Is a Dolby Digital audio track "High Definition"?

With 5.1 discrete audio channels, Dolby Digital has been the standard audio format on all DVDs for a decade now. OTA HDTV broadcasts have DD. But for the next generation high definition discs, is DD still high definition?

Looking at my collection of BDs, there are a few titles that have DD as their best audio format. Personally I find it a bit disappointing that they can't even get a DTS audio track. I can understand why some of the older movies, like Bullitt or The Getaway, may not have a more modern audio track. When watching a more modern movie and the movie credits list DTS and other modern audio formats, but the best on the disc is DD, it makes me wonder "what were they thinking?" The MI trilogy, Flags of our Fathers, Phantom of the Opera, Babel, and Black Snake Moan are a few examples from my collection of movies that have at best DD when they could have had something better.

Might be a stupid question. But, I'm not much of an A/V tech person. Is there a big...or even a noticable difference between DD,DTS and the new lossless audio (forgot what it's called)?

My system is by no means top of the line. It supports DD and DTS and I don't think I can tell the difference. So, I'm not overly concerned about the audio portion of the disc as I am about the visual improvments.

Just wonder if there is a "real" difference.....just looking for that "pop" factor I guess.

Thanks

If it is under 1.5 mbps, it has no business being on an HD disc, in my opinion.

No offense, but people who claim that 640 kbps is "good enough" are incapable of understanding what dynamics and natural highs are.

BD DD is better than DVD DD, as on BD it is utilized to the max of the DD spec (640 IIRC), whereas in DVD the bitrate is lower at 448. BTW, I don't consider DD+ to be high def, either, unless it's bitrate is considerably higher.

24 bit 1.5 mbps DD+, 24 bit PCM, 24 bit TrueHD, 24 bit DTS HD MA are all "high definition"

Is there a definition for high definition audio in general?

High-Definition is an appropriate term for video...

For audio, "high-fidelity" would make more sense.

DD is last gen technology imo

DD+, TrueHD, DTS: HD, DTS: MA, PCM are High Definition(Resolution? Fidelity?). Of course higher bit rate for the lossy formats (DD+, DTS: HD) are needed for better sound.

BD DD is better than DVD DD, as on BD it is utilized to the max of the DD spec (640 IIRC), whereas in DVD the bitrate is lower at 448. BTW, I don't consider DD+ to be high def, either, unless it's bitrate is considerably higher.

http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/dolby_digital_plus.html (web site)

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

I'm surprised that their isn't a "Full HD" line of crap about the audio side of things as well...

"1080p is Full High Definition" - marketing crap. :D

Good question, maybe they should add audio to the war equation and further confuse and alienate consumers

I believe the question is . . . what are we trying to accomplish?

1. Are we trying to recreate what is available in a commerical movie theater?

2. Are we trying to outdo what is available in a commerical movie theater?

3. Are we trying to recreate what is available using the latest technology in a commerical movie theater?

There are approx 25,000 screens in the USA. Of those less than 1000 are Digital Cinema.

For #1 - the majority of soundtracks are DD5.1. We can easily recreate this in the home.

For #2 - Because 35mm film is being used DD5.1 is "Optical Digital" and may not be the absolute best way to present the soundtrack. So we now have Lossless Audio to go one step better.

For #3 - Digital Cinema is the only way a consumer can hear Lossless Audio, while watching a movie at a commerical movie theater, in the form of Dolby TrueHD. The Dolby website lists a few of the DC movies that use/used DTHD. So we can recreate not only audio but also the image, making Digital Cinema a reality for the HT enthusiast.

Just my read as I see it. Comments?

I have no idea what the hell "high definition" is in relation to audio but lossless is the only acceptable choice for anything whether it be TrueHD, DTS HD ME or PCM.

If DD is "high definition", than uncompressed PCM, DTS HD MA, and TrueHD are "beyond high definition"; especially since most HD DVD movies cannot carry "beyond high definition" audio tracks.
:0)

We don't have enough data to answer the question. It's far too easy for listeners to convince themselves they're hearing a significant difference, when they believe they should, based upon comparative specs on paper. The fact that individuals often find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish an extremely low bit-rate psycho-acoustical encoding from its' 16bit PCM source, is suggestive, as is the total absence of available comparative testing data relating to the newer codecs.

Is there a definition for high definition audio in general?


I would propose two potential definitions that are defensible from a technical standpoint:

1) High-Definition audio would be any lossless format greater than 48 kHz/16 bit. This is my preferred choice; I see no reason that this is not acceptable for movie soundtracks.

2) High-definition audio would be any compressed format that exceeds 114kb bandwidth per channel, or any uncompressed channel with a minimum of 48 kHz/16-bit resolution. Thus, for a 5.1 source, 684kb would be the minimum necessary bandwidth to be considered 'high-definition.' This number is not arbitrary; there was a study that showed that the majority of listeners could not discern the difference between lossy and lossless data when the lossy compression was done at rates greater than 228 kb for 2-channel audio (I believe this was done with MP3). It also is just above 640 Kb DD.

Thoughts?

I would propose two potential definitions that are defensible from a technical standpoint:

1) High-Definition audio would be any lossless format greater than 48 kHz/16 bit. This is my preferred choice; I see no reason that this is not acceptable for movie soundtracks.

2) High-definition audio would be any compressed format that exceeds 114kb bandwidth per channel, or any uncompressed channel with a minimum of 48 kHz/16-bit resolution. Thus, for a 5.1 source, 684kb would be the minimum necessary bandwidth to be considered 'high-definition.' This number is not arbitrary; there was a study that showed that the majority of listeners could not discern the difference between lossy and lossless data when the lossy compression was done at rates greater than 228 kb for 2-channel audio (I believe this was done with MP3). It also is just above 640 Kb DD.

Thoughts?

I would most certainly go with something along the lines of the first definition. For quite a while now, people use "high-res" audio to refer to hi-res DSD or MLP on SACD and DVD-A to differentiate that from 44.1/16 PCM on CD. To me, I would keep that same benchmark. Regular DD does not come close to this, and I would call it decidedly lo-res in comparison, as 44.1 PCM is very significantly better, let alone the high-res formats.

If it is under 1.5 mbps, it has no business being on an HD disc, in my opinion.

No offense, but people who claim that 640 kbps is "good enough" are incapable of understanding what dynamics and natural highs are.

Do you use crappy bass limited analogue or jitter riddled HDMI on your budget receiver?

If a sound track is lossy, wouldn't the very definition of lossy mean it is lacking details contained in the original source track? To even begin to be "high definition" a track would have to be lossless. Other criteria would have to be decided as well obviously.

If a sound track is lossy, wouldn't the very definition of lossy mean it is lacking details contained in the original source track?
Not necessarily. A detail that is imperceptible is not a detail - the very word intones the ability to perceive. It's the pin drop in the explosion metaphor - or, if a tree fell in the woods, and nobody was there to hear it, would it make a noise?

I would argue that a high-definition format would provide high s/n, flat full-spectrum multi-channel, and be double-blind indistinguishable from the source. Hell, DTS has claimed that for years. At some point, increasing definition provide no return - 48bit surely has a greater definition that 16 or 24 bit, but is it perceivable? In nearly all instances, I would argue... likely not.

MEC2

High def video isn't lossless, I'm not sure why audio should be. People get stuck on specs and forget about what matters which is the actual quality. Analgue from players or LPCM over HDMI aren't the great panacea people make them out to be.

Do you use crappy bass limited analogue or jitter riddled HDMI on your budget receiver?

If you did, then 640kbps is good enough for you. Anyone with a decent sound system will easily hear the difference between lossless audio and lossy audio (and that includes DTS core and DDplus)

If you did, then 640kbps is good enough for you. Anyone with a decent sound system will easily hear the difference between lossless audio and lossy audio (and that includes DTS core and DDplus)


You can hear the difference, but inaccurate bass or loads of jitter ruin any advantage. Hopefully when we get lossless audio bitstream and high processors that can support them and it will sound great until then it's just a very compromised solution.

Lossy DD, meaning DD or DD+ is NOT high Definition.

Dolby TrueHD is most definitely High Def.

Enough with Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus, I wish they would do away with them permanently and make TrueHD mandatory.

For those of you that still have laserdiscs, compare the PCM audio with the Dolby Digital on your DVDs, there is a HUGE difference.

For example in Jurasic Park, at the end where the helicopter flies towards the horizon, on laserdisc that score blows me away. On Dolby Digital on DVD, it sounds like it's coming out of a tin can. But most people wouldn't know any better because they have nothing better to compare it to.

Everything is relative to the older format, not absolute.

I'd have thought anything above SD DVD's specification would be reasonably called HD for video and high resolution for audio and the average person would accept that.

I'd have thought anything above SD DVD's specification would be reasonably called HD for video Yes


and high resolution for audio No

Another reason to stick with HD DVD...

Mandatory DD+ and TruHD. Let's not forget that DD+ can also do 96/24 at 5.1 and 7.1 - not bad.

But the DD specified for Bluray is "old-tyme" stuff. And Bluray cannot do DD+ at 5.1 - which no one mentions most of the time.

Another reason to stick with HD DVD.

I don't agree with that. Even though I am a strong HD-DVD supporter, I have to admit that one of the advantages of BR is that they appear to have better audio quality. I don't know if it's just an impression, but it seems that there are more BR titles with PCM than there are HD-DVD titles with TrueHD (I consider uncompressed PCM and TrueHD to be essentially identical in quality).

Another reason to stick with HD DVD...

Mandatory DD+ and TruHD. Let's not forget that DD+ can also do 96/24 at 5.1 and 7.1 - not bad.

But the DD specified for Bluray is "old-tyme" stuff. And Bluray cannot do DD+ at 5.1 - which no one mentions most of the time.


That mandatory 640k DD+ or DD on HD DVD or Blu-ray respectively are exactly the same.

It's only in the higher encoding ranges that DD+ allows that any difference is perceived. Most DD+ done on HD DVD (WB) are done at the encoding rates that DD is fully capable of.

Not to mention that Blu-ray exclusive studios have released more LPCM and lossless tracks than the HD DVD exclusive ones. ;) With WB realizing Blu-ray owners want lossless, too, with TrueHD tracks, if you want superior sound and you have a receiver capable of it, Blu-ray's where you've got a lot more chance to get lossless/LPCM tracks than HD DVD where DD+ lossy's still the norm.

PCM, DD-THD and DTS-MA are HD audio, anything less is simply uncvilized.

If you did, then 640kbps is good enough for you. Anyone with a decent sound system will easily hear the difference between lossless audio and lossy audio (and that includes DTS core and DDplus)
Anyone....except for a professional film re-recording mixer? :rolleyes:

There is a noticeable difference between 16 bit and 20 bit, and that is why I promote a high bit rate lossy 24 bit track over a truncated (properly dithered or not) 16 bit track.

I also believe that for 90% of the time during a track, lossless might be overkill, I can site alot of times where I think the difference between a lower bitrate encode and lossless/PCM will be audible.

What about a film like "Amadeus"? Or any other film with a live orchestral score (most films today)?

Most composers and music editors take great care in recording the music for a film, some even recording at 24/192.

And even though it goes through a mixing console and ends up manipulated, I can still hear the difference between these tracks at 16 and 24 bits (we don't even get the option of recording at 20 bit nowadays, so that is why we always refer to 24 bit, even though there is almost no audible difference between 20 and 24.)

I am not sure that if I played back a high rate lossy track against it's master without an A/B I would be able to tell the difference. But, that's not how I listen, and that is why I am so sensitive to the compromises that lossy can bring with it.. reduced imaging and a perceived reduction of "air" on the track. Every time we check a print of a film I mix, I can A/B the original PCM master, the DD, DTS, SDDS and SR optical tracks in real time.. so I am really in tune with what the differences are.

Even with that being said, I agree with most points made by Amir and Paid... and what Amir says about A/Bing a 1.5 DD+ 24 bit track and the PCM master is right.. It would be almost impossible to tell the difference....

Paid's response about Sony's comparison of PCM vs. lossy doesn't give enough information to know how they tested (i.e. 24 PCM vs. 640DD)... My guess is that is what they did, since DD+ and DTS-HD aren't mandatory BR codecs, so why would they compare PCM to DD+ or DTS at 1.5mbps? If they did compare PCM vs 640 DD, I would agree with his statement about there being a difference.

Most everyone I know feels that above 1.2kbps (what I always refer to as high bit rate lossy) is transparent to the master, but I do personally think DD+ at 640 sounds pretty respectable as well.. so where does that leave us? If you've got space, and can do PCM/True HD/DTS-HD MA, no harm, and I always want the best available given all of the other considerations involved.

But a high bit rate DD+ or DTS track will do fine..... people will finally be able to hear the differences in lossy vs lossless easily when they can decode DTS-HD MA and go between the lossy core on a SPDIF output and switch to the HDMI for DTS-HD MA... I think all of the moaning about not being able to decode MA will die off quickly.

But for those who want to do some research on their own, do the following if you can stream music to a decent sound system... Go into iTunes, and encode some really complex classical pieces with choir, strings or piano using 128, 256 and lossless using AAC.. compare them and see what you can and can't hear between the encodings, and then try it with some songs you know really well.. have someone start the tracks up and do your own blind A/B test.... it's a very ear opening experience.

IMHO, people get so hung up on specs and marketing, and don't have any kind of real world experience to know the difference between lossy and lossless/PCM, yet they want to argue endlessly about it... just because they can.

I don't think most here have ever seen a DI master, or a D5 or HDCAM SR of that output or a telecine, or an original negative print... but very few here can argue about the look of these when compressed with a lossy video codec, be it AVC, MPEG 2, or VC-1.... they look pretty fantastic.

For picture, lossy video encoding is good enough to be a very acceptable form of reproduction today for the home environment, even with the best tech that is available right now.... IMO, we are in the same boat with sound.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11393650&postcount=2609

Anyone....except for a professional film re-recording mixer? :rolleyes:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11393650&postcount=2609

This quote has been posted before, on at least one occasion when the topic of lossy vs. lossless came up. I'm amazed that so many people apparently ignore the undeniable effect of marketing/psychology when attempting to make comparative assessments of SQ. Guess what folks, no matter how counter-intuitive you might find the premise: DD+ really is high def.

What exactly are the audible differences between 16-bit and 24-bit, anyway? Does the decreased SNR have the same effect as compression?

What exactly are the audible differences between 16-bit and 24-bit, anyway? Does the decreased SNR have the same effect as compression?

Have you ever listened and compared 16bit CD to 24bit DVD-A ? It should be easy to spot the differences with well recorded music.

Have you ever listened and compared 16bit CD to 24bit DVD-A ? It should be easy to spot the differences with well recorded music.

It wouldn't be easy without very high quality equipment, in an acoustically treated environment, and resolving the full 24 bits would be effectively impossible without both. Of course, a double-blind procedure would be the only way to effectively remove psychological effects.

The more I think about this, the more I get ticked off. I will NOT buy another HD-DVD title that does not have TrueHD or uncompressed 5.1/7.1 PCM. Period.

Only lossless at recorded bit depths or better, be it TrueHD, DTS-MA or LPCM, should be on HDM. Everything else is rubbish.

Only lossless at recorded bit depths or better, be it TrueHD, DTS-MA or LPCM, should be on HDM. Everything else is rubbish.

Well, I'd bet that far less than 1% of consumers have audio systems that would notice the difference between DD+ and anything better. Heck, more than half of HDTV owners are listening to 2.0 sound from their TV set.

The number of folks spending more than $1000 combined on AVRs and 5.1/7.1 speakers is tiny. Tell me why the studios should care?

Well, I'd bet that far less than 1% of consumers have audio systems that would notice the difference between DD+ and anything better. Heck, more than half of HDTV owners are listening to 2.0 sound from their TV set.


Using that line of logic, HD-DVD and BR should not exist, because only a small percentage of homes have television sets where they can notice the PQ difference between HD and DVDs.

IMO audio quality is every bit as important as PQ, and we shouldn't settle for second best. BTW an audio receiver that can properly handle TrueHD and PCM costs less than $400.

The more I think about this, the more I get ticked off. I will NOT buy another HD-DVD title that does not have TrueHD or uncompressed 5.1/7.1 PCM. Period.

Only lossless at recorded bit depths or better, be it TrueHD, DTS-MA or LPCM, should be on HDM. Everything else is rubbish.

Did you even read FilmMixer's long discussion on compressed audio for movies? This is an expert who does comparisons as part of his professional work on quality equipment. Specs are fine for conversation, but the end result that you hear or see what's important. By your thinking, you shouldn't purchase discs with compressed video because compression certainly compromises the image, arguably much more than DD+ compromises the audio track.

Another reason to stick with HD DVD...

Mandatory DD+ and TruHD. Let's not forget that DD+ can also do 96/24 at 5.1 and 7.1 - not bad.

But the DD specified for Bluray is "old-tyme" stuff. And Bluray cannot do DD+ at 5.1 - which no one mentions most of the time.

There are over 3 times as many lossless tracks on Blu-ray as on HD DVD and most of Warner's releases use 640 Kbps Dolby Digital Plus when no TrueHD track exists, which is often.

24/96 PCM Chris Botti Live with Orchestra and Special Guests (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Apocalypto (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bridge to Terabithia (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Chicago (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live from Radio City Music Hall (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Dinosaur (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Enemy of the State (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Finding Neverland (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Glory Road (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks (Sony Music)
24-PCM Ladder 49 (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pearl Harbor (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Primeval (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Haunted Mansion (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Prestige (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Wild (Buena Vista)
PCM 300 (Warner)
PCM 50 First Dates (Sony)
PCM A Knight's Tale (Sony)
PCM All the King's Men (Sony)
PCM Annapolis (Buena Vista)
PCM Basic Instinct 2 (Sony)
PCM Big Fish (Sony)
PCM Black Hawk Down (Sony)
PCM Blood & Chocolate (Sony)
PCM Blood Diamond (Warner)
PCM Brothers Grimm (Buena Vista)
PCM Casanova (Buena Vista)
PCM Casino Royale (Sony)
PCM Catch & Release (Sony)
PCM Chicken Little (Buena Vista)
PCM Click (Sony)
PCM Closer (Sony)
PCM Crank (Lionsgate)
PCM Cruel Intentions (Sony)
PCM Curse of the Golden Flower (Sony)
PCM Daddy's Little Girls (Lionsgate)
PCM Dark Water (Buena Vista)
PCM Deja Vu (Buena Vista)
PCM Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta (Sony BMG)
PCM Dirty Dancing (20th Anniversary Edition) (Lionsgate)
PCM Donnie Brasco (Sony)
PCM Eight Below (Buena Vista)
PCM Flatliners (Sony)
PCM Flightplan (Buena Vista)
PCM G.I. Jane (Buena Vista)
PCM Ghost Rider (Sony)
PCM Goal! The Dream Begins (Buena Vista)
PCM Gridiron Gang (Sony)
PCM Happily N'Ever After (Lionsgate Entetainment)
PCM Hellboy (Sony)
PCM Hitch (Sony)
PCM House of Flying Daggers (Sony)
PCM Identity (Sony)
PCM IMAX: Blue Planet (Warner)
PCM IMAX: Roving Mars (Disney)
PCM Into the Blue (Sony)
PCM Invincible (Buena Vista)
PCM Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (Buena Vista)
PCM John Legend: Live at the House of Blues (Sony Music)
PCM King Arthur Director's Cut (Buena Vista)
PCM Kung Fu Hustle (Sony)
PCM Layer Cake (Sony)
PCM Little Man (Sony)
PCM Memento (Sony)
PCM Monster House (Sony)
PCM Open Season (Sony)
PCM Premonition (Sony)
PCM Reign of Fire (Buena Vista)
PCM Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season (Sony)
PCM Resident Evil: Apocalypse (Sony)
PCM Revenge (Sony)
PCM Rocky Balboa (Sony)
PCM Running With Scissors (Sony)
PCM RV (Sony)
PCM S.W.A.T. (Sony)
PCM Secret Window (Sony)
PCM Seven Years in Tibet (Sony)
PCM Silent Hill (Sony)
PCM Sky High (Buena Vista)
PCM Species (MGM)
PCM Stealth (Sony)
PCM Stomp the Yard (Sony)
PCM Stranger Than Fiction (Sony)
PCM Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (Sony)
PCM Tears of the Sun (Sony)
PCM The Benchwarmers (Sony)
PCM The Big Hit (Sony)
PCM The Covenant (Sony)
PCM The Departed (Warner)
PCM The Descent (Lionsgate)
PCM The Fifth Element (Discontinued) (Sony)
PCM The Fifth Element (Remastered) (Sony)
PCM The Great Raid (Buena Vista)
PCM The Guardian (2006) (Buena Vista)
PCM The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Buena Vista)
PCM The Holiday (2006) (Sony)
PCM The Host (Magnolia)
PCM The Last Waltz (MGM)
PCM The Lost City (Magnolia)
PCM The Messengers (Sony)
PCM The Patriot (Extended Cut) (Sony)
PCM The Pursuit of Happyness (Sony)
PCM The Queen (Buena Vista)
PCM The Sopranos: Season Six, Part One (Warner)
PCM The Tailor of Panama (Sony)
PCM The Terminator (MGM)
PCM Tony Bennett: An American Classic (Sony Music)
PCM Ultimate Avengers Collection (Lionsgate)
PCM Ultraviolet (Sony)
PCM Underworld: Evolution (Sony)
PCM Vertical Limit (Sony)
PCM Volver (Sony)
PCM Waiting... (Lionsgate)
PCM Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony)
PCM Weeds: Season Two (Lionsgate)
PCM Wild Things (Sony)
PCM xXx (Sony)

Another reason to stick with Blu-ray.

I don't agree with that. Even though I am a strong HD-DVD supporter, I have to admit that one of the advantages of BR is that they appear to have better audio quality. I don't know if it's just an impression, but it seems that there are more BR titles with PCM than there are HD-DVD titles with TrueHD (I consider uncompressed PCM and TrueHD to be essentially identical in quality).

You are correct:

As of August 3rd, 2007
There are 154 Blu-ray titles in North America with lossless audio.
There are 43 HD DVD titles in North America with lossless audio.

There are over 3 times as many lossless tracks on Blu-ray as on HD DVD and most of Warner's releases use 640 Kbps Dolby Digital Plus when no TrueHD track exists, which is often.

24/96 PCM Chris Botti Live with Orchestra and Special Guests (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Apocalypto (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bridge to Terabithia (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Chicago (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live from Radio City Music Hall (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Dinosaur (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Enemy of the State (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Finding Neverland (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Glory Road (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks (Sony Music)
24-PCM Ladder 49 (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pearl Harbor (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Primeval (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Haunted Mansion (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Prestige (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Wild (Buena Vista)
PCM 300 (Warner)
PCM 50 First Dates (Sony)
PCM A Knight's Tale (Sony)
PCM All the King's Men (Sony)
PCM Annapolis (Buena Vista)
PCM Basic Instinct 2 (Sony)
PCM Big Fish (Sony)
PCM Black Hawk Down (Sony)
PCM Blood & Chocolate (Sony)
PCM Blood Diamond (Warner)
PCM Brothers Grimm (Buena Vista)
PCM Casanova (Buena Vista)
PCM Casino Royale (Sony)
PCM Catch & Release (Sony)
PCM Chicken Little (Buena Vista)
PCM Click (Sony)
PCM Closer (Sony)
PCM Crank (Lionsgate)
PCM Cruel Intentions (Sony)
PCM Curse of the Golden Flower (Sony)
PCM Daddy's Little Girls (Lionsgate)
PCM Dark Water (Buena Vista)
PCM Deja Vu (Buena Vista)
PCM Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta (Sony BMG)
PCM Dirty Dancing (20th Anniversary Edition) (Lionsgate)
PCM Donnie Brasco (Sony)
PCM Eight Below (Buena Vista)
PCM Flatliners (Sony)
PCM Flightplan (Buena Vista)
PCM G.I. Jane (Buena Vista)
PCM Ghost Rider (Sony)
PCM Goal! The Dream Begins (Buena Vista)
PCM Gridiron Gang (Sony)
PCM Happily N'Ever After (Lionsgate Entetainment)
PCM Hellboy (Sony)
PCM Hitch (Sony)
PCM House of Flying Daggers (Sony)
PCM Identity (Sony)
PCM IMAX: Blue Planet (Warner)
PCM IMAX: Roving Mars (Disney)
PCM Into the Blue (Sony)
PCM Invincible (Buena Vista)
PCM Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (Buena Vista)
PCM John Legend: Live at the House of Blues (Sony Music)
PCM King Arthur Director's Cut (Buena Vista)
PCM Kung Fu Hustle (Sony)
PCM Layer Cake (Sony)
PCM Little Man (Sony)
PCM Memento (Sony)
PCM Monster House (Sony)
PCM Open Season (Sony)
PCM Premonition (Sony)
PCM Reign of Fire (Buena Vista)
PCM Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season (Sony)
PCM Resident Evil: Apocalypse (Sony)
PCM Revenge (Sony)
PCM Rocky Balboa (Sony)
PCM Running With Scissors (Sony)
PCM RV (Sony)
PCM S.W.A.T. (Sony)
PCM Secret Window (Sony)
PCM Seven Years in Tibet (Sony)
PCM Silent Hill (Sony)
PCM Sky High (Buena Vista)
PCM Species (MGM)
PCM Stealth (Sony)
PCM Stomp the Yard (Sony)
PCM Stranger Than Fiction (Sony)
PCM Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (Sony)
PCM Tears of the Sun (Sony)
PCM The Benchwarmers (Sony)
PCM The Big Hit (Sony)
PCM The Covenant (Sony)
PCM The Departed (Warner)
PCM The Descent (Lionsgate)
PCM The Fifth Element (Discontinued) (Sony)
PCM The Fifth Element (Remastered) (Sony)
PCM The Great Raid (Buena Vista)
PCM The Guardian (2006) (Buena Vista)
PCM The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Buena Vista)
PCM The Holiday (2006) (Sony)
PCM The Host (Magnolia)
PCM The Last Waltz (MGM)
PCM The Lost City (Magnolia)
PCM The Messengers (Sony)
PCM The Patriot (Extended Cut) (Sony)
PCM The Pursuit of Happyness (Sony)
PCM The Queen (Buena Vista)
PCM The Sopranos: Season Six, Part One (Warner)
PCM The Tailor of Panama (Sony)
PCM The Terminator (MGM)
PCM Tony Bennett: An American Classic (Sony Music)
PCM Ultimate Avengers Collection (Lionsgate)
PCM Ultraviolet (Sony)
PCM Underworld: Evolution (Sony)
PCM Vertical Limit (Sony)
PCM Volver (Sony)
PCM Waiting... (Lionsgate)
PCM Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony)
PCM Weeds: Season Two (Lionsgate)
PCM Wild Things (Sony)
PCM xXx (Sony)

Another reason to stick with Blu-ray.

What, the six movies on that list worth owning, or BluRay in general?

What, the six movies on that list worth owning, or BluRay in general?

Why are you so tough on him, I count eight :p

What, the six movies on that list worth owning, or BluRay in general?

Did you accidently move from a quantitative to a qualitative argument or are you just trying to be obtuse?

Did you accidently move from a quantitative to a qualitative argument or are you just trying to be obtuse?

No, I can count though.

I read with much laughter the folks that buy BR disks simply because it supports the format to do so, ignoring the reality that many of those disks will never be watched again.

Agreed...the HDDVD titles in general are pretty poor. Universal is saving their best titles for blu ray:D.

There are over 3 times as many lossless tracks on Blu-ray as on HD DVD and most of Warner's releases use 640 Kbps Dolby Digital Plus when no TrueHD track exists, which is often.

24/96 PCM Chris Botti Live with Orchestra and Special Guests (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Apocalypto (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bridge to Terabithia (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Chicago (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live from Radio City Music Hall (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Dinosaur (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Enemy of the State (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Finding Neverland (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Glory Road (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks (Sony Music)
24-PCM Ladder 49 (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pearl Harbor (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Primeval (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Haunted Mansion (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Prestige (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Wild (Buena Vista)
PCM 300 (Warner)
PCM 50 First Dates (Sony)
PCM A Knight's Tale (Sony)
PCM All the King's Men (Sony)
PCM Annapolis (Buena Vista)
PCM Basic Instinct 2 (Sony)
PCM Big Fish (Sony)
PCM Black Hawk Down (Sony)
PCM Blood & Chocolate (Sony)
PCM Blood Diamond (Warner)
PCM Brothers Grimm (Buena Vista)
PCM Casanova (Buena Vista)
PCM Casino Royale (Sony)
PCM Catch & Release (Sony)
PCM Chicken Little (Buena Vista)
PCM Click (Sony)
PCM Closer (Sony)
PCM Crank (Lionsgate)
PCM Cruel Intentions (Sony)
PCM Curse of the Golden Flower (Sony)
PCM Daddy's Little Girls (Lionsgate)
PCM Dark Water (Buena Vista)
PCM Deja Vu (Buena Vista)
PCM Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta (Sony BMG)
PCM Dirty Dancing (20th Anniversary Edition) (Lionsgate)
PCM Donnie Brasco (Sony)
PCM Eight Below (Buena Vista)
PCM Flatliners (Sony)
PCM Flightplan (Buena Vista)
PCM G.I. Jane (Buena Vista)
PCM Ghost Rider (Sony)
PCM Goal! The Dream Begins (Buena Vista)
PCM Gridiron Gang (Sony)
PCM Happily N'Ever After (Lionsgate Entetainment)
PCM Hellboy (Sony)
PCM Hitch (Sony)
PCM House of Flying Daggers (Sony)
PCM Identity (Sony)
PCM IMAX: Blue Planet (Warner)
PCM IMAX: Roving Mars (Disney)
PCM Into the Blue (Sony)
PCM Invincible (Buena Vista)
PCM Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (Buena Vista)
PCM John Legend: Live at the House of Blues (Sony Music)
PCM King Arthur Director's Cut (Buena Vista)
PCM Kung Fu Hustle (Sony)
PCM Layer Cake (Sony)
PCM Little Man (Sony)
PCM Memento (Sony)
PCM Monster House (Sony)
PCM Open Season (Sony)
PCM Premonition (Sony)
PCM Reign of Fire (Buena Vista)
PCM Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season (Sony)
PCM Resident Evil: Apocalypse (Sony)
PCM Revenge (Sony)
PCM Rocky Balboa (Sony)
PCM Running With Scissors (Sony)
PCM RV (Sony)
PCM S.W.A.T. (Sony)
PCM Secret Window (Sony)
PCM Seven Years in Tibet (Sony)
PCM Silent Hill (Sony)
PCM Sky High (Buena Vista)
PCM Species (MGM)
PCM Stealth (Sony)
PCM Stomp the Yard (Sony)
PCM Stranger Than Fiction (Sony)
PCM Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (Sony)
PCM Tears of the Sun (Sony)
PCM The Benchwarmers (Sony)
PCM The Big Hit (Sony)
PCM The Covenant (Sony)
PCM The Departed (Warner)
PCM The Descent (Lionsgate)
PCM The Fifth Element (Discontinued) (Sony)
PCM The Fifth Element (Remastered) (Sony)
PCM The Great Raid (Buena Vista)
PCM The Guardian (2006) (Buena Vista)
PCM The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Buena Vista)
PCM The Holiday (2006) (Sony)
PCM The Host (Magnolia)
PCM The Last Waltz (MGM)
PCM The Lost City (Magnolia)
PCM The Messengers (Sony)
PCM The Patriot (Extended Cut) (Sony)
PCM The Pursuit of Happyness (Sony)
PCM The Queen (Buena Vista)
PCM The Sopranos: Season Six, Part One (Warner)
PCM The Tailor of Panama (Sony)
PCM The Terminator (MGM)
PCM Tony Bennett: An American Classic (Sony Music)
PCM Ultimate Avengers Collection (Lionsgate)
PCM Ultraviolet (Sony)
PCM Underworld: Evolution (Sony)
PCM Vertical Limit (Sony)
PCM Volver (Sony)
PCM Waiting... (Lionsgate)
PCM Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony)
PCM Weeds: Season Two (Lionsgate)
PCM Wild Things (Sony)
PCM xXx (Sony)

Another reason to stick with Blu-ray.

oh my, the facts again. And bitter responses to facts as well from HD DVD fanatics. Shocking that the bitterness comes from somebody who joined blu-ray.com to thread crap, then got banned and then came here to cry about it, lol :p

Only lossless at recorded bit depths or better, be it TrueHD, DTS-MA or LPCM, should be on HDM. Everything else is rubbish.

You're kidding yourself.

No?

Prove it.

Agreed...the HDDVD titles in general are pretty poor. Universal is saving their best titles for blu ray:D.

Thanks for contributing.

That mandatory 640k DD+ or DD on HD DVD or Blu-ray respectively are exactly the same.

It's only in the higher encoding ranges that DD+ allows that any difference is perceived. Most DD+ done on HD DVD (WB) are done at the encoding rates that DD is fully capable of.



Sources for any of the above drivel?

oh my, the facts again. And bitter responses to facts as well from HD DVD fanatics. Shocking that the bitterness comes from somebody who joined blu-ray.com to thread crap, then got banned and then came here to cry about it, lol :p

If you are a member of blu-ray.com you have no basis to call anyone a fanatic.

That just means more studios need to put TrueHD on HD DVD movies.

Of course HD DVD's mandatory specifications make it easier to have more content on a disc despite the lower capacity, 300 on HD DVD is inherently superior to the Blu-Ray version.

brainmonkey keeps me in stitches. :)

oh my, the facts again. And bitter responses to facts as well from HD DVD fanatics. Shocking that the bitterness comes from somebody who joined blu-ray.com to thread crap, then got banned and then came here to cry about it, lol :p

Do you ever have anything meaningful to say? Or are you just one of those who likes to watch his post count go up and nothing else?


As for doby's wonderful list, I just read Filmmixer's post. Yeah, I'll take his professional opinion over any of the BD fanboys and go with the mighty "who cares?"

Lossless audio is a Blu-ray talking point. Considering there are movies out there with TrueHD that are standard length, it's not as though they can't be done. But hey, perhaps studios believe it's easier and more cost effective to master down to 1.5mbps when 99.9% of the public WON'T HEAR THE DIFFERENCE.

I have my 360 add-on set for DTS 1.5, and my movies sound fantasic. Not just "good enough". Enough to help sell 5 people on HD DVD equipment (3 of them 360 add-ons).

There are over 3 times as many lossless tracks on Blu-ray as on HD DVD and most of Warner's releases use 640 Kbps Dolby Digital Plus when no TrueHD track exists, which is often.

24/96 PCM Chris Botti Live with Orchestra and Special Guests (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Apocalypto (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bridge to Terabithia (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Chicago (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live from Radio City Music Hall (Sony BMG)
24-PCM Dinosaur (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Enemy of the State (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Finding Neverland (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Glory Road (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Gone in 60 Seconds (2000) (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Incubus: Alive at Red Rocks (Sony Music)
24-PCM Ladder 49 (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pearl Harbor (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (Buena Vista)
24-PCM Primeval (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Haunted Mansion (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Prestige (Buena Vista)
24-PCM The Wild (Buena Vista)
PCM 300 (Warner)
PCM 50 First Dates (Sony)
PCM A Knight's Tale (Sony)
PCM All the King's Men (Sony)
PCM Annapolis (Buena Vista)
PCM Basic Instinct 2 (Sony)
PCM Big Fish (Sony)
PCM Black Hawk Down (Sony)
PCM Blood & Chocolate (Sony)
PCM Blood Diamond (Warner)
PCM Brothers Grimm (Buena Vista)
PCM Casanova (Buena Vista)
PCM Casino Royale (Sony)
PCM Catch & Release (Sony)
PCM Chicken Little (Buena Vista)
PCM Click (Sony)
PCM Closer (Sony)
PCM Crank (Lionsgate)
PCM Cruel Intentions (Sony)
PCM Curse of the Golden Flower (Sony)
PCM Daddy's Little Girls (Lionsgate)
PCM Dark Water (Buena Vista)
PCM Deja Vu (Buena Vista)
PCM Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta (Sony BMG)
PCM Dirty Dancing (20th Anniversary Edition) (Lionsgate)
PCM Donnie Brasco (Sony)
PCM Eight Below (Buena Vista)
PCM Flatliners (Sony)
PCM Flightplan (Buena Vista)
PCM G.I. Jane (Buena Vista)
PCM Ghost Rider (Sony)
PCM Goal! The Dream Begins (Buena Vista)
PCM Gridiron Gang (Sony)
PCM Happily N'Ever After (Lionsgate Entetainment)
PCM Hellboy (Sony)
PCM Hitch (Sony)
PCM House of Flying Daggers (Sony)
PCM Identity (Sony)
PCM IMAX: Blue Planet (Warner)
PCM IMAX: Roving Mars (Disney)
PCM Into the Blue (Sony)
PCM Invincible (Buena Vista)
PCM Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (Buena Vista)
PCM John Legend: Live at the House of Blues (Sony Music)
PCM King Arthur Director's Cut (Buena Vista)
PCM Kung Fu Hustle (Sony)
PCM Layer Cake (Sony)
PCM Little Man (Sony)
PCM Memento (Sony)
PCM Monster House (Sony)
PCM Open Season (Sony)
PCM Premonition (Sony)
PCM Reign of Fire (Buena Vista)
PCM Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season (Sony)
PCM Resident Evil: Apocalypse (Sony)
PCM Revenge (Sony)
PCM Rocky Balboa (Sony)
PCM Running With Scissors (Sony)
PCM RV (Sony)
PCM S.W.A.T. (Sony)
PCM Secret Window (Sony)
PCM Seven Years in Tibet (Sony)
PCM Silent Hill (Sony)
PCM Sky High (Buena Vista)
PCM Species (MGM)
PCM Stealth (Sony)
PCM Stomp the Yard (Sony)
PCM Stranger Than Fiction (Sony)
PCM Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (Sony)
PCM Tears of the Sun (Sony)
PCM The Benchwarmers (Sony)
PCM The Big Hit (Sony)
PCM The Covenant (Sony)
PCM The Departed (Warner)
PCM The Descent (Lionsgate)
PCM The Fifth Element (Discontinued) (Sony)
PCM The Fifth Element (Remastered) (Sony)
PCM The Great Raid (Buena Vista)
PCM The Guardian (2006) (Buena Vista)
PCM The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (Buena Vista)
PCM The Holiday (2006) (Sony)
PCM The Host (Magnolia)
PCM The Last Waltz (MGM)
PCM The Lost City (Magnolia)
PCM The Messengers (Sony)
PCM The Patriot (Extended Cut) (Sony)
PCM The Pursuit of Happyness (Sony)
PCM The Queen (Buena Vista)
PCM The Sopranos: Season Six, Part One (Warner)
PCM The Tailor of Panama (Sony)
PCM The Terminator (MGM)
PCM Tony Bennett: An American Classic (Sony Music)
PCM Ultimate Avengers Collection (Lionsgate)
PCM Ultraviolet (Sony)
PCM Underworld: Evolution (Sony)
PCM Vertical Limit (Sony)
PCM Volver (Sony)
PCM Waiting... (Lionsgate)
PCM Warriors of Heaven and Earth (Sony)
PCM Weeds: Season Two (Lionsgate)
PCM Wild Things (Sony)
PCM xXx (Sony)

Another reason to stick with Blu-ray.


And lets not forget the 100% Fox titles with DTS-MA that will be there to decode soon.

Only one format has really supported HD audio, the other just likes to mention it from time to time and add it to a handfull of titles.

According to this poll, the vast majority would prefer real HD audio, and rightly so when both formats charge a premium but only one delivers on HD audio.

According to this poll, the vast majority would prefer real HD audio, and rightly so when both formats charge a premium but only one delivers on HD audio.

The problem is that this is not most people, it is most AVS'ers, who have already bought into one or the other (or both). The people who will drive adoption have not yet bought players, and most of them don't begin to understand the difference between lossless and lossy encoding, much less know which studios support it, and how it impacts format choice.

You are correct, but I believe that if you polled the average buyer in BB/CC and asked then if they would be willing to pay an extra $150 for a HDM player that gave access to 35% more lossless codecs, they would look at you like a group of cows watching a passing train.

Just for edification, this is from Dolby.com:

High-Definition Packaged Media Applications

Advancements in storage capabilities of optical media such as the high-definition digital versatile disc (HD DVD) and hard disk drive (HDD) media, along with advanced coding efficiencies for video, have created opportunities to deliver enhanced audio performance in higher-bandwidth environments. Because of this, the DVD Forum has selected Dolby Digital Plus as a standard audio format for HD DVD video. HD DVD, a next-generation optical disc format, promises to deliver high-definition picture quality in a packaged media format. Dolby Digital Plus is also an optional format for the Blu-ray Disc.

Dolby Digital Plus offers new levels of enhanced audio resolution and fidelity, further complementing the superior video performance of HD DVD. These extensions to the existing Dolby Digital format extend the peak 640 kbps data rate to 3 Mbps and beyond. Dolby Digital Plus is also designed with the flexibility to permit future channel expansion beyond the traditional 5.1-channel model, to 7.1 discrete channels or more.

So please explain how DD+ (not standard Dolby Digital as the thread title suggests), cannot be considered a high-definition codec, or a high-fidelity sound format.

Just for edification, this is from Dolby.com:



So please explain how DD+ (not standard Dolby Digital as the thread title suggests), cannot be considered a high-definition codec, or a high-fidelity sound format.

It's not lossless.

It's not lossless.


Has it been established, that it matters?

Sources for any of the above drivel?

Roger Dressler (of Dolby) ranks DD and DD+ sonically indistinguishable at 640Kbps.
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=2&pp=30

It's not lossless.

Link that defines only lossless is considered HD-fidelity please? Otherwise that's just your opinion.

Roger Dressler (of Dolby) ranks DD and DD+ sonically indistinguishable at 640Kbps.
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=2&pp=30

We really need to put the "lossless" argument to bed.....then again, there's still a market for speaker cables thicker than your Johnson...something about: "cleansing the air around massed strings, reduced sibilance," and "uncanny resolution," I'm sure. PT Barnum was right on the money.

I'll take 24bit 1.5mbs DD+ any day over 16 bit PCM or 16 bit TrueHD.

The problem is that this is not most people, it is most AVS'ers, who have already bought into one or the other (or both). The people who will drive adoption have not yet bought players, and most of them don't begin to understand the difference between lossless and lossy encoding, much less know which studios support it, and how it impacts format choice.

You are correct, but I believe that if you polled the average buyer in BB/CC and asked then if they would be willing to pay an extra $150 for a HDM player that gave access to 35% more lossless codecs, they would look at you like a group of cows watching a passing train.

Maybe so, but these same people will not be buying a player for even 99.00 if the new releases are 25-35.00...so its a moot point IMO.

I did actually mean the majority here though as I don't think of the masses as buyers yet.

Has it been established, that it matters?

That would depend on the quality of the system. Inherently, a lossy encoding loses information. How much of the loss is detectable by the listener is not easy to quantify, because it is dependent on the source material, the playback system, the room, and the listener (to list a few of the key variables).

For many people on average systems (certainly an inexpensive HTiB) in a non-prepared room, there will be no discernable difference. For some people with good (trained/practiced) ears and a good system in a well-designed room, there could be a significant difference.

Link that defines only lossless is considered HD-fidelity please? Otherwise that's just your opinion.

I don't know that there is an accepted definition for 'HD sound' in this arena, so I will agree that it's only my opinion. However, there are sound reasons that I would propose this as the dividing line:

1) All of the new HD media formats can use lossless encoding, so it's clearly technically achievable with today's products
2) It is easily definable and quantifiable, thus making it more difficult for bad salesmen to misuse the term
3) Lossless systems remove the codec choice as a source of inaccuracies in the reproduced signal, so it should force the CE companies to focus on the things that can really make a difference: D/As, calibration, S/N, linearity, etc.
4) Using a lossless audio encoder should not add cost to the product, so there should be no reason not to use it for HD releases.

Although I am a strong HD DVD proponent, I agree that this is an area where the HD DVD studios have not made the best use of the formats and accompanying technology. I would prefer to see more lossless encoding in all of the HD releases, regardless of format.

Most people are quite happy with lossy audio with their portable music players. Your average person doesn't really care about higher quality audio.

It's not lossless.

Nor is any video format you've ever seen. Are none of them Hi Def?

That would depend on the quality of the system. Inherently, a lossy encoding loses information. How much of the loss is detectable by the listener is not easy to quantify, because it is dependent on the source material, the playback system, the room, and the listener (to list a few of the key variables).

The specific codec in use, would logically have the most profound effect on relative transparency.

For many people on average systems (certainly an inexpensive HTiB) in a non-prepared room, there will be no discernable difference. For some people with good (trained/practiced) ears and a good system in a well-designed room, there could be a significant difference.

HDM utilizes DD+ at a bare minimum, and industry figures with unassailable reputations have reported that plain old vanilla DD at 640K serves as a reasonable threshold of inaudibility. If no differences can be discerned with the use of professional near-field monitors in an acoustically optimized space, how likely is it that any home environment will somehow make them significantly apparent?

I don't know that there is an accepted definition for 'HD sound' in this arena, so I will agree that it's only my opinion. However, there are sound reasons that I would propose this as the dividing line:

1) All of the new HD media formats can use lossless encoding, so it's clearly technically achievable with today's products.

It is, but studios have clearly chosen not to use lossless with any consistency. The question remains, does it matter? Why doesn't the video component of HDM software encoded in mpeg2 ( less efficient/more data rich ) score significantly higher on average, than examples using VC1 or AVC, which dispense with more of the original data?

2) It is easily definable and quantifiable, thus making it more difficult for bad salesmen to misuse the term

You are clearly underestimating the propensity of audio salesmen to totally muck things up.

3) Lossless systems remove the codec choice as a source of inaccuracies in the reproduced signal, so it should force the CE companies to focus on the things that can really make a difference: D/As, calibration, S/N, linearity, etc.

This is a good point in the abstract, but CE companies generally tend to focus more clearly on the bottom line. The exception would be higher margin products, but in that instance, the consumer is actually getting less than he paid for in relative terms.

4) Using a lossless audio encoder should not add cost to the product, so there should be no reason not to use it for HD releases.

If you have some information on relative costs associated with audio codec choices, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Although I am a strong HD DVD proponent, I agree that this is an area where the HD DVD studios have not made the best use of the formats and accompanying technology. I would prefer to see more lossless encoding in all of the HD releases, regardless of format.

Though I'm currently the owner of an HD DVD player, I really don't care which format ultimately prevails in the marketplace ( in the unlikely event that one of them actually does. ) I'd like to believe that my argumentative position, is one of principle. To the extent that industry marketing or individual anecdotal claims about relative audio quality stray from objective criteria with predictable, nearly universal regularity, my snake-oil detector tends to light up like a Christmas tree. Show me the data! Otherwise, Science doesn't even enter the equation.

To answer the OP's question....

YES...to 99% of the public DD is "high def" to their ears and they couldn't care less about the other audio formats since they don't have and probably will never have the equipment to playback the newest formats.

To answer the OP's question....

YES...to 99% of the public DD is "high def" to their ears and they couldn't care less about the other audio formats since they don't have and probably will never have the equipment to playback the newest formats.

Ding! Ding! Ding! . . . we have a winner folks! Thanks for playing. See you next time:D

I don't know that there is an accepted definition for 'HD sound' in this arena, so I will agree that it's only my opinion. However, there are sound reasons that I would propose this as the dividing line:

1) All of the new HD media formats can use lossless encoding, so it's clearly technically achievable with today's products
2) It is easily definable and quantifiable, thus making it more difficult for bad salesmen to misuse the term
3) Lossless systems remove the codec choice as a source of inaccuracies in the reproduced signal, so it should force the CE companies to focus on the things that can really make a difference: D/As, calibration, S/N, linearity, etc.
4) Using a lossless audio encoder should not add cost to the product, so there should be no reason not to use it for HD releases.

Although I am a strong HD DVD proponent, I agree that this is an area where the HD DVD studios have not made the best use of the formats and accompanying technology. I would prefer to see more lossless encoding in all of the HD releases, regardless of format.

Let me be clear as well MauneyM, I don't begrudge your opinion at all. At the same time I don't know if I agree with everything.

1) Salesmen don't know what lossless sound means anyway. I asked a Best Buy Magnolia guy once what "Lossless Sound" meant. He basically said "Well, it means......there's no quality loss". I said "So there's quality loss with say Dolby Digial +?" He said, "Well, not exactly.......they both sound great."

2) We don't know what the studios go though to do lossless sound. There is enough space on the disc, I agree. But there has to be a quantifiable reason that Paramount has yet to go that route. If we believe what FilmMixer says in this forum, and you really can't tell the difference, they may feel that mixing to 1.5 DD+ is more cost efficient on their end, and more time efficient.

More than anything, Dolby considers the codec a high-resolution codec. And 1.5mpbs is nothing to turn your cheek to. When you consider best quality MP3's and such can come in at up to 392k (I think I may have the exact number incorrect), imagine that same master track at almost 4x the fidelity.

I've never subscribed that DD+ is just "good enough". 1.5 DD+ is pretty great IMO. And outside of audiophiles, no one is going to know or hear the difference.

The specific codec in use, would logically have the most profound effect on relative transparency.

Certainly. My point was that given a certain encoder, the other variables would tend to either mask or enhance the changes in the signal based on that encoder.

HDM utilizes DD+ at a bare minimum, and industry figures with unassailable reputations have reported that plain old vanilla DD at 640K serves as a reasonable threshold of inaudibility. If no differences can be discerned with the use of professional near-field monitors in an acoustically optimized space, how likely is it that any home environment will somehow make them significantly apparent?

That depends on a LOT of independent variables. I have spent time recording and mixing audio, and believe me, there is a wide variation in the quality of "professional near-field monitors in an acoustically optimized space". Just because it is expensive and is used in professional production does not necessarily mean that it is completely transparent. Granted, even a poor studio will generally have a much better listening environment than the vast majority of home setups, but I would bet that quite a few of the 'amateur' home systems represented on this board would rival - or even best - the average mixdown suite. [FWIW, I don't include my listening/rehearsal room in this category yet - I have a lot of work left to do before I'm happy with it.]

On top of that, there are differing levels of complexity in recorded source material that impacts both the ability of the codec to reproduce the signal and the ability of the listener to discern the details. A more-complex source with higher levels of dynamic range and layering will necessarily tax the codec and the listener more. On that note, I would suggest that different listeners absolutely have differing discernment abilities. [I have observed this with professional musicians listening to different types of music to critique the mix; something that may be immediately apparent to one listener may be effectively inaudible to another - and this among people with good listening skills.]

It is, but studios have clearly chosen not to use lossless with any consistency. The question remains, does it matter? Why doesn't the video component of HDM software encoded in mpeg2 ( less efficient/more data rich ) score significantly higher on average, than examples using VC1 or AVC, which dispense with more of the original data?

Bit count does not directly equate to accuracy. VC-1 and AVC return a much closer approximation of the original signal than does MPEG-2, given the same bandwidth. I would therefore disagree with your statement that VC-1 and AVS dispense with more of the original data - assuming the same usable bandwidth. They actually maintain MORE of the original data.

You are clearly underestimating the propensity of audio salesmen to totally muck things up.

:cool: OK, you got me on that one.

This is a good point in the abstract, but CE companies generally tend to focus more clearly on the bottom line. The exception would be higher margin products, but in that instance, the consumer is actually getting less than he paid for in relative terms.

Horses for courses - that's why there are always price points with different performance objectives. You could argue that the Ferrari driver gets less value than the Hyundai driver, but somehow it seems different on the racetrack.;) You make a reasonable point, though, that it probably won't make any difference at the <$400 component level.

If you have some information on relative costs associated with audio codec choices, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

OK, I was being a bit assumptive, but my basis was:

> Once you are set up to use a given codec, I wouldn't expect it to take any longer to process and master one vs. the other.
> HD video media appear to have plenty of storage and bandwidth for lossless codecs
> HD players should have plenty of processing power available to handle the decoding; as with HDMI, there is probably enough 'dead space' in the video stream to handle the audio, even with something like TrueHD. It's already mandatory with HD DVD anyway, so there is no cost added here vs the existing situation.

I see it as rather like the difference between using .rar and .zip. How much more does one cost than the other?

However, I failed to take into account licensing fees, which could play a part - oops.

I'd like to believe that my argumentative position, is one of principle. To the extent that industry marketing or individual anecdotal claims about relative audio quality stray from objective criteria with predictable, nearly universal regularity, my snake-oil detector tends to light up like a Christmas tree. Show me the data! Otherwise, Science doesn't even enter the equation.

Fair enough, and there is certainly too much snake-oil in this industry. My approach is to eliminate the 'perceptual' part of the encoding process completely; lossy encoding currently in use uses perceptual encoding, so it is inextricably linked to the psycho-acoustic responses of our hearing system, which are inherently different from person-to-person. Thus, the only way to prove there is not an audible difference is to use a lossless encoding.

That said, I would completely agree that the vast majority of users would never notice the difference. So, the argument becomes one of whether we should accept what's good enough for the 95% masses or whether we should strive for the best we can get within the technology. Given that we have the technology and the ability to have lossless and eliminate the whole 'codec quality' argument, why not use it?

Most people are quite happy with lossy audio with their portable music players. Your average person doesn't really care about higher quality audio.

Agreed, but I don't think that should drive what is defined as 'High-Def'. Personally, I can't stand the sound of a 128K MP3 - it's way too grainy and harsh. It may be OK as a replacement for rough cassette recordings and quick demos, but anyone who believes this is acceptable in a cutting-edge, high-quality system is, in my opinion, missing the point.

Well there is certainly more to good sound than lossy non-lossy and bit rates. I have heard many recordings that sound better that were recorded at 16/48 vs 24/96. Its just not the simple. With that said though lossless when done well will sound better than the best lossy has to offer for a good system. For the average consumer though not sure how important this is so I think the driving factor on a lot of this is what the artist demands for presentation of their material. I know that in my system I can just about make you deaf with a standard 5.1 DD sound track in less than 10 minutes without any distortion, that is well done and impress the heck out of visitors. I generally am the only one anal enough to note the improvements in PCM lossless over the 5.1 DD sound track on a well produced disc which are there.

This whole HD Audio reminds me of when DTS came out on LD. It was months after the intro of AC-3 (DD5.1) and RIGHT HERE at AVS there was a LONG thread about which was better. After pages and pages of discussion (Ah - the good old days here at AVS) the bottom line was that DTS sounded 3bd higher than AC-3. Not better mind you - just louder.

Lossless Audio is a spinoff of Digital Cinema where it is being used today. It is also an opportunity to sell more CE equipment to those who want it.

I can't wait for the BIG battle with the combatants being Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA. By all the specs and what they are trying to accomplish - they should sound EXACTLY the same.

Want to bet someone (or many) will say DTS-MA sounds better?

Its interesting to see how that in the world of digital more is better. This runs counter to the Audiophile world of its the way the sound is presented with single ended 5 watt tube amps triumphing over the sound of 300 watt solid state behemoths. The single end amp is noted as being more natuaral despite the solid state amp trouncing the tubes in every single measurable category. The same holds true in the speaker world. Magnepans measure terribly but there is just something about the sound that seduces the listener.

But in the digital world more bits must sound better regardless. There is no way that a non lossless track will sound better than a lossless track. The comments listed here indicate many in the home theater world believe this to be true without even listening to the disc. It measures better therefore it must be better. I always maintain that in sound there is more than meets the eye or ears than just specs. I am certainly not arguing that there isn't a difference in 128 bit mp3s and 1.5 mb dts its just interesting that on this side of the sound world (multi channel movies) stats rule the roost and are never challenged.

Certainly.That depends on a LOT of independent variables. I have spent time recording and mixing audio, and believe me, there is a wide variation in the quality of "professional near-field monitors in an acoustically optimized space". Just because it is expensive and is used in professional production does not necessarily mean that it is completely transparent.

I'm sure some studios are better equipped than others, but a monitoring suite should be designed for flat frequency response and accuracy above all else. These are most assuredly not attributes which are, or necessarily should be, paramount considerations for an audiophile in the home environment.

Granted, even a poor studio will generally have a much better listening environment than the vast majority of home setups, but I would bet that quite a few of the 'amateur' home systems represented on this board would rival - or even best - the average mixdown suite. [FWIW, I don't include my listening/rehearsal room in this category yet - I have a lot of work left to do before I'm happy with it.]

Again, personal taste and predominant usage are perfectly reasonable considerations for the AV enthusiast/consumer. Dynamic speakers are often an excellent choice for electronic genres, while "stats" can be wonderful if you favor chamber music and/or jazz. How boring would it be if our transducer choices were limited to professional studio monitors?

On top of that, there are differing levels of complexity in recorded source material that impacts both the ability of the codec to reproduce the signal and the ability of the listener to discern the details. A more-complex source with higher levels of dynamic range and layering will necessarily tax the codec and the listener more.

Of course, but given that human hearing perception falls within a well-defined range of acuity, it logically follows that at some point, diminishing returns become vanishingly irrelvant.

On that note, I would suggest that different listeners absolutely have differing discernment abilities. [I have observed this with professional musicians listening to different types of music to critique the mix; something that may be immediately apparent to one listener may be effectively inaudible to another - and this among people with good listening skills.]

Individual humans certainly vary in their ability to discern meaningful differences. Unfortunately, they are also generally ( and notoriously ) adept at convincing themselves they hear differences which in fact, exist only in their minds. That's why a well designed DBT protocol is the most effective means of segregating actual discernment from psychological effect, and accounting for individual variance.

Bit count does not directly equate to accuracy. VC-1 and AVC return a much closer approximation of the original signal than does MPEG-2, given the same bandwidth. I would therefore disagree with your statement that VC-1 and AVS dispense with more of the original data - assuming the same usable bandwidth. They actually maintain MORE of the original data.

AVC and VC1 maintain more of the important original data, ;) but to achieve an equivalent level of playback quality, mpeg2 requires more data storage. It's simply more likely to throw out the baby with the bathwater than either AVC or VC1 at an equivalent bitrate.

> Once you are set up to use a given codec, I wouldn't expect it to take any longer to process and master one vs. the other.

I wonder......

Fair enough, and there is certainly too much snake-oil in this industry. My approach is to eliminate the 'perceptual' part of the encoding process completely; lossy encoding currently in use uses perceptual encoding, so it is inextricably linked to the psycho-acoustic responses of our hearing system, which are inherently different from person-to-person. Thus, the only way to prove there is not an audible difference is to use a lossless encoding.

No DBTs are necessary to prove that, but I'd really like to have a gander at those reams of data which Dolby Labs has unquestionably compiled over the last twenty years. If engineers involved in HDM content production are aware that lossless inclusion is well beyond the point of diminishing returns, I seriously doubt their CE/studio marketing bedfellows would appreciate them sharing that fact with us. ;)

That said, I would completely agree that the vast majority of users would never notice the difference. So, the argument becomes one of whether we should accept what's good enough for the 95% masses or whether we should strive for the best we can get within the technology. Given that we have the technology and the ability to have lossless and eliminate the whole 'codec quality' argument, why not use it?

My hypothesis, is that the correct figure is much closer to < .1% than 5.%, but without a data-set that's suggestively confirming, it remains just that.

Agreed, but I don't think that should drive what is defined as 'High-Def'. Personally, I can't stand the sound of a 128K MP3 - it's way too grainy and harsh. It may be OK as a replacement for rough cassette recordings and quick demos, but anyone who believes this is acceptable in a cutting-edge, high-quality system is, in my opinion, missing the point.

I don't think 128k sounds good either, but also suspect we might both find the result of participation in a series of comparative MP3 bitrate DBTs enlightening, and just perhaps, a little disturbing. Then again, perhaps you're one of those < .1% outliers. :)

I'm sure some studios are better equipped than others, but a monitoring suite should be designed for flat frequency response and accuracy above all else. These are most assuredly not attributes which are, or necessarily should be, paramount considerations for an audiophile in the home environment.

Well, it (a flat response environment) suits my preference, but your point is valid.

Of course, but given that human hearing perception falls within a well-defined range of acuity, it logically follows that at some point, diminishing returns become vanishingly irrelvant.

Sure. The problem is that without knowing where that is (what does the curve look like?), you can't give a valid answer to 'how lossy can it be and still be inaudible'?

Individual humans certainly vary in their ability to discern meaningful differences. Unfortunately, they are also generally ( and notoriously ) adept at convincing themselves they hear differences which in fact, exist only in their minds.

No argument. Speaker wires and high-$$$ power cords come to mind......


My hypothesis, is that the correct figure is much closer to < .1% than 5.%, but without a data-set that's suggestively confirming, it remains just that.

[...]

I don't think 128k sounds good either, but also suspect we might both find the result of participation in a series of comparative MP3 bitrate DBTs enlightening, and just perhaps, a little disturbing. Then again, perhaps you're one of those < .1% outliers. :)

Well, the audiologist who tested me a few months ago would put my hearing in that category - at least as far as flat response and threshold for my age. When I told him about the various types of high-volume environments I have been exposed to over the past 30 years (AFTER he had tested my hearing), he gave a look as if I had no right to exist. He said something about it catching up to me eventually......:cool: Of course, he probably considers a 100-Watt Marshall stack to be a weapon of mass destruction.:eek:

Seriously, though, you may be right about it being closer to .1% than 5%, but without the data you mentioned, we just don't know. Now, pretend you were designing a bridge and you had two choices; One method you knew would absolutely hold up for the design life of the bridge, while the second method would probably hold up for most of the design life, but you didn't know exactly how long. Which would you choose?

Sure. The problem is that without knowing where that is (what does the curve look like?), you can't give a valid answer to 'how lossy can it be and still be inaudible'?

A series of DBTs can be designed to effectively resolve questions about audibility. It's already been done with MP3 encodings of sonically divergent program material at various bit rates. Beyond a sampling threshold of ~256k, there's no statistically significant difference in perceptibility.


Seriously, though, you may be right about it being closer to .1% than 5%, but without the data you mentioned, we just don't know. Now, pretend you were designing a bridge and you had two choices; One method you knew would absolutely hold up for the design life of the bridge, while the second method would probably hold up for most of the design life, but you didn't know exactly how long. Which would you choose?

C'mon, lossless vs. lossy is hardly a matter of life or death. Having said that, good bridge design is by definition, ( and thankfully in this instance ) always an exercise in overengineering.

Beyond a sampling threshold of ~256k, there's no statistically significant difference in perceptibility.

Agreed, and this figure is pretty widely known and agreed. However, every distribution has outliers....... I guess it comes down to how many, and whether or not the difference is enough to really matter, even to those outliers. However, if it doesn't cost anything to eliminate the outliers....?


C'mon, lossless vs. lossy is hardly a matter of life or death. Having said that, good bridge design is by definition, ( and thankfully in this instance ) always an exercise in overengineering.

Sure - I was just using this as an overexaggerated example.

However, if it doesn't cost anything to eliminate the outliers....?

In that case, there'd be no excuse.

Has it been established, that it matters?

Excellent question. Please help establish that HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11554128#post11554128).

Most people are quite happy with lossy audio with their portable music players. Your average person doesn't really care about higher quality audio.

True, but it's also true that most of these same people are not going to adopt HDM in the first place.

These formats are about early adopters/ enthusiast who do care for the most part, and the masses that are happy with MP3 will most likely never buy in.