I am saddened by the direction that this discussion is going. I am a strong HD-DVD supporter, and I boycott all Sony products, including BR. Not for technical reasons, but because I don't trust Sony, and I believe they are anti-consumer. Sony will not get a single penny of my money.

However, I want HD-DVD titles to be the best that they can be. The argument that 99% of consumers don't have the necessary equipment is missing the point. Audio receivers that can properly handle TrueHD and PCM have dropped below $400 and will continue to drop. I can see in 12 months that every audio receiver will have this capability.

But most important to me is that I have the eqiupment necessary today. Currently only a small percentage (20%?) of HD-DVD titles have loseless audio, and they need to do better.

Why are we settling for less than the best?

Well said. I wish more of the HD DVD only crowd had your demanding nature. Don't settle for mediocrity on either format.

Even if we assume what you say it true (which I don't believe it is), it is certainly not worse, so they should provide it.

they should provide it to strengthen the marketing position of HD-DVD to the purists. It means little to anyone else.

Almost every HD-DVD review I have read saids that TrueHD sounds better than DD+. At least one quote sound engineer on this forum says 9/10 he can't tell the difference. I'll go with him on this one, although every generality can have exceptions I suppose.


I have also personally compared uncompressed PCM (laserdiscs) vs DD on DVDs on the same titles, and PCM sounds significantly better. It's not even close.

Apples and oranges. DD+ is light-years ahead of DD. This has been covered ad nauseam by much more qualified people than you or I. Also, decoded DD+ is PCM, fwiw.

Good heavens! We are on avsforum becase we want the best possible PQ and AQ, not something that is "just good enough".

When I went from laserdiscs to DVDs, I exchanged better picture quality for poorer sound quality. TrueHD will at least bring us back to laserdisc sound quality (but with more channels).

Yes, that would make you a purist like I said...chasing after paper specs that mean marginal improvements for most here, and hardly any to the public at large.

Have you actually heard a movie in DD+ or TrueHD yet?

Can a studio just throw a movie on a disc with Dolby TruHD... and call it a day?

Dont they need secondary audio encodes, like DTS or DD? Dont they also need 2 channel PCM?

paramount already said if they need 2 discs one for the feature one for special features they will do that.
they been doing this on sddvd,so this is a useless thread.
thats what the studios will do.
it amazes me how many people think they know what best on any subject.its pure ego and means noting cause the studios are gonna do what they want,and you and me have noting to say about,cause they wont hear you.

Hmmm, if you had read the post that you were responding to, you would see that I am talking about putting secondary audio tracks on a disc.

So they would throw the secondary audio tracks on a seperate disc? Hmmmm, doesnt make much sense.

to answer your first question:

HD-DVD requires DD, DD+ and THD 2.0 (not 5.1).
BD requires DD

Why is everyone still arguing that HD DVD *can't* hold lossless or 4 hour movies? The first argument was that there wasn't enough data available on an HD DVD. So, I already showed mathematically how it could come within a chitty chin chin's within the size needed for a 4-hour movie with lossless on an HD DVD disc, and it would just need to be compressed slightly more than King Kong to make it. And something compressed similar to Batman Begins would be a synch.

And then people were claiming HD DVD didn't have the bandwidth for lossless and good PQ. So I gave examples of HD DVD's with lossless and graphically intense scenes where the bandwidth was able to keep up with the both the PQ and the AQ.

What else do you want for proof? A copy of LOTR: Return of the King Extended Edition on HD DVD handed to you? :D

So, I already showed mathematically how it could come within a chitty chin chin's within the size needed for a 4-hour movie with lossless on an HD DVD disc

You proved that a 4hour movie couldnt be crammed into a 30GB disc... without cutting out 2GB of data. Thats not whisker close or anything.

Per PierreBNH, you need to account for DD, DD+. Since this thread is about lossless, I would assume you want to account for THD 5.1/7.1... do HD-DVDs have seperate stereo encodes? if so, you will have to account for that as well.

And dont HD-DVD guys usually clamor for PIP commentary? That couldnt be put on a seperate disc either.

IMO, the 4 hour movie argument is a little out of hand... but thats YOUR thread title. How bout redo'ing the calcs with 3.5 hours... DD, DD+, TruHD(in 7.1 form, because that is where HT is slowly migrating to).. and PIP commentary(if you feel that matters, and as often as it is brought up by those who are biased toward hd-dvd... i would guess that it does matter)

Its mandatory for the player to decode

DD DD+ and TrueHD etc

not mandatory to include them all on every disc.

TrueHD 5.1 decoding is mandatory for every player, but it aint mandatory to decode to 5.1 just 2.0.

You proved that a 4hour movie couldnt be crammed into a 30GB disc... without cutting out 2GB of data. Thats not whisker close or anything.

Per PierreBNH, you need to account for DD, DD+. Since this thread is about lossless, I would assume you want to account for THD 5.1/7.1... do HD-DVDs have seperate stereo encodes? if so, you will have to account for that as well.

And dont HD-DVD guys usually clamor for PIP commentary? That couldnt be put on a seperate disc either.

IMO, the 4 hour movie argument is a little out of hand... but thats YOUR thread title. How bout redo'ing the calcs with 3.5 hours... DD, DD+, TruHD(in 7.1 form, because that is where HT is slowly migrating to).. and PIP commentary(if you feel that matters, and as often as it is brought up by those who are biased toward hd-dvd... i would guess that it does matter)

You wouldn't need a separate DD+ or DD audio tracks, since 2nd Gen players already convert TrueHD soundtracks to DD if your receiver isn't capable of receiving TrueHD signals [1st gen players convert TrueHD to DTS, but Toshiba later changed that for better compatibility with older receivers.] I'm not including PiP. There would need to be a commentary track though. But that'd only be about 200 MB or something like that. And 2 GB is very close since 1 megabit of bit rate cut out over a 4-hour period comes out to 1.75 GB.

Remember that every 2,35:1 film is 33% less image to encode

1920*1080 vs 1920*810

So what work for 3 hours of 1,85:1 would work for 2,35:1 if everything is equal.

Remember that every 2,35:1 film is 33% less image to encode

1920*1080 vs 1920*810

So what work for 3 hours of 1,85:1 would work for 2,35:1 if everything is equal.

Yeah but so far I've only extrapolated Batman Begins' and King Kong's numbers, both of which were in 2.35 format.

You proved that a 4hour movie couldnt be crammed into a 30GB disc... without cutting out 2GB of data. Thats not whisker close or anything.

Per PierreBNH, you need to account for DD, DD+. Since this thread is about lossless, I would assume you want to account for THD 5.1/7.1... do HD-DVDs have seperate stereo encodes? if so, you will have to account for that as well.

And dont HD-DVD guys usually clamor for PIP commentary? That couldnt be put on a seperate disc either.

IMO, the 4 hour movie argument is a little out of hand... but thats YOUR thread title. How bout redo'ing the calcs with 3.5 hours... DD, DD+, TruHD(in 7.1 form, because that is where HT is slowly migrating to).. and PIP commentary(if you feel that matters, and as often as it is brought up by those who are biased toward hd-dvd... i would guess that it does matter)

Thinking about it more though... you're right. You wouldn't be able to fit all the bells and whistles on just one HD DVD in a 4 hour, 10 minute Extended Edition of LOTR. Like... say we ramp up the TrueHD to 7.1 and 24-bit. Add PiP. Increase the average bit rate. Add mutliple sound tracks. You could bare-bones it to make it fit, but it would still barely fit after a few adjustments. [note: I'm not even sure what 13 Mbps looks like other than Batman begins, so possibly it could still fit and look great at 13 Mbps, but I'd have to see it before I could make any judgements. So maybe it still COULD, but the bells & whistles part certainly makes it difficult.]

However, you wouldn't be able to fit all the bells & whistles on one blu-ray either, considering the new info about DL blu-rays being forced to be in the 42-45 GB range because of yield problems [after they get higher than that, yields get bad.] Seems like for the BEST performance for BOTH formats [i.e. PiP and high bit rates], two discs for the movie would be optimal.

However, movies like Titanic, Schindler's List, the regular editions of LOTR would most likely fit fine on one disc of each format.

Quick Calculation for Blu-ray LOTR Return of the Kings:

Maximizing PQ and AQ of course...

Video Bit Rate at 20 Mbps at 4 hours ~= 35 GB

Audio Bit Rate at Uncompressed PCM 6.9 Mbps [same as Pirates] at 4 hours ~= 12 GB

Total already bare-bones: 47 GB.

Or even, using TrueHD calculation instead of PCM, it would still come out to 39 GB total before any bells & whistles [mainly a 8 GB PiP track], and if it used TrueHD, it would also need other audio tracks since TrueHD decoding isn't mandatory on Blu-ray Players.

Of course, a Blu-ray version could hold the HD DVD version I was proposing before, but I'm using the "optimized" specs which most Blu-ray proponents claim as the reason it's superiority [i.e. higher bit rates and uncompressed PCM.] It seems like one blu-ray disc could hold the HD DVD version with TrueHD [32 GB], a PiP track [8 GB], and some secondary audio tracks [2 gb?]. Of course, i'm not sure what a 24-bit 7.1 TrueHD audiotrack actually comes out to in average Mbps, so that estimate may be off [mine was more for a 5.1 16-bit I believe.] Also, that estimate is for a 4-hour movie instead of a 4-hour and 10 minute movie [would probably add 2-4 GB to the disc.]

So... maybe a proper LOTR ROTK Extended Edition can't fit on one disc on either format? :confused:

:

LOTR Extended Editions

Fellowship (208 minutes, or 3 hours and 28 minutes)
Two Towers (223 minutes, or 3 hours and 43 minutes)
Return (252 minutes, or 4 hours and 12 minutes)

And from the looks of it, the only one that would have to be at a slightly lower bit rate than King Kong would be Return of the King extended edition.

Please remember that about 20 to 30 minutes of those running times includes all the people in the fan club who's names were scrolled endlessly over the final credits.

The bit rate for that section could be incredibly low.

Steve W

I think the thread should be closed again. Its already accepted that HD-DVD cannot play lossless and High quality Video for 4 hours.


That's not entirely true. At the same video bitrate as quality titles like King Kong, with dolby truehd 16bit and a DD+ 640k secondary, there is space for 243 minutes. Admittedly that's an extreme example, and they probably spent ages on hand-tweaking that one because it was to be an early demo title, but it's (only just) possible.

So we are talking about how many movies that are 4 hours? Out of the 80,000+ made?

OBTW - weren't there 10's of millions of DVD's sold for the LOTR? So how did they deal with the long time length?

Didn't seem to stop them from selling all those movies.

To me Batman Begins is a just an average transfer with less detailing.
It's not even close to the transfers of decade old movies like Matrix, Face/Off and The Rock.
I am very confident that Warner will do a re-encode like they did for Troy (DC).
Check the HD DVD Tier thread for the tier placement of BB.

Of course, i'm not sure what a 24-bit 7.1 TrueHD audiotrack actually comes out to in average Mbps, so that estimate may be off [mine was more for a 5.1 16-bit I believe.] Also, that estimate is for a 4-hour movie instead of a 4-hour and 10 minute movie [would probably add 2-4 GB to the disc.]


24bit 7.1 THD is around 4.5 to 5mbit I believe. Not so bad by itself, but the peaks from that are quite hard on HDDVD's bandwidth limits. If you use this sort of quality audio, with a DD+ 0.640mbit secondary, you're left with a touch under 22mbit for the video peaks. This is possible for HDDVD (it's what Matrix 2/3 use), but you can't have IME also.

On an aside, 250mins of PCM 7.1 24bit eats almost 17GB, which really demonstrates how ridiculous using uncompressed audio is.

ROTK:EE should be possible on Buray though, although interactive stuff would have to be junked and main audio couldn't be 7.1 24bit.

Do you have heating/air condidioning in your theater?
Yes. I put in a split A/C Mitsubishi unit (<26 db in low fan mode) and I use hydroponic electric (virtually silent, my meter goes down to 10db and it doesn't register when the heat is on and placed within three inches of any of the units).

I don't understand what this means. Do you mean my equipment list?
Yes.
Let me first say that most of my decisions were based on copying my local dealers showroom - so I can't take much of the credit (or the blame :) ). I also go through a lot of equipment so my UserCP is always out of date.

Winegard SquareShooter (for OTA HD-TV)
HUMAX HFA100 HD-TV Tuner
Optoma Gennum HD-81 Scalar/Converter
Optoma HD-81 Projector
Screen Research 126" 16:9 Acoustically Transparent Screen
PSB Platinum C4 Center Speaker
PSB Platinum M2 L/R Speakers
PSB Platinum S2 Surround Speakers
PSB Image S50 Rear Speakers
NAD T773 A/V Receiver
Panasonic BD10 Blu-Ray/DVD-Audio/CD Player
* About two weeks away from getting LG BH100 Dual HD player when price drops to $579).

Mitsubishi Mr.Slim A/C
Hydroponic Electric Heaters

Owens Corning Acoustic Blanket (screen wall 100% covered), bottom 4ft coverage for other 3 walls

2 Bass Traps (Knaupf 4" heavy duty fiberglass insulation surrounded with the OC Acoustic blanket).

Its mandatory for the player to decode

DD DD+ and TrueHD etc

not mandatory to include them all on every disc.

TrueHD 5.1 decoding is mandatory for every player, but it aint mandatory to decode to 5.1 just 2.0.

Not to nitpick, but the post was about theoretically only providing THD 5.1 on a disc. The answer is that's not possible, since none of the BDplayers are mandated to support it. Do you have documentation you can link to on the HD-DVD THD 5.1 to 2.0 decoding? It's academic since all HD-DVD players have full THD 5.1 anyway afaik, but I'm curious by nature :D

How many good 4 hour movies are there? For the few that I can think of I wouldn't mind putting in a second disc. If it's 4 hours long and you are willing to watch it then:
A:It's a damn good film
B:You would not mind putting in disc 2

[...]Per PierreBNH, you need to account for DD, DD+. Since this thread is about lossless, I would assume you want to account for THD 5.1/7.1... do HD-DVDs have seperate stereo encodes? if so, you will have to account for that as well.
[...]

I didn't mean to mislead you. What I posted was what the players have to support, not what you have to put on a disc. I was trying to answer your question about TrueHD 5.1 possibly being the only thing on the disc by saying 'this is what the players can do'.

How many good 4 hour movies are there? For the few that I can think of I wouldn't mind putting in a second disc. If it's 4 hours long and you are willing to watch it then:
A:It's a damn good film
B:You would not mind putting in disc 2


4hrs? Amateurs. Real cinema addicts would want La Meglio Gioventu, which is 7 hours long.

What's sad is the extremism displayed.

From my standpoint, I've never said TrueHD or any other lossless is useless or never needed. Although I think the 24-bit depth is severely overblown or 99.99% of the setups owned on these forums, which themselves represent a minute amount of the overall population.

*snip*

Excised overly verbose and unnecessary tirade....

OK, so here's a simple question. Did Batman Begins and Superman Returns need TrueHD more than a film like Transformers? If so, please explain.

If not, why put them on one but not the other?

Since when do facts need to be injected into Rants?

Excised overly verbose and unnecessary tirade....

OK, so here's a simple question. Did Batman Begins and Superman Returns need TrueHD more than a film like Transformers? If so, please explain.

If not, why put them on one but not the other?

Maybe the TrueHD track was better? Ask the engineer who mixed it. I've consistently allowed for that possibility, unlike some who can't bring themselves to allow that sufficient equality from a lossy track is possible and brandish their paper specs instead as absolutes.

This is pointless and circular, there's more than enough material in this thread to explain the same points 4-5x so just read it over again if you must.

But thanks for the fancy words :)

I didn't mean to mislead you. What I posted was what the players have to support, not what you have to put on a disc. I was trying to answer your question about TrueHD 5.1 possibly being the only thing on the disc by saying 'this is what the players can do'.

Thats cool.

SO how does it work if they just include a 5.1/7.1 TruHD track? Would they just downmix it into stereo and 5.1 DD?

Thats cool.

SO how does it work if they just include a 5.1/7.1 TruHD track? Would they just downmix it into stereo and 5.1 DD?

We're talking about HD-DVD right? Because BD players can't all do this...

If the receiver has HDMI 1.1 or higher, it gets MPCM from the player's unpacking of the TrueHD 5.1 track mixed with the advanced content on the disc if present.

If the receiver has toslink or SPDIF, it'll get DD or DTS, depending on mfr choice afaik. For example, Toshiba's Gen 1 and 2 players used to do DTS but now allow (switched to?) DD instead. Whereas the x360 gives you either for its add-on. after mixing in the advanced content + the x360 interface sounds.

Thats cool.

SO how does it work if they just include a 5.1/7.1 TruHD track? Would they just downmix it into stereo and 5.1 DD?Please read carefully this Dolby Labs whitepaper:
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

some posts deleted: calm down please

I thought it was only 2.0 decoding of TrueHD that was mandatory on HD DVD and not 5.1

Also if outputting the audio as PCM in 5.1 is not mandatory, what good does decoding it do? (360 add-on)

It really is this simple:

There are hundreds of HD DVD's out there. I have watched an listened to quite a few of them. I am really very happy with HD DVD's audio. I am also happy with BD's audio. I don't consider that to be a differentiating factor between the two formats.

You are free to dislike whatever you want to about HD DVD. You are free to make up excuses why you don't like HD DVD. You are free to make mountains out of molehills to suit your arguments against HD DVD if you want. It doesn't much matter to me.

But I don't think you will be able to convince me to be disatisfied with HD DVD's audio. The difference between HD DVD and BD audio - if it exist at all, is trivial in my opinion, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

I thought it was only 2.0 decoding of TrueHD that was mandatory on HD DVD and not 5.1

Also if outputting the audio as PCM in 5.1 is not mandatory, what good does decoding it do? (360 add-on)

1. Yes, quite true. But all the player implementations thus far have been 5.1 anyway, so I'm assuming tqlla's theoretical HD-DVD player also has it.

2. Well, even DD+ is an improvement over DD and DTS. Certainly TrueHD has the capability to be even better. Both are consequently preferable. You do lose something because of the x360, but you lose less because you start with more...Also, I'm not positive you get the advanced content if you don't decode them, so that may be another reason to do it.

Amir can give better info on this I'm sure.

We're talking about HD-DVD right? Because BD players can't all do this...

If the receiver has HDMI 1.1 or higher, it gets MPCM from the player's unpacking of the TrueHD 5.1 track mixed with the advanced content on the disc if present.

If the receiver has toslink or SPDIF, it'll get DD or DTS, depending on mfr choice afaik. For example, Toshiba's Gen 1 and 2 players used to do DTS but now allow (switched to?) DD instead. Whereas the x360 gives you either for its add-on. after mixing in the advanced content + the x360 interface sounds.


THe reason I am asking is because the OP stated that TrueHD + 4 hour High bitrate video... can fit on a single HD-DVD disc.

So I want to know is... could they actually get away with just putting TruHD as the only audio source on a disc.
IE would A trueHD only disc work for everyone. Because not everyone has an HDMI AVR, many people still need optical or 2-channel analog.

Now I am not asking this to be accusitory, I just want to know.

THe reason I am asking is because the OP stated that TrueHD + 4 hour High bitrate video... can fit on a single HD-DVD disc.

So I want to know is... could they actually get away with just putting TruHD as the only audio source on a disc.
IE would A trueHD only disc work for everyone. Because not everyone has an HDMI AVR, many people still need optical or 2-channel analog.

Now I am not asking this to be accusitory, I just want to know.

Yes, the player will mix it and then output it as DD over optical. Explained here (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/avrs/trueHD_avrs_1.html).

1. Yes, quite true. But all the player implementations thus far have been 5.1 anyway, so I'm assuming tqlla's theoretical HD-DVD player also has it.


WHy is it my theoretical HD-DVD player? I am still working with the OPs theoretical disc.

Yes, the player will mix it and then output it as DD over optical. Explained here (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/avrs/trueHD_avrs_1.html).

cool

WHy is it my theoretical HD-DVD player? I am still working with the OPs theoretical disc.

Sorry, was trying to stay consistent by keeping my answers to the scenario you asked about and assigning you the hardware.

Didn't mean anything by it.:)

p.s. I should have used hypothetical instead of theoretical.

So I want to know is... could they actually get away with just putting TruHD as the only audio source on a disc.
IE would A trueHD only disc work for everyone. Because not everyone has an HDMI AVR, many people still need optical or 2-channel analog.Yes, all Dolby Digital TrueHD tracks have a core 5.1 mix and all players can output it as traditional Dolby Digital (or DTS) if needed. If your player has 5.1 analog out (higher end units, generally), you could get full Lossless quality to your analog system.

Wouldn't true lossless sound include having a full orchestra in your HT room? That could get expensive. Seriously, how can you define lossless when it is on a digital disc? You will always lose something in the analog to digital conversion. Unless the entire score of a movie was recorded on a keyboard, your not getting lossless anything.

Yes, the player will mix it and then output it as DD over optical. Explained here (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/avrs/trueHD_avrs_1.html).

Thats good to know.

Reading the link, I see that it counts on the player to remix for 6 or 8 channel analog.

Does it also remix into 2 channel analog?

[...]If your player has 5.1 analog out (higher end units, generally), you could get full Lossless quality to your analog system.

Once it's analog, it's no longer lossless. An important distinction that should underscore the fragility this 'lossless is the only way to roll' chain really has.

Thats good to know.

Reading the link, I see that it counts on the player to remix for 6 or 8 channel analog.

Does it also remix into 2 channel analog?

Presumably (I don't own one so I can't say for sure) it works like a DVD player where you specify how many speakers you have, Bass Mgmt, etc...so sure.

However, not all HD-DVD players have analog outs...

Maybe the TrueHD track was better? Ask the engineer who mixed it. I've consistently allowed for that possibility, unlike some who can't bring themselves to allow that sufficient equality from a lossy track is possible and brandish their paper specs instead as absolutes.



Sufficient equality is fine. I have no problem with that in theory. But why put TrueHD on some but not others? Why put it on there at all? Is it marketing?

If TL45 or TL51 makes it to market for films, I bet you'll start seeing quite a bit of TrueHD tracks.


But thanks for the fancy words :)

Just following your lead, tiger. :)

Sufficient equality is fine. I have no problem with that in theory. But why put TrueHD on some but not others? Why put it on there at all? Is it marketing?


Unless there's some licensing cost reason, it's probably just to free up bandwidth and thus make the encode easier. It doesn't save much space (16/48 THD5.1 is only 360MBytes/hour more than 1.5mbit DD+), but it does save around 2mbit from peak bitrate. That means less hand-tweaking of the encode, the disc maybe finished a few days earlier, and thus a few days extra sales.

Sufficient equality is fine. I have no problem with that in theory. But why put TrueHD on some but not others? Why put it on there at all? Is it marketing?

Asked and answered so many times in this thread I've lost count. You don't have to like the answer, but I can assure you very few people at the studios and their production contractors cares about our opinion on the matter.

If TL45 or TL51 makes it to market for films, I bet you'll start seeing quite a bit of TrueHD tracks.


We already have quite a bit of TrueHD and other lossless tracks. Even without TL or BD50. What's your point?

Yes, all Dolby Digital TrueHD tracks have a core 5.1 mix and all players can output it as traditional Dolby Digital (or DTS) if needed.
Incorrect. DTS-HD MA works like this (except the core is DTS, obviously) - not DTHD. With BD, they can author the disc in such a way that the legacy DD track is associated with the DTHD track. In these cases, there's no menu option to choose the DD track - the player chooses it if you're using the optical/digital coax connections and choose the DTHD track. This is not the same thing as what DTS-HD MA does (it uses the core+extensions method that you mistakenly attributed to DTHD.)

Unless there's some licensing cost reason[...]

Does anyone know the answer to this btw? I know the hardware requires licensing, but what about the software?

While we're on the subject, please note that many studios (Sony excluded) use independent production houses for audio. It's not inconceivable that they get charged $ for more than one audio track.

Incorrect. DTS-HD MA works like this (except the core is DTS, obviously) - not DTHD. With BD, they can author the disc in such a way that the legacy DD track is associated with the DTHD track. In these cases, there's no menu option to choose the DD track - the player chooses it if you're using the optical/digital coax connections and choose the DTHD track. This is not the same thing as what DTS-HD MA does (it uses the core+extensions method that you mistakenly attributed to DTHD.)

I could have worded it a bit differently, since it's different than DTS-HD MA... but the end result is the player will output any multi-channel TrueHD tracks in a compatible 5.1 format "guaranteed." (Well, on a player that supports TrueHD... which, for HD DVD, is mandatory.)

See: http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/AVRs/trueHD_avrs_2.html


S/PDIF Connection

If your A/V receiver or processor has neither multichannel analog or digital inputs, but is equipped with 5.1-channel Dolby® Digital decoding and playback, you will still be able to enjoy 5.1-channel performance from next-generation optical players. Included within 7.1-channel multichannel Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD streams is a core 5.1 mix prepared by the content maker that is used when the player is set for 5.1-channel mode. After playback audio signals have been mixed in the player, the PCM signal can be encoded to a Dolby Digital signal and output from the player via S/PDIF (optical or coaxial) to your connected Dolby Digital A/V receiver or processor.pierrebnh, on disc audio codec licensing... I've been told when you get a license for Dolby Digital or DTS, it covers all the variations. So, for example: If you choose DTS, you could also use DTS-HD MA without additional charge per title.

Asked and answered so many times in this thread I've lost count. You don't have to like the answer, but I can assure you very few people at the studios and their production contractors cares about our opinion on the matter.


I'll assume the answer you're referring to is "some titles benefit, others don't".

IMO that's any easy way out of the question. I'd rather see a film mixer-type person point to specific examples in specific titles and say "scene X had these elements and therefore benefitted from TrueHD", etc. Maybe that's not a realistic request, but it's better than accepting a vague answer.





We already have quite a bit of TrueHD and other lossless tracks. Even without TL or BD50. What's your point?


My point is people like Amir would be on this forum singing TrueHD's praises if they didn't have to worry about fitting it on a disc or ultimately, in a video download. He is the master of spin, and a lot of people are spinning with him.

If Blu-Ray couldn't do TrueHD and HD DVD could, I'd lay money down he'd be here saying how much better audio is on HD DVD, complete with the requisite smilies.

Believe it or not, I am format neutral, and I enjoy my HD DVD player and discs very much. I've just come to really dislike Amir and his posting style. To quote the cabbie from Seinfeld "Smugness is not a good quality." (I think I got the quote right.)

Someone else mentioned here or in another thread that it's the PR stuff that gets people going. That's really true. Sometimes I have to just stop visiting AVS and enjoy a disc from either format so I can remember what this is really about for me.

The final point I'll make is that in general, I am always against the "good enough" mentality, regardless of what it applies to.

I'll assume the answer you're referring to is "some titles benefit, others don't".

IMO that's any easy way out of the question. I'd rather see a film mixer-type person point to specific examples in specific titles and say "scene X had these elements and therefore benefitted from TrueHD", etc. Maybe that's not a realistic request, but it's better than accepting a vague answer.

We have quotes from FilmMixer, an engineer who has mixed 90-some movies.


My point is people like Amir would be on this forum singing TrueHD's praises if they didn't have to worry about fitting it on a disc or ultimately, in a video download. He is the master of spin, and a lot of people are spinning with him.

If Blu-Ray couldn't do TrueHD and HD DVD could, I'd lay money down he'd be here saying how much better audio is on HD DVD, complete with the requisite smilies.

Believe it or not, I am format neutral, and I enjoy my HD DVD player and discs very much. I've just come to really dislike Amir and his posting style. To quote the cabbie from Seinfeld "Smugness is not a good quality." (I think I got the quote right.)

That's mostly speculation on your part. And you assign powers to Amir I don't think he has. Studios make audio quality decisions with the production houses they use and the content authors that worked on the film. Those are the people we need to reach when we dislike the quality of the product we're being offered imo.

We have quotes from FilmMixer, an engineer who has mixed 90-some movies.


That's mostly speculation on your part. And you assign powers to Amir I don't think he has. Studios make audio quality decisions with the production houses they use and the content authors that worked on the film. Those are the people we need to reach when we dislike the quality of the product we're being offered imo.


I don't believe I implied he makes the decisions. But he apparently has a significant role in determining specs for the format, and those specs will be considered when a studio prepares content for release.

I still find it hard to believe TrueHD was more desirable for a film like Batman Begins than Transformers. Of course, that could say more about the studio. I'd guess that if Transformers was a WB release it would have TrueHD, as unnecessary as that is. ;)

EDIT: I just wanted to add that based on info on this thread, I believe I found FilmMixer's IMDB page. While I'm sure he's great at what he does, the vast majority of films on that list are not films like Transformers. It would appear We Were Soldiers was a departure. There were a lot of comedies and dramas on the list. Again, nothing against his skills at all. Just posting this in the interest of full disclosure.

Part of the premise of this thread is "HD DVD doesn't have room for lossless.". While I disagree with that premise, the implication is that anything less than lossless audio is shortchanging your listening experience.

To try to objectively evaluate if this is so, I've put together a little test HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11554128#post11554128). Your participation will help give us some empirical evidence with which to discuss this more intelligently...

Part of the premise of this thread is "HD DVD doesn't have room for lossless.". While I disagree with that premise, the implication is that anything less than lossless audio is shortchanging your listening experience.

To try to objectively evaluate if this is so, I've put together a little test HERE (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11554128#post11554128). Your participation will help give us some empirical evidence with which to discuss this more intelligently...

This is not necessarily my personal feeling, but inevitably people are going to question your source material and reliability based on your postings which already show what side of the argument you favor.

Your test may very well show results consistent with the point you're looking to make. But it once again begs the question: why do we even have TrueHD to begin with if it's not necessary? Is it as Amir said, "for marketing purposes"?

Something funny occurred to me:

If it is indeed the placebo effect, and simply including lossless makes users feel like they have even better audio, even if they don't, is that not still a good enough reason to satisfy the customer?

Hell, maybe they should just duplicate the 1.5 DD+ track and make it display TrueHD on the player. Wait, I don't want to give them any ideas. :D

Jeez, people want lossless sound on their HD movies? Who would have thunk it.

This is not necessarily my personal feeling, but inevitably people are going to question your source material and reliability based on your postings which already show what side of the argument you favor.


Undoubtedly some will. Perhaps they are amongst those who are already sullying the poll results, which I will have to disregard. Nonetheless, the test is pretty straightforward. As is the process.

Quite frankly, anything I'm doing is likely to be of less quality than what's available to the studios, due simply to budget. And I'm not against repeating the test with differing source (I'm already working on some interesting source material for another aspect of testing). If anybody cannot rank the files according to the quality they offer accurately with the tools available to an end user, do you really think they will with what a professional at a studio can provide?

The simplicity if being forced to make a blind choice really makes this a soul-searching type of test. I think looking at if somebody refuses to take it, yet will criticize the results anyway might tell us quite a bit about how genuine their arguments about the issue are.

Your test may very well show results consistent with the point you're looking to make. But it once again begs the question: why do we even have TrueHD to begin with if it's not necessary? Is it as Amir said, "for marketing purposes"?

Something funny occurred to me:

If it is indeed the placebo effect, and simply including lossless makes users feel like they have even better audio, even if they don't, is that not still a good enough reason to satisfy the customer?

Hell, maybe they should just duplicate the 1.5 DD+ track and make it display TrueHD on the player. Wait, I don't want to give them any ideas. :D

As I've said before: I'm not an audio whore. I'll take lossless, but DD+@1.5Mbps sounds awfully darn good to me.

My goal is not to say TrueHD/lossless is unnecessary. It's to put in to perspective the "A disc without a lossless track is not acceptable." style arguments that people are making with absolutely no qualitative data to go with it. Worse yet they are "You can't have a four hour movie with lossless!" type arguments.

Hmmm, if you had read the post that you were responding to, you would see that I am talking about putting secondary audio tracks on a disc.

So they would throw the secondary audio tracks on a seperate disc? Hmmmm, doesnt make much sense.

i did read it and im saying the studios will do what they want,it took years before paramount went dts on a sd dvd

I could have worded it a bit differently, since it's different than DTS-HD MA... but the end result is the player will output any multi-channel TrueHD tracks in a compatible 5.1 format "guaranteed." (Well, on a player that supports TrueHD... which, for HD DVD, is mandatory.)

See: http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD/AVRs/trueHD_avrs_2.html

Sorry, but there's a significant difference between a player converting a given track to lossy DTS and/or DD and an advanced audio codec containing a lossy core. Your post was fundamentally wrong - changing the wording would not have helped.

For HD DVD, only 2.0 DTHD is mandatory - not 5.1 DTHD. There's no guarantee that all future players will support 5.1 DTHD, which is why we see DD+ tracks accompanying the DTHD tracks. Thus, the answer to the question: So I want to know is... could they actually get away with just putting TruHD as the only audio source on a disc. would be "no." The only way they could get away with providing only DTHD tracks would be if they changed the HD DVD specs and made 5.1 DTHD mandatory.

Sorry, but there's a significant difference between a player converting a given track to lossy DTS and/or DD and an advanced audio codec containing a lossy core. Your post was fundamentally wrong - changing the wording would not have helped.

For HD DVD, only 2.0 DTHD is mandatory - not 5.1 DTHD. There's no guarantee that all future players will support 5.1 DTHD, which is why we see DD+ tracks accompanying the DTHD tracks. Thus, the answer to the question: would be "no." The only way they could get away with providing only DTHD tracks would be if they changed the HD DVD specs and made 5.1 DTHD mandatory.

What about the SHARC Audio Processor Chip?

What about the SHARC Audio Processor Chip?
What about it? Did you even read my post before responding? It would help if you would at least try to follow the conversation.

What about it? Did you even read my post before responding? It would help if you would at least try to follow the conversation.

And it would help if you answered my question without the sarcastic BS Steeb.

The SHARC Processor in releationship to Lossless Audio on HD DVD players.

[...]For HD DVD, only 2.0 DTHD is mandatory - not 5.1 DTHD. There's no guarantee that all future players will support 5.1 DTHD, which is why we see DD+ tracks accompanying the DTHD tracks. Thus, the answer to the question: would be "no." The only way they could get away with providing only DTHD tracks would be if they changed the HD DVD specs and made 5.1 DTHD mandatory.[...]

However, the fact is that all HD-DVD players shipped to-date can 'decode' ('unpack' is the correct term iirc) THD 5.1.

Do you have any reasonable argument as to why this would change?

And it would help if you answered my question without the sarcastic BS Steeb.

The SHARC Processor in releationship to Lossless Audio on HD DVD players.
Again - follow the conversation. I'm not repeating myself because you're too lazy to read the other posts. If you've found something I've said that you believe is incorrect, point it out and back it up.

However, the fact is that all HD-DVD players shipped to-date can 'decode' ('unpack' is the correct term iirc) THD 5.1.
I'm well aware of that fact.
Do you have any reasonable argument as to why this would change?
Because the spec only mandates 2.0 DTHD decoding, there's no guarantee that all future players will decode 5.1 DTHD. That's all I said and I'm standing by that. If they had mandated 5.1 DTHD decoding, there would be no reason to have redundant tracks. Because they didn't, we have them. That's just the way it is. Sorry if you don't like that.

Thats enough. have been warned twice to calm down yet still bickering continues