

Anyway, if you look at the specifications of released movies, every TrueHD HD-DVD has at least 1 DD+ audiotrack, and every LPCM Bluray has at least 1 DD audiotrack. So those 'paper-spec advantages' don't materialize in the real-world. (Sorry to repeat myself.)

That's the short of it. Once you bring in secondary (PiP)-audio, a new layer of complexity ensues. DD+ is only mandatory audio-codec for PiP-audio (for both Bluray Profile 1.1 and HD-DVD.) Regular DD isn't allowed. Interestingly, optional PiP-audio codecs include WMA-audio (how'd that get there?), MP3, and I think AAC-LC. This came out of a book I was reading at the bookstore http://www.amazon.com/High-Definition-DVD-Handbook-Mark-Johnson/dp/0071485856******pd_bbs_sr_1/002-2912622-5460812?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188001720&sr=1-1

It reminds me of early (dark) days of DVD. Almost every Region 1 DVD with an AC-3 5.1 audiotrack, also had a AC-3 2.0 (stereo) soundtrack. I forgot who (was it cjplay?), but an insider said the studios felt a separate encoded 2.0 track was necessary because player-based 5.1-downmixing introduced objectionable (audible) distortion. And of course, the laserdisc crowd relentlessly attacked DVDs for 'vastly inferior' (lossy compressed) stereo-audio.

Top tier PQ and Lossless audio for starters.

Agreed! This is supposed to be a premium performance format. The content needs to be robust enough to hold up to even moderate scrutiny, not just "looks ok from a passing glance on a 720p display".

On HD-DVD, TrueHD and DD+ are both mandatory codecs.as is also linear PCM on HD DVD. Per the OP, if the title has a 5.1 LPCM audio track, then why does it have to have the same language track also on DD+?

No benefit and no HD DVD spec requirement that I can tell. Just dumb.

But I'd argue that music and home theater are two different balls of wax.

In my HT, I can definately hear differences between lossy and lossless. Since on both formats we are being charged a premium, it would just makes sense from a value perspective to give premium features. Top tier PQ and Lossless audio for starters.


And for the people on this forum, such as yourself, you would be correct. I agree with everything you have said, lossless sounds incredible on my system as well. My only point was that most people (outside this forum) will not be able to hear the difference and will not care.

I would even go as far as to say, most of us would have a hard time telling the difference between DD+ and THD if we conducted a true level set double blind test.

I would even go as far as to say, most of us would have a hard time telling the difference between DD+ and THD if we conducted a true level set double blind test.
Much depends on the bitrate used for DD+ (640kbps vs 1.5mbps) and the bitdepth used for THD (16bit vs 24bit). Would we be able to hear a difference between 640kbps DD+ and 24bit THD? Probably. Would we be able to hear a difference between 1.5mbps DD+ and 16bit THD? Probably not. According to FilmMixer 1.5mbps DD+ (which is 24bit!) can even be superior to 16bit PCM/THD.

Unlike DTS-HD MA, which (correct me if I'm wrong) is the most efficient audio codec (uncompatible equipment just playing back the 'core' track)?

DTS-HD MA is much less efficient that TrueHD. MA includes a 1509kbps lossy core which acts as its bandwidth floor (the soundtrack will never take up less space than this, and may take up considerably more with the additional lossless extension data required). TrueHD, on the other hand, can drop well below an equivalent MA soundtrack's bandwidth floor, and without the need for even more data to actually remain lossless (in other words, the lossy core alone of a DTS-HD MA soundtrack will often take up more bandwidth than TrueHD running losslessly).