The claim that HD DVD isn't able to handle a high picture-quality movie with high sound-quality (lossless) audio is false. I've seen a lot of blu-ray supporters claim that the reason HD DVD doesn't have as much lossless audio because "it wouldn't be able to handle all the data." And I've also seen a number of people claim "HD DVD won't be able to handle movies that are 4 hours long." Buth both of those claims are false.

In fact, an HD DVD would be able to handle a 4+ hour long movie with great PQ _and_ lossless audio. How? Let me explain...

I'm going to use Batman Begins as an example. Batman Begins has exceptional PQ, and every review of it that I've seen has agreed that the HD DVD version looked stellar. So what if Batman Begins was a 4-hour movie and they tried to fit it on one HD DVD disc? Would it still look as good?

Well, let's see. I'm using Batman Begins because it is one of the few movies that we've actually been given the average bit rate and peak bit rate by an insider. According to a post by Cjplay (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=727275&highlight=bit+rate+batman+begins), Batman Begins' average bit rate is 13.54 Mbps.

Now, I'm not sure if the 13.54 Mbps includes audio or not, but let's just assume that it DOESN'T, so there's no argument.

13.5 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 810 Mb/min

810 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 48,600 Mb/hr

48,600 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 6,075 MB/hr ~= 6 GB/hr

Thus, a 4-hour movie could come out to about 24 GB if it used the same bit rate as Batman Begins.

Now, if the bitrate given didn't include audio track, then a TrueHD soundtrack would roughly be:

1.5 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 90 Mb/min

90 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 5400 Mb/hr

5400 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 675 MB/hr ~= .675 GB/hr

.675 GB/hr * 4 hour = 2.7 GB

Which brings the total to 24 GB + 2.7 GB = 26.7 GB for the whole movie and a lossless audio track.

So, even if the given bitrate didn't include the audio track, a lossless audio track could still be included. Of course, extra features WOULD need to go on a seperate disc.

Nonetheless, I believe this shows that an HD DVD could handle a 4-hour movie with great PQ and a lossless audio track. And also note that Batman Begins came out about a year ago, and advances have been made in compressing movies. Thus, you could include a 4-hour movie with lossless audio that looked BETTER than Batman Begins on one HD DVD disc.

Just to point this out but some movies are harder to encode than others depending on the level of detail, the amount of movement, and the aspect ratio of the movie. As for Dolby TrueHD I think the average bitrate would be around 2.3 Mbps if you are basing your figure on a 5.1 channel 16-bit/48-kHz audio track.

Batman begins also has IME. This takes up bandwidth as well as space. In addition, esp for European or foreign releases there is interest in muliple high quality audio tracks; obviously preferably lossless, but at least something with a decent bit rate.

The reason a lot of the HD DVD releases doesn't have lossless audio may be more to do with bandwidth than capacity. The capacity issue is easier to solve; for example if you can fit the actual movie on one disc, then put a second (BD9 or BD15) disc in to do high quality HD extras, etc. Bandwidth isn't quite as simple.

Now, I'm not sure if the 13.54 Mbps includes audio or not, but let's just assume that it DOESN'T, so there's no argument.

Not directly on-topic, but you can use this list here as reference for bitrate:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=822245

At full muxed bandwidth, HD DVD can fit a movie almost 133 minutes long, which covers over 95% of studio content on the market.
Also, interactivity features can be sacrificed as well for the HD-DVD bandwidth issue. How serious is the issue? I'd say it's "the most urgent" of any of that camp's issues, but you're getting your feature, aren't you? So it can't be THAT serious as that's what people come to the party to see and hear better.

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8170133&highlight=cjplay+bandwidth#post8170133
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8738912&highlight=cjplay+bandwidth#post8738912

But I guess perhaps MS has worked miracles with VC-1 since then?

I guess the real test of HD DVD's ability to handle very long movies will occur when Paramount decides to release Titanic on HD DVD with a Dolby TrueHD track.

I'm going to use Batman Begins as an example. Batman Begins has exceptional PQ, and every review of it that I've seen has agreed that the HD DVD version looked stellar. So what if Batman Begins was a 4-hour movie and they tried to fit it on one HD DVD disc? Would it still look as good?

Batman Begins is soft, soft, soft. So yeah, it would probably look just as good since there's no high frequency details to be missed. How about a real high detail HD movie like Hot Fuzz or King Kong? Try cramming a 4 hour version of those into a 30gb space.

Batman Begins is soft, soft, soft. So yeah, it would probably look just as good since there's no high frequency details to be missed. How about a real high detail HD movie like Hot Fuzz or King Kong? Try cramming a 4 hour version of those into a 30gb space.

Alright, using King Kong as an example. Although we don't have any 'official' statement from an insider as to what the bit rate is, the 'estimated' video bit rate by a program is 15.92 [note: the 'estimated' bit rate for Batman Begins by the same program was 13.87 and 'actual' from insider was 13.54, so the 'estimated' should be at least approximate.]

VIDEO SIZE CALCULATION
-------------------------

15.92 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 955.2 Mb/min

955.2 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 57,312 Mb/hr

57,312 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 7,164 MB/hr = 6.99 GB/hr

Thus, a 4-hour movie could come out to about 27.96 GB if it used the same bit rate as King Kong.

------------------------


AUDIO SIZE CALCULATION
-------------------------

Now including a TrueHD soundtrack would roughly be:

[NOTE: Using new estimate of TrueHD being 2.3 Mb/s rather than original 1.5 Mb/s since the 2.3 seems to be more accurate according to "HD DVD disc size and bit rate" thread.]

2.3 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 138 Mb/min

138 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 8280 Mb/hr

8280 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 1035 MB/hr = 1.01 GB/hr

1.01 GB/hr * 4 hour = 4.04 GB

-----------------------------

Total Movie size = 32 GB

-----------------------------

So, to fit something like a 4-hour King Kong movie with lossless audio it looks like you'd need to cut out about 2 GB to make it work on an HD DVD. I'm guessing part of that could be done with improvements in encoding [since King Kong was released a year ago as well]. And a little bit of it WOULD have to be by decreasing the bitrate by a Mb or so. But I wouldn't see that decreasing the PQ much [of course, that's only my OPINION, as I'm not a professional encoder or anything.]

These are the titles which I would think we'd be concerned about though with the whole 4-hour mark:

Titanic (194 minutes or 3 hours 14 minutes, doesn't even seem to be a problem)
Schindler's List (195 minutes, again no problem)

But:

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.

This is why they need to get busy with the 34gb discs at least.

The claim that HD DVD isn't able to handle a high picture-quality movie with high sound-quality (lossless) audio is false. I've seen a lot of blu-ray supporters claim that the reason HD DVD doesn't have as much lossless audio because "it wouldn't be able to handle all the data." And I've also seen a number of people claim "HD DVD won't be able to handle movies that are 4 hours long." Buth both of those claims are false.

In fact, an HD DVD would be able to handle a 4+ hour long movie with great PQ _and_ lossless audio. How? Let me explain...

I'm going to use Batman Begins as an example. Batman Begins has exceptional PQ, and every review of it that I've seen has agreed that the HD DVD version looked stellar. So what if Batman Begins was a 4-hour movie and they tried to fit it on one HD DVD disc? Would it still look as good?

Well, let's see. I'm using Batman Begins because it is one of the few movies that we've actually been given the average bit rate and peak bit rate by an insider. According to a post by Cjplay (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=727275&highlight=bit+rate+batman+begins), Batman Begins' average bit rate is 13.54 Mbps.

Now, I'm not sure if the 13.54 Mbps includes audio or not, but let's just assume that it DOESN'T, so there's no argument.

13.5 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 810 Mb/min

810 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 48,600 Mb/hr

48,600 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 6,075 MB/hr ~= 6 GB/hr

Thus, a 4-hour movie could come out to about 24 GB if it used the same bit rate as Batman Begins.

Now, if the bitrate given didn't include audio track, then a TrueHD soundtrack would roughly be:

1.5 Mb/s * 60 s/min = 90 Mb/min

90 Mb/min * 60 min/hr = 5400 Mb/hr

5400 Mb/hr * 1/8 MB/Mb = 675 MB/hr ~= .675 GB/hr

.675 GB/hr * 4 hour = 2.7 GB

Which brings the total to 24 GB + 2.7 GB = 26.7 GB for the whole movie and a lossless audio track.

So, even if the given bitrate didn't include the audio track, a lossless audio track could still be included. Of course, extra features WOULD need to go on a seperate disc.

Nonetheless, I believe this shows that an HD DVD could handle a 4-hour movie with great PQ and a lossless audio track. And also note that Batman Begins came out about a year ago, and advances have been made in compressing movies. Thus, you could include a 4-hour movie with lossless audio that looked BETTER than Batman Begins on one HD DVD disc.

Just fyi, 5.1 16/48 TrueHD has an ABR of 1.4 mbps (3 mbps peak) not 1.5 mbps. Using that actually uses less memory than DD+ @ 1.5 mbps

There's no more reason to go through the theoretical math problems anymore. There are a few hundred HD DVD's out right now. From that you can tell whether of not you find the HD DVD format sufficient as an HD movie format. I personal think there is clear and convincing evidence that HD DVD's specs are more than sufficient for HD movie playback, and I think the hundreds of HD movies out right now prove that.

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?

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?For HD DVD with mandatory player decode of TrueHD, why? No title requirements that I can see in the publicly available HD DVD guidelines for other audio tracks.

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?

They sure could on HD DVD as there is mandatory decoding of True HD

Remind me again why we have to fit all this on one disc anyway? LOTR EEs were 4-disc sets each and the consumer gobbled those up easily enough...

They sure could on HD DVD as there is mandatory decoding of True HD

Only of 2.0, not 5.1. The fact that the players actually shipped with 5.1 is a nice bonus, but not mandated :D

The absence of lossless audio tracks on HD DVDs which absolutely demand the best possible sound (e.g. "King Kong" and now "Transformers") suggest there could be technical issues with bandwidth and/or storage capacity. The studios need to start proving they can deliver reference quality video with lossless audio on movies big on special effects/fast motion sequences on the HD DVD format. So far, they have not delivered. Until then, I'm skeptical of HD DVD's suitability as THE hi-def format.

Remind me again why we have to fit all this on one disc anyway? LOTR EEs were 4-disc sets each and the consumer gobbled those up easily enough...

This "we must have one disc" thing is a completely new deal, mostly by BD adherents, because they believe that it helps their cause. Before now the high end consumer has traditionally bought multidisc sets and the average customer likes the choice of just the movie or the movie and the extras on different discs. I wish they would do that with HD. There are a lot of movies that I could care less about the extras.

Good job. These calculations compliment some discussion I had earlier regarding bandwidth.

The other major claim is that HD DVD's peak MUX bandwith rate of 30Mbps doesn't allow for lossless audio. Except for corner cases, this is also untrue.

The absence of lossless audio tracks on HD DVDs which absolutely demand the best possible sound (e.g. "King Kong" and now "Transformers") suggest there could be technical issues with bandwidth and/or storage capacity. The studios need to start proving they can deliver reference quality video with lossless audio on movies big on special effects/fast motion sequences on the HD DVD format. So far, they have not delivered. Until then, I'm skeptical of HD DVD's suitability as THE hi-def format.

A couple of points:

1. We won't know for sure until Transformers actually ships if it has TrueHD or not.
2. I believe Amir has initiated a query with Paramount as to why it would not have TrueHD, let's see what the reply is.
3. It could also be that the DD+ mix was judged excellent enough (frankly it's not Shakespeare or Beethoven we're talking about here...:rolleyes:) and the studio decided to not include lossless as a production cost-saving measure.
4. You should peek into the insider threads, looking for posts from FilmMixer and other sound engineers actually involved in sound-mixing features and see what they have to say about lossy vs. lossless. Hint: DD+ is quite good enough...
5. I doubt you skeptics will ever be satisfied without the 35mm prints, the audio masters and your own mixing equipment anyway, so really, what's the point in arguing?

HD-DVD clearly has space limitations as opposed to Blu-Ray. Don't get me wrong, I love the video quality of movies like King Kong but am saddened by the fact that the audio is not up to par with the picture because of the space limitations. On Blu-Ray it would have been no problem. I also noticed that because Paramount went exclusive to Blu-Ray, Blades of Glory took a hit in sound quality presumably because of the space limitations on the disk.

Look, I'm not partial to one format over the other for reasons of politics or anything like that. I have both formats. However, I WOULD like my movies in its best presentation possible and not having to be toned down to fit it on a disk. Blu-Ray offers less such limitations than HD-DVD. For this reason I don't see why the HD-DVD people, a lot of whom are very knowledgable people with regards to the technology that drives these products, are so ardently in favor of HD-DVD over Blu-Ray.

With Blu-Ray, you have the potential to have the full extended versions of EACH LOTR movie with fully uncompromised video AND audio. I don't think HD-DVD offers such ability. Something would have to give.

I'm down with whichever format wins. I enjoy my HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. I just think its better for the future of HT that the format with the greater storage potential wins. In this digital world, that is the most important thing IMO.

Haven't you guys been reading the Insiders threads? According to Amir you don't need TrueHD. DD+ is fine according to him. Seriously.

This is why they need to get busy with the 34gb discs at least.

Yeah, I don't know why those aren't around yet. My understanding was that it was basically a free upgrade.

The absence of lossless audio tracks on HD DVDs which absolutely demand the best possible sound (e.g. "King Kong" and now "Transformers") suggest there could be technical issues with bandwidth and/or storage capacity. The studios need to start proving they can deliver reference quality video with lossless audio on movies big on special effects/fast motion sequences on the HD DVD format. So far, they have not delivered. Until then, I'm skeptical of HD DVD's suitability as THE hi-def format.


I, and probably 99% of the people, couldn't tell whether King Kong had a lossless sound track or DD+. DD+ @1.5mbs is functionally equivalant for me.

I know a lot of people will make a mountain out of a molehill on this issue. Rather than a minor issue, that want to make it a significant issue, meanwhile casting the BD issues (lack of interactivity, no combos, etc.) as minor.

People with golden ears, such as filmmixer, suggest that the difference is irrelevent in movies like Transformers. That should mean something to all of us.

Unless one is intentionally blowing the HD DVD issues out of proportion inorder to find an excuse to call it unsatisfactory, this issue is irrelevant.

Haven't you guys been reading the Insiders threads? According to Amir you don't need TrueHD. DD+ is fine according to him. Seriously.


I have to agree with Amir here. I would bet 99% of the people don't have the equipment or the ears to distinguish between DD+ @1.5mbs and lossless. It simply isn't an important issue to me, and shouldn't be important to the vast majority of people.

..... Unless one is intentionally blowing the HD DVD issues out of proportion inorder to find an excuse to call it unsatisfactory, this issue is irrelevant.

Welcome to nearly every Blu-Ray and HD DVD thread (I admit it does occur the other way as well)

Remind me again why we have to fit all this on one disc anyway? LOTR EEs were 4-disc sets each and the consumer gobbled those up easily enough...

As the proud owner of the LOTR EE trilogy I can say that I hate changing the discs and if it comes out on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, whichever format gets the whole movie on one disc gets my money.

BTW - only the first 2 discs were the movie, the other two discs were extras.

I have to agree with Amir here. I would bet 99% of the people don't have the equipment or the ears to distinguish between DD+ @1.5mbs and lossless. It simply isn't an important issue to me, and shouldn't be important to the vast majority of people.

According to that logic, since only 1% of US Households have a television larger than 42", and therefore only 1% of the people can see any difference between 1080p and 720p (unless you sit closer than 5ft from your 37" tv). So why don't we all watch 720p material instead since only 1% feel its important?

I've got a 10ft screen and top of the line speakers in an acoustically treated room - I want the best video and sound!

Not even Amir's dedicated $8K ML DAC can push out more than 19bit performance, but people here are crying about lack of 24-bit support like someone stole their firstborn...

Seriously, some common sense people, please!

This is what Kris Deering said in the Transformers thread re: HD DVD disc space, lossless Audio ,etc...

Originally Posted by Kris Deering
Paramount has been doing full resolution 1.5MBps DD+ tracks for awhile now and we've already heard from sound engineers that they are essentially transparent to the master tracks, so I wouldn't sweat it too much. Yes it would be nice to have the piece of mind of lossless audio, but I bet it wouldn't even be 24 bit.

I don't think it is a space limitation (though I haven't confirmed this yet) but probably a bandwidth limitations. HD DVD's peak bitrate is its biggest obstacle, something the Blu-ray camp does have plenty of. If the extra bits were needed to get the best possible video (this movie was quite grainy at times, even in digital theaters) then sacrificing the bits for a lossless audio track that doesn't have any perceived benefit over a lossy one is going to be a necessary evil.

Some of the best soundtracks on HD DVD are DD+, so I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Link to Post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11527133#post11527133

As the proud owner of the LOTR EE trilogy I can say that I hate changing the discs and if it comes out on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, whichever format gets the whole movie on one disc gets my money.

BTW - only the first 2 discs were the movie, the other two discs were extras.

I own them too, and couldn't care less about the two discs...you're in the minute minority (even if the majority on this forum shared your opinion, which is yet to be proven) and hardly relevant to the studio's decision.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you had your hopes up:rolleyes:

According to that logic, since only 1% of US Households have a television larger than 42", and therefore only 1% of the people can see any difference between 1080p and 720p (unless you sit closer than 5ft from your 37" tv). So why don't we all watch 720p material instead since only 1% feel its important?

I've got a 10ft screen and top of the line speakers in an acoustically treated room - I want the best video and sound!

I quite enjoy my 720p display. It suits my needs quite well at the distance I view it.

You don't have the numbers on your side I'm afraid, J6P is more important than you or I ever will be.

I own them too, and couldn't care less about the two discs...you're in the minute minority (even if the majority on this forum shared your opinion, which is yet to be proven) and hardly relevant to the studio's decision.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you had your hopes up:rolleyes:

Having the whole movie on one disc would be nice, but I don't hate changing the discs.

I agree with Simpletheater though...The format that has the LOTR EE's movies (extras can be on separate discs) on one disc with high quality PQ & AQ will get my money.

I own them too, and couldn't care less about the two discs...you're in the minute minority (even if the majority on this forum shared your opinion, which is yet to be proven) and hardly relevant to the studio's decision.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you had your hopes up:rolleyes:

I would like to have an entire movie on one disc and I think most would agree.

I own them too, and couldn't care less about the two discs...you're in the minute minority (even if the majority on this forum shared your opinion, which is yet to be proven) and hardly relevant to the studio's decision.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you had your hopes up:rolleyes:

I agree with you on the sound portion. For movies like Transformers... all people want to hear is a loud boom, or clank, transform noises.

I doubt lossless matters much, unless you are a linkin park fan

However I disagree on multiple discs. People WOULD perfer to be able to watch a movie on a single disc... rather than have to break halfway through the movie to switch discs.

it ruins the ambience

I've got a 10ft screen and top of the line speakers in an acoustically treated room - I want the best video and sound!

Then maybe you should hold out for lossless. At least you have the equipment for it, and you might even have the ears.

But hopefully you can appreciate why the vast majority of the rest of us shouldn't be concerned about lossless sound. If you have a collection of SACD's or DVD-A's, and don't listen to CD's, then maybe you should care about lossless. If you spent 10K per speaker, then maybe you should care about lossless. If you are young and have no hearing loss, maybe you should care about lossless.

But for the vast majority of the rest of us, it makes absolutely no difference at all. The 99% figure I gave was probably generous. I have personally A-B lossless and DD+, and I can't tell the difference in my home theater. I only have a few thousands in audio equipment, and my room is only treated accustically in an ad hoc sort of fashion, and I can tell you from my experiance lossless adds zero value over DD+. (I can telll the difference between regular DD and DD+ @ 1.5 mbs however.)

However I disagree on multiple discs. People WOULD perfer to be able to watch a movie on a single disc... rather than have to break halfway through the movie to switch discs.

it ruins the ambience

All other things being equal, one disc for the movie is better than 2 in my opionion. However, if someone were to say, "format A has 100's of movies, and about one out of every 100 you will have to put on 2 disc sets. How much will you pay to avoid the chance that you will have to do that?"

I would say about zero dollars. I will pay zero dollars to avoid the chance that I will have to change disc in 1 out of 100 movies. Especially if that came with other drawbacks. So even if true, I don't find it to be a compelling issue.

I agree with you on the sound portion. For movies like Transformers... all people want to hear is a loud boom, or clank, transform noises.

I doubt lossless matters much, unless you are a linkin park fan

However I disagree on multiple discs. People WOULD perfer to be able to watch a movie on a single disc... rather than have to break halfway through the movie to switch discs.

it ruins the ambience

So your 5 hrs of ambiance never gets interrupted during ROTK, does it? Few humans have the inclination, nevermind the ability to sit through a movie of that length without having to take some sort of a break...you guys are cracking me up! :rolleyes:

Did anyone who watched Reds not get up and take a brief break at the disc changeover? BTW, the disc change was required by the movie producer. How about the SD DVD of Ben Hur?

One of the reasons I supported HDM was the possibility of convenience; sure I pause LotR EE to use the restroom...but it's at my schedule (you know, when I have to use the toilet). Also, poping in a single disk full of the Simpson's season 7 in SD would be awesome...when I lose the damned insert with the movie list I wouldn't have to pop in each disk until I find the episode I want.

Since the reality is that according to these calculations you can not always (if ever) fit a 4 hour movie with lossless (especially including foreign language, menu authoring, and any special features included) can we change the title to a discussion rather than the "obvious" statment of fact.

Also, skogan's suggestion that we look at existing releases is a good idea: far too few HD DVDs are released with TrueHD or PCM for my tastes. I don't know if it's a techinical limitation of a set of priorities, but it's one of the reasons I started buying only Blu-rays last spring.

One of the reasons I supported HDM was the possibility of convenience; sure I pause LotR EE to use the restroom...but it's at my schedule (you know, when I have to use the toilet). Also, poping in a single disk full of the Simpson's season 7 in SD would be awesome...when I lose the damned insert with the movie list I wouldn't have to pop in each disk until I find the episode I want.

Since the reality is that according to these calculations you can not always (if ever) fit a 4 hour movie with lossless (especially including foreign language, menu authoring, and any special features included) can we change the title to a discussion rather than the "obvious" statment of fact.

Also, skogan's suggestion that we look at existing releases is a good idea: far too few HD DVDs are released with TrueHD or PCM for my tastes. I don't know if it's a techinical limitation of a set of priorities, but it's one of the reasons I started buying only Blu-rays last spring.


Can your equipment and ears tell the difference between DD+ and lossless? Because I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that I can't discern the difference between lossless and DD+ @ 1.5.

So your 5 hrs of ambiance never gets interrupted during ROTK, does it? Few humans have the inclination, nevermind the ability to sit through a movie of that length without having to take some sort of a break...you guys are cracking me up! :rolleyes:

so let's get this straight: all movie theaters across the country SCREWED UP by not having a 30 second intermission in the middle of ROTK to let you stretch, shake neighbors hand, fill up the popcorn, etc...what a bunch of dummies!!! i mean who wants to roll straight to the battle scenes w/o interruption right???

so let's get this straight: all movie theaters across the country SCREWED UP by not having a 30 second intermission in the middle of ROTK to let you stretch, shake neighbors hand, fill up the popcorn, etc...what a bunch of dummies!!! i mean who wants to roll straight to the battle scenes w/o interruption right???

No, but I guarantee quite a few people got up to take a leak, lol :p

So your 5 hrs of ambiance never gets interrupted during ROTK, does it? Few humans have the inclination, nevermind the ability to sit through a movie of that length without having to take some sort of a break...you guys are cracking me up! :rolleyes:

Do you think that your condescending demeaner actually helps your argument? Is this how you talk to people in person, if so, I cannot imagine that you have many friends. Did I even mention lotr in my post?

I said quite simply, People would rather watch a full movie on one disc.

I never watched the extended edition of LOTR, nor do I care to... but to those who do love the movie, I am sure they would rather watch it in one sitting... or break when they want to break, rather than have the disc dictate when they should go to the bathroom.

so let's get this straight: all movie theaters across the country SCREWED UP by not having a 30 second intermission in the middle of ROTK to let you stretch, shake neighbors hand, fill up the popcorn, etc...what a bunch of dummies!!! i mean who wants to roll straight to the battle scenes w/o interruption right???

The version shown in theaters was not as long as the EE version under discussion.

Do you think that your condescending demeaner actually helps your argument? Is this how you talk to people in person, if so, I cannot imagine that you have many friends. Did I even mention lotr in my post?

I said quite simply, People would rather watch a full movie on one disc.

I never watched the extended edition of LOTR, nor do I care to... but to those who do love the movie, I am sure they would rather watch it in one sitting... or break when they want to break, rather than have the disc dictate when they should go to the bathroom.

I don't really care whether it helps or not, but I'm sorry if you're offended. You mentioned 'ambiance', which is an empty argument with a 5 hr movie, especially at home. And the DVD sales of the EE of the Trilogy did quite well, even on a 2-disc setup. Clearly that's not an issue.

My opinion. I'm most certain the studio doesn't care about mine, or your opinion on the matter either.

Maybe I wouldn't be so condescending if people actually used some common sense, instead of building up these minor issues that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever with the market issues at hand.

I don't really care whether it helps or not, but I'm sorry if you're offended. You mentioned 'ambiance', which is a laughable argument with a 5 hr movie, especially at home. And the DVD sales of the EE of the Trilogy did quite well, even on a 2-disc setup. Clearly that's not an issue.

My opinion. I'm most certain the studio doesn't care about mine, or your opinion on the matter either.

Maybe I wouldn't be so condescending if people actually used some common sense, instead of building up these minor issues that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever with the market issues at hand.


1) Whats the thread title and Who started the thread? A pro HD-DVD guy. It seems to me the person who is "building up this minor issue" is.... pro HD-DVD

2) To you, you may not care about LOTR EE. But there are people who do. And people who like the movie, dont want to have to break halfway through.

3) As I said earlier, people would rather dicate their own break point, rather than have the movie tell them when to go to the bathroom.

I think because we are all A/V hobbiest that we all care about the numbers. Our brains tell us that more or less is better depending on what the more or less is related to. But, I think, our senses can't always tell the differences. There is a point where the numbers are too small or too large for our senses to preceive. I think that the issue of lossless vs. DD+ is such a case. As an example, our ears can only hear certain frequencies. Anything beyond is lost except to our dogs. So, I agree. Who really cares about lossless? Maybe our brains, but certainly not our ears.

Can your equipment and ears tell the difference between DD+ and lossless? Because I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that I can't discern the difference between lossless and DD+ @ 1.5.

would you tell the ppl with 42" or smaller screens who sit 10' or more from their tv it doesnt matter if movies are encoded in 720p or 1080p? just b/c the detail can't always been seen or heard doesnt mean it should be skimped on. imo hd-dvd's bandwidth is holding it back a good deal, and at this stage in the HDM game there shouldnt be any limitations.

as far as changing discs go, i dont mind the break at all for the likes of LoTR. i remember showing the DVD EE movies and when the disc change break came everyone got up and walked around, chit chatted a bit and had a few drinks before heading back to their seats for the 2nd half. whether or not the entire 4+ hour movie can fit one disc isnt what matters imo, it's whether quality has to be sacrificed in order to do it that matters more.

1) Whats the thread title and Who started the thread? A pro HD-DVD guy. It seems to me the person who is "building up this minor issue" is.... pro HD-DVD

2) To you, you may not care about LOTR EE. But there are people who do. And people who like the movie, dont want to have to break halfway through.

3) As I said earlier, people would rather dicate their own break point, rather than have the movie tell them when to go to the bathroom.

I think you're mistaken...he was responding to a BDA/BD-fanboy claim, which is why the words are in quotes.
I chose to take it one step further and state that I felt even if the math works out, it's a non-issue for the vast majority of consumers.

I care about LOTR EE, I own it. Flipping discs have never been an issue as it's only one of many interruptions that occurs in a typical household during any activity requiring more than 2 consecutive hours.

People already do. And this is only a minor added break. Only purists that have no bearing on studio decision seem to care.

I think because we are all A/V hobbiest that we all care about the numbers. Our brains tell us that more or less is better depending on what the more or less is related to. But, I think, our senses can't always tell the differences. There is a point where the numbers are too small or too large for our senses to preceive. I think that the issue of lossless vs. DD+ is such a case. As an example, our ears can only hear certain frequencies. Anything beyond is lost except to our dogs. So, I agree. Who really cares about lossless? Maybe our brains, but certainly not our ears.

How about our egos?:p

I believe the phrase is "Bragging Rights."

would you tell the ppl with 42" or smaller screens who sit 10' or more from their tv it doesnt matter if movies are encoded in 720p or 1080p? just b/c the detail can't always been seen or heard doesnt mean it should be skimped on. imo hd-dvd's bandwidth is holding it back a good deal, and at this stage in the HDM game there shouldnt be any limitations.

Absolutely. If there was a cost difference, they'd be wasting their money, much like the people trading in their 720p sets for "fullHD" 1080p sets that give them 0 resolution benefit at the distance they use the TVs from.

But feeble uneducated minds easily succumb to disingenuous marketing every day. And those minds will decide this format war, not you or I.

Welcome to the real world.

So your 5 hrs of ambiance never gets interrupted during ROTK, does it? Few humans have the inclination, nevermind the ability to sit through a movie of that length without having to take some sort of a break...you guys are cracking me up! :rolleyes:
Pierre, most people would appreciate that break being a mere press of the pause button instead of having to actually remove the disk, place it back in its case, and retrieving "disk 2" to continue the movie...

Absolutely. If there was a cost difference, they'd be wasting their money, much like the people trading in their 720p sets for "fullHD" 1080p sets that give them 0 resolution benefit at the distance they use the TVs from.

But feeble uneducated minds easily succumb to disingenuous marketing every day. And those minds will decide this format war, not you or I.

Welcome to the real world.

and since most ppl with hd displays have 42" or smaller, should the studios only encode in 720p? since most ppl can't tell the difference anyways.

Can your equipment and ears tell the difference between DD+ and lossless? Because I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that I can't discern the difference between lossless and DD+ @ 1.5.

I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that my equipment can, and that it's not just my ears that hear the difference. When I play PCM of TrueHD out my Panny to the Arcam, the difference is huge (albeit greater on some disks that others).

Several of my friends who frequent my HT want to buy into HDM more for the sound improvement than the PQ upgrade. There is no question about it: the sound stage opens up and everything comes across as more "real" (i.e. more immediate feeling).

Sorry, but DD+ doesn't cut it in my HT.

Pierre, most people would appreciate that break being a mere press of the pause button instead of having to actually remove the disk, place it back in its case, and retrieving "disk 2" to continue the movie...

you're splitting hairs.

would you tell the ppl with 42" or smaller screens who sit 10' or more from their tv it doesnt matter if movies are encoded in 720p or 1080p?


Of course I would. Why in the world would you tell someone that is watching a 42" screen from 10' back that it is important for them to get 108oP?!? It simply makes no sense.


just b/c the detail can't always been seen or heard doesnt mean it should be skimped on.

I'm tempted to think you are being sarcastic here. Surely you don't really think what you say you think?!?

imo hd-dvd's bandwidth is holding it back a good deal, and at this stage in the HDM game there shouldnt be any limitations.



To you, then, it is being held back a good deal because you might not always get sound and audio that you couldn't experiance anyway?!?

I think because we are all A/V hobbiest that we all care about the numbers. Our brains tell us that more or less is better depending on what the more or less is related to. But, I think, our senses can't always tell the differences. There is a point where the numbers are too small or too large for our senses to preceive. I think that the issue of lossless vs. DD+ is such a case. As an example, our ears can only hear certain frequencies. Anything beyond is lost except to our dogs. So, I agree. Who really cares about lossless? Maybe our brains, but certainly not our ears.


Wow, that is so wrong it's painful. I've had dozens of people come to my HT and all agree the difference is great. THere is no question that a blind listening test would confirm it.

Now, let's assume for a moment that at least 90% of HDM owners have not invested enough in their system to hear the difference...so what? The majority of HDTVs are not 1080p, does that mean we shouldn't encode the movies at that resolution? When I spend $20-30 on a disk I damned well want it to have the best quality, most future-proof encoding there is. My tv (an earlier SXRD rearpro) can only accept a 1080i signal, but when I eventually upgrade to a 1080p TV I'd be livid if my disks hadn't been encoded to the highest image quality possible. Audio should be the same.

What's sad to me is how fast this thread degenerated from "HD DVD disks ARE big enough to hold lossless audio" to "I don't care about lossless audio, so no one should get it". It seems more like a partisan talking point than an honest concenr about getting the best HT experience possible :mad:

and since most ppl with hd displays have 42" or smaller, should the studios only encode in 720p? since most ppl can't tell the difference anyways.

They should encode to meet whatever standard they've agreed to meet at a comfortable cost to them.

I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that my equipment can, and that it's not just my ears that hear the difference. When I play PCM of TrueHD out my Panny to the Arcam, the difference is huge (albeit greater on some disks that others).

Several of my friends who frequent my HT want to buy into HDM more for the sound improvement than the PQ upgrade. There is no question about it: the sound stage opens up and everything comes across as more "real" (i.e. more immediate feeling).

Sorry, but DD+ doesn't cut it in my HT.

Before I comment on this, I would appreciate it if you would describe your equipment, whether you have had your room professional treated for accustics, and whether you buy expensive name brand cables.

What's sad to me is how fast this thread degenerated from "HD DVD disks ARE big enough to hold lossless audio" to "I don't care about lossless audio, so no one should get it".

Those arguments aren't mutally exclusvie.

Wow, that is so wrong it's painful. I've had dozens of people come to my HT and all agree the difference is great. THere is no question that a blind listening test would confirm it.


That simply isn't true, at least in my experiance.. Maybe they agreed that lossless is much better than normal DD, but DD+ @ 1.5 is much better than normal DD too.

I'm talking about comparing DD+ @ 1.5mbs to lossless, not regular DD. I have personally compared the two in non-blind test, and even then I couldn't tell the difference.

Wow, that is so wrong it's painful. I've had dozens of people come to my HT and all agree the difference is great. THere is no question that a blind listening test would confirm it.

Now, let's assume for a moment that at least 90% of HDM owners have not invested enough in their system to hear the difference...so what? The majority of HDTVs are not 1080p, does that mean we shouldn't encode the movies at that resolution? When I spend $20-30 on a disk I damned well want it to have the best quality, most future-proof encoding there is. My tv (an earlier SXRD rearpro) can only accept a 1080i signal, but when I eventually upgrade to a 1080p TV I'd be livid if my disks hadn't been encoded to the highest image quality possible. Audio should be the same.

What's sad to me is how fast this thread degenerated from "HD DVD disks ARE big enough to hold lossless audio" to "I don't care about lossless audio, so no one should get it". It seems more like a partisan talking point than an honest concenr about getting the best HT experience possible :mad:

The point is that it was a meaningless concern to begin with. Even if the math works out, it's still a molehill.

The above poster is exactly correct (ottscay) Why is it acceptable to NOT include the highest quality audio available?

My main TV is a 1080i set also, why the hell would I NOT want 1080p as an option when I get a new projector?

Why is everyone OK with settling for something less than what the format should be capable of doing?

By the way A--->B comparison is definitely noticable on the discs that I had the opportunity to listen to.

It is sad that a HT "enthusiast" site is so blatantly settling for less than the best in PQ and AQ.

I will not buy a disc from either side that does not include a lossless track. It is only encouraging these gimp-ass studios to continue short-changing its customers.

I own them too, and couldn't care less about the two discs...you're in the minute minority (even if the majority on this forum shared your opinion, which is yet to be proven) and hardly relevant to the studio's decision.

Sorry to burst your bubble if you had your hopes up:rolleyes:

You're probably right. Most people want to get out of their chair and change discs in the middle of a movie. :rolleyes:

Before I comment on this, I would appreciate it if you would describe your equipment, whether you have had your room professional treated for accustics, and whether you buy expensive name brand cables.

Absolutely; my HT is in a dedicated HT room; it's a little too rectangular to be ideal, but I have installed sound catches (covered by hanging tapestries) to cut down on sound reverb. Initially the room failed the "clap test" (ringin echo ensued) horribly, so it was needed from the get-go. I have a 7.1 system consisting of the Klipsch RF-83s and an RC-64 across the front end, with two RF-7s and two RB-75s behind (the extra base of having floor-standers as the main surrounds really helps, btw). I also run a Klipsch RSW-15 subwoofer, which produces prodidious base, but isn't as tight (or easy to callibrate) as newer subs...it's the weakest link in my system at.

My Panny BD-10 and Tosh A1 (and a Denon 2910 for SACD) hook up to my Arcam AVR-300, which I callibrated via SPL meter (from ratshack...it's the new-fangled digital one). I use a pre-out from the Arcam to a Carver Pro ZR1000 amp to power my mains (they are very efficient, but the extra separation of the aplification improves stereo listening).

I honestly do not remember what brand of speaker wire I am using. I remember it was around $7 a foot; I know true audiophiles swear on extremely expensive wire (pricier than mine, I mean), but I'm not convinced that the additional $$ is worth the difference here. Someday I'll have to demo some really highend wire. Anyways, they are all banana plugged into the electronics and speaker binding terminals.

My wife is a professional musician, so it's much easier to sell her on better audio quality than a larger or better TV. Hence it's harder for me to talk her into the $2,000 60" SXRD upgrade than a $2,500 subwoofer upgrade (which we will probably do right after the holidays is finances allow). There are better systems out ther ethan mine, but mine is not too shabby.

The above poster is exactly correct (ottscay) Why is it acceptable to NOT include the highest quality audio available?

My main TV is a 1080i set also, why the hell would I NOT want 1080p as an option when I get a new projector?

Why is everyone OK with settling for something less than what the format should be capable of doing?

By the way A--->B comparison is definitely noticable on the discs that I had the opportunity to listen to.

It is sad that a HT "enthusiast" site is so blatantly settling for less than the best in PQ and AQ.

I will not buy a disc from either side that does not include a lossless track. It is only encouraging these gimp-ass studios to continue short-changing its customers.

pretty much what i'm trying to say, but b/c i'm a bd supporter per sig everyone sees my comments as attacks.

Batman Begins is soft, soft, soft. So yeah, it would probably look just as good since there's no high frequency details to be missed. How about a real high detail HD movie like Hot Fuzz or King Kong? Try cramming a 4 hour version of those into a 30gb space.Probably the first time I've seen Hot Fuzz compared to a Peter Jackson film!

That simply isn't true, at least in my experiance.. Maybe they agreed that lossless is much better than normal DD, but DD+ @ 1.5 is much better than normal DD too.


Roger from Dolby disagrees (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=1&pp=30) with you.


I'm talking about comparing DD+ @ 1.5mbs to lossless, not regular DD. I have personally compared the two in non-blind test, and even then I couldn't tell the difference.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your gear is good enough, but how's your room and speaker layout?

you're splitting hairs.
Dude, not really. LOL I mean, it may not be a pain in the ass to you but it is for a lot of folk. Why do you think remote controls were created that control everything in your HT? Convienience. Having to swap out disks to watch a full movie in this day and age is simply inexcusable. This isn't the days of VHS and laserdisk...

Do you think that your condescending demeaner actually helps your argument? Is this how you talk to people in person, if so, I cannot imagine that you have many friends. Did I even mention lotr in my post?

I said quite simply, People would rather watch a full movie on one disc.

I never watched the extended edition of LOTR, nor do I care to... but to those who do love the movie, I am sure they would rather watch it in one sitting... or break when they want to break, rather than have the disc dictate when they should go to the bathroom.
Or better yet, what if you have to take a break 100 minutes into the movie and have to start it again the next day. Then you put in disc 1, watch 20 minutes, then take it out and put in disc 2. Anyone who says 2 discs is better than 1 is not living in reality. However, I'll take LOTR on 2 discs in HIGH DEF versus 1 disc on SD-DVD.

Those arguments aren't mutally exclusvie.

That's true. I just find one an affront to the spirit of HT (people not caring about including the best possible audio), while the other seems a very valid technical arguement (and/or defense)

It's not like I could spend $20,000 on my home theater all at once. But even when I had a mid-range Reference III 5.1 system and a $300 Yammie reciever with an optical hookup from a Sony deinterlacing DVD player I still wanted the best possible audio and video on my DVDs. I want the weak link to be my system, not the source. That way each upgrade can yield benefits. It's part of the fun of home theater, IMO.

Edit: My first system was a HtiB made up of a DVD player/amp Samsung combo unit and a Klipsch satelite speaker system...There is no way that system, or even the entry-level Yamaha reciever based system could have resolved sufficient detail to really take advantage of HD audio...let alone the room conditions at the time. But I still would have been fighting for inclusion of lossless/uncompressed audio, even then. The only reason I spent $400 on that first HtiB system was because I wanted the best audio I could afford...even when I couldn't afford all that much.

Absolutely; my HT is in a dedicated HT room; it's a little too rectangular to be ideal, but I have installed sound catches (covered by hanging tapestries) to cut down on sound reverb. Initially the room failed the "clap test" (ringin echo ensued) horribly, so it was needed from the get-go. I have a 7.1 system consisting of the Klipsch RF-83s and an RC-64 across the front end, with two RF-7s and two RB-75s behind (the extra base of having floor-standers as the main surrounds really helps, btw). I also run a Klipsch RSW-15 subwoofer, which produces prodidious base, but isn't as tight (or easy to callibrate) as newer subs...it's the weakest link in my system at.

My Panny BD-10 and Tosh A1 (and a Denon 2910 for SACD) hook up to my Arcam AVR-300, which I callibrated via SPL meter (from ratshack...it's the new-fangled digital one). I use a pre-out from the Arcam to a Carver Pro ZR1000 amp to power my mains (they are very efficient, but the extra separation of the aplification improves stereo listening).

maybe paramount is releasing a vanilla version now, and 18months later they'll do a truehd release on both formats. by then bd's specs for supplmental material should be more advanced than its current stage as well.

I honestly do not remember what brand of speaker wire I am using. I remember it was around $7 a foot; I know true audiophiles swear on extremely expensive wire (pricier than mine, I mean), but I'm not convinced that the additional $$ is worth the difference here. Someday I'll have to demo some really highend wire. Anyways, they are all banana plugged into the electronics and speaker binding terminals.

My wife is a professional musician, so it's much easier to sell her on better audio quality than a larger or better TV. Hence it's harder for me to talk her into the $2,000 60" SXRD upgrade than a $2,500 subwoofer upgrade (which we will probably do right after the holidays is finances allow). There are better systems out ther ethan mine, but mine is not too shabby.

they will turn around and tell you most ppl dont have that kind of set up and therefore dont need lossless audio. i myself only have a $1500 audio system (your friggin sub upg is damn near twice that amount) so i can't really tell the difference and i've also never heard dd+ 1.5 as i dont own a hd-dvd player. but i know there are ppl who can tell the difference and for that reason alone lossless audio should always be included.

Dude, not really. LOL I mean, it may not be a pain in the ass to you but it is for a lot of folk. Why do you think remote controls were created that control everything in your HT? Convienience. Having to swap out disks to watch a full movie in this day and age is simply inexcusable. This isn't the days of VHS and laserdisk...

Actually most (99%) full movies will fit just fine, we're talking about extreme cases here...again, a minuscule impact.

they will turn around and tell you most ppl dont have that kind of set up and therefore dont need lossless audio. i myself only have a $1500 audio system (your friggin sub upg is damn near twice that amount) so i can't really tell the difference and i've also never heard dd+ 1.5 as i dont own a hd-dvd player. but i know there are ppl who can tell the difference and for that reason alone lossless audio should always be included.

I was at CC and noticed that not one of their HTiBs supported anything above DTS. I also noticed that their BR display was using one of those HTiBs.

Lossless audio is fine. I think there should be a section in the back next to DVD-A and SACD for the discs that have it.

How about our egos?:p

I believe the phrase is "Bragging Rights."

Yeah, you're probably right about that. The "Mines Bigger Than Yours" syndrome.

To the OP,

Then why would you release "transformers" without a lossless track??

I can understand 90% of releases not having a lossless track (not really), but transformers?? This should have been the movie to "show off" hd dvd and look what Paramount did, screwed the pooch.

Sorry, I don't believe the "not many people use lossless so why include it," or whatever sorry excuse Paramount used.

1) Whats the thread title and Who started the thread? A pro HD-DVD guy. It seems to me the person who is "building up this minor issue" is.... pro HD-DVD

2) To you, you may not care about LOTR EE. But there are people who do. And people who like the movie, dont want to have to break halfway through.

3) As I said earlier, people would rather dicate their own break point, rather than have the movie tell them when to go to the bathroom.


Why/how does a disc change mean a disc/format is dictating when to go take a leak during a LOTR EE (or any exceptionally long movie).

I'm no doctor, but I would imagine one's bladder and/or colon and it's connection to the nervous system dictates when to use the bathroom.

Which should also dictate when the thumb presses the PAUSE key.

Besides, think of a disc swap as "exercise". Put down the popcorn and beverage, get your expanding butt out of the comfy home theater chair and get the heart pumping above near-dead speed. Your body will thank you.

I do hope the friendly sarcasm above shows thru. LAst thing I need is an angry BD supporter flaming me! :)

And for full disclosure purposes, I don't own EITHER HD format yet. Just love to see the fanboy mudslinging from both sides of the battle. I'm of the surely higher majority of folks in the country waiting this war out.

Although I will admit my wallet leans "red" right now, but I could still go "blu".

I was at CC and noticed that not one of their HTiBs supported anything above DTS. I also noticed that their BR display was using one of those HTiBs.

Lossless audio is fine. I think there should be a section in the back next to DVD-A and SACD for the discs that have it.



UUggghhhhh. Enjoy dolby 2.0 through your TV speakers then I guess. To each his own.

They sure could on HD DVD as there is mandatory decoding of True HD

I have always found it strange that there are so few (none?) titles that have only TrueHD, which given that it is mandatory, should be possible.

In fact it seems that being able to drop the 'back up' tracks would be the only advantage of having mandatory TrueHD decoding? Yet we don't see that happening in real world releases. Odd...

That's true. I just find one an affront to the spirit of HT (people not caring about including the best possible audio), while the other seems a very valid technical arguement (and/or defense)

It's not like I could spend $20,000 on my home theater all at once. But even when I had a mid-range Reference III 5.1 system and a $300 Yammie reciever with an optical hookup from a Sony deinterlacing DVD player I still wanted the best possible audio and video on my DVDs. I want the weak link to be my system, not the source. That way each upgrade can yield benefits. It's part of the fun of home theater, IMO.

Edit: My first system was a HtiB made up of a DVD player/amp Samsung combo unit and a Klipsch satelite speaker system...There is no way that system, or even the entry-level Yamaha reciever based system could have resolved sufficient detail to really take advantage of HD audio...let alone the room conditions at the time. But I still would have been fighting for inclusion of lossless/uncompressed audio, even then. The only reason I spent $400 on that first HtiB system was because I wanted the best audio I could afford...even when I couldn't afford all that much.

If the sound engineer who actually mixed the movie tells you there's no perceivable difference on his 6-figure gear, are you going to argue with him too?

Seriously, so much ego it's getting pretty silly. 99.999% of us even on this board don't have the gear to reproduce a 24bit/48Khz master accurately. That's if those even exist! Many masters are 16bit, so what are you going to argue about now? Are you going to shake your 24bit LPCM spec at them? Ridiculous :rolleyes:

The broad answer is ultimately that the sound quality is going to vary per title, per engineer and per studio involved. Some lossy tracks can and will sound better (possibly because of accuracy, or possibly because that engineer is better at his job) on one title than a poorly mixed 'lossless' track on another title. You know, they do give awards for these things for a reason...

Anyway, I for one never meant to imply I saw no value in lossless audio, so I apologize to all here if I've betrayed 'the code' in some way. It's just not the molehill the few of us that can take advantage of it make it out to be.

I have always found it strange that there are so few (none?) titles that have only TrueHD, which given that it is mandatory, should be possible.

In fact it seems that being able to drop the 'back up' tracks would be the only advantage of having mandatory TrueHD decoding? Yet we don't see that happening in real world releases. Odd...

Only 2.0 is mandatory. The fact that we get 5.1 at all is a bonus.

The absence of lossless audio tracks on HD DVDs which absolutely demand the best possible sound (e.g. "King Kong" and now "Transformers") suggest there could be technical issues with bandwidth and/or storage capacity. The studios need to start proving they can deliver reference quality video with lossless audio on movies big on special effects/fast motion sequences on the HD DVD format. So far, they have not delivered. Until then, I'm skeptical of HD DVD's suitability as THE hi-def format.

And I'm tired of people scoping in on one aspect (try a DBT with lossless or a good DD+ soundtrack) and making that the most important thing.

Awesome sound + picture is what's important. Small incremental improvements have not proven to capture the public's interest, and frankly BR has the potential to offer only a slight increase in SQ. Maybe. If your gear is suitable to hear that difference.

I think you're mistaken...he was responding to a BDA/BD-fanboy claim, which is why the words are in quotes.
I chose to take it one step further and state that I felt even if the math works out, it's a non-issue for the vast majority of consumers.


Then why not post in one of those threads. Posting it in a new thread is practically begging for argument...

In your house, you can sit and watch a 2+ hour movie without interuption. But that is your situation. Not everyone has kids.. or has a phone that rings off the hook. There are people who can sit for 3+ hours uninterrupted.

What is a minor annoyance to you... might not be the same for someone else. And given the choice, I am sure that people would choose to not have to get up and switch or flip discs.

Maybe I'll get flamed (by BD people, mostly) for this, but the whole "Lossless vs lossy" deal seems somewhat ridiculous. It seems that we are really dealing with numbers on paper as opposed to what (most) are going to actually hear in their homes.

Is analog better than digital? Depends on who you ask. Is vinyl better than CD? Depends.

Is a 100 watt guitar amp better (or going to be louder) than a 25 watt amp? Depends on how well each amp was made, how efficient the spkr is, etc.

From personal experience, a little 30 yr old 25 watt Fender tube amp I owned ripped the head off another guitar player using a brand new 150 watt solid state amp and 4x12 cabinet. Even managed to drown out a drummer with that little guy.

A well engineered/mixed "lossless" track could end up sounding better than a poorly engineered/mixed lossless one. Am I wrong there?

Yeah...I know...apples and oranges. You all can go back to your war of words now.

If the sound engineer who actually mixed the movie tells you there's no perceivable difference on his 6-figure gear, are you going to argue with him too?

What are you talking about? Find a professional sound engineer who says there's no difference. Why do you think sound mixers moved to 24bit masters? Because there's no difference?

Many masters are 16bit, so what are you going to argue about now? Are you going to shake your 24bit LPCM spec at them?

Again, what are you even talking about? If all that exists is a 16 bit master, then that's what should be included. I never once specified the spec, only that I want the best one available included. And if HD DVD is not going to include thebest sound option, whether it be a technical shortcoming or just different priorities, then I think it is abandoning its claim to caring about HT enthusiasts.

The broad answer is ultimately that the sound quality is going to vary per title, per engineer and per studio involved. Some lossy tracks can and will sound better (possibly because of accuracy, or possibly because that engineer is better at his job) on one title than a poorly mixed 'lossless' track on another title.

All of this is self-evidently true, and the difference is less on some movies than on others. That still doesn't negate the fact that I want the best possible qulity sound and picture on the movies I buy; a PCM track of a poor mix is still closer to the original than a 5.1 DD(+ or not) mix.

Anyway, I for one never meant to imply I saw no value in lossless audio, so I apologize to all here if I've betrayed 'the code' in some way. It's just not the molehill the few of us that can take advantage of it make it out to be.

There's no "code" to break, I just want my source to have the best quality possible, and frankly I'm irritated that HD DVD short changes the audio as grequently as it has (so far). Whether it's priorities or a technical limitation (e.g. bandwidth) I think the format should come clean so we know what the future of HT will look like if HD DVD wins.

The above poster is exactly correct (ottscay) Why is it acceptable to NOT include the highest quality audio available?

My main TV is a 1080i set also, why the hell would I NOT want 1080p as an option when I get a new projector?

Why is everyone OK with settling for something less than what the format should be capable of doing?

By the way A--->B comparison is definitely noticable on the discs that I had the opportunity to listen to.

It is sad that a HT "enthusiast" site is so blatantly settling for less than the best in PQ and AQ.

I will not buy a disc from either side that does not include a lossless track. It is only encouraging these gimp-ass studios to continue short-changing its customers.

I was going to comment but this ^^^^ says it all.

Enjoy your lossy sound!

Why/how does a disc change mean a disc/format is dictating when to go take a leak during a LOTR EE (or any exceptionally long movie).

I'm no doctor, but I would imagine one's bladder and/or colon and it's connection to the nervous system dictates when to use the bathroom.


Going to the bathroom is not autonomic. You can control it to some degree.... er at least I can.

Anyways, thats beside the point. Someone said that the break doesnt matter that much because... they need to take a bathroom break sometime during the film.

I stated that people would rather choose their own break point.

I don't really care whether it helps or not, but I'm sorry if you're offended. You mentioned 'ambiance', which is a laughable argument with a 5 hr movie, especially at home. And the DVD sales of the EE of the Trilogy did quite well, even on a 2-disc setup. Clearly that's not an issue.

My opinion. I'm most certain the studio doesn't care about mine, or your opinion on the matter either.

Maybe I wouldn't be so condescending if people actually used some common sense, instead of building up these minor issues that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever with the market issues at hand.

Ok this is getting ridicolous. This is the SECOND time you've said a LOTR movie is 5 hours...did I miss the MONSTER HOBBIT release?? You know even ROTK was under 4 hours, and your intentional misrepresentation of fact is blatant evidence of the desperate string on which your argument is hanging. When you know you've lost not only the format war but an argument on disc space, you argue an extreme AND FALSE example of movie length...if you were more rational and honest, people might take you more seriously

Maybe I'll get flamed (by BD people, mostly) for this, but the whole "Lossless vs lossy" deal seems somewhat ridiculous. It seems that we are really dealing with numbers on paper as opposed to what (most) are going to actually hear in their homes.

This shouldn't be a format thing, unless HD DVD is going to abandon the highend of audio. I complain (and have written letters) when BDs got released without the best audio tracks too. The vast majority of people cannot actually accept a 1080p video signal...do you think it's "just numbers on paper" that the disks are encoded at 1080p? Would you buy them if they were authored at 720p?

UUggghhhhh. Enjoy dolby 2.0 through your TV speakers then I guess. To each his own.

Um, no. DD+ via an HK 7.1 AVR with Rocket (AV123) speakers. Far better than any HTiB or TV speakers.

I am sure though that lossless on your Bose system sounds better though.

Um, no. DD+ via an HK 7.1 AVR with Rocket (AV123) speakers. Far better than any HTiB or TV speakers.

Very nice speakers. You should consider getting separates, or a better AVR though if you aren't hearing a difference. Look at your room acoustics too. You have the makings of a sweet setup. :)

Um, no. DD+ via an HK 7.1 AVR with Rocket (AV123) speakers. Far better than any HTiB or TV speakers.

I am sure though that lossless on your Bose system sounds better though.

So I reply to your post that said "lossless audio should go on a rack in the back with SACD and DVDA".

And then you disrespect my system, not even knowing what it is?

You clearly don't care about lossless, so that calls for you to rag on my stuff?

Do you really want to go there?

Very nice speakers. You should consider getting separates, or a better AVR though if you aren't hearing a difference. Look at your room acoustics too. You have the makings of a sweet setup. :)

Room acoustics are a major factor in audio, and I put it above DD+ vs. lossless (along with speakers, DACs, and a few other things). I am happy with my setup. I could have bought a new AVR, but I went with the Panny 1080p projector. I think video is more objective and sound is subjective. Its easier to please with great video (and mine is not even the best).

How many movies are we really talking about here that are 4 hours in length? I know we are talking more specifically about a particular Trilogy of movies, but beyond that?

Having said that, I myself can deal with the EEs being split. It works well for the DVD versions and you DO have to pee sometime!

I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that my equipment can, and that it's not just my ears that hear the difference. When I play PCM of TrueHD out my Panny to the Arcam, the difference is huge (albeit greater on some disks that others).

Several of my friends who frequent my HT want to buy into HDM more for the sound improvement than the PQ upgrade. There is no question about it: the sound stage opens up and everything comes across as more "real" (i.e. more immediate feeling).

Sorry, but DD+ doesn't cut it in my HT.


OK, ottscay, care to tell us which HD DVD or Blu-ray disc, containing BOTH a DD+ and True-HD/PCM soundtrack you used for this fair comparison? According to a film industry guy on another thread, no such disc exists at this time.

Comparing apples to oranges, are we?

Roger from Dolby disagrees (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=709111&page=1&pp=30) with you.

I'm sorry, but I saw no where that Roger disagreed with me. I would appreciate it if you could link to the direct quote. Thanks.

Btw, I think Filmmixer agrees with me, I'll edit in the link after I eat lunch.



I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your gear is good enough, but how's your room and speaker layout?

There's no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt about my gear. I am claiming my gear isnt good enough to tell a difference between DD+@1.5 and lossless. I'm not saying there isn't a mathmatical difference between the two, and I acknowledge that a few select people, with the right gear, may well be able to tell the difference. But I'm saying that the vast majority of the people get no percieved improvement going from DD+@1.5 to lossless.

For the record, I have rather unimpressive JBL speakers, which cost less than $2k for all 7. I have a 7.1 Pioneer reciever. My speakers are layed out per THX recommendation. I have a dedicated home theater bat cave, that is rectangular in shape. While I really like the way my system sounds, I would be a professional would encourage bass traps.

OK, ottscay, care to tell us which HD DVD or Blu-ray disc, containing BOTH a DD+ and True-HD/PCM soundtrack you used for this fair comparison? According to a film industry guy on another thread, no such disc exists at this time.

I'll go home at lunch and check for you :D

I used Phantom of the Opera HD DVD to determine whether I could tell the difference between DD+ @ 1.5 and Lossless.

There's no reason to give me the benefit of the doubt about my gear. I am claiming my gear isnt good enough to tell a difference between DD+@1.5 and lossless.


But maybe someday you will have gear that will show a diference?
Up untill recently, I only had a 720 display, but I certainly wouldnt have settled for a 720 format.

What are you talking about? Find a professional sound engineer who says there's no difference. Why do you think sound mixers moved to 24bit masters? Because there's no difference?




From Filmmixer:



But I would be a fool and a liar if I told you that I could discern the difference between the master, a lossless THD encode and a 1.5 DD+ encode 9 times out of 10, even with my own tracks. That's why "just good enough" does it for me and I spend my energy on more important issues (like trying to save theatrical presentation from getting any worse than it is.)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11532069&postcount=480


I really don't know why that isn't enough to settle the matter. He is an expert, with professional gear, and 9 times out of 10 he can't tell the difference between 1.5DD+ and lossless - even on the tracks he made himself. You guys are claiming you can do it at home with the very same tracks he's made!

So he admits that there are differences.

I would also venture to guess he would notice more than 1/10 times too. ;)


Lossy will never be better than lossless. It may be close, but it will never be what it can be.

Raise your standards. We should expect more from studios and formats than low prices, good pictures, and lots of extras, and good enough sound.

For my money I want the best I can have.

So he admits that there are differences.

I would also venture to guess he would notice more than 1/10 times too. ;)


Lossy will never be better than lossless. It may be close, but it will never be what it can be.

Raise your standards. We should expect more from studios and formats than low prices, good pictures, and lots of extras, and good enough sound.

For my money I want the best I can have.


Does that include interactivity? Or what about freedom to choose which region you buy your disc from? Or what about internect connectivity?


There are lot of different factors to consider. If you place a lot of importance on this variable, its for rhetorical reasons. That's why many of us say that people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

The reality is that professional filmixers, with professional gear, don't see a diffrence between 1.5DD+ and lossless the vast majority of the time. I will never hear that difference at home, even if I had a $50,000 audio system and professionally treated room. And if people were truely honest about this, they would probably admit the same. Bose and Monster cables have made a good living at convincing people they can hear differences that just arent' there. This is how they do it.

Does that include interactivity? Or what about freedom to choose which region you buy your disc from? Or what about internect connectivity?


There are lot of different factors to consider. If you place a lot of importance on this variable, its for rhetorical reasons. That's why many of us say that people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

The reality is that professional filmixers, with professional gear, don't see a diffrence between 1.5DD+ and lossless the vast majority of the time. I will never hear that difference at home, even if I had a $50,000 audio system and professionally treated room. And if people were truely honest about this, they would admit the same.


That is my point EXPECT IT ALL. If you want it, expect it.

People keep making this a format thing. We should expect the best, no matter what format.

BR needs extras
HD DVD needs to take lossless more seriously.

Higher expectations are needed here, not lower.

The reality is that professional filmixers, with professional gear, don't see a diffrence between 1.5DD+ and lossless the vast majority of the time. I will never hear that difference at home, even if I had a $50,000 audio system and professionally treated room. And if people were truely honest about this, they would probably admit the same.


Filmixers????? plural?????
Lets not quote one guy and assume all feel the same way.

I also recall him saying there is no use for discrete 7.1, he may be right, but I still want it!
By the way, are there any lossless 7.1 mixes on HD-DVD????(I really dont know....)

HD DVD needs to take lossless more seriously.

Higher expectations are needed here, not lower.

Given that I will never receive an audible benefit from moving from 1.5DD+ to lossless, it simply is not a priority for me. I don't care if they ever do lossless again. I won't fight for an imperceptible change.

Given that I will never receive an audible benefit from moving from 1.5DD+ to lossless, it simply is not a priority for me. I don't care if they ever do lossless again. I won't fight for an imperceptible change.



And others will. You don't expect the best. That is fine. I do.

Will I EVER watch any extras on a disc? No. But they need to be there for people who want them, as I am not the only person who is a fan of HDM.

Now can we (Sony and Tosh) just decide on 1 format please?

Given that I will never receive an audible benefit from moving from 1.5DD+ to lossless, it simply is not a priority for me. I don't care if they ever do lossless again. I won't fight for an imperceptible change.



You will never receive an audible benefit? How could you possibly know that? :confused:

don't most here realize that in order to get lossless sound you must have the both the knowhow and the right equipment (which many have one or the other) to get it? Other than the few thousand here in this forum not many "average" consumers are going to upgrade their audio equipment or connect 6 analog cables (if that's possible with their player and/or receiver). We have to wait until the audio equipment side catches up with the player side.

Wooh, serious Déjà vu.:eek:

I feel like we are back in the days of debating why DVD-A and SACD will rule.

You will never receive an audible benefit? How could you possibly know that? :confused:


Because experts in the field have noted that even on the best professional systems, in a professionally sound treated room, the vast majority of the time they can't tell the difference between 1,5+DD and lossless.

I don't have that sort of setup. I have a dedicated theater, but it's not professionally sound treated. My speakers cost around $2k total, so they are good but not pro-quality. My ears aren't golden.

Lossless is not a step up from 1.5DD+ for me. To me they are perceptably transparant. I have tried this in my own theater, with Phantom of the Opera. It is a very beautiful track, but I can't tell the difference between the 1.5DD and the lossless track.

Lossless is not an improvement upon 1.5DD+ for me.

OK, ottscay, care to tell us which HD DVD or Blu-ray disc, containing BOTH a DD+ and True-HD/PCM soundtrack you used for this fair comparison? According to a film industry guy on another thread, no such disc exists at this time.

Wait, what are you talking about? Every HD DVD that is encoded with TrueHD 5.1 also has a DD+ track that I'm aware of. The first three I grabbed off the stack were Troy, Batman begins, and V for Vendetta, all of which sounded better in TrueHD. I don't know what the bitrate of the DD+ is on those titles, but that's part of my objection to DD+, it's lossy and it's easy to hide lower bitrate DD+ because studios don't put the bitrate on the packaging. With TrueHD or PCM I know I am getting lossless quality.

Now I admit the difference is not as large on HD DVD as the difference on Blu-ray between PCM/TrueHD and DD 5.1, but I'm not sure that if that is because DD+ is really much better, or because the A1 has lower quality audio DACs. The only way to remove the player hardware from the equation would be to stream all streams (froom both formats) via HDMI to a high quality AVR that coould decode them. I can't do that yet, but regardless PCM/TrueHD blows the coks off of DD 5.1, and is better than DD+, even with the A1 DACs doing the D/A conversion.

Given that I will never receive an audible benefit from moving from 1.5DD+ to lossless, it simply is not a priority for me. I don't care if they ever do lossless again. I won't fight for an imperceptible change.

That's fair; if you don't see a benefit, why should you care (unless you want to try and chase the HT upgrade dream, like many enthusiasts...but not all)?

But if HD DVD really does eschew lossless sound, don't tell me I'm a jerk if I refer to it as HD-lite. There is no fundamental barrier to including lossless or uncompressed tracks on HDM, and it IS a priority to me. If one format doesn't support it, I won't support that format.

Then why not post in one of those threads. Posting it in a new thread is practically begging for argument...

In your house, you can sit and watch a 2+ hour movie without interuption. But that is your situation. Not everyone has kids.. or has a phone that rings off the hook. There are people who can sit for 3+ hours uninterrupted.

What is a minor annoyance to you... might not be the same for someone else. And given the choice, I am sure that people would choose to not have to get up and switch or flip discs.

Ummm. I didn't start the thread. I missed your point here, please re-word if possible.

We're discussing 4hr+ movies here, a minuscule sample of the movie market.

That's fair; if you don't see a benefit, why should you care (unless you want to try and chase the HT upgrade dream, like many enthusiasts...but not all)?

But if HD DVD really does eschew lossless sound, don't tell me I'm a jerk if I refer to it as HD-lite. There is no fundamental barrier to including lossless or uncompressed tracks on HDM, and it IS a priority to me. If one format doesn't support it, I won't support that format.

Do you believe that your gear and ears are better than filmixers?

Ok this is getting ridicolous. This is the SECOND time you've said a LOTR movie is 5 hours...did I miss the MONSTER HOBBIT release?? You know even ROTK was under 4 hours, and your intentional misrepresentation of fact is blatant evidence of the desperate string on which your argument is hanging. When you know you've lost not only the format war but an argument on disc space, you argue an extreme AND FALSE example of movie length...if you were more rational and honest, people might take you more seriously

The extended edition (aka EE) is 251 mins runtime. My math says that's over 4 hrs.

Because experts in the field have noted that even on the best professional systems, in a professionally sound treated room, the vast majority of the time they can't tell the difference between 1,5+DD and lossless.

Wait, one anonymous expert said that on AVS, that's not the same thing as consensus. I don't think he's being dishonest, but I don't know if he meant listening in the mixing room or on his HT, and if the latter what kind of setup he has at home. Like Shamus, I want discrete 7.1 sound, even if Filmixer doesn't hear the value in it.

Anyways, I want full-HD sound, not HD-lite sound, regardless of format.

Do you believe that your gear and ears are better than filmixers?

LOL, he doesnt have to believe that. I trust MY ears over anyone elses if that is what you are asking.

So because a Chef says this places food tastes the same as the next, you don't want to find out for yourself?

No wonder some people here so blindly follow some of the insiders.

Filmixers????? plural?????
Lets not quote one guy and assume all feel the same way.

I also recall him saying there is no use for discrete 7.1, he may be right, but I still want it!
By the way, are there any lossless 7.1 mixes on HD-DVD????(I really dont know....)

I believe only SDDS did those, and they no longer exist as of a couple of years ago...could be wrong though.

Wait, one anonymous expert said that on AVS, that's not the same thing as consensus. I don't think he's being dishonest, but I don't know if he meant listening in the mixing room or on his HT, and if the latter what kind of setup he has at home. Like Shamus, I want discrete 7.1 sound, even if Filmixer doesn't hear the value in it.

Anyways, I want full-HD sound, not HD-lite sound, regardless of format.

He's not really anonymous, in the sense that he has told us some of the 90 plus projects he's worked on, and one could see who he is for themselves, (i.e. We were soldiers HD DVD edition). And he's been verified as an expert by the mods here.

Also, from the context it should be clear he meant he was listening in his mixing room, given he had access to the master.

LOL, he doesnt have to believe that. I trust MY ears over anyone elses if that is what you are asking.


If you believe one thing I've written here today, please make it this:

Your ears lie to you, all the time. They tell you what you want to know, not what you need to know. They tell you that you've found what you expected to find, even when it wasn't there. Your ears aren't to be trusted.

Haven't you guys been reading the Insiders threads? According to Amir you don't need TrueHD. DD+ is fine according to him. Seriously.

Funny how you don't mention FilmMixer. Or John Dawson from a little company named Arcam.

They seem to be providing similar data. And interestingly enough, they are probably in a MUCH better position to know than most here. The fact that their info meshes with Amir's is interesting, no?

If you believe one thing I've written here today, please make it this:

Your ears lie to you, all the time. They tell you what you want to know, not what you need to know. They tell you that you've found what you expected to find, even when it wasn't there. Your ears aren't to be trusted.

But "filmmixers" are? ;)

I have to agree with Amir here. I would bet 99% of the people don't have the equipment or the ears to distinguish between DD+ @1.5mbs and lossless. It simply isn't an important issue to me, and shouldn't be important to the vast majority of people.

Indeed. I'll admit I don't.

According to that logic, since only 1% of US Households have a television larger than 42", and therefore only 1% of the people can see any difference between 1080p and 720p (unless you sit closer than 5ft from your 37" tv). So why don't we all watch 720p material instead since only 1% feel its important?

I've got a 10ft screen and top of the line speakers in an acoustically treated room - I want the best video and sound!

For a 42" TeeVee sitting farther than 6 feet away or so? I bet the vast majority of people would have a hard time telling 720 from 1080 to be honest.

Mind sharing your entire audio chain?

Funny how you don't mention FilmMixer. Or John Dawson from a little company named Arcam.

They seem to be providing similar data. And interestingly enough, they are probably in a MUCH better position to know than most here. The fact that their info meshes with Amir's is interesting, no?


Arcam is HD DVD biased, read their summation of HDM on their website it is obvious. Amir is biased.

I also Imagine Filmmixers posts might not be looked upon in a good light if they said anything derogatory towards DD+.

You keep being happy with what you get. Some (including some HD DVD fans believe it or not) want more.

But "filmmixers" are? ;)

Professional, and if they were lying to him he would be out of a job by now.

Wait, what are you talking about? Every HD DVD that is encoded with TrueHD 5.1 also has a DD+ track that I'm aware of. The first three I grabbed off the stack were Troy, Batman begins, and V for Vendetta, all of which sounded better in TrueHD. I don't know what the bitrate of the DD+ is on those titles, but that's part of my objection to DD+, it's lossy and it's easy to hide lower bitrate DD+ because studios don't put the bitrate on the packaging. With TrueHD or PCM I know I am getting lossless quality.

Now I admit the difference is not as large on HD DVD as the difference on Blu-ray between PCM/TrueHD and DD 5.1, but I'm not sure that if that is because DD+ is really much better, or because the A1 has lower quality audio DACs. The only way to remove the player hardware from the equation would be to stream all streams (froom both formats) via HDMI to a high quality AVR that coould decode them. I can't do that yet, but regardless PCM/TrueHD blows the coks off of DD 5.1, and is better than DD+, even with the A1 DACs doing the D/A conversion.

According to the information in the Insiders thread Warners' companion dd+ tracks are at 640, not enough for Amir's taste. John Dawson from Arcam has some interesting information in those two threads ( Insider and Tracking ). A good read for you guys interested in these issues. Maybe you can bring some of your concerns questions there if you haven't already.

Too much fanboyism here. Here's how I see it:

Lossless audio isn't really a problem for any normal length movie. Take a 16bit truehd track, DD5.1 secondary, and 19mbit video bitrate (PotC2 bitrate), and you're at 22mbit total, or 3 hours on a HDDVD. Assume a couple of GB for menus and extras, and that's 170 mins. The problem is with peak video bitrate, where without dyna-muxxing you've only got about 25mbit. That's too tight to do justice to a 19mbit average.

However, 19mbit is over the top for video - Bluray uses that simply because space isn't an issue. A more realistic compression target for transparency is around 15mbit for most content, for which 25mbit peak is fine - this only becomes a problem if you want both lossless and interactive. Again with a couple of GB extras:

15mbit+16bit truehd+DD5.1: 207 mins
15mbit+24bit truehd+DD5.1: 197mins, w/ peak video bitrate 23.5mbit.
15mbit+16bit truehd+DD5.1+ 2mbit IME: 187mins, w/ peak video bitrate 22.5mbit

The latter is still quite plausible for transparency, but both average and peak are about as tight as can be trimmed. Personally I'd prefer to just dump the IME entirely, it's a waste of precious peak bandwidth.

Anyway, some real world examples. 300 is extremely grainy, has 16bit lossless, IME, a secondary DD+ at 640kbit (yuck), and a video bitrate of 17.5mbit. With the peaks from the IME and truehd, peak video bitrate will be around 22.5mbit also - very tight. Given how grainy it is, and the amount of action sequences, the studio did a terrific job for that limited peak not to really show up.

By contrast, Batman Begins. With the same sound options and IME, its peak will also be around 22.5mbit, but the average video bitrate is much lower, something like 13.5mbit - largely because the original is quite soft. Or the latter two matrix movies, again with the same sound/ime and thus same video peak, are 15mbit video. The pattern is fairly obvious here: even with 16bit lossless and IME, HDDVDs can look superb (although the encoders will be having a really hard job on these).


A four hour movie? Ouch. Forget any extras, forget IME, go with minimal menus, and you've got a total mux rate of 16.5mbit. If you go with the same 16bit Truehd+DD5.1 secondary as above, the video bitrate is squeezed down to 13.5mbit, enough for some content (eg Batman as above) but not all. If you jettisoned the lossless entirely and went with plain 1.5mbit DD+, you've got 15mbit video, and that's OK for anything but really grainy stuff. The Matrixes were fine with that video bitrate, certainly. If something like one of the LoTR extended editions was to be released in this way, it would be with secondary discs for extras anyway, so the lack of them on the primary disc doesn't matter. However, losing lossless is a bit of a shame - we may need to wait for encoders to improve to get that on a 4hr disc.

Amir,

Can you please explain WHY paramount would leave lossless audio off of transformers?

To be honest, I can't think of a good excuse. Leave it off of a comedy, love story or drama, but a Sci Fi action movie???

According to the information in the Insiders thread Warners' companion dd+ tracks are at 640

I'm aware of that, but that's one of my objections to DD+ rather than TrueHD. The minimum standard for DD+ is way too low; you don't get any significant quality bump at 640k, and companies don't list their bitrates on the package. TrueHD (or DTS HD MA, or PCM) never has that problem. It's always bit for bit identical to the master (unless the downsample first, which I'm also opposed to).

Maybe you can bring some of your concerns questions there if you haven't already.

I have the utmost respect for Dawson and Arcam. That's all I really want to say about the insiders thread...

Professional, and if they were lying to him he would be out of a job by now.



LOL they would fire him if he couldnt tell a difference between DD+ and lossless? Didn't he just say he couldn't?

*shrug*


It is ok to form your own opinions, I would encourage anyone who enjoys audio to listen for themselves. Not just assume it because you are told so. :)

LOL they would fire him if he couldnt tell a difference between DD+ and lossless? Didn't he just say he couldn't?

*shrug*


It is ok to form your own opinions, I would encourage anyone who enjoys audio to listen for themselves. Not just assume it because you are told so. :)

When did anyone say they would fire him for not being able to tell a difference between DD+ and lossless?

Anyway, I would encourage people to be more skeptical about what they believe they can hear. There is actual a pretty big body of literature about this, and you would be surprised at the tricks your mind plays on you. One could end up wasting a lot of time and money on worthless products if they just "listened for themselves" in an unstructured environment without carefully scrutiny.

Wow, that is so wrong it's painful. I've had dozens of people come to my HT and all agree the difference is great. THere is no question that a blind listening test would confirm it.
...



Oh but there is. That's the EXACT reason why double blind tests are... welll... "double blind". In many cases the placebo effect is THE factor in people's perceptions.

HD-DVD clearly has space limitations as opposed to Blu-Ray. Don't get me wrong, I love the video quality of movies like King Kong but am saddened by the fact that the audio is not up to par with the picture because of the space limitations. On Blu-Ray it would have been no problem. I also noticed that because Paramount went exclusive to Blu-Ray, Blades of Glory took a hit in sound quality presumably because of the space limitations on the disk.



How did you arrive at this "fact"? What is your point of comparison? The losslessly encoded picture?

When did anyone say they would fire him for not being able to tell a difference between DD+ and lossless?

Anyway, I would encourage people to be more skeptical about what they believe they can hear. There is actual a pretty big body of literature about this, and you would be surprised at the tricks your mind plays on you. One could end up wasting a lot of time and money on worthless products if they just "listened for themselves" in an unstructured environment without carefully scrutiny.


As I said, you believe what you are told, I will believe what I hear.

Different strokes

Thanks for the "encouragement" though

How did you arrive at this "fact"? What is your point of comparison? The losslessly encoded picture?

How about Uni provides a lossless track so we can compare?

Ok, so back to the original premise. Can HD DVD fit a 4 hour movie which is difficult to encode (fair amount of noise or grain; maybe 1:85), plus IME, and multiple (say 3) high bitrate sound tracks (1.5 mps DD+ or DTS-HD); plus HD extras (the normal ammount, as are on a DVD, but in HD)? As I mentioned, you could put extras on a second disc; or even split the movie up if nec. But what about bandwidth? And what about true seamless branching?

There clearly are restrictions to what either format can do; and HD DVD has less headroom to play with than BD.

Do you believe that your gear and ears are better than filmixers?

What, my gear and ears against the collective ears and audio gear of the professional film mixing industry? Of course not. Find a statement (preferably one not paid for by the HD DVD promo group or the BDA that confirms Filmixer's opinion and you might have something.

Otherwise it's my ears against one persons ears and equiment I don't know. Filmixer says he's been in the industry a long time; is his hearing as "golden" today as it was when he was younger (probably...I'm just pointing out the unknowns here)? What equipment is he listening on? What are his personal and professional biases?

I do believe that many of my friends (some of whom have done audio mixing and/or are musicians) have ears that are just as good, and they hear the difference a well, and I don't have to tell them which track they are listening to.

It's worth noting that it requires a lot more storage and processing to produce film tracks at 24 bit sampling. Why did the industry migrate if there was no difference (part of the answer, btw, has to do with audio processing and cumulative rounding errors...but if there was really no difference between 16bit uncompressed and 1.5k compressed then it wouldn't have been needed).

For that matter, why did HD DVD make such a big deal about how they required TrueHD decoding while BD did not, if they don't plan on using it? Was it just a hollow talking point (totally possible, both sides do this a lot)?

The Look and Sound of just barely meeting minimum specs.

How can a brand new Hidef format already be maxed out on their playback bandwidth/disc capacity and have hit the ceiling of obsolescence, yet still claim to be the superior format?

Oh right, it's the interactive weblinks that make it Look and Sound "Perfect". Pay no attention to the decade old, long since no longer being considered state of the art audio codecs we're using on our low budget releases.

HD DVD is like the Big Dig in Boston. It was obsolete before it was even finished.

Oh but there is. That's the EXACT reason why double blind tests are... welll... "double blind". In many cases the placebo effect is THE factor in people's perceptions.

Yeah, I'm aware of the placebo affect and have conducted double-blind studies in other (non-audio) fields. I have not done a formal study utilizing my HT, sorry. I can say that at times I have absentmindedly hit play and left the room without selecting the PCM track on a few BDs, and my sound-savvy but HT illiterate guests have demanded I put on the "HD sound" upon my return. Not double-blind conclusive, but at least suggestive, no?

Ok, so back to the original premise. Can HD DVD fit a 4 hour movie which is difficult to encode (fair amount of noise or grain; maybe 1:85), plus IME, and multiple (say 3) high bitrate sound tracks (1.5 mps DD+ or DTS-HD); plus HD extras (the normal ammount, as are on a DVD, but in HD)? As I mentioned, you could put extras on a second disc; or even split the movie up if nec. But what about bandwidth? And what about true seamless branching?

There clearly are restrictions to what either format can do; and HD DVD has less headroom to play with than BD.

That's fair enough. For your above example, you'd have to go for only 2 DD+ tracks to fit the bandwidth limits with a grainy movie. You've then at around 10GB/hour, maybe 9GB/hr with really extreme care taken over it. A 4 hour grainy beast with no IME and a single DD+ would take 34GB, so those 17GB/layer discs start to look quite useful.

Personally I don't see the point of IME, but that's just me. If it's to become a fixture alongside lossless audio (or 2x DD+ tracks), HDDVD is squeezed in both peak video bitrate, and in capacity for really long movies. I'd very much prefer studios didn't have those pressures, and the consequent temptations to skimp on video bitrate. Give me lossless audio over IME any day.

To the OP,

Then why would you release "transformers" without a lossless track??

I can understand 90% of releases not having a lossless track (not really), but transformers?? This should have been the movie to "show off" hd dvd and look what Paramount did, screwed the pooch.

Sorry, I don't believe the "not many people use lossless so why include it," or whatever sorry excuse Paramount used.

You haven't even heard it! :rolleyes:

How do you know they didn't do a TrueHD track and decided it didn't improve on the DD+ mix enough to include it? We don't even know conclusively if it's even on there or not, since they haven't shipped it yet?

How many movies are we really talking about here that are 4 hours in length? I know we are talking more specifically about a particular Trilogy of movies, but beyond that?

Having said that, I myself can deal with the EEs being split. It works well for the DVD versions and you DO have to pee sometime!

A small minority. But there will ALWAYS be a corner case. 4 hour EE's? Six hour mini-series? Full season of SD programming? How about if that's a full season of HD shows?

Somewhere there will be a cutoff point. I suspect a 3-4 hours is about it.

You haven't even heard it! :rolleyes:

How do you know they didn't do a TrueHD track and decided it didn't improve on the DD+ mix enough to include it? We don't even know conclusively if it's even on there or not, since they haven't shipped it yet?

So you are suggesting they mixed a THD mix and didnt use it??

News flash. Lossless will never sound worse than lossy on the same soundtrack. If they took the time and money to mix it, why the hell wouldnt they include it?

It's really not worth trying to convince these people.

There is a measurable auditory difference with Lossless Audio vs. lossy formats, but when everyone on this site just rallies around Amir, and proclaims him to be the knower of all things (when in reality, he's nothing but an HD DVD shill who will spread 100% false info until someone calls him on it) at that point, they'd even argue statistical data.

Why do you think so many of the neutral and Blu-sided confirmed insiders have left this site? It's nothing but Amir's personal HD DVD disinformation and denial front now.


I have to admit, we do keep getting fed "the company line" on this thread.

The Look and Sound of just barely meeting minimum specs.

How can a brand new Hidef format already be maxed out on their playback bandwidth/disc capacity and have hit the ceiling of obsolescence, yet still claim to be the superior format?

Oh right, it's the interactive weblinks that make it Look and Sound "Perfect". Pay no attention to the decade old, long since no longer being considered state of the art audio codecs we're using on our low budget releases.

HD DVD is like the Big Dig in Boston. It was obsolete before it was even finished.

Do you feel better now. That Paramount thing still bugging you?

BTW, you do know that great movies like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire do come with TrueHD (Lossless audio) don't you? Also, do you even have a receiver that supports DD+? It's not a decade old either.

So you are suggesting they mixed a THD mix and didnt use it??

News flash. Lossless will never sound worse than lossy on the same soundtrack. If they took the time and money to mix it, why the hell wouldnt they include it?

to see if they can fit it in with video and if so, release it again later on with THD intact.

So you are suggesting they mixed a THD mix and didnt use it??

News flash. Lossless will never sound worse than lossy on the same soundtrack. If they took the time and money to mix it, why the hell wouldnt they include it?

You keep saying 'worse', when I keep telling you 'not better'. If you have reading comprehension problems, I don't see how we're ever going to get anywhere.

Couple that with the extra licensing cost (not sure how much that is) of including TrueHD, and perhaps you have a reasonable decision.

to see if they can fit it in with video and if so, release it again later on with THD intact.

I can see that. Good point.

The 1966 Russian made, War and Peace, 484 minutes, 6 channel sound, shot in 70mm. Does this have to fit on one BD50 with lossless sound?

There will be a media change point threshold for some content. What is enough for the absolutists?

You keep saying 'worse', when I keep telling you 'not better'. If you have reading comprehension problems, I don't see how we're ever going to get anywhere.

Couple that with the extra licensing cost (not sure how much that is) of including TrueHD, and perhaps you have a reasonable decision.



We are not getting anywhere because you keep making tired excuses as to why HD DVD owners get stuck with a lossy soundtrack on one of the larget grossing action movies of the summer.


Don't be afraid to expect the best. Even some of the HD DVD faithful agree.

...the decade old, long since no longer being considered state of the art audio codecs we're using...

...he's nothing but an HD DVD shill who will spread 100% false info until someone calls him on it...

Hmmm. Who is spreading the false info here?

FYI, Dolby Digital Plus (DD+), also known as E-AC-3, is an audio compression system that was developed specifically for the introduction of HDTV and HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc.

Do you feel better now. That Paramount thing still bugging you?

BTW, you do know that great movies like Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire do come with TrueHD (Lossless audio) don't you? Also, do you even have a receiver that supports DD+? It's not a decade old either.

I have a Blu-Ray player that supports all these formats with 7.1 analog out - and a receiver with 7.1 analog inputs.

You also know that every "great movie with Dolby TruHD" from Warner will have Uncompressed PCM on blu-ray, right?

Couple that with the extra licensing cost (not sure how much that is) of including TrueHD, and perhaps you have a reasonable decision.

so you're saying that it costs a production company more to use one Dolby format than it does to use another, because of licensing?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Your assumption is insulting to the professionals that do this every day, including some that post in these forums.

You have no idea how good or bad the audio mix is, and yet you assume it is garbage.

Do you take the same attitude with AVC versus MPEG2?

so you're saying that it costs a production company more to use one Dolby format than it does to use another, because of licensing?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

I said I didn't know. I think that's pretty clear in that statement.

I said I didn't know. I think that's pretty clear in that statement.

Then maybe you shouldn't float such nonsense into the discussion.

Amir,

Can you please explain WHY paramount would leave lossless audio off of transformers?
No I can't. We were not involved in production of this title.

To be honest, I can't think of a good excuse. Leave it off of a comedy, love story or drama, but a Sci Fi action movie???
For appearance sake, I agree. But as has been mentioned, it is possible that they did a listening test and found it to sound the same as the source (which would be equiv. to TrueHD). But again, I would have put it on to avoid all of these arguments :).

While I am typing this, a few other points:

1. The equipment is not a big factor here. I can tell compression artifacts on $10 computer speakers.

2. If you can't tell compression artifacts, you won't hear them on $100,000 stereo either.

3. Best equipment for detecting compression artifacts are a headphone and volume control. You need the former to hear only one speaker in each ear (the sound from the other will mask artifacts). And to get that last bit of transparency. You need the volume control to turn up the signal so much that you hear low level detail you would never hear.

As I suggested, those of you who think you can hear the difference, do some testing yourself. Encode some music at 128, 256 and 384kbps and compare with the original. Have someone else play the clips for you while you look the other way. I bet it will be a sobering experience for you after you get stumped at even data rates lower than max. Then remember that DD+ at 5.1 is the same as encoding stereo at 600 kbps! In many cases, DD+ has more bits available to it than a lossless codec….

But again, for marketing reasons, I think this title should have had lossless in my opinion.

As I suggested, those of you who think you can hear the difference, do some testing yourself. Encode some music at 128, 256 and 384kbps and compare with the original. Have someone else play the clips for you while you look the other way. I bet it will be a sobering experience for you after you get stumped at even data rates lower than max. Then remember that DD+ at 5.1 is the same as encoding stereo at 600 kbps! In many cases, DD+ has more bits available to it than a lossless codec….

But again, for marketing reasons, I think this title should have had lossless in my opinion.

Absolutely, unequivocally, 1,000% untrue.

I spent the better part of my Audio Production Thesis at Berklee explaining the difference.

This man is a salesmen, people. Take what he says from that perspective.

I don’t claim to be the expert here. But I have spent a decade managing and helping develop both lossless codecs and lossy codecs. I grew up with audio as my hobby and designed amplifiers and such while I was going to high school. I later became an electrical engineer and have managed development of professional audio and video gear for the broadcast industry. I have spent more money on my audio hobby than 99% of the people out there. My headphones alone cost more than most people's home theater (Stax electrostatic with differential tube amp and its sister with differential transistor output stage, clocking at $14K for both). This is driven by a Mark Levinson DAC which costs $8K. All the box does is convert digital audio to analog to drive said speaker. So I have invested as much as a car just for stereo audio!

I have provided references to Bob Stuart's excellent paper on the non-sense around 24-bit audio. Bob is founder of Meridian who is in the business to convince you that you must spend $40K on audio equipment. Yet he doesn't want to sell you specs but reality. And the reality is that superb audio can be reproduced with much more conservative sounding specs. And that there is no difference in fidelity after that point.

Then we have Marc (Filmmixer) who creates audio tracks used for both BD and HD DVD. If you want to call his motives into question, the please go and do that in insider thread, not behind his back.

John is likewise, providing moral support. And we know the reputation of this company.

Everyone here speaks with one voice: that is, don't believe specs. Believe reality. And be pragmatic. Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits. Don't insist on lossless if you haven't heard the comparison to high rate lossy, etc.

At end of the day, threads like this go on forever. So I won't post more but I hope people don't dismiss so many people asking to not fall for marketing claims....

But as has been mentioned, it is possible that they did a listening test and found it to sound the same as the source (which would be equiv. to TrueHD). But again, I would have put it on to avoid all of these arguments

It's possible, but I'll preferentially agree with the second part of your statement. Put it on and let the customer decide.

Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits. Don't insist on lossless if you haven't heard the comparison to high rate lossy, etc.

The first part should be self-evidently true; never ask for an encode that is higher sampled than the original. The second part of the statement I'm calling BS on, as it basically translates as "trust the people in the corporations, they know what's best for your speakers". There are lots of potential reasons for decisions like these, and "it sounded the same" is only one of them. Put the best quality sound available on the disks, so we can decide ourselves. Otherwise why bother developing and marketing the lossless codecs?

In agreement with the first Amir quote, do it even if some people don't think there is a difference; HD DVD's smaller capacity and bandwidth will always make it succeptible to charges of being HD-lite...why wouldn't you throw on the TrueHD track if only to shut down that arguement?

As I said, you believe what you are told, I will believe what I hear.

Different strokes

Thanks for the "encouragement" though

... and thanks for yours first...

It is ok to form your own opinions, I would encourage anyone who enjoys audio to listen for themselves. Not just assume it because you are told so.

I don’t claim to be the expert here. But I have spent a decade managing and helping develop both lossless codecs and lossy codecs. I grew up with audio as my hobby and designed amplifiers and such while I was going to high school. I later became an electrical engineer and have managed development of professional audio and video gear for the broadcast industry. I have spent more money on my audio hobby than 99% of the people out there. My headphones alone cost more than most people's home theater (Stax electrostatic with differential tube amp and its sister with differential transistor output stage, clocking at $14K for both). This is driven by a Mark Levinson DAC which costs $8K. All the box does is convert digital audio to analog to drive said speaker. So I have invested as much as a car just for stereo audio!

I have provided references to Bob Stuart's excellent paper on the non-sense around 24-bit audio. Bob is founder of Meridian who is in the business to convince you that you must spend $40K on audio equipment. Yet he doesn't want to sell you specs but reality. And the reality is that superb audio can be reproduced with much more conservative sounding specs. And that there is no difference in fidelity after that point.

Then we have Marc (Filmmixer) who creates audio tracks used for both BD and HD DVD. If you want to call his motives into question, the please go and do that in insider thread, not behind his back.

John is likewise, providing moral support. And we know the reputation of this company.

Everyone here speaks with one voice: that is, don't believe specs. Believe reality. And be pragmatic. Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits. Don't insist on lossless if you haven't heard the comparison to high rate lossy, etc.

At end of the day, threads like this go on forever. So I won't post more but I hope people don't dismiss so many people asking to not fall for marketing claims....



As I said I love Arcam ( I have and Alpha8 CD player from 6-7 years ago along with an ALPHA 7 integrated amp), but they are clearly HD DVD biased, and you, well I don't really have to say it do I?:)

And sorry to say also, I will insist on lossless audio on my HDM. Neither format will get my purchase money without a lossless track. (rental maybe)

It is also not a marketing claim that lossy will never sound better than lossless. When listening to lossless, I know it is identical to the master, and I will never get improvement. With only a lossy I will never know what I am missing and will always "wonder" what I may be missing.

Just my audiophile streak I guess. I do find it funny that you have such a passion for audio, however you don't want "the best" that is offered.

... and thanks for yours first...

Touche'

However my encouragement was to see for yourself.

Yours was, don't believe yourself.

Very different IMO

I don’t claim to be the expert here. But I have spent a decade managing and helping develop both lossless codecs and lossy codecs. I grew up with audio as my hobby and designed amplifiers and such while I was going to high school. I later became an electrical engineer and have managed development of professional audio and video gear for the broadcast industry. I have spent more money on my audio hobby than 99% of the people out there. My headphones alone cost more than most people's home theater (Stax electrostatic with differential tube amp and its sister with differential transistor output stage, clocking at $14K for both). This is driven by a Mark Levinson DAC which costs $8K. All the box does is convert digital audio to analog to drive said speaker. So I have invested as much as a car just for stereo audio!

I have provided references to Bob Stuart's excellent paper on the non-sense around 24-bit audio. Bob is founder of Meridian who is in the business to convince you that you must spend $40K on audio equipment. Yet he doesn't want to sell you specs but reality. And the reality is that superb audio can be reproduced with much more conservative sounding specs. And that there is no difference in fidelity after that point.

Then we have Marc (Filmmixer) who creates audio tracks used for both BD and HD DVD. If you want to call his motives into question, the please go and do that in insider thread, not behind his back.

John is likewise, providing moral support. And we know the reputation of this company.

Everyone here speaks with one voice: that is, don't believe specs. Believe reality. And be pragmatic. Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits. Don't insist on lossless if you haven't heard the comparison to high rate lossy, etc.

At end of the day, threads like this go on forever. So I won't post more but I hope people don't dismiss so many people asking to not fall for marketing claims....

Given that HD-DVD's target demographic is Joe6pack with a small wallet who can only afford a $199 disc player, you may be completely correct in your assertion that most people who will buy into HD DVD won't be able to tell the difference between lossy and lossless.

In many cases, DD+ has more bits available to it than a lossless codec….True, if we take into account the variable nature of the encoding and not the average bitrate which based on an average of 2:1 compression would be around 2.3 Mbps for a 5.1 channel 16-bit/48-kHz audio track. Still I would point out that is also true for 1.5 Mbps DTS.


Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits.For many movies that is true but from what I have read The Matrix movies were recorded in 24-bit audio so why do you think they stuck with 16-bit audio for the Dolby TrueHD audio tracks?

For appearance sake, I agree. But as has been mentioned, it is possible that they did a listening test and found it to sound the same as the source (which would be equiv. to TrueHD). But again, I would have put it on to avoid all of these arguments :).



See, I don't buy that because I have 300 on HD DVD and doing comparisons with the DD+ and True HD, even my moron brother can tell the difference. I have med level reference speakers, not low end, not high end. So you do not need $4000 speakers to hear it.



But again, for marketing reasons, I think this title should have had lossless in my opinion.



Damn right! It's a blunder of megatron proportions. I think once the disc is released, we'll find out that it's totally maxed out.

All the reviewers who have given DD+ audio encodes high remarks are also "poor Joe Sixpack" who can only afford cheap stuff unlike your highness.

A good friend of mine who is an old audiophile would always joke about how fanatical and scary people are in this niche. That, specs mean more to them than anything in the world and high end companies make a killing by catering to this mindset. This forum has shown me exactly what he means!

See, I don't buy that because I have 300 on HD DVD and doing comparisons with the DD+ and True HD, even my moron brother can tell the difference. I have med level reference speakers, not low end, not high end. So you do not need $4000 speakers to hear it.



Damn right! It's a blunder of megatron proportions. I think once the disc is released, we'll find out that it's totally maxed out.

The DD+ on 300 is a 640, not 1.5.

Everyone here speaks with one voice: that is, don't believe specs. Believe reality. And be pragmatic. Don't ask for 24-bit audio when the best recorded material is probably 16-bits. Don't insist on lossless if you haven't heard the comparison to high rate lossy, etc.
Why did Toshiba make TrueHD decoding mandatory? The *only* reason we are having this discussion between 16-bit / 24-bit audio, lossy / lossless codec, is because the people creating HD DVD releases are not using them. If there were a TrueHD track on every HD DVD movie, we all know you would be in here raving about all the benefits of mandatory TrueHD decoding, and how PCM on Blu-ray is such a waste of space. That's the reality that I believe.

All the reviewers who have given DD+ audio encodes high remarks are also "poor Joe Sixpack" who can only afford cheap stuff unlike your highness.

Higher bit-rate encoded DD+ is certainly an improvement over traditional DD 5.1. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the best audio, and it doesn't solve the problem that not every HD DVD studio encodes DD+ at 1.5 mbps and you can't tell which is which from the packaging. TrueHD is always lossless, which means it's always as good as it gets (unless it's been downsampled, which sucks too).

Has the Transformers audio (or lack thereof) actually been confirmed, or is this discussion based on what may turn out to have been omitted from a press release? Just curious...

Cant you guys just put Batman Begins or King kong in a PC HD-DVD player and see how much space it used?

If it has enough space for truHD left... then the studio was being stingy. If there is not enough space.... then obviously they felt something else was more important and compromised TruHD out the door.

See, I don't buy that because I have 300 on HD DVD and doing comparisons with the DD+ and True HD, even my moron brother can tell the difference.

Isn't the 300 DD+ track at 640k? If so, no surprise.

Has the Transformers audio (or lack thereof) actually been confirmed, or is this discussion based on what may turn out to have been omitted from a press release?

No, this discussion is about disk space utilization and (potential) limitations. The majority of HD DVD releases have not had lossless tracks, so even if Transformer's did (or was changed to include after this hullabaloo) it doesn't change the situation drastically.

It would be nice if they could change it though.

The DD+ on 300 is a 640, not 1.5.

OH.......... :confused:


I'm going to blame Toshiba for not having a bitrate meter in the A2. :cool:

<dances away from discussion without shame.> :D

Cant you guys just put Batman Begins or King kong in a PC HD-DVD player and see how much space it used?

If it has enough space for truHD left... then the studio was being stingy. If there is not enough space.... then obviously they felt something else was more important and compromised TruHD out the door.

Batman Begins has a TrueHD track. I believe this was done for KK and it did not have enough space. There was a thread on AVS about it at some point.

Cant you guys just put Batman Begins or King kong in a PC HD-DVD player and see how much space it used?


They were being stingy :-) There's no capacity reason for any HDDVD not to have 16/48 dolby truehd. It's only 360MBytes/hour more than 1500k-DD+, which is nothing. Most discs have lots of free space.

Wow, this thread has grown a lot since last night! Anyway, to address a few of the questions:

Why hasn't Transformers been announced in Lossless?

As originally stated, since it isn't released yet, it isn't 100% that it won't have lossless audio. But beyond that, Paramount/DreamWorks has yet to release a lossless audio track on ANY of their high-def releases on either HD DVD or Blu-ray, so it shouldn't be too big of a surprise that they aren't with this one. In fact, Mission Impossible on Blu-ray only had a 640 kbps DD+ soundtrack, and Mission Impossible on HD DVD had a 1.5 Mbps DD+ soundtrack...

HD DVD can't handle lossless because of the bandwidth issues.

It seems to be claimed by people in this thread that movies "deserving" a lossless audio track weren't able to use one because of bandwidth issues. Apparently movies with a lot of detail and action scenes can't handle the bandwidth issues. But I'll point you to a couple of action movies that DO have lossless and handle the bandwidth issues: Batman Begins, Dawn of the Dead, Superman Returns, The Matrix Trilogy and 300. In fact, 300 had a higher video bit rate than King Kong and it STILL was able to include a lossless audio track.

Higher bit-rate encoded DD+ is certainly an improvement over traditional DD 5.1. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the best audio, and it doesn't solve the problem that not every HD DVD studio encodes DD+ at 1.5 mbps and you can't tell which is which from the packaging. TrueHD is always lossless, which means it's always as good as it gets (unless it's been downsampled, which sucks too).

We should have the best of everything but we can't control the studios. Maybe enough feedback from Amir will get back to Paramount and they'll consider a TruHD track on transformers. Maybe we can even download the TruHD track! That'd be pretty cool actually. I'd be quite happy if they did a TruHD and DD+ at 1.5 and let people decide for themselves.

Batman Begins has a TrueHD track. I believe this was done for KK and it did not have enough space. There was a thread on AVS about it at some point.

Or it could be Universal always using DD+ at 1.5 on their films. They have over a 100 titles out. Do we use that line per title now?

Paramount/DreamWorks has yet to release a lossless audio track on ANY of their high-def releases on either HD DVD or Blu-ray, so it shouldn't be too big of a surprise that they aren't with this one.

Sorry, not true. There is a lossless track on the Blu-ray release of Letters from Iwo Jima.

But I'll point you to a couple of action movies that DO have lossless and handle the bandwidth issues: Batman Begins, Dawn of the Dead, Superman Returns, The Matrix Trilogy and 300.

Batman Begins is very soft, and SR looks like arse. I haven't see DotD. 300 is a good example, although not terribly long in duration. I know I'm not (personally) claiming that HD DVD does this because of a bandwidth limitation (except maybe KK, which I believe did max out disk space), all I know is the majority of releases so far don't include lossless audio, and I think that should change.

You got to take meds to suffer through them? j/k

I never heard of middle of the road "reference" speakers.

Energy RC series. Make of that what you will.

You made a statement of fact that "in many cases" DD+ has more bits available to it than a lossless codec.
That's correct. See more below.

Are you saying that your POINT wasn't the statement of fact you made (incorrectly, I might add)? Or was your point some obtuse non-point feigning to be humor?
No, it was a serious comment. I am now wondering what your theses paper was if you thought the above was a joke :). I will explain.

A lossy codec running at 1.5mbit/sec will always put out that much data whether required or not. The codec transforms the signal from time to domain to frequency. Quantize the bands based on the target rate. And then losslessly pack the data. As a constant bit rate codec, you get 1.5mbit/sec output day in, day out (unless you feed it pure silence in which case, some codecs still spit out the full rate (by padding) which others will go down in data rate).

TrueHD on the other hand is a variable rate codec. Feed it easy to compress data and it will dip below 1.5mbit/sec. The codec simply varies its output rate to comply with the requirement of lossless compression. So its effective data rate for any moment in time, could very well be below that of DD+ at 1.5mbit/sec.

Just in case you don’t believe me, look at a post this morning from another member: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11540717&postcount=843

Lossless compression of 16bit tracks often does not consume more space than lossy compression with 1.5Mbps!!!

E.g. I've taken the 16bit PCM track from "Deja Vu" and compressed it in DTS 1.5Mbps and also in FLAC. The DTS file is 700MB bigger than the FLAC file... :)

So you can assume that when a lossy codec has so much “breathing room” it is going to rival lossless codec in quality.

The other conclusion is that this stuff does not necessary make sense to laymen. The science is a lot more complicated than it seems.

Wow, this thread has grown a lot since last night! Anyway, to address a few of the questions:

Why hasn't Transformers been announced in Lossless?

As originally stated, since it isn't released yet, it isn't 100% that it won't have lossless audio. But beyond that, Paramount/DreamWorks has yet to release a lossless audio track on ANY of their high-def releases on either HD DVD or Blu-ray, so it shouldn't be too big of a surprise that they aren't with this one.

And that explains that.

HD DVD can't handle lossless because of the bandwidth issues.

It seems to be claimed by people in this thread that movies "deserving" a lossless audio track weren't able to use one because of bandwidth issues. Apparently movies with a lot of detail and action scenes can't handle the bandwidth issues. But I'll point you to a couple of action movies that DO have lossless and handle the bandwidth issues: Batman Begins, Dawn of the Dead, Superman Returns, The Matrix Trilogy and 300. In fact, 300 had a higher video bit rate than King Kong and it STILL was able to include a lossless audio track.

And that explains that. Thanks!:)

Batman Begins has a TrueHD track. I believe this was done for KK and it did not have enough space. There was a thread on AVS about it at some point.

Cool.

I will deduce that
1) Longer movies dont have the space for TruHD, and normal movies do.... so probably Transformers would have the space for TruHD, depending on the extra's.

What was the average bandwidth on kong vs 300? And does the bandwidth meter break down audio and video... or is it inclusive.

Or it could be Universal always using DD+ at 1.5 on their films. They have over a 100 titles out. Do we use that line per title now?

And I wish Universal would put a TrueHD track on all of them. I really don't think it's usually a format limitation, I was just mentioning that someone looked at the KK disk on a computer and reported that there didn't appear to be enough space left for a TrueHD track. Maybe my memory is decieving me, but assuming it's true it obviously doesn't apply to most movies.

I just want there to be lossless tracks.

some posts deleted, warnings issued

Attacking, condescending posts will get you points

Please be nice :)

A lossy codec running at 1.5mbit/sec will always put out that much data whether required or not. The codec transforms the signal from time to domain to frequency. Quantize the bands based on the target rate. And then losslessly pack the data. As a constant bit rate codec, you get 1.5mbit/sec output day in, day out (unless you feed it pure silence in which case, some codecs still spit out the full rate (by padding) which others will go down in data rate).

TrueHD on the other hand is a variable rate codec. Feed it easy to compress data and it will dip below 1.5mbit/sec. The codec simply varies its output rate to comply with the requirement of lossless compression. So its effective data rate for any moment in time, could very well be below that of DD+ at 1.5mbit/sec.

This is true, but you're ignoring efficiency, which seems odd considering your work on VC-1. A fixed bit-rate lossy codec may use more bits to encode silence, but that in no way implies higher fidelity to the source; silence is silence. A lossless codec (by definition) implies maximum fidelity to the source, regardless of the number of bits thrown at it.


So you can assume that when a lossy codec has so much “breathing room” it is going to rival lossless codec in quality.

That's possible, but doesn't necessarily follow. The "breathing room" may simply come from the easy-to-encode parts, but the compression artifacts show up in the hard-to-encode portions that exceed the fixed bit rate of your lossy codec.

The other conclusion is that this stuff does not necessary make sense to laymen. The science is a lot more complicated than it seems.

Undoubtedly, but I don't want a lowest common denominator format. It certainly won't hurt the "laymen" to have a lossless codec, and it benefits HT enthusiasts who want it.

Edit: And none of this addresses my biggest issue with DD+: it can be encoded at 640k, and you can't tell from the packaging. TrueHD promises fidelity, the DD+ lable does not.

Why did Toshiba make TrueHD decoding mandatory?
Toshiba didn't. DVD Forum voted to do so. As a member who voted Yes, my thought at the time was for music reproduction.


The *only* reason we are having this discussion between 16-bit / 24-bit audio, lossy / lossless codec, is because the people creating HD DVD releases are not using them. If there were a TrueHD track on every HD DVD movie, we all know you would be in here raving about all the benefits of mandatory TrueHD decoding, and how PCM on Blu-ray is such a waste of space. That's the reality that I believe.

I have made the PCM argument too :p.

Since TrueHD is a fairly efficient lossless encoder, wouldn't 640k DD+ (or even DD 5.1) also have "more bits to play with" at times? Surely you wouldn't imply that 640k tracks are indistinguishable from TrueHD, would you?

And I wish Universal would put a TrueHD track on all of them. I really don't think it's usually a format limitation, I was just mentioning that someone looked at the KK disk on a computer and reported that there didn't appear to be enough space left for a TrueHD track. Maybe my memory is decieving me, but assuming it's true it obviously doesn't apply to most movies.

I just want there to be lossless tracks.

Not that I really care about the core lossy vs lossless argument (since I've heard it 10000 times already), but it isn't a logical extension that simply by looking at the size of the movie on the disk, one can conclude there isn't enough space for a lossless track. As pointed out by others, the file size at the end of the day of a lossy vs lossless track could be nearly the same, and of course there is nothing to stop the video encoder from using all the remaining available space on the disk, just because it was there not because it was necessarily needed to achieve sufficient PQ (path of least resistance).

That being said, I can appreciate the desire to know there is a lossless track there, regardless if you think you can hear a difference or not. Marketing value and all that (and maybe even perceptable differences to some).

you're splitting hairs.


Pierrebnh,

While I can agree with the technical points about the importance of flipping a disc (personally I would like the option of pausing more than being forced to flip a disc, but again my opinion), my disagreement comes with your dismissive tone that the opinions of others aren't valid. Each person should be given full courtesy in their opinions. You as a fellow opinion holder present your facts to your opinion and state your opinion, but attacking another's opinion as "laughable" is not conducive to an open discussion but closer to the "fanboy" tactics that everyone accuses each other of.

I say this in hopes that this will help you and others see what causes complaints and how we can all assist in making AVS a relaxed and enjoyable place for our AV discussions.

Regards,
Splints

Amir, 7.1 lossless on HD DVD... Can it be done?

Since TrueHD is a fairly efficient lossless encoder, wouldn't 640k DD+ (or even DD 5.1) also have "more bits to play with" at times?
There is very little difference between lossless codecs so I am not sure what the term "efficient" means here. But no, it is unlikely that the data rate would be this low for TrueHD for anything other than short segments.


Surely you wouldn't imply that 640k tracks are indistinguishable from TrueHD, would you?
No I wouldn't. But tracks even at this rate have gotten near reference quality rating (4.5 out of 5 stars). http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html

"That caveat aside, 'M:I III" just about breaks the sound barrier even in its compressed form. This is one gangbusters soundtrack, and I expected no less. Dynamics are fantastic. Rare is the Dolby Digital soundtrack I've heard with such transparent imaging and highly aggressive discrete effects. Sound transitions are seamless, creating a truly immersive 360-degree soundfield. Notable sequences include the early helicopter-through-the-windmills chase, the big bridge destruction mash-up, and the high-rise bungee jump. These are reference quality scenes that belong on the top shelf of every enthusiast's library of great demo material. Pure tonal quality of sounds is also stunning. Low bass is incredibly deep and rock solid. Also very impressive is how differentiated minor sounds are -- even hushed dialogue and minor ambient effects, such as the crowd noise and songs in the early party scenes, is incredibly intricate and detailed. "

I ask you this. What more do you want in enjoyment of audio if the above, at 640bkps, isn't?

According to that logic, since only 1% of US Households have a television larger than 42", and therefore only 1% of the people can see any difference between 1080p and 720p (unless you sit closer than 5ft from your 37" tv). So why don't we all watch 720p material instead since only 1% feel its important?

I've got a 10ft screen and top of the line speakers in an acoustically treated room - I want the best video and sound!

Do you have heating/air condidioning in your theater?

Amir, 7.1 lossless on HD DVD... Can it be done?
Sure. It is actually quite easy because the additional channels have very little in them most of the time. You can see this in Dolby papers where efficiency of the codec improves as the number of channels increases (relative to PCM).

This is true, but you're ignoring efficiency, which seems odd considering your work on VC-1. A fixed bit-rate lossy codec may use more bits to encode silence, but that in no way implies higher fidelity to the source; silence is silence. A lossless codec (by definition) implies maximum fidelity to the source, regardless of the number of bits thrown at it.
Well, not quite. A lossy codec doesn't throw bits out just for the sake of it. It throws bits out when it has no choice but to do so to meet the target bit rate. If the source rate after lossless compression is same or lower than output, then lossy codec is essentially operating in lossless mode.

To make sure the above point is not lost, every lossy codec has a "back-end" (final stage) which performs a lossless compression of subband coefficients. So a lossy codec is a superset of a lossless codec.

What does all of this means? That given enough bits, lossy codecs should sound the same as the source. No, they are not bit exact but they could be so close as to fool even the experts.

'm sorry, but I saw no where that Roger disagreed with me. I would appreciate it if you could link to the direct quote. Thanks.

You said "but DD+ @ 1.5 is much better than normal DD too."

For all of post 22 pretty much, if not the entire thread Roger disputes any substantial difference. He explains the creation of DD+ was to circumvent the restrictions HDDVD would have inherited from standard DVD and that the benefits of DD+ are optimized for low bitrate solutions far below a home theater environment.

"Given distinctly different circumstances, Dolby was able to adapt its coding technologies to bring improved quality and more channels to both formats. The goal was not to make the end results different, but the same in spite of the situation."

"It is not necessary in our view to use even 1 Mbps until 7.1-ch is available, but it’s their choice to make, and it certainly will not hurt the sound."


But I'm saying that the vast majority of the people get no percieved improvement going from DD+@1.5 to lossless.


And if you were posting at Joe Sixpack's HTiB forum, I wouldn't debate that. I'm hoping none of us are striving for the lowest common denominator. I should hope that AVS has it's aim a bit higher.

From Filmmixer:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11532069&postcount=480


Is there a typo there? Can he or can he not distinguish it 9/10? Maybe someone should invite him to this thread.

Previously, he said (http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8299743&&#post8299743):

Mr. Hanky took me to task beacuse I stated that indeed, in the home theater environment, a higher bit rate such as 20 or 24 bit does make a sonic difference to my ears... he continued to insist that was impossible, and couldn't take his argument out of his poindexter theory of physics, electrical engineering and abstract metaphors, and that I, along with all others who claim higher bit rate superiority in the delivery chain, were part of some wierd cult trying to convince people of this audio voodoo...

I don't see his two posts as contradictory, but complimentary. Obviously, it's not the end all and be all, but whenever possible, at the very least lossless audio should be our goal as enthusiasts. Blu-ray has done a far better job than HDDVD at delivering (simply by virtue of quantity) that audio nirvana in the home theater market.

We know uncompressed audio is identical master and it's the base from which the lossy / lossless codecs are made. That is THE standard. The onus of proof that lossy DD+ is just as good is on the proponents of such.

That's correct. See more below.


No, it was a serious comment. I am now wondering what your theses paper was if you thought the above was a joke :). I will explain.

A lossy codec running at 1.5mbit/sec will always put out that much data whether required or not. The codec transforms the signal from time to domain to frequency. Quantize the bands based on the target rate. And then losslessly pack the data. As a constant bit rate codec, you get 1.5mbit/sec output day in, day out (unless you feed it pure silence in which case, some codecs still spit out the full rate (by padding) which others will go down in data rate).

TrueHD on the other hand is a variable rate codec. Feed it easy to compress data and it will dip below 1.5mbit/sec. The codec simply varies its output rate to comply with the requirement of lossless compression. So its effective data rate for any moment in time, could very well be below that of DD+ at 1.5mbit/sec.

Just in case you don’t believe me, look at a post this morning from another member: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11540717&postcount=843



So you can assume that when a lossy codec has so much “breathing room” it is going to rival lossless codec in quality.

The other conclusion is that this stuff does not necessary make sense to laymen. The science is a lot more complicated than it seems.

But that's not what you said.

You said it would possibly contain more bits, not that TruHD is a variable bit rate. There's no fidelity loss with a variable bit rate, only a variance in the bandwidth being used. It's effectively a more efficient use of bandwidth.

A constant bit rate lossy codec is locked on, and delivers an uneven performance, delivering empty bits during quiet periods of some that the decoder still has to process, effectively making the decoder work harder than it needs to in low-sound intervals of the track. Plus, in the parts of the track that are very active, the constant bitrate will clip and compress any information that would exceed the target bitrate, accounting for more loss.

It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Even if you can make it fit, it's not what is intended, and is inefficient and unappealing.

It's not "MORE" bits. It's a constant steam of empty or squashed bits. There is no fidelity gain in forcing a decoder to interpret empty bits at a constant bit rate. Nothing of auditory value is being added to the track, in fact just the opposite. You're adding baseline sonic information that DOESN'T exist in the source material. You're basically giving the receiver false information. Combine that with the loss of fidelity due to compression artifacting, what you end up hearing is a sonically inaccurate, constant stream of data that has a significantly different file struture and bitpath from it's source data.

For many movies that is true but from what I have read The Matrix movies were recorded in 24-bit audio so why do you think they stuck with 16-bit audio for the Dolby TrueHD audio tracks?
The track was (presumably) mixed to have final resolution of 24-bits. There is no data that says the soundtrack has that much resolution. I am confident it is not even close to having that kind of resolution. Per my other posts, if there is 16-bits of real resolution, are you doing really good!

The track was (presumably) mixed to have final resolution of 24-bits. There is no data that says the soundtrack has that much resolution. I am confident it is not even close to having that kind of resolution. Per my other posts, if there is 16-bits of real resolution, are you doing really good!

I work with audio every day and even though I work in a small market, everything amirm is saying is true. 24 bits gives the audio engineer flexibillity to give headroom in a mix. Most everything that I do is recorded and mixed in 24bit 48KHZ. I mix down in 16 bit for compatibillity. I don't know about every film, but I know that the digital sound in my local cinemaplex is not 24 bit.

You said "but DD+ @ 1.5 is much better than normal DD too."

For all of post 22 pretty much, if not the entire thread Roger disputes any substantial difference.


He was talking of DD+ generic, not 1.5mbs DD+, I do believe. At any rate, I meant 448k DD that one finds on standard DVD's. I can tell the difference between those and the higher bitrate alternatives. But I can't tell the difference between the higher bitrate alternatives and lossless. Sorry for the confusion.

But that's not what you said.

You said it would possibly contain more bits, not that TruHD is a variable bit rate. There's no fidelity loss with a variable bit rate, only a variance in the bandwidth being used. It's effectively a more efficient use of bandwidth.

A constant bit rate lossy codec is locked on, and delivers an uneven performance, delivering empty bits during quiet periods of some that the decoder still has to process, effectively making the decoder work harder than it needs to in low-sound intervals of the track. Plus, in the parts of the track that are very active, the constant bitrate will clip and compress any information that would exceed the target bitrate, accounting for more loss.

It's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Even if you can make it fit, it's not what is intended, and is inefficient and unappealing.

It's not "MORE" bits. It's a constant steam of empty or squashed bits. There is no fidelity gain in forcing a decoder to interpret empty bits at a constant bit rate. Nothing of auditory value is being added to the track, in fact just the opposite. You're adding baseline sonic information that DOESN'T exist in the source material. You're basically giving the receiver false information. Combine that with the loss of fidelity due to compression artifacting, what you end up hearing is a sonically inaccurate, constant stream of data that has a significantly different file struture and bitpath from it's source data.

It sounds like you are trying to cover up the fact that what Amir said was true, and you don't want to admit you called him a liar when he said it.

That's just what it sounds like.

It would be easier on you if you just apoligized and moved on.

He was talking of DD+ generic, not 1.5mbs DD+, I do believe.

It is not necessary in our view to use even 1 Mbps until 7.1-ch is available, but it’s their choice to make, and it certainly will not hurt the sound.


At any rate, I meant 448k DD that one finds on standard DVD's. I can tell the difference between those and the higher bitrate alternatives. But I can't tell the difference between the higher bitrate alternatives and lossless.

Ah of course maybe we were debating at an oblique point on that part. Dolby Digital was handicapped by the DVD format. It faces no such restriction with Blu-ray. To circumvent those restrictions on HDDVD, Dolby created DD+. I would maintain there's no tangible difference at all between 1.5M DD+ and full bitrate 640k DD.

This reminds me of the whole 720p/1080i thing. We can bypass the whole silly argument on by going to 6.1/7.1 DD+ on both formats.

It sounds like you are trying to cover up the fact that what Amir said was true, and you don't want to admit you called him a liar when he said it.

That's just what it sounds like.

It would be easier on you if you just apoligized and moved on.

Why would I apologize when what he said WASN'T accurate?

He claimed that DD+ could have MORE bits than a lossless encode.

It's just not true. having a constant bitrate does NOT equal MORE BITS. it means the the bit rate is CONSTANT, whether there is audio information being processed or not. There is no additional fidelity. No "extra" bits.

In fact- the truth is exactly th OPPOSITE of what he stated.

If the source material exceeds 1.5mbps in it's native resolution, then ANY DD+ encode has LESS bits of audio being passed than a lossless encode of the same material.

You'd be hard-pressed to find any audio soundtrack from any feature film that is that low on bandwidth, other than say "My dinner with Andre" or a silent charlie chaplin film.

Absolutely, unequivocally, 1,000% untrue.

I spent the better part of my Audio Production Thesis at Berklee explaining the difference.

This man is a salesmen, people. Take what he says from that perspective.

Where is that?

Thank you Amirm for you honesty on this subject.

Why would I apologize when what he said WASN'T accurate?

He claimed that DD+ could have MORE bits than a lossless encode.

It's just not true. having a constant bitrate does NOT equal MORE BITS. it means the the bit rate is CONSTANT, whether there is audio information being processed or not. There is no additional fidelity. No "extra" bits.

We all know what a bit is. We all know what a bitrate is - or at least I think we all do, but after reading your statements I can't tell if you do or not.


...actually, that's not true either. I think you know what a bit is, what a bitrate is, and whether what Amir said was true. Amir said Lossy may have more bits, not that it would have additional fidelity. I think you understand that, but don't want to admit he was right so you are trying to get out of it by sophistry rather than just admitting your mistake.

Either way, it's your credability and only you can defend or destroy it. But I'm done with this part of the conversation.

Thanks. (this means I'm going to let you have the last word, which I know you are dying to have:) )

Lossless will never sound worse than lossy on the same soundtrack.

True.

It may also not sound any better. Lossy could mean that there is one bit's worth of difference in each 10 seconds' worth of audio signal. Nobody can perceive that - I dare anyone to prove that they can. Lossy could also mean a 64kB MP3 encode - EVERYBODY can hear that. The truth is somewhere in between, and the experts are trying to tell us that the 'lossy' factor in DD+ is very, very close to the edge of perceptibility.

This is a circular argument. The issue is that for a lossy encode. you can't mathematically prove or disprove whether or not someone hears the difference. There is also no reasonable way to to a truly valid double-blind test.

Frankly, it seems pretty simple to me. You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that a given lossy encode doesn't sound imperceptibly different from a lossless encode. However, you CAN mathematically prove that a lossless encode does not degrade the signal.

Ergo, the way to avoid any potential for degraded sound is to use the lossless encode - simple solution. But understand that when you do so, you consume storage and bandwidth, and you will never be able to prove you gained anything from its use.

Mind sharing your entire audio chain?
I don't understand what this means. Do you mean my equipment list?

True.

It may also not sound any better. Lossy could mean that there is one bit's worth of difference in each 10 seconds' worth of audio signal. Nobody can perceive that - I dare anyone to prove that they can. Lossy could also mean a 64kB MP3 encode - EVERYBODY can hear that. The truth is somewhere in between, and the experts are trying to tell us that the 'lossy' factor in DD+ is very, very close to the edge of perceptibility.

This is a circular argument. The issue is that for a lossy encode. you can't mathematically prove or disprove whether or not someone hears the difference. There is also no reasonable way to to a truly valid double-blind test.

Frankly, it seems pretty simple to me. You can't prove a negative, so you can't prove that a given lossy encode doesn't sound imperceptibly different from a lossless encode. However, you CAN mathematically prove that a lossless encode does not degrade the signal.

Ergo, the way to avoid any potential for degraded sound is to use the lossless encode - simple solution. But understand that when you do so, you consume storage and bandwidth, and you will never be able to prove you gained anything from its use.

But that's just it. The context of the discussion isn't whether the loss of fidelity is perceptible to "most people". HDTV, by it's nature, is the delivery of Reference quality Audio/Video material, not consumer grade halfway-decent quality material.

The context here is whether the decision to use lossy codecs on what is being touted as "The Look and Sound of Perfect" is a financial one, or a technical limitation.

If it's a technical decision, or implicates that providing a lossless encode would in any way degrade the release's quality, - then shame on HD DVD for promoting something inferior as "Perfect".

If it's a financial decision, then I rest on my assertions from earlier (which apparently the mods considered too condecending) that the bulk of HD DVD's consumer demographic is being patronized and bilked in a bait and switch scheme.

First time I've ever heard the truth referred to as condescension.

and yes, you can mathematically prove that there is fidelity loss of certain frequencies with a lossy encode vs. it's source. All one would need to do is feed the track into an audio production software that provides a visual bandwidth analysis.

so yes - you can prove the negative.

You can't prove a negative,
As an aside :)
FYI in many cases you can prove a negative. It's not all that uncommon at all.

and yes, you can mathematically prove that there is fidelity loss of certain frequencies with a lossy encode vs. it's source. All one would need to do is feed the track into an audio production software that provides a visual bandwidth analysis.

so yes - you can prove the negative.

No. While it is true that you can prove that the signal changed, you cannot definitively prove that the change was/is audible to any listener, group of listeners, or category of listeners. You cannot, for example, make an unassailable statement that a particular change in the audio signal will be audible to, say 37% of listeners - there are too many variables.

Then there is the economic reality of the difference between 1) Audible, 2) Objectionable, and 3) Worth paying more to be able to hear the more accurate source.

No. While it is true that you can prove that the signal changed, you cannot definitively prove that the change was/is audible to any listener, group of listeners, or category of listeners. You cannot, for example, make an unassailable statement that a particular change in the audio signal will be audible to, say 37% of listeners - there are too many variables.

Then there is the economic reality of the difference between 1) Audible, 2) Objectionable, and 3) Worth paying more to be able to hear the more accurate source.

You can prove that certain frequencies have been reduced. It's mathematical.

I don't really care much for the uninformed opinion of someone not technically versed in such matters.

going by your reasoning I should believe that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist, simply because someone claims it's true.

As for the "worth paying" part - heh. you're just furthering the notion I put forth earlier, that HD DVD and it's target demographic ISN't about delivering reference quality. It's about writing a good marketing pitch, and selling it, regardless of it's accuracy.

I don't understand what this means. Do you mean my equipment list?

Yes.

You can prove that certain frequencies have been reduced. It's mathematical.

I don't really care much for the uninformed opinion of someone not technically versed in such matters.

going by your reasoning I should believe that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist, simply because someone claims it's true.

As for the "worth paying" part - heh. you're just furthering the notion I put forth earlier, that HD DVD and it's target demographic ISN't about delivering reference quality. It's about writing a good marketing pitch, and selling it, regardless of it's accuracy.

What is the target demograpic for Blu-ray?

I don't get these discusisons. How many 3+ hour movies do most people have? Yeah, I know Lord of the Rings. Didn't hurt sales of the extended versions that it came on multiple disc. Hell I could not hold my baldder that long anyway. This is such a BS issue.

What is good for SD DVD will be the same for HDM. The only difference will be the picture is better.

What is the target demograpic for Blu-ray?

Anyone who wants a High Definition player format without compromising quality of visual or audio performance.

Anyone who wants the largest capacity recordable optical media available, without compromising durability.

Anyone who wants to watch High Definition movies from Sony, Disney, MGM, 20th Century Fox, Lionsgate, Columbia Pictures, Tri-Star, Warner Bros.

anyone who wants a game system that can play every Sony Playstion 1,2 or 3 title ever released.

Anyone whose decision to buy a next generation media player isn't decided by their wallet size, but rather by their quest for reference quality playback.

The only difference will be the picture is better.

Blu-ray owners demand better sound too.

This is the crux of this discussion.

Why did Toshiba make TrueHD decoding mandatory? The *only* reason we are having this discussion between 16-bit / 24-bit audio, lossy / lossless codec, is because the people creating HD DVD releases are not using them. If there were a TrueHD track on every HD DVD movie, we all know you would be in here raving about all the benefits of mandatory TrueHD decoding, and how PCM on Blu-ray is such a waste of space. That's the reality that I believe.

They made 2.0 mandatory, not 5.1.

You can prove that certain frequencies have been reduced. It's mathematical.

I don't really care much for the uninformed opinion of someone not technically versed in such matters.

going by your reasoning I should believe that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist, simply because someone claims it's true.

As for the "worth paying" part - heh. you're just furthering the notion I put forth earlier, that HD DVD and it's target demographic ISN't about delivering reference quality. It's about writing a good marketing pitch, and selling it, regardless of it's accuracy.

BD's target demographic is PS3 gamers. Console gamers have low standards as can easily be proven by showing a console version of a game next to the PC version.

Reference quality eh... are you implying BD can match FILM reference quality? lol.

Blu-ray owners demand better sound too.

This is the crux of this discussion.

Then go keep buying BR and stop worrying about movies you won't be on Blu ray. Leave use poor sub $200 liking Joe Sixpack's with our crappy audio and low bitrates of that miserable format: HD DVD.

Then go keep buying BR and stop worrying about movies you won't be on Blu ray. Leave use poor sub $200 liking Joe Sixpack's with our crappy audio and low bitrates of that miserable format: HD DVD.

Actually, we want movie studios to stop wasting their time on "crappy audio and low bitrate" HD DVD movies and concentrate their efforts on Blu-Ray movie releases. :D

Actually, we want movie studios to stop wasting their time on "crappy audio and low bitrate" HD DVD movies and concentrate their efforts on Blu-Ray movie releases. :D

It'd be nice if BD's awesome bitrate could get it remotely close to matching Hot Fuzz, King Kong, and other HD DVD releases in PQ.

You can prove that certain frequencies have been reduced. It's mathematical.
No frequences are reduced in lossy compression (except at data rates below 128kbps which is outside of the scope we are talking about). Indeed, a spectrum analysis shows that the source and the lossy versions are the same in this respect. We don't achive compression by reducing bandwidth.

What is done instead is to quantize certain frequencies that we know you cannot hear. For example, if there is a loud siren, we know that another frequency very close to it but 50 db down, simply is not heard. So we can represent that with less bits and you would never know the difference.

Re opened. infractions and suspensions handed out. Keep it civil and stop fighting and personal attacks.

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

The rest of the arguing about 2 discs, few 3 hour movies.... etc.... is just a side story.

Technically, no Digital audio signal is "Lossless".

I agree. No sense arguing back and forth if mediocrity is good enough.

I agree. No sense arguing back and forth if mediocrity is good enough.

I totally agree with you.

178 out of 301 BD titles use the BD25 - almost 60%.

http://blu-raystats.com/index.php

The HD 30 GB is 5GB bigger - BD is using an inferior disc!

Only 22 out of 293 HD DVD's are 15GB - less than 10%: (almost 1/2 are not movies)

http://hddvdstats.com/index.php

I totally agree with you.

178 out of 301 BD titles use the BD25 - almost 60%.

http://blu-raystats.com/index.php

The HD 30 GB is 5GB bigger - BD is using an inferior disc!

Only 22 out of 293 HD DVD's are 15GB - less than 10%: (almost 1/2 are not movies)

http://hddvdstats.com/index.php

Most of the Release BD25 were last year or earlier this year (Jan), occasional Paramount and Sony movies (like vacancy withc is 1h20long) ... but since March BD 25 are pretty rare, as rare as HD DVD 15... in fact..

Most of the Release BD25 were last year or earlier this year (Jan), occasional Paramount and Sony movies (like vacancy withc is 1h20long) ... but since March BD 25 are pretty rare, as rare as HD DVD 15... in fact..

Guess they finally got the yields up on the 50 GBG heh?

But 178 inferior movies - all to be bought by future BD owners. No superior storage - no superior bit rates.

Wait, what are you talking about? Every HD DVD that is encoded with TrueHD 5.1 also has a DD+ track that I'm aware of. The first three I grabbed off the stack were Troy, Batman begins, and V for Vendetta, all of which sounded better in TrueHD. I don't know what the bitrate of the DD+ is on those titles, but that's part of my objection to DD+, it's lossy and it's easy to hide lower bitrate DD+ because studios don't put the bitrate on the packaging. With TrueHD or PCM I know I am getting lossless quality.

Now I admit the difference is not as large on HD DVD as the difference on Blu-ray between PCM/TrueHD and DD 5.1, but I'm not sure that if that is because DD+ is really much better, or because the A1 has lower quality audio DACs. The only way to remove the player hardware from the equation would be to stream all streams (froom both formats) via HDMI to a high quality AVR that coould decode them. I can't do that yet, but regardless PCM/TrueHD blows the coks off of DD 5.1, and is better than DD+, even with the A1 DACs doing the D/A conversion.

I haven't checked the others yet, but Batman Begins has TrueHD, and standard Dolby Digital only. No DD+. Try again.

Ok, Troy had TrueHD, and DD English. DD+ in French and Spanish. Did you use that?

Ah, V for Vendetta has your requisite TrueHD and DD+. I stand corrected. One disc so far... and the reviewer on HighDefDigest said even the TrueHD track offered no decernable difference over the standard DD on the SD DVD!!!!

Anyone who wants a High Definition player format without compromising quality of visual or audio performance.

Anyone who wants the largest capacity recordable optical media available, without compromising durability.



Wouldn't all of those things benefit from being on a 50g disc? So tell us why the majority of BD are on 25g disc which is 5g less than the 30g HD DVD?

Don't waste your time. Claiming High-def (in either format) doesn't compromise visual performance quality is enough to discourage any further sensible discourse.

Wow, that is so wrong it's painful. I've had dozens of people come to my HT and all agree the difference is great. THere is no question that a blind listening test would confirm it.

Now, let's assume for a moment that at least 90% of HDM owners have not invested enough in their system to hear the difference...so what? The majority of HDTVs are not 1080p, does that mean we shouldn't encode the movies at that resolution? When I spend $20-30 on a disk I damned well want it to have the best quality, most future-proof encoding there is. My tv (an earlier SXRD rearpro) can only accept a 1080i signal, but when I eventually upgrade to a 1080p TV I'd be livid if my disks hadn't been encoded to the highest image quality possible. Audio should be the same.

What's sad to me is how fast this thread degenerated from "HD DVD disks ARE big enough to hold lossless audio" to "I don't care about lossless audio, so no one should get it". It seems more like a partisan talking point than an honest concenr about getting the best HT experience possible :mad:

Agreed 100%. This is why I posted what the insiders have been saying.

Not to mention, I'm sure I could go and find posts in the archives deriding Blu-Ray for not being able to decode TrueHD before support was added. So hypocritical.

Can I tell the difference on my gear right now between DD+ and TrueHD? Almost certainly not. But what if 3-4 years from now receivers make a huge leap and it's commonplace to be able to do 20-bit or better? Then what? There are 10 year old DVD's still in circulation today. I expect the same from HDM. Do you want to double dip when the discs are inevitably re-released once lossless is more in demand? It's about looking to the future - doesn't matter which format.

And here's another question: if TrueHD doesn't matter, on a disc that has both, which track would you listen to? If TrueHD, why?

To be honest, if TrueHD is so pointless, I would just as soon not have ever had it on any discs. Why do it at all if DD+ is good enough?

It'd be nice if BD's awesome bitrate could get it remotely close to matching Hot Fuzz, King Kong, and other HD DVD releases in PQ.

You have to be out of your mind to make a dumb comment like that. :rolleyes:

It'd be nice if BD's awesome bitrate could get it remotely close to matching Hot Fuzz, King Kong, and other HD DVD releases in PQ.

You obviously haven't seen enough Blu-Ray's. Both formats have great PQ.

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?

You can prove that certain frequencies have been reduced. It's mathematical.

Sure you can do the math - that's easy - but if you reduced the 5th harmonic of the upper B-flat on the 2nd oboe by 4 dB, how do you know how many people will catch the difference? Certainly a good listener could hear the timbre change when that instrument is isolated, but buried deep in the mix....? Just proving that you changed the signal does NOT prove that you changed it in a way that is perceptible, nor that it is perceptible to a specific percentage of listeners in various environments.

I don't really care much for the uninformed opinion of someone not technically versed in such matters.

Who were you referring to here? Ever coded a FIR filter? Ever actually done any DSP work of any sort? Ever worked in a recording studio? Your statement seems to indicate that you believe you have more experience in these areas than anyone else who might post on this board; you should be careful of that, as there is some pretty high-power talent lurking around here....

going by your reasoning I should believe that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist, simply because someone claims it's true.

No, I'm (allegorically) saying that you can't say they DON'T exist simply because you haven't seen them.

Agreed 100%. This is why I posted what the insiders have been saying.

Not to mention, I'm sure I could go and find posts in the archives deriding Blu-Ray for not being able to decode TrueHD before support was added. So hypocritical.

Can I tell the difference on my gear right now between DD+ and TrueHD? Almost certainly not. But what if 3-4 years from now receivers make a huge leap and it's commonplace to be able to do 20-bit or better? Then what? There are 10 year old DVD's still in circulation today. I expect the same from HDM. Do you want to double dip when the discs are inevitably re-released once lossless is more in demand? It's about looking to the future - doesn't matter which format.

And here's another question: if TrueHD doesn't matter, on a disc that has both, which track would you listen to? If TrueHD, why?

To be honest, if TrueHD is so pointless, I would just as soon not have ever had it on any discs. Why do it at all if DD+ is good enough?

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.

Only that it may not always be necessary. Assuming that its absence signifies de facto inferiority is intellectual dishonesty, especially when the title in question hasn't even been heard yet, except by the professionals who provided it.

Somehow this is anathema. Oh well.

I also deplore the navel-gazing and self-agrandizing that seems to permeate this section of AVS, inflate egos to the point of having the gall to assume AVS somehow accurately represents the concerns of the customer at large...

puh-leez.

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?

Lossless doesn't automatically mean it's better. That's the point. And your receiver decoding TrueHD is useless at this stage, and for the foreseeable future. Fwiw, all HDMI 1.0 and above receivers can 'properly' handle PCM, including the PCM unpacked from any of the HDM players.

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.

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.

Agreed. I've stated as much here, but so far with little effect.

It's funny that really my statements were made to elevate HD-DVD instead of get everyone all worked up :D There's no reason to try to excuse anything with HD-DVD, even DD+ over lossless.

In many (most?) cases it'll be just fine to get the format to sell.

Only the purists have an axe to grind, and it's mostly made of paper :)

Lossless doesn't automatically mean it's better. That's the point.

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.

Almost every HD-DVD review I have read saids that TrueHD sounds better than DD+.

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.

Only the purists have an axe to grind, and it's mostly made of paper :)

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).

I totally agree with you.

178 out of 301 BD titles use the BD25 - almost 60%.

http://blu-raystats.com/index.php

The HD 30 GB is 5GB bigger - BD is using an inferior disc!

Only 22 out of 293 HD DVD's are 15GB - less than 10%: (almost 1/2 are not movies)

http://hddvdstats.com/index.php

Ignoring the science again I see. If we look at the science, a BD25 is superior to an HD DVD30 disk for most movies because of the superior bandwidth available. Even though the BD is 5GB less in capacity, a higher video bitrate can be used. Please stop ignoring the science. Stop the FUD people. :mad:

Guess they finally got the yields up on the 50 GBG heh?

But 178 inferior movies - all to be bought by future BD owners. No superior storage - no superior bit rates.

Still superior bitrates. Learn the science please. ;)