AMEN! Ding Ding Ding!

I take it most BD fans should not be buying FOx titles, since most wont be able to hear the lossless codec, and it remains to be seen if the PS3 will get an update to solve this:rolleyes:

The DTS core in those tracks is every bit as good as the HD DVD fanboy's beloved DD+. Both suck IMO. Give me lossless. Fox already has. The players will soon decode it. DD+ will never be lossless. DTS-MA offers the best of both worlds in one nice package.

Does Lossless matter? . . .Yes. Is it important enough not to buy the movie if it isn't there? . . . No.

Do extras matter?......Yes. Are they important enough not to buy the move if they arent there?.....No.


And to answer your question. "Is it important enough not to buy the movie if lossless isnt there? Yes, for me it is.

And I assume the answer for you to my question is the same. So here we go spinning around.

Different strokes.

Playback issues aside I still hate double sided disks and don't want SD infecting my HD. It would also probably be $90 if they dropped the combos. The price doesn't bother me but the two-sided disks and possible playback issues do. I do not want two sides that can easily be scratched. Combo/twins must die.

He He He.

Do extras matter?......Yes. Are they important enough not to buy the move if they arent there?.....No.

Easy to say now when there are no limiting factors with extras, because they haven't released a movie with 1.1 yet. But I do understand what you are saying.


And to answer your question. "Is it important enough not to buy the movie if lossless isnt there? Yes, for me it is.

OK - to each his own. Just keep in mind that your way is not the right way. It is simply your way so if others feel differently about the issue - you really shouldn't critize them.

And I assume the answer for you to my question is the same. So here we go spinning around.

Different strokes.

But that is what a difference of opinion creates. Especially when neither party is willing to change.

Playback issues aside I still hate double sided disks and don't want SD infecting my HD. It would also probably be $90 if they dropped the combos. The price doesn't bother me but the two-sided disks and possible playback issues do. I do not want two sides that can easily be scratched. Combo/twins must die.

The amount of money that Combos add to the production costs is almost certainly trivial.... like in the area of an additional .50 to 'combo' a disc.

While you hate combos, they make a lot of consumers with lots of older DVD players feel better about their purchase. Even if HD DVD dies they will still have the movie on SD DVD. Additionally they can play the SD DVD side in their non HD players.

Would you be as opposed to a triple layer twin format disc that had "one shiny side"?

Do extras matter?......Yes. Are they important enough not to buy the move if they arent there?.....No.

And to answer your question. "Is it important enough not to buy the movie if lossless isnt there? Yes, for me it is.

And I assume the answer for you to my question is the same. So here we go spinning around.

Different strokes.

if i had a hd dvd player i think i will still be buying transformers at dd1.5. there are titles where i will not buy if lossless wasnt available, but transformers is too much of a must-have to not buy. i still think it's a crying shame that it wasn't included and think it is the bandwidth that is the reason just like TrueHD was omitted on Nature's Journey.

The amount of money that Combos add to the production costs is almost certainly trivial.... like in the area of an additional .50 to 'combo' a disc.

While you hate combos, they make a lot of consumers with lots of older DVD players feel better about their purchase. Even if HD DVD dies they will still have the movie on SD DVD. Additionally they can play the SD DVD side in their non HD players.

Would you be as opposed to a triple layer twin format disc that had "one shiny side"?

i really wonder how many ppl who bought the combo discs don't have a hd dvd player at all. it seems the only ppl the combo discs cater to atm are those with 1 hd dvd player and multiple sd players.

Because no hardware will ever support it? ;)

OH, and guess what Fox titles get a 1.5 DTS track we can hear now, then..............wait for it, lossless too!!

Transformers you get 1.5 DD, and you get buy a new disc when they decide to give lossless to you.

But you won't buy the double-dip because lossless doesnt matter, I forgot.

One simply has to put BD only fans post through the universal truth translator.

*TRANSLATION*

I need to crap all over Transformers because I am very angry about the Paramount deal, and the fact I am not getting Transformers.

*END TRANSLATIONS*

No matter how much you scream about lossless, this disc is going to sell damn well, and you wont get to watch it in HD unless you own an HDDVD player.

Folks, even if this thing had lossless, the BD bois would cry about somethng else. We would probably hear about how the PQ could be better in BD or some such nonsense:rolleyes:

I'll be enjoying every bit of my copy of Transformers, enjoy your SD version.

One simply has to put BD only fans post through the universal truth translator.

*TRANSLATION*

I need to crap all over Transformers because I am very angry about the Paramount deal, and the fact I am not getting Transformers.

*END TRANSLATIONS*

No matter how much you scream about lossless, this disc is going to sell damn well, and you wont get to watch it in HD unless you own an HDDVD player.

Folks, even if this thing had lossless, the BD bois would cry about somethng else. We would probably hear about how the PQ could be better in BD or some such nonsense:rolleyes:

I'll be enjoying every bit of my copy of Transformers, enjoy your SD version.
That's not necessarily true.

If you have Comcast OD, they usually have the HD version available for new movie releases but it will cost you a little extra over the SD OD version.

That's not necessarily true.

If you have Comcast OD, they usually have the HD version available for new movie releases but it will cost you a little extra over the SD OD version.

So you'd rather spend $6-$7 for crappy picture and a low bitrate DD mix that you get to watch once then spend $22 on the HD?

Yikes.

That's not necessarily true.

If you have Comcast OD, they usually have the HD version available for new movie releases but it will cost you a little extra over the SD OD version.

Wait...if they blu-boi fans are unwilling to use HD-DVD because it's not as overpriced and lacking in features...er not as much disc space, what makes you think they'd find the cable version acceptable. Not only do you have the inevitable artifacting due to bandwidth constraints, you'll only have DD.

Wait...if they blu-boi fans are unwilling to use HD-DVD because it's not as overpriced and lacking in features...er not as much disc space, what makes you think they'd find the cable version acceptable. Not only do you have the inevitable artifacting due to bandwidth constraints, you'll only have DD.

Well, they can spend $6 and enjoy the HD version(not great but better than SD)movie now without buying the SD DVD version then get their Blu-ray version in several months.:D

Wow ... I can't believe this thread got through 9 pages ... most of which sound a lot like, "Wah Wah" to me. *shrug*

And you get the same thing with HD DVD fans saying they'll just buy the DVD for blu-ray exclusives to watch it upscaled as well. It goes both ways.

I would choose HD extras instead of lossless sound, DD+ is simply good enough for me, heck I'd suit for DD only as long as the extras are in HD.

Paramount rocks with their HD extras :).

...then get their Blu-ray version in several months.

From where? And don't start that crap about 18 months again, either. You guys can't even stay consistent with your battle crys. You constantly laud a 2:1 sales ratio, and yet you cling to the myth that Paramount's only reason to go HD-DVD exclsive was some phantom payoff (the best evidence you have for that is from an "unnamed Viacom Exec" - who could just as easily been the CEO of Sony disguising his voice). Given that sales advantage, do you really think that Paramount/Dreamworks would not make a lot more that a measly 150 million by staying neutral? There were most certainly other factors involved. So, no Transformers (or Star Trek, or Godfather, or Gladiator, or...) for you (on Blu Ray, at least), period. Live with it.

There are any number of times I've refrained from buying a "must-have" movie release in anticipation of a better version coming out at a later date. The example that comes to mind is the LOTR's trilogy; I waited for the extended version to come out before I spent any money on LOTR. Likewise with many a DVD where the later DTS version seemed inevitable. "Fifth Element" on Blu-ray is a more recent example. "Troy" would be a more recent example except I don't recall exactly why I held off.

And you get the same thing with HD DVD fans saying they'll just buy the DVD for blu-ray exclusives to watch it upscaled as well. It goes both ways.

But you don't hear the repeated crying over the Paramount/Dreamworks deal.

And boycotting Universal titles.

And boycotting combos.

And boycotting WB.

And selling off all HDM when P/DW went exclusive.

blah blah blah. There is far more whining on one side vs. the other.

But you don't hear the repeated crying over the Paramount/Dreamworks deal.

And boycotting Universal titles.

And boycotting combos.

And boycotting WB.

And selling off all HDM when P/DW went exclusive.

blah blah blah. There is far more whining on one side vs. the other.

Of course there is when you're "neutral" sporting blublockers;)

I had to type my programs in from scratch each time.

10 POKE 133
20 PEEK 132
30 FOR I GETS . . .


I still remember every new program I'd start with... ended up making a 'header' type thing for it...

1 POKE 53280,0
2 POKE 53281,0
3 PRINT "<heart symbol (clear screen/home)><white>"

Gave a nice white text on black background theme to work with... :)
Wow.. that was quite a few years ago - I have too much of it rattling through my head...

Heh.. to bring it back to the topic - I was programming the C64 before Transformers hit the airwaves... :)

I still remember every new program I'd start with... ended up making a 'header' type thing for it...

1 POKE 53280,0
2 POKE 53281,0
3 PRINT "<heart symbol (clear screen/home)><white>"

Gave a nice white text on black background theme to work with... :)
Wow.. that was quite a few years ago - I have too much of it rattling through my head...

Heh.. to bring it back to the topic - I was programming the C64 before Transformers hit the airwaves... :)

EVEN BIGGER GEEK ALERT!!! :D

And you get the same thing with HD DVD fans saying they'll just buy the DVD for blu-ray exclusives to watch it upscaled as well. It goes both ways.

the difference is you can get a very good HD DVD player for ~$250 which you don't have to worry about being obsoleted in six months when new profiles/features are released.

Well, they can spend $6 and enjoy the HD version(not great but better than SD)movie now without buying the SD DVD version then get their Blu-ray version in several months.:D

Several years maybe, if ever.

In before the Dr.'s freeze :)

My XA2 can upscale better than any BD player out there..... nah, nah, nahnah nah :p

The BR fans say no and the HD DVD fans say yes.

The BR fans say no and the HD DVD fans say yes.

Yep, same reason they're boycotting Rush Hour 3 on BR as well. :rolleyes:

I still remember every new program I'd start with... ended up making a 'header' type thing for it...

1 POKE 53280,0
2 POKE 53281,0
3 PRINT "<heart symbol (clear screen/home)><white>"

Gave a nice white text on black background theme to work with... :)
Wow.. that was quite a few years ago - I have too much of it rattling through my head...

Heh.. to bring it back to the topic - I was programming the C64 before Transformers hit the airwaves... :)

At first I thought it was for either an Atari 400/800 or Apple II, but then I saw C64.

Ahhhhhh! I tried to repress those memories, but am now having flashbacks!

The DTS core in those tracks is every bit as good as the HD DVD fanboy's beloved DD+. Both suck IMO.

Your opinion sucks IMO.

DD+ is better than the DD & dts we've had on SD DVD for a decade, and no-one said they 'sucked'.

If you want to say you prefer lossless, then go ahead.

But a lot of very knowledgable professionals say that DD+ is, at least, pretty close to lossless.

Opinion is one thing.

Indulging in fanboy rhetoric to make overblown claims and counter-claims is not helping the discussion.

Steve W

I do find it telling that there isn't nearly the multi-page outrage happening over in the Rush Hour 3 thread.

I would choose HD extras instead of lossless sound, DD+ is simply good enough for me, heck I'd suit for DD only as long as the extras are in HD.

Paramount rocks with their HD extras :).

Exactly. The audio differences are minute. Most people wouldn't be able to pick out the differences. Movie lovers are interested in extras. Extras expand your knowledge and understanding of a film. Unfortunately, I think that a lot of people who claim to be movie buffs in this forum are actually audiophiles.

...lot of people who claim to be movie buffs in this forum are actually audiophiles

... or teenage video gamers...

:)From where? And don't start that crap about 18 months again, either. You guys can't even stay consistent with your battle crys. You constantly laud a 2:1 sales ratio, and yet you cling to the myth that Paramount's only reason to go HD-DVD exclsive was some phantom payoff (the best evidence you have for that is from an "unnamed Viacom Exec" - who could just as easily been the CEO of Sony disguising his voice). Given that sales advantage, do you really think that Paramount/Dreamworks would not make a lot more that a measly 150 million by staying neutral? There were most certainly other factors involved. So, no Transformers (or Star Trek, or Godfather, or Gladiator, or...) for you (on Blu Ray, at least), period. Live with it.

WOW !!!!! :eek:

I try to make a funny and the rage comes out.

btw:
I'm getting the HD DVD version.

I try to make a funny and the rage comes out.

No rage here. If I misinterpreted you, I apologize. This ridiculous war has made me a bit trigger-happy. I am a staunch HD-DVD supporter, but even moreso an A/V enthuisiast (please don't ask me what my equipment is; I don't want to be responsible for causing injuries from spurts of laughter). I just want to enjoy movies and talk with others who suffer from the same sickness... I am as guilty as anyone here of taking potshots at the "other side", and that stops here (for me, at least). I am currently going to get the Onkyo 805 player for the finest possible Transformers presentation (again, given my setup), and wait until next summer and grab a 3rd generation Panny for the blu stuff. Maybe by then all the mudslinging and posturing over a small plastic disc will be over...

Peace...:D

I do find it telling that there isn't nearly the multi-page outrage happening over in the Rush Hour 3 thread.

Indeed. :)
I'm very sure you already know the reason = sour grapges :D
The Traonsformer topic in Blu-ray software section had many pages and many seemed to enjoy the movie .Alot of talk about how Transformers will be great in 1080P glory! Now that Blu-ray wont see any Transformers movie coming (well...except the 1986 version) some of those people are going to be happy with the DVD's 480P Picture. It makes you think, Are some folks really the fan of HD or only the fan of Blu-ray?
I for one hope it's a well produced DVD so those members will get the most out of the DVD version.

Actually, my work is not done. You welcome the debate, OK:

1) I have a PC on my desk that I've been using for 4 years. I needed USB 2.0 compliance because transfers to USB harddrives were taking too long for large file transfers. I ordered a USB 2.0 card for $20 and installed it in 2 minutes. Now I am fully USB 2.0 compliant. Care to show me the upgrade path for the Sony S300 that allows it to be 1.1 compliant for less than 2% of the original cost of the unit?

2) Yes, you can provide hundreds of examples, but most would be from the PC industry. Is it Sony's wish to have their CE division mimic the "planned obsolescence" model of the PC industry? Even worse, do they plan on mimicing this model by shipping one-off units that have not been designed with non-proprietary expansion slots which allow for future upgrades, thus not having the easy expansion/upgrade path that allows the PC industry to get away with their constantly changing standards without the early adopters appearing at the gates with torches in their hands? Is this paradigm shift by Sony's CE division fair to the consumer, or would we rather a longer period of use than the standard "gotta upgrade every 18 months to use the new stuff" that exists in the PC world?

3) About HDMI. I have an HDMI 1.3 compliant receiver and TV. I utilize none of the features of HDMI 1.3 because nothing uses them yet, but I am fully compliant with the finalized 1.3 spec. Care to show me where I can buy a BD unit that is fully compliant with the finalized 1.1 spec?


Certainly the computer offers some level of upgradability, but there are limits. It's generally not very practical for somebody to upgrade from an AGP graphics card to a PCI Express graphics card, because you are basically buying a completely new computer at that point.

But I gave a good example in the home-theater market where this also applies, how about HDMI conformance levels? It's nice that you have HDMI 1.3 compliance right now, but the high-def TV I am using doesn't even have HDMI, it only has a DVI input (Sony Grand Wega XBR, second generation, not sure on actual model number at this point).

My Sony ES receiver was fairly expensive, but is not really upgradable to handling the latest DTS encoding. I can go buy a receiver right now that can't handle the latest DTS encoding spec, so it is also not unusual to be selling hardware that isn't compliant with the latest approved spec.

I don't see how any of these examples are any different from what blu-ray is doing.

The extent of your argument is that it's an unfinished spec because you feel like they never should have released a version of the spec that didn't include at least the 1.1 feature set. This doesn't make it an unfinished spec, but I can certainly understand why it might make you not want to buy their hardware until the later spec is implemented. Aside from the PS3 which I am confident can be upgraded to handle almost any spec imaginable, I too would not spend money on a blu-ray player right now, simply because I want to wait for features that are compliant with the latest known specs.

While I wouldn't buy HD-DVD for various unrelated reasons right now, if those other reasons weren't a concern, I would still be concerned about the compatibility with the TL51 disc, and would likely wait at this point to see what happens. That's the danger of announcing new specs before you have hardware available that actually complies with that spec...you risk making people sit on the fence. Maybe existing players will handle TL51, but until I see it, I would wait to be sure.

Your opinion sucks IMO.

DD+ is better than the DD & dts we've had on SD DVD for a decade, and no-one said they 'sucked'.

If you want to say you prefer lossless, then go ahead.

But a lot of very knowledgable professionals say that DD+ is, at least, pretty close to lossless.

Opinion is one thing.

Indulging in fanboy rhetoric to make overblown claims and counter-claims is not helping the discussion.

Steve W

That says it all "pretty close"

That says it all "pretty close"

big words for someone with a 200 dollar receiver

big words for someone with a 200 dollar receiver
I'm sure you wish I was rolling a 200$ receiver.... I got lossless and 7.1 what you sportin there chief?

Oh and your 10 posts ... You took 3 months off from posting and that was your first post back?

Maybe I'm just not elitist/AV-geek enough, but I'm more worried about the picture than the sound. I'm not willing or able to plunk down the coin for a new AV system that can really take advantage of full-blown soiling-your-pants 7.1 lossless audio (and I don't think I could do it in my living room the way it's set up anyway, even if I was able). So I'll just get the disc, hang with my clear-as-a-bell two-channel audio (or 5.1 if I bring my ancient-in-AV-terms STR-DB930 receiver into it), and be content...

Can I ask a serious question here?

What is the point of Dolby Digital Plus?

Why does it exist? If it's "so close to lossless" why have True HD?

And if True HD is lossless (it is), then why bother with DD+ at all?

Can I ask a serious question here?

What is the point of Dolby Digital Plus?

Why does it exist? If it's "so close to lossless" why have True HD?

And if True HD is lossless (it is), then why bother with DD+ at all?

Do you suppose it's remotely possible that feature creep and product differentiation play an important role in the marketing of consumer electronics?

Can I ask a serious question here?

What is the point of Dolby Digital Plus?

Why does it exist? If it's "so close to lossless" why have True HD?

And if True HD is lossless (it is), then why bother with DD+ at all?


Honestly? What was the point of Dolby Pro Logic II?

Anyway, if you read Dolby's definition of DD+, it's high quality at a lower bitrate. And it's modular enough to expand into 7.1 discrete (actually can max out at 13.1 channels), and manage at higher bitrates, but still staying below lossless (up to 6 mbps).

On top of which, keep in mind NOT EVERYONE outside of this forum has or uses HDMI or external analog for audio. HDMI receivers aren't a dime a dozen yet. And that receiver has to be TrueHD compatible. TrueHD is not capable over toslink. Dolby Digital Plus is much more backwards compatible.

So in Paramount's case, do they want to appeal to the 5% crowd that MIGHT have a Dolby TrueHD receiver? Or do they want to try to maintain compatibility with the other 95% that don't?

And actually, if you check out this FAQ sheet, DD+ isn't that slouchy a codec: http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DDPlus_FAQ.pdf

It's not 640k DD, and people on this forum are making it out to be.

Can I ask a serious question here?

What is the point of Dolby Digital Plus?

Why does it exist? If it's "so close to lossless" why have True HD?

And if True HD is lossless (it is), then why bother with DD+ at all?

DD+ increases efficiency in many applications, including 7.1. It offers higher bitrates than legacy DD.

True HD is one way to stop the questioning of whether or not the lossy codec is "just good enough." It helps with marketing and staying competitive, as there are competing lossless formats and PCM. Dolby is a business after all.

If you want 96k, True HD is your only option from Dolby.

DD+ increases efficiency in many applications, including 7.1. It offers higher bitrates than legacy DD.

True HD is one way to stop the questioning of whether or not the lossy codec is "just good enough." It helps with marketing and staying competitive, as there are competing lossless formats and PCM. Dolby is a business after all.

If you want 96k, True HD is your only option from Dolby.

Maybe it's the only option from Dolby but I vaguely recall something called DTS HD MA which has the advantage of including a built-in DTS core 1.5mbs embedded in the soundtrack for playback on non-DTSHD MA-capable components.

Not to mention Blu-ray is fully capable of supporting 5.1 24/96 uncompressed PCM soundtracks to go with high def video.

I'm buying a HD-DVD player exclusively for this flick. I just dropped 20k for speakers on my HT. This whole formate war is BS anyway the decision will never really be made, FISO will ruin both choices just like NAPSTER killed the CD's. No real consumer with any money will care if they Dl a movie or pick up a antiquated optical dick. Tera byte ram drives will kill ,HDVDS, and BRDVDS this whole format war is self defeating the manufactures should realize it quickly or they will be selling bootleg tickets for dogers games and be begging you to buy movies on thumb drives.

Maybe it's the only option from Dolby but I vaguely recall something called DTS HD MA which has the advantage of including a built-in DTS core 1.5mbs embedded in the soundtrack for playback on non-DTSHD MA-capable components.

Not to mention Blu-ray is fully capable of supporting 5.1 24/96 uncompressed PCM soundtracks to go with high def video.

Oscar... what is the point of this reply? Just to be contrary?

I was answering a question about the existence and possible reasoning of Dolby's formats, not making a commentary on HD DVD vs. BR, nor eschewing the existence of DTS or PCM...

So once again, what's your point?

Oscar... what is the point of this reply? Just to be contrary?

I was answering a question about the existence and possible reasoning of Dolby's formats, not making a commentary on HD DVD vs. BR, nor eschewing the existence of DTS or PCM...

So once again, what's your point?

To promote blu with the fervor of a televangelist? (just a guess;))

I've already preordered the HD DVD. Lossless audio isn't a concern.

Awesome picture and interactivity sells it for me. And the fact it's a kick ass movie.

Dolby used the example of the King Kong DD+ track on the HD DVD and its many critics comments on how good it was as an example of HD audio at its booth at CEDIA.

KK was DD+ and it was critically aclaimed enough for Dolby Labs to brag about it at that Denver trade show to home theater installers and the AV trade press.

Transformers DD+ will sound great.

I would have preferrerd Dobly True HD lossless but DD+ is going to sound better than any DVD audio soundtrack ever did.
Yeah that's great Kosty, but can't you admit that you would prefer your format of choice had more capabilities? I think it's inexcusable for at least some form of compressed lossless in any next generation video format.

I can hear the trumpeters now...

Woohoo. HD DVD. The format that has somewhat better audio than DVD

Or how about this one...

HD DVD... audio that's almost as good as that of blu-ray

It's so sad that here, of all places... AUDIO/video science is the home to the largest percentage of HD DVD fanatics. I guess you'll be touting 128K mp3 next.

If HD DVD wins this war, I'm going to fully adopt it as I've always said. IMO it would be stupid not to, but cutting corners on audio for explosion-filled blockbusters like Transformers well... it just plain sucks!

Yeah that's great Kosty, but can't you admit that you would prefer your format of choice had more capabilities? I think it's inexcusable for at least some form of compressed lossless in any next generation video format.

I can hear the trumpeters now...

Woohoo. HD DVD. The format that has somewhat better audio than DVD

This is really a bad comment to make. If you read the sheet on Dolby Digital Plus you'd see more than just "somewhat better audio" than DVD. And again you can point to movies like Hot Fuzz where the DD+ was spectacular; especially in the final gunfight scene.

It's so sad that here, of all places... AUDIO/video science is the home to the largest percentage of HD DVD fanatics. I guess you'll be touting 128K mp3 next.

Also a completely unfair statement, considering DD+ can reach into 3mpbs when needed. 3mpbs is a pretty strong bitrate for audio.


If HD DVD wins this war, I'm going to fully adopt it as I've always said. IMO it would be stupid not to, but cutting corners on audio for explosion-filled blockbusters like Transformers well... it just plain sucks!

And so what will be the mantra when the Transformers audio track still rocks hard even with a DD+ track? "Oh, well, if it were lossless, the explosions would have a hair more clarity if you hooked the oscilloscope up to the speaker, and that makes this suck!"?

HD DVD... audio that's almost as good as that of blu-ray


Comparing Phantom of the Opera on blu-ray and on HD DVD, makes your comment contradicting to reality

This is really a bad comment to make. If you read the sheet on Dolby Digital Plus you'd see more than just "somewhat better audio" than DVD. And again you can point to movies like Hot Fuzz where the DD+ was spectacular; especially in the final gunfight scene.



Also a completely unfair statement, considering DD+ can reach into 3mpbs when needed. 3mpbs is a pretty strong bitrate for audio.




And so what will be the mantra when the Transformers audio track still rocks hard even with a DD+ track? "Oh, well, if it were lossless, the explosions would have a hair more clarity if you hooked the oscilloscope up to the speaker, and that makes this suck!"?

1. Why when you can have lossless or better yet, uncompressed would you want DD+?

2. 3 Megs IS a very strong bitrate, indeed. How "when needed" translates to the real world I'm not sure. Maybe you are.

3. Yes. If HD DVD wins, I will always say that for the same money (economies of scale after more adoption) we could have all had a slightly more hi-fi format. Kudos to you for your comfortability with settling for less.

:)

Comparing Phantom of the Opera on blu-ray and on HD DVD, makes your comment contradicting to reality
O.K. There's one piece of evidence. "Science" has clearly spoken!

1. Why when you can have lossless or better yet, uncompressed would you want DD+?

2. 3 Megs IS a very strong bitrate, indeed. How "when needed" translates to the real world I'm not sure. Maybe you are.

3. Yes. If HD DVD wins, I will always say that for the same money (economies of scale after more adoption) we could have all had a slightly more hi-fi format. Kudos to you for your comfortability with settling for less.

:)

I think a more relevant question is, can you tell the difference in a blind test? It's already been demonstrated that in most cases when comparing lossy video formats that people can't differentiate between different encodes of the same movie, if done properly.

I know that all those extra bits make you feel better, but if you really can't tell that they are there, then what good are they?

1. Why when you can have lossless or better yet, uncompressed would you want DD+?Why do you want uncompressed audio? I mean seriously, why waste all this storage space that could go towards extras or a higher PQ bitrate?

I think a more relevant question is, can you tell the difference in a blind test? It's already been demonstrated that in most cases when comparing lossy video formats that people can't differentiate between different encodes of the same movie, if done properly.

I know that all those extra bits make you feel better, but if you really can't tell that they are there, then what good are they?
Well it might be tough to do a blind test with video, but... O.K.

;)

It's long been my belief that the video of each are very similar. I was discussing audio here. If I could not tell the difference in any of the discs that I would be interested in, using a quality system, I would certainly yield. People that know me consider mine to be a "Golden Ear." Certainly not to brag, but for the purposes of this discussion... Studio engineers have tried to tell me that it's impossible to hear 3 db differences in frequencies. In many "blind" tests I have absolutely proven them wrong and the music I've produced has had pretty outstanding sound quality.

For those that don't suffer this affliction, I'm sure HQ, compressed audio is great!

Still, like I said, if it's proven true that I can't actually hear the difference, I will most certainly back down and will be very happy with HD DVD. Of course I'll always hate long films on 2 discs when it's not necessary, but again, that's just me.

Why do you want uncompressed audio? I mean seriously, why waste all this storage space that could go towards extras or a higher PQ bitrate?
Ahhh, you can have both with blu-ray. ;)

Well it might be tough to do a blind test with video, but... O.K.

;)

It's long been my belief that the video of each are very similar. I was discussing audio here. If I could not tell the difference in any of the discs that I would be interested in, using a quality system, I would certainly yield. People that know me consider mine to be a "Golden Ear." Certainly not to brag, but for the purposes of this discussion... Studio engineers have tried to tell me that it's impossible to hear 3 db differences in frequencies. In many "blind" tests I have absolutely proven them wrong and the music I've produced has had pretty outstanding sound quality.

For those that don't suffer this affliction, I'm sure HQ, compressed audio is great!

Still, like I said, if it's proven true that I can't actually hear the difference, I will most certainly back down and will be very happy with HD DVD. Of course I'll always hate long films on 2 discs when it's not necessary, but again, that's just me.

Fair enough, but I think you are in the very slim minority. I can't tell you how many people have boasted similar claims to me of having "golden ears" and then not being able to tell the difference between LAME encoded VBR APX MP3 and WAV on some very good stereo gear in a blind test.

Frankly I think that many people are too hung up on specs to simply enjoy the presentation. They would rather watch a bitrate meter to try to spot little flaws in the PQ than to simply enjoy watching a top shelf movie like Transformers in glorious HD!

Fair enough, but I think you are in the very slim minority.

I'm sure you're right. $hit we're all in a minority. Most are happy with SD!

Frankly I think that many people are too hung up on specs to simply enjoy the presentation. They would rather watch a bitrate meter to try to spot little flaws in the PQ than to simply enjoy watching a top shelf movie like Transformers in glorious HD!
True.

My problem is the format of my choice does it all for basically the same price (software.)

Ahh but it's sooooooooo affordable to get into HD DVD... I find it hard to believe that there are still hold outs.

Do you think you'd see many HD DVD fans holding out if profile 2.0 BD players were available at $249 or less? Likely not.

1. Why when you can have lossless or better yet, uncompressed would you want DD+?

THis question can go round and round forever.

I'll give you what I think the short answer is. The studios are playing to the current market. Seriously, how many TrueHD receivers do you think people have right now? I'm wagering not a lot. TrueHD is not backwards compatible with existing equipment, DD+ is and at a HD quality. If you're going to force TrueHD on people you're then asking them to go out and buy new receivers too?

Studios I believe are playing to their customer base. When more TrueHD receivers are out in the wild, I'm sure you'll see more movies with it. For the time being it seems to me the studios will do DD+ first, and then think about TrueHD afterwards and see if it's worth the time and effort.


2. 3 Megs IS a very strong bitrate, indeed. How "when needed" translates to the real world I'm not sure. Maybe you are.

Maybe I am what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.



3. Yes. If HD DVD wins, I will always say that for the same money (economies of scale after more adoption) we could have all had a slightly more hi-fi format. Kudos to you for your comfortability with settling for less.

:)

It's kind of funny. I view it as settling for more. I don't get DD+ and 1080i/1080p with Comcast HD, or Xbox Live Marketplace. And certainly more than DVD, which I have over 500 of. So I am getting more out of my HDM.

I always chuckle at statements like that, because it shows me how little is understood about life outside AVS.

THis question can go round and round forever.

I'll give you what I think the short answer is. The studios are playing to the current market. Seriously, how many TrueHD receivers do you think people have right now? I'm wagering not a lot. TrueHD is not backwards compatible with existing equipment, DD+ is and at a HD quality. If you're going to force TrueHD on people you're then asking them to go out and buy new receivers too?

Studios I believe are playing to their customer base. When more TrueHD receivers are out in the wild, I'm sure you'll see more movies with it. For the time being it seems to me the studios will do DD+ first, and then think about TrueHD afterwards and see if it's worth the time and effort.




Maybe I am what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.





It's kind of funny. I view it as settling for more. I don't get DD+ and 1080i/1080p with Comcast HD, or Xbox Live Marketplace. And certainly more than DVD, which I have over 500 of. So I am getting more out of my HDM.

I always chuckle at statements like that, because it shows me how little is understood about life outside AVS.

+1

I don't know how many times I've said that here at AVS lossless would be great, but in mass market it will be a niche until the audio-side of equipment catches up with the "one cable" hookup (HDMI) at low enough prices.

Seriously, how many TrueHD receivers do you think people have right now? I'm wagering not a lot. TrueHD is not backwards compatible with existing equipment, DD+ is and at a HD quality. If you're going to force TrueHD on people you're then asking them to go out and buy new receivers too?

Studios I believe are playing to their customer base. When more TrueHD receivers are out in the wild, I'm sure you'll see more movies with it. For the time being it seems to me the studios will do DD+ first, and then think about TrueHD afterwards and see if it's worth the time and effort.HD DVD playback devices decode DD+ and TrueHD in the player (mandatory) and will output it via perfect PCM (via HDMI), analog outputs (if outfittted) or can convert it to compatible audio like DTS or DD for optical (SPDIF). So, TrueHD is as backwards compatible as DD+. For BD playback devices, discs with TrueHD also have a DD stream for players that don't support TrueHD.

In a nut-shell, receivers do not need to have DD+ or TrueHD decoders for you to enjoy next-gen audio.

So many people have stated that they are not Going to buy the Transformers HD-DVD because it doesn’t contain the lossless track. Are you going to buy the DD SD version instead? I would think that the difference between DD and DD+ is much greater then DD+ and lossless.

I'd call those people idiots. Better picture and somewhat better sound > substandard pq and DD

THis question can go round and round forever.

I'll give you what I think the short answer is. The studios are playing to the current market. Seriously, how many TrueHD receivers do you think people have right now? I'm wagering not a lot. TrueHD is not backwards compatible with existing equipment, DD+ is and at a HD quality. If you're going to force TrueHD on people you're then asking them to go out and buy new receivers too?

Studios I believe are playing to their customer base. When more TrueHD receivers are out in the wild, I'm sure you'll see more movies with it. For the time being it seems to me the studios will do DD+ first, and then think about TrueHD afterwards and see if it's worth the time and effort.




Maybe I am what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.





It's kind of funny. I view it as settling for more. I don't get DD+ and 1080i/1080p with Comcast HD, or Xbox Live Marketplace. And certainly more than DVD, which I have over 500 of. So I am getting more out of my HDM.

I always chuckle at statements like that, because it shows me how little is understood about life outside AVS.



Just for clarification, he is clearly stating HD DVD studios. The BR studios tend to give you lossless on most discs. They just aren't "playing to their customer base" I guess.

Just for clarification, he is clearly stating HD DVD studios. The BR studios tend to give you lossless on most discs. They just aren't "playing to their customer base" I guess.

Between that and $499 players? And the fact that BD can't really do DD+ as it was intended? You're right about that.




HD DVD playback devices decode DD+ and TrueHD in the player (mandatory) and will output it via perfect PCM (via HDMI), analog outputs (if outfittted) or can convert it to compatible audio like DTS or DD for optical (SPDIF).

All three of which are not found in the majority of homes right now. And you still need HDMI or "outfitted analog" to get it.

Again, I would imagine that when more call is warranted for TrueHD, you'll see it more. Universal has already moved in that direction. We know Warner uses it on occasion. We know Paramount uses it on occasion.


So, TrueHD is as backwards compatible as DD+. For BD playback devices, discs with TrueHD also have a DD stream for players that don't support TrueHD.

As do HD DVD's. Every one I own on the back that has TrueHD also lists a DD+ track. Now I know my Xbox 360 add-on will downmix, but other than that, why have a DD+ track and a TrueHD track on the same disc if the TrueHD track can simply be downmixed?


In a nut-shell, receivers do not need to have DD+ or TrueHD decoders for you to enjoy next-gen audio.

At least someone else says DD+ is next gen audio.

I can only speculate why studios do it. I still think until more recievers are TrueHD native, studios won't really bother with the seperate encodes. We know movie length isn't a bearing on it. We know Transformers could be done at a high video bitrate and TrueHD if they really wanted to. So why not email Paramount and ask them why?

Ahh but it's sooooooooo affordable to get into HD DVD... I find it hard to believe that there are still hold outs.

Do you think you'd see many HD DVD fans holding out if profile 2.0 BD players were available at $249 or less? Likely not.

I agree. I was willing to spend the money to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my hd-dvd player. If it weren't for some of the movies only available on blu-ray I never would have purchased it. I still lean heavily to the HD DVD side.

That would all change though if blu-ray dropped the prices of their players to near HD DVD prices. And if they were to match the features available on HD DVD. I can't believe that a 1 1/2 years after release, they STILL haven't been able to get their players to have as many features as HD DVD. Not to mention the fact that every single player has some type of issue with it.

WHY can't they come up with CLEAR levels of players like HD DVD has. Maybe call them Silver for entry level, Gold for Mid level and Platimun for the high end. Plus it gives them the oportunity to add some bling, to appeal to their target demographic.

Entry level - 1080i60 output with sound decoding and advanced content support
Mid level - 1080p60 output with sound decoding and advanced content support
High level - 1080p24 output with sound decoding, advanced onboard video processing for SD DVD and advanced content support.

At the rate the BDA is going, I think Denon will have the first fully featured blu-ray player for ~ $2500 ready in time for Chirstmas 2008.

Between that and $499 players? And the fact that BD can't really do DD+ as it was intended? You're right about that.






All three of which are not found in the majority of homes right now. And you still need HDMI or "outfitted analog" to get it.

Again, I would imagine that when more call is warranted for TrueHD, you'll see it more. Universal has already moved in that direction. We know Warner uses it on occasion. We know Paramount uses it on occasion.




As do HD DVD's. Every one I own on the back that has TrueHD also lists a DD+ track. Now I know my Xbox 360 add-on will downmix, but other than that, why have a DD+ track and a TrueHD track on the same disc if the TrueHD track can simply be downmixed?




At least someone else says DD+ is next gen audio.

I can only speculate why studios do it. I still think until more recievers are TrueHD native, studios won't really bother with the seperate encodes. We know movie length isn't a bearing on it. We know Transformers could be done at a high video bitrate and TrueHD if they really wanted to. So why not email Paramount and ask them why?



So more lossless tracks because DD+ is not supported is not good? :D

Why not e-mail them? Because most of them are just like you and take what is given to them without expecting more. They are constantly preaching "1080i is good enough, DD+ is good enough, 30gb is good enough" because that is what you are told, and most tend to believe it. (as evidenced by the numerous HD DVD apologists here) HD DVD fans give a free pass to their studios for the most part. It seems a fairly well-known fact.

I agree. I was willing to spend the money to buy a blu-ray player in addition to my hd-dvd player. If it weren't for some of the movies only available on blu-ray I never would have purchased it. I still lean heavily to the HD DVD side.

That would all change though if blu-ray dropped the prices of their players to near HD DVD prices. And if they were to match the features available on HD DVD. I can't believe that a 1 1/2 years after release, they STILL haven't been able to get their players to have as many features as HD DVD. Not to mention the fact that every single player has some type of issue with it.

WHY can't they come up with CLEAR levels of players like HD DVD has. Maybe call them Silver for entry level, Gold for Mid level and Platimun for the high end. Plus it gives them the oportunity to add some bling, to appeal to their target demographic.

Entry level - 1080i60 output with sound decoding and advanced content support
Mid level - 1080p60 output with sound decoding and advanced content support
High level - 1080p24 output with sound decoding, advanced onboard video processing for SD DVD and advanced content support.

At the rate the BDA is going, I think Denon will have the first fully featured blu-ray player for ~ $2500 ready in time for Chirstmas 2008.


So you already own a BR player, but you would be more of a fan if they lowered prices? :confused:

Every one I own on the back that has TrueHD also lists a DD+ track. Now I know my Xbox 360 add-on will downmix, but other than that, why have a DD+ track and a TrueHD track on the same disc if the TrueHD track can simply be downmixed?Always including a DD/DD+ track is probably just a 'best practice'. Per spec, mandatory TrueHD decoding only needs to extract two channels... so, I'd guess that could be one reason. I can't think of one standalone that only extracts two channels from TrueHD other than the non-compliant 1st gen LG combo player. The mastering engineer for the specific titles would need to give you the official answer, though.

Dosen't some of the Blu-ray players have a bit meter.

So more lossless tracks because DD+ is not supported is not good? :D

What? Retype in English please?

Why not e-mail them? Because most of them are just like you and take what is given to them without expecting more. They are constantly preaching "1080i is good enough, DD+ is good enough, 30gb is good enough" because that is what you are told, and most tend to believe it. (as evidenced by the numerous HD DVD apologists here) HD DVD fans give a free pass to their studios for the most part. It seems a fairly well-known fact.

It's people like you what cause unrest. Please give this crap a break. The amount of people that are "told" anything scientific about the formats ends on forums like this. Most regular people don't give a rats ass about 1080i vs. 1080p, DD+ vs. Lossless. And studios for the most part know this.

Guess what, 30GB is enough. If it wasn't enough, studios would all be Blu-ray exclusive by now, citing they just can't deal with capacity. If all these people out there, hundreds of thousands, revolted against Warner because only a small percentage of their movies were lossless, they'd change their policy.

The fact that you and your ilk don't comprehend is that it has nothing to do with giving anyone a "free pass". It has to do with the fact that only a select few of you even care about something that the average person can't even discern audibly. And please don't try to feed me the "you can tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p either", because I guarantee you since the majority of TV's out there are either 720p or 1080i right now, the general public doesn't see it either.

You know why studios and regular folk think DD+ in most cases is "good enough"? Because it sounds better than DVD to begin with, and not just marginally. Again I point to Hot Fuzz, which sounds PHENOMINAL in spots. Oh look, it's DD+.


Always including a DD/DD+ track is probably just a 'best practice'. Per spec, mandatory TrueHD decoding only needs to extract two channels... so, I'd guess that could be one reason. I can't think of one standalone that only extracts two channels from TrueHD other than the non-compliant 1st gen LG combo player. The mastering engineer for the specific titles would need to give you the official answer, though.

I think there are other corporate reasons as well. What they are, we just don't know.

It's people like you what cause unrest. Please give this crap a break. The amount of people that are "told" anything scientific about the formats ends on forums like this. Most regular people don't give a rats ass about 1080i vs. 1080p, DD+ vs. Lossless. And studios for the most part know this.

most ppl dont give a rat's ass about surround sound regardless of what form it's in and have their $50 dvd players hooked up via composite to their sd tv sets. so i guess studio's should just put dd2.0 sound on the discs and be done with it.

Guess what, 30GB is enough. If it wasn't enough, studios would all be Blu-ray exclusive by now, citing they just can't deal with capacity. If all these people out there, hundreds of thousands, revolted against Warner because only a small percentage of their movies were lossless, they'd change their policy.

if it's enough why all the fuss about TL51. if bitrate was high enough why do lossless audio had to be omitted to keep video at a decent bitrate (nature's journey, the host)?

if it's enough why all the fuss about TL51. if bitrate was high enough why do lossless audio had to be omitted to keep video at a decent bitrate (nature's journey, the host)?

Natures Journey was a special case, designed to push the envelope. :rolleyes:

most ppl dont give a rat's ass about surround sound regardless of what form it's in and have their $50 dvd players hooked up via composite to their sd tv sets. so i guess studio's should just put dd2.0 sound on the discs and be done with it.

And there's always someone who wan'ts to take it to the extreme.

Why don't you email Dolby and inform them that they don't know what they are doing, and that DD+ is not a next-gen codec. By all means, I am sure they will take your opinion with the utmost seriousness.

And I remember when studios were just putting DD 2.0 on DVD's. Yeah, I go back that far with DVD.



if it's enough why all the fuss about TL51. if bitrate was high enough why do lossless audio had to be omitted to keep video at a decent bitrate (nature's journey, the host)?

I didn't realize there was a fuss. None of the studios made a fuss. Amir said there was no fuss.

OH YEAH, about 15 people HERE made a fuss about it. Right, got it.

if it's enough why all the fuss about TL51. if bitrate was high enough why do lossless audio had to be omitted to keep video at a decent bitrate (nature's journey, the host)?

Kinda took what Richard said and spun it. Natures Journey has an audio track at 24/96, two times higher sampling rate than 99% of the movie masters out there. Also, many of the so called lossless tracks on BD and HD DVD are at 16/48. Don't know about The Host, but Nature's Journey is a very poor choice for making the bitrate and size argument.

That said, have you seen the HD DVD version of Nature's choice? I've ordered it but haven't seen it. From all I've read, even with the supposedly insufficient bitrate it is an audio and visual feast.

What? Retype in English please?



It's people like you what cause unrest. Please give this crap a break. The amount of people that are "told" anything scientific about the formats ends on forums like this. Most regular people don't give a rats ass about 1080i vs. 1080p, DD+ vs. Lossless. And studios for the most part know this.

Guess what, 30GB is enough. If it wasn't enough, studios would all be Blu-ray exclusive by now, citing they just can't deal with capacity. If all these people out there, hundreds of thousands, revolted against Warner because only a small percentage of their movies were lossless, they'd change their policy.

The fact that you and your ilk don't comprehend is that it has nothing to do with giving anyone a "free pass". It has to do with the fact that only a select few of you even care about something that the average person can't even discern audibly. And please don't try to feed me the "you can tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p either", because I guarantee you since the majority of TV's out there are either 720p or 1080i right now, the general public doesn't see it either.

You know why studios and regular folk think DD+ in most cases is "good enough"? Because it sounds better than DVD to begin with, and not just marginally. Again I point to Hot Fuzz, which sounds PHENOMINAL in spots. Oh look, it's DD+.




I think there are other corporate reasons as well. What they are, we just don't know.

Just like you were told, just like a good HD DVDer

I agree about the audio, for me it's not a big deal. My friends and family that have HD DVD don't care about 1080i vs p and lossy vs lossless audio. The fact is it just looks and sounds great. I think the people that care about the codecs are a niche market. I am surely getting Transformers on HD DVD.

Just like you were told, just like a good HD DVDer

I get sick of BR fans making silly comments when someone states an opinion.

For the record:
Woodshed thinks lossless is very important.
Michael Mullis does not.
Me, I don't either.

OK, let's finally move on. No one is going to budge on this. None of us are going to effect sales. The studios are going to do what they want.

I think I have covered it all.

I get sick of BR fans making silly comments when someone states an opinion.

For the record:
Woodshed thinks lossless is very important.
Michael Mullis does not.
Me, I don't either.

OK, let's finally move on. No one is going to budge on this. None of us are going to effect sales. The studios are going to do what they want.

I think I have covered it all.

I think they're just getting upset because their talking points are getting whittled away one by one. That, and maybe they're starting to realize that these talking points have been just that -- talking points -- all along. It seems that some Studios are already making decisions based on real-life scenarios versus paper specs. It's only a matter of time before others do the same.

I find it interesting that some people suggest Paramount is being silly because they are leaving money on the table. If their authoring and replication costs are higher with Blu-ray than HD DVD, then how much are they really leaving on the table? Perhaps they were just cutting their losses. More importantly, I wonder why they don't think Disney and Fox are being silly by leaving money on the table. I'm sure they'll talk about a 2:1 sales ratio, but at these volumes, even 35% of the market is money, no? Of course, if they argue that the volumes are so small that 35% doesn't matter then it wouldn't say much for the 2:1 ratio to begin with. The double standards running rampant around here are incredible.

Just like you were told, just like a good HD DVDer

It's sad to see people like you.

Just like you were told, just like a good HD DVDer

Ya know, he might just have a point.....or three. I totally understand and completely identify with where the BD folks are coming from. If BD had come on the scene 25 years ago, I'd probably have been one of you, clamoring about the benefits of more space and bandwidth, and asking people on the other side why they're willing to "settle for less," in genuine confusion.

After more than 30 years in this hobby, perhaps I've grown a bit more pragmatic, but I've definitely become much more skeptical about the need for feature-sets that seem to expand in a linear slope of coincidental diminishing returns. Thirty years ago, you were always better off investing the lion's share of your stereo budget in your speakers, and the same is true today for 5.1 or 7.1. They are by far, the most important components in the audio chain of any HT.

Today's listeners apparently take the amazingly effective performance of today's budget HT electronics for granted, just as my generation did, yesterday's stereo gear, because they really do come within a hair's breadth of sounding every bit as good as the much more expensive, esoteric stuff; the primary difference being output capability. More to the point, I earnestly believe that most people habitually and grossly underestimate the effectiveness and SQ of contemporary compression codecs. Most especially, the budget models. ;)

For the record:
Woodshed thinks lossless is very important.
Michael Mullis does not.
Me, I don't either.



Me either..... But what do I know?

Me either..... But what do I know?

You're funny. :D

Me either..... But what do I know?

LOL! Good to see you chime in! Tough crowd in this thread.

I think they're just getting upset because their talking points are getting whittled away one by one. That, and maybe they're starting to realize that these talking points have been just that -- talking points -- all along. It seems that some Studios are already making decisions based on real-life scenarios versus paper specs. It's only a matter of time before others do the same.

I find it interesting that some people suggest Paramount is being silly because they are leaving money on the table. If their authoring and replication costs are higher with Blu-ray than HD DVD, then how much are they really leaving on the table? Perhaps they were just cutting their losses. More importantly, I wonder why they don't think Disney and Fox are being silly by leaving money on the table. I'm sure they'll talk about a 2:1 sales ratio, but at these volumes, even 35% of the market is money, no? Of course, if they argue that the volumes are so small that 35% doesn't matter then it wouldn't say much for the 2:1 ratio to begin with. The double standards running rampant around here are incredible.

What a shock here comes the "they are still mad a Para" argument. :rolleyes:

Ya know, he might just have a point.....or three. I totally understand and completely identify with where the BD folks are coming from. If BD had come on the scene 25 years ago, I'd probably have been one of you, clamoring about the benefits of more space and bandwidth, and asking people on the other side why they're willing to "settle for less," in genuine confusion.

After more than 30 years in this hobby, perhaps I've grown a bit more pragmatic, but I've definitely become much more skeptical about the need for feature-sets that seem to expand in a linear slope of coincidental diminishing returns. Thirty years ago, you were always better off investing the lion's share of your stereo budget in your speakers, and the same is true today for 5.1 or 7.1. They are by far, the most important components in the audio chain of any HT.

Today's listeners apparently take the amazingly effective performance of today's budget HT electronics for granted, just as my generation did, yesterday's stereo gear, because they really do come within a hair's breadth of sounding every bit as good as the much more expensive, esoteric stuff; the primary difference being output capability. More to the point, I earnestly believe that most people habitually and grossly underestimate the effectiveness and SQ of contemporary compression codecs. Most especially, the budget models. ;)



Yeah for the record AQ > PQ for me. Not by a large margin, but enough to care.

Me either..... But what do I know?

That must make you an "HD DVD'er". Welcome to the club. :)

I get sick of BR fans making silly comments when someone states an opinion.

For the record:
Woodshed thinks lossless is very important.
Michael Mullis does not.
Me, I don't either.

OK, let's finally move on. No one is going to budge on this. None of us are going to effect sales. The studios are going to do what they want.

I think I have covered it all.

Yeah, I think you covered it.

And for the record, my next purchase is going to be the new Sammy combo player. ;)

So call me a BRer all you want. Sure I lean that way, but I will not buy a film on either side that does not include a lossless track. I expect more.

1. Because there is no excuse for it
2. I won't fall for the inevitable double-dip

That must make you an "HD DVD'er". Welcome to the club. :)

Not until his reasons are, "noone really cares anyway, so I shouldnt either" :)

I am hoping you don't drop that on me to placate the others film mixer. ;)

What a shock here comes the "they are still mad a Para" argument. :rolleyes:

They're probably mad at themselves for being had by Sony and the BDA crew. Because of getting poked in a sensitive spot paying for pricey outdated standalones.

Ahhh, you can have both with blu-ray. ;)

That argument just seems to sail over the heads of some HD DVD proponents and/or they simply ignore it because there is no adequate response. It's only with HD DVD do we have discussions on tradeoffs concerning video vs. audio bitrates/allocation there of, storage capacity, and the bells and whistles. Blu-Ray ? no such issues. 5.1 24/96 PCM with high def video ? not a problem with blu-ray. Lossless audio on blockbuster special effects-laden HD DVD ?oops, problems.

Start tossing in 24 bit DTS HD MA (finally !) on Fox releases and the contrast with wimpy 16 bit DDplus (and the occasional TrueHD) could prove enlightening.

DD+ is 24 bit.

HD DVD has less bandwidth and space than BR. It always will.

Despite that fact, I have been more than pleased with my mixes on HD DVD and BR.... and I know there is no perceivable difference between a high bit rate lossy codec vs. the master or a lossless encode.

Because of these HD DVD tradeoffs, are we saddled with less quality?

One cannot answer that question without ever having seen a video master or heard the audio master the discs have come from.

Because we can never have uncompressed video on these formats, should one settle for good enough with AVC/VC1/MPEG2?

I agree that if you can do lossless, then do it. It stops this argument.

Sometimes, it might not be possible to be that way due to the limitations of the format, true, or due to the policies of a given studio, but if it doesn't affect the quality, WHO CARES?

As someone who has dedicated my life to making sound tracks with my own two hands, I lose no sleep knowing that my work will forever be preserved in a "wimpy" encode...

I don't know about that...for everyone who claims they can differentiate between high-bitrate lossy and lossless without the double blind test results to prove it, I don't think it can be quoted enough.

Yeah, I think you covered it.

And for the record, my next purchase is going to be the new Sammy combo player. ;)

So call me a BRer all you want. Sure I lean that way, but I will not buy a film on either side that does not include a lossless track. I expect more.

1. Because there is no excuse for it
2. I won't fall for the inevitable double-dip

But if you already own a Blu-ray player, haven't you already fallen for the inevitable double-dip? Since you're going to need something else if you want to be able to access Profile 1.1 and 2.0 features? :confused:

(...)
Despite that fact, I have been more than pleased with my mixes on HD DVD and BR.... and I know there is no perceivable difference between a high bit rate lossy codec vs. the master or a lossless encode.
(...)
Next time you mix a movie, tell me how terrible the DD+ encode sounds compare to the master you crafted.
(...)

Thank you FilmMixer for your informative post.
Unlike some other folks you really know what you're talking about, and I trust your opinion a million times more than that of some random guy making random claims without ever having properly A/B'ed.

So many people have stated that they are not Going to buy the Transformers HD-DVD because it doesn’t contain the lossless track. Are you going to buy the DD SD version instead? I would think that the difference between DD and DD+ is much greater then DD+ and lossless.

I'll wait for it come out in Blu-Ray IF I like what I see when I rent it on HD-DVD. It does not matter the differences between DD and DD+ the point is not promoting ANY studio that does not use the best audio possible for the format. PCM/lossless should be the norm especially on a release of this magnitude.

Quoting FilmMixer's full posting twice in a row in the same thread probably wasn't necessary, guys... :)


Actually it really was. There are some that simply don't get it, and is the reason threads like this go 11+ pages.

It SHOULD be quoted on every page. If I could, that post would be my sig.

Is this one of those threads thats started to create controversy and have people stay away from HD DVD?

I was told by my friend that a rival company to HD DVD is hiring people to start threads like this to create issues surrounding anything HD DVD.

Is this true?

If it is. Just know that we are not falling for it.
I think you may be talking about project campaignHD, which has lobbyists here at AVS starting propaganda threads/posts to provide skewed information to pump up the maroon team.

+1 Nice Post!

+2
It is an excellent post.

It reminds me of elementary school when our class was given an eye test. A group of my friends were all bragging about how great their vision was. After seeing the doctor though a couple were prescribed glasses.

Its the same here. People like to feel superior. The like to believe they can see the difference between 1080i and 1080p. They like to believe they can hear a big difference between lossless and DD+.

I call it the Bose effect. "Wow, my expensive Bose system clearly sounds better!"

Transformer is one of the movie why I am seriously thinking of finally jumping in the HDM. Till now I have always heard DD & DTS on my AVR...& I really like it. I am sure...that these next gen audio will be much much better.

I recently got the chance to see & hear King Kong on HD.......at my friends house & the PQ & AQ was just atonishing. My King Kong on DVD dont look & sound that great.

As long as I can get great AQ & PQ...I dont care if its lossless or lossy. In DVD we have this for so long also....my personal choice is DTS (because simply my AVR can output it...:D)....but DD sounds great also.

Oscar

You have to seperate different factors when you going to judge PQ. How was the movie shoot? When were it shoot, When were the master made? etc etc when you seperate all thoose things you can see a very clear line between the PQ on the different disc.

Some examples
Disney movies are often produced by Bruckheimer. Hes productions has a very high quality in terms of PQ and AQ. It almost like a trademark for his productions. And since he is exclusive nowdays to disney (BHD was Colombia) very many of disney excellent BDs are related to that they are Bruckheimer productions.

Another example
There basicly 2 ways to shoot 2,35:1 movies. S35 or Anamorfic35. They both has pros and cons. In the good old days with DVD, the differences were harder to spot, but with HD you can clearly see the source of the picture. So anamorfed looks a little softer then their S35 counterparts. Nothing to do with the encoding.

S35 has been more popular the more the years goes by. So with modern 2,35:1 movies chances are bigger they have been recorded S35. If you go back and look at catalog titles you will find the more is anamorfic.

So how many BDs encoded with higher bitrate have been Anamorfic35?

Oscar

You have to seperate different factors when you going to judge PQ. How was the movie shoot? When were it shoot, When were the master made? etc etc when you seperate all thoose things you can see a very clear line between the PQ on the different disc.

Some examples
Disney movies are often produced by Bruckheimer. Hes productions has a very high quality in terms of PQ and AQ. It almost like a trademark for his productions. And since he is exclusive nowdays to disney (BHD was Colombia) very many of disney excellent BDs are related to that they are Bruckheimer productions.

Another example
There basicly 2 ways to shoot 2,35:1 movies. S35 or Anamorfic35. They both has pros and cons. In the good old days with DVD, the differences were harder to spot, but with HD you can clearly see the source of the picture. So anamorfed looks a little softer then their S35 counterparts. Nothing to do with the encoding.

S35 has been more popular the more the years goes by. So with modern 2,35:1 movies chances are bigger they have been recorded S35. If you go back and look at catalog titles you will find the more is anamorfic.

So how many BDs encoded with higher bitrate have been Anamorfic35?

I am not sure about Oscar. But I want A-B comparisons. When I get my new player, I will be able to do it with NJ, I can't wait.

But I'll stand by the personal observation lossless audio has been consistently better than lossy audio in my system (it could be just an unfortunate combination of available hardware/software but that's the way I see it).

On HD DVD, check out the DD+ encodes of:

Hot Fuzz
King Kong
Serenity
MI3
Dreamgirls

and soon Transformers.

Woodshed,
You'll not be buying a lot of LDM if all you'll buy is lossless audio. BR only has 55% that is lossless and HD DVD 17%. I suggest you don't get that dual format player in that you'll have very little HD DVD to play on it.

If you want to try an A/B on HD DVD between lossles and DD+ try these two titles:

Happy Feet (low end encode at 16/48 for both)
End of Time (can't verify but have been told that is 24/28 for both)

I've A/Bed Happy feet and cannot tell the difference. Haven't done End of Time. Filmmixer, do you know about these titles? Thanks.

BTW: I have also A/Bed POTC II. There is a difference to my ears between LPCM and DD. It's very minor, but it is there. For example, there scene where Jack shoots his way out of a casket. The DD track seems not to be quite as directional and the reverberations are not quite as sharp. Very, very monor though and I had to listen to over and over to quatify the difference. Would I notice it if I wasn't A/B ing the sound? No. And that was with a DD encode, not DD+.

Nice,

As another poster said, no of course we don't have access to the master. I do know 1 thing though, doesnt a lossless track sound EXACTLY like the master? ;) ...

RBFilms hears a difference, you do not. I will find out for myself and "not believe the hype on either side"

Richard did state that he can even hear the difference between a lossles TrueHD track and a LPCM master track from the same media. And I am not talking about dialnorm.

On HD DVD, check out the DD+ encodes of:

Hot Fuzz
King Kong
Serenity
MI3
Dreamgirls

and soon Transformers.

You're wasting your time FM, some posters are just looking for an argument. :rolleyes: Ignore them and let them talk to themselves.

Woodshed,
You'll not be buying a lot of LDM if all you'll buy is lossless audio. BR only has 55% that is lossless and HD DVD 17%. I suggest you don't get that dual format player in that you'll have very little HD DVD to play on it.

I will rent movies that don't come with lossless.

I tend to be a big Disney fan, so that helps I guess.

I love the Bourne movies, very sad that no lossless is included. I am sure that they will re-release them with lossless though.

On HD DVD, check out the DD+ encodes of:

Hot Fuzz
King Kong
Serenity
MI3
Dreamgirls

and soon Transformers.

Of course those tracks sound great. Do you think that I am saying DD+ sounds bad? Seriously?

I am saying, give me a nice lossless track to compare those great DD+ tracks to................please!!!

If you want to try an A/B on HD DVD between lossles and DD+ try these two titles:

Happy Feet (low end encode at 16/48 for both)
End of Time (can't verify but have been told that is 24/28 for both)

I've A/Bed Happy feet and cannot tell the difference. Haven't done End of Time. Filmmixer, do you know about these titles? Thanks.

BTW: I have also A/Bed POTC II. There is a difference to my ears between LPCM and DD. It's very minor, but it is there. For example, there scene where Jack shoots his way out of a casket. The DD track seems not to be quite as directional and the reverberations are not quite as sharp. Very, very monor though and I had to listen to over and over to quatify the difference. Would I notice it if I wasn't A/B ing the sound? No. And that was with a DD encode, not DD+.



Thanks for the recommendations, when I get my new player, I will be looking for all of the good comparisons I can find. I am very excited, for 1. the new player 2. the comparisons 3. finishing my basement to take all of thise crap out of my living room.:)

I will rent movies that don't come with lossless.

I tend to be a big Disney fan, so that helps I guess.

I love the Bourne movies, very sad that no lossless is included. I am sure that they will re-release them with lossless though.

But haven't you heard that combos on HD DVD a very problematic and that rented HD DVD's are unplayable? Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Of course those tracks sound great. Do you think that I am saying DD+ sounds bad? Seriously?

I am saying, give me a nice lossless track to compare those great DD+ tracks to................please!!!

I did.

Richard did state that he can even hear the difference between a lossles TrueHD track and a LPCM master track from the same media. And I am not talking about dialnorm.

I know. He said he hears differences in alot of different things. He very well may too. I would just rather hear for myself is all.

I am a little old school when it comes to AQ, but I am just amazed that most people don't want to judge themselves, they would just rather take "others" words for it. *shrug*

But haven't you heard that combos on HD DVD a very problematic and that rented HD DVD's are unplayable? Sorry, couldn't resist. :D

LOL, I will remember that.

I did.

No I meam a KK or a Hot Fuzz lossless track. ;)

As another poster said, no of course we don't have access to the master. I do know 1 thing though, doesnt a lossless track sound EXACTLY like the master? ;)

I am sure that you don't care, but I will trust my ears over yours. I can't hear the master, but I can compare a lossless track vs. a lossy track no?Come with a little less of an agenda and I will take your word for it.


What high bit rate lossy encode have you comapred to a lossless encode of the same track? You can never compare too different tracks with two differnt encodes.

And I also agree that, in my opinion, that there have been many more showy, and lossless, tracks from the BR camp vs. the HD DVD camp...

I am just trying to help and educate people. I have never said that lossless shoudln't be used if it can be. My position is that in high bit rate lossy encodes, you won't be able to tell the differnce. And that, due to reasons outside of our control (either lack of space or bandwidth, studio preferences , politics, etc...) we sometimes don't have a choice.

Period.

That's my position.

And I think that people get too riled up about it, not having the experience or comparative examples to back it up.

RBFilms hears a difference, you do not. I will find out for myself and "not believe the hype on either side"

Richards is comparing a 96k/24 bit master to a lossy encode... there will be a differnce. Maybe he has said that there is always a difference.. I don't know if that is his position or not. My positions have been based on theatrical film based, 24/48 master tracks.

He strives for perfection, as do I.

I imagine if there were no differences, why would lossless even have been introduced? It is more expensive to lisence, harder to encode, takes more banwidth. What is the point of including it?

Marketing, comptetion, ending the argument about lossy codecs, selling new products, adding market, cache, etc.. there are multiple reasons why lossless codecs now exist.

It doens't cost any more to license lossless.. if there are multiple tracks, it adds to QC costs.

As I go back and read your posts I am beginning to see a trend. So much for an un-biased insider huh? You sound just like 75% of the posters on this board.

How about this, you have hundreds of thousands of $$ worth of equipment (i imagine) and you cannot hear a difference between a 24 bit THD track and a 24 bit DD+ track. From reading your past posts, and seeing your agenda, I am sorry but I just don't believe you.


You accuse me of having an agenda. What is it, if I may ask? Please answer that question.

And you don't have to believe me... and you should believe your ears, not mine. When you have the ability to hear a lossy encode of the same track vs. a lossless or PCM track, I would be curious to hear what you think.

Sorry for the brevity, but I gots a film to finish mixing.. gott run..

On HD DVD, check out the DD+ encodes of:

Hot Fuzz
King Kong
Serenity
MI3
Dreamgirls

and soon Transformers.

I have "King Kong" and "Serenity". I wasn't hyper-impressed with the SQ on either. "Hot Fuzz" and "Dreamgirls" don't interest me and I'm waiting for MI 1/2/3 to re-release with lossless audio (perhaps in vain?).

If I'm going to compare, I'd go A/B movies with have both TrueHD and DD+ soundtracks. I might even have a couple already, I'd have to check.

I am not sure about Oscar. But I want A-B comparisons. When I get my new player, I will be able to do it with NJ, I can't wait.


Unfortunately, "Nature's Journey" is just one datapoint, I'd rather compare a bunch of different movie titles with encodes maximized for each format. Unfortunately, those movie titles are scarce: "Flags of Our Father", maybe "Letters from Iwo Jima" ?

What high bit rate lossy encode have you comapred to a lossless encode of the same track? You can never compare too different tracks with two differnt encodes.

And I also agree that, in my opinion, that there have been many more showy, and lossless, tracks from the BR camp vs. the HD DVD camp...

I am just trying to help and educate people. I have never said that lossless shoudln't be used if it can be. My position is that in high bit rate lossy encodes, you won't be able to tell the differnce. And that, due to reasons outside of our control (either lack of space or bandwidth, studio preferences , politics, etc...) we sometimes don't have a choice.

Period.

That's my position.

And I think that people get too riled up about it, not having the experience or comparative examples to back it up.



Richards is comparing a 96k/24 bit master to a lossy encode... there will be a differnce. Maybe he has said that there is always a difference.. I don't know if that is his position or not. My positions have been based on theatrical film based, 24/48 master tracks.

He strives for perfection, as do I.



Marketing, comptetion, ending the argument about lossy codecs, selling new products, adding market, cache, etc.. there are multiple reasons why lossless codecs now exist.

It doens't cost any more to license lossless.. if there are multiple tracks, it adds to QC costs.



You accuse me of having an agenda. What is it, if I may ask? Please answer that question.

And you don't have to believe me... and you should believe your ears, not mine. When you have the ability to hear a lossy encode of the same track vs. a lossless or PCM track, I would be curious to hear what you think.

Sorry for the brevity, but I gots a film to finish mixing.. gott run..



You took a direct shot at BR in your post saying this:

"People like you have turned their attention to audio because you have seen that BR's greater capacity and bandwidth have not given BR any advantage in regards to picture quality.... remember that before the formats launched, that was your war cry.... proved short lived and false. Because you can never have uncompressed video on these formats, are you settling for good enough with AVC/VC1/MPEG2?"


Taking blatant shots at a format is an agenda if you ask me.


I agree wholeheartedly about comparing the same tracks. I would never venture to say "POTC sounds better than KK" I want apples to apples.

I will be more than happy to report my findings when I can do it. And I will be MORE than happy to admit if I cannot hear a difference. I really just want fair comparisons. The funny thing is I will get chastised for wanting a lossless track on KK to compare.

I am very excited about doing comparisons, and getting my new player.

(I am a bit of an audio nut ;))

Has it occurred to any of you people that all digital media is lossy? Even if it matches the original digital recording exactly, the original is lossy.

I think you may be talking about project campaignHD, which has lobbyists here at AVS starting propaganda threads/posts to provide skewed information to pump up the maroon team.

Whatever it may be called campaignHD or PhaseHydra.
I know that companies like Sony have been know to have fake reviews posted for their movies. I figure they were the ones trying to do the same (negatively) for HD DVD.

I am very excited about doing comparisons, and getting my new player.

(I am a bit of an audio nut ;))

As am I. I have done some comparisons to the best of my ability. Again, I suggest you try Happy Feet and End of Days (wiat, hold odd on the latter, I haven't done the test myself. Ill post back here once done).

I also will freely admit that my ears are just one data point, but at least I am not just blindly taking anyones word.

If you want to try an A/B on HD DVD between lossles and DD+ try these two titles:

Happy Feet (low end encode at 16/48 for both)
End of Time (can't verify but have been told that is 24/28 for both)

I've A/Bed Happy feet and cannot tell the difference. Haven't done End of Time. Filmmixer, do you know about these titles? Thanks.

BTW: I have also A/Bed POTC II. There is a difference to my ears between LPCM and DD. It's very minor, but it is there. For example, there scene where Jack shoots his way out of a casket. The DD track seems not to be quite as directional and the reverberations are not quite as sharp. Very, very monor though and I had to listen to over and over to quatify the difference. Would I notice it if I wasn't A/B ing the sound? No. And that was with a DD encode, not DD+.

Interesting. I just A/Bed the PCM vs. DD track on "Underworld" last night; no contest, the uncompressed PCM version was clearly cleaner/clearer and more dynamic than that "sluggish" DD sound. The difference is not at all subtle in my system.

"End of Days" and "Happy Feet" aren't on my short list of movies to procure; there's already wayyyyyy too much competition for my HD movie budget this season.

As a former full time (and now part time) audio engineer that runs with the so-called audiophile crowd, I'd have to agree with FilmMixer on the effectiveness of modern Lossy audio codecs. I have time and time again done *double-blind* testing with higher bitrate modern lossy codecs -- on studio grade and 'audiophile' gear -- and the results are always the same: No consistent perceivable difference to the listener. In many cases, embarrassment ensues. :cool:

I'm all for Lossless audio on movie content, especially when space isn't wasted (TrueHD, DTS MA)... but don't let specifications or marketing influence your ears or enjoyment.

Whatever it may be called campaignHD or PhaseHydra.
I know that companies like Sony have been know to have fake reviews posted for their movies. I figure they were the ones trying to do the same (negatively) for HD DVD.
Care to back up that statement with facts?

Interesting. I just A/Bed the PCM vs. DD track on "Underworld" last night; no contest, the uncompressed PCM version was clearly cleaner/clearer and more dynamic than that "sluggish" DD sound. The difference is not at all subtle in my system.

"End of Days" and "Happy Feet" aren't on my short list of movies to procure; there's already wayyyyyy too much competition for my HD movie budget this season.

In defense of DD+, I believe the DD+ tracks on BR are like 640kbs, vs. 1.5mbs on HD DVD. I could be wrong on that though.

As a former full time (and now part time) audio engineer that runs with the so-called audiophile crowd, I'd have to agree with FilmMixer on the effectiveness of modern Lossy audio codecs. I have time and time again done *double-blind* testing with higher bitrate modern lossy codecs -- on studio grade and 'audiophile' gear -- and the results are always the same: No consistent perceivable difference to the listener. In many cases, embarrassment ensues. :cool:

I'm all for Lossless audio on movie content, especially when space isn't wasted (TrueHD, DTS MA)... but don't let specifications or marketing influence your ears or enjoyment.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider a "higher bitrate modern lossy codec" (DTS core or DD+ @ 1.5 Mbps or a higher lossy bitrate ?). What percentage of movies with DD+ actually have this "higher bitrate modern lossy codec" with "No consistent perceivable difference " ?

And does this "No consistent perceivable difference " apply to movie special effects "kablooie" soundtracks only or will it apply to well recorded 24/48 or 24/96 jazz/classical music soundtracks ?

As a former full time (and now part time) audio engineer that runs with the so-called audiophile crowd, I'd have to agree with FilmMixer on the effectiveness of modern Lossy audio codecs. I have time and time again done *double-blind* testing with higher bitrate modern lossy codecs -- on studio grade and 'audiophile' gear -- and the results are always the same: No consistent perceivable difference to the listener. In many cases, embarrassment ensues. :cool:

I'm all for Lossless audio on movie content, especially when space isn't wasted (TrueHD, DTS MA)... but don't let specifications or marketing influence your ears or enjoyment.

And I can absolutely respect that. I am not even saying that lossless is going to be alot better than lossy. I just want the chance to make good comparisons like you have.

As am I. I have done some comparisons to the best of my ability. Again, I suggest you try Happy Feet and End of Days (wiat, hold odd on the latter, I haven't done the test myself. Ill post back here once done).

I also will freely admit that my ears are just one data point, but at least I am not just blindly taking anyones word.

What were your impressions on Happy Feet? Just curious.

Interesting. I just A/Bed the PCM vs. DD track on "Underworld" last night; no contest, the uncompressed PCM version was clearly cleaner/clearer and more dynamic than that "sluggish" DD sound. The difference is not at all subtle in my system.

"End of Days" and "Happy Feet" aren't on my short list of movies to procure; there's already wayyyyyy too much competition for my HD movie budget this season.

Not trying to make excuses. I don't have the title (is it worth getting?) but the lossless track is at 16/48. By comparison, POTC is at 24/48. Big difference. DD is an older codec and does sound "sluggish" except when I heard it on POTC. It was really quite good. Try A/Bing DD+ and lossless, especially at the higher bit depths.

BTW: You did say DD so I assume you were using the BD version.

In defense of DD+, I believe the DD+ tracks on BR are like 640kbs, vs. 1.5mbs on HD DVD. I could be wrong on that though.

Pretty soon I may be able to 'A/B' all those Fox movies with DTS HD MA soundtracks on a DTS HD MA-capable system so I'll be able to directly compare lossless vs. DTS 1.5 Mbs with a bunch of source material. Of course I'm going to have to use someone else's gear to do it. The current crop of players don't hit the "doubledip the hardware" sweetspot yet.

What were your impressions on Happy Feet? Just curious.

I A/Bed it to death. I honestly could not tell the differnce AT ALL. I freely admit YMMV. System I use is a Denon 2106, Martin Logans all around for the 5.0 and two Klipsch subwoofers. Very import, you MUST let the player do the decoding. No spdif otherwise you ruin the test.

I'll wait for it come out in Blu-Ray IF I like what I see when I rent it on HD-DVD. It does not matter the differences between DD and DD+ the point is not promoting ANY studio that does not use the best audio possible for the format. PCM/lossless should be the norm especially on a release of this magnitude.

I'm pretty sure every Studio, even on Blu-ray, has had a release without PCM. So you won't support any studios? At all? :confused:

Pretty soon I may be able to 'A/B' all those Fox movies with DTS HD MA soundtracks on a DTS HD MA-capable system so I'll be able to directly compare lossless vs. DTS 1.5 Mbs with a bunch of source material. Of course I'm going to have to use someone else's gear to do it. The current crop of players don't hit the "doubledip the hardware" sweetspot yet.

Yeah I believe Fox titles will make it much easier.

When did people start watching movies with their eyes closed? All of a sudden it's the Audio that is the most important aspect of a movie hence this question posed by the OP. Sorry but I think this thread is an insult to our intelligence and don't think it's matters one iota what audio codec is being used when deciding to buy a movie or not. 99.9% of people will buy a movie based on it's video quality first and foremost, the audio is secondary, granted we all want it to be good but for it to have a factor in buying it or not is ridiculous. Those are the plain facts, now if you want to talk CD's then I would agree that sound quality matters and that it would play a part in your purchase decision for those that care about such things.

I A/Bed it to death. I honestly could not tell the differnce AT ALL. I freely admit YMMV. System I use is a Denon 2106, Martin Logans all around for the 5.0 and two Klipsch subwoofers. Very import, you MUST let the player do the decoding. No spdif otherwise you ruin the test.

Cool, can't wait!!

When did people start watching movies with their eyes closed? All of a sudden it's the Audio that is the most important aspect of a movie hence this question posed by the OP. Sorry but I think this thread is an insult to our intelligence and don't think it's matters one iota what audio codec is being used when deciding to buy a movie or not. 99.9% of people will buy a movie based on it's video quality first and foremost, the audio is secondary, granted we all want it to be good but for it to have a factor in buying it or not is ridiculous. Those are the plain facts, now if you want to talk CD's then I would agree that sound quality matters and that it would play a part in your purchase decision for those that care about such things.

AQ>PQ for me by a small margin.

1. I don't already own a BR player.
2. I will NEVER have to buy a BR player to get PiP. You are kidding right?

So you don't own a player for either high definition format yet you have a strong opinion as to why lossless audio is better? :confused:

AQ>PQ for me by a small margin.

Your in the .1% bracket I was talking about. congrats

Care to back up that statement with facts?

http://www.overlawyered.com/media/

Update: Sony pays $1.5 million to settle ghost-blurber suit
Another triumph of our class-action system: Sony Pictures has agreed to pay out $1.5 million to settle a class action on behalf of filmgoers allegedly persuaded to attend the films "Vertical Limit," "A Knight's Tale," "The Animal," "Hollow Man" and "The Patriot" by Sony's use of a nonexistent reviewer, "David Manning", to say nice things about the films in blurbs. "Manning" was listed in the blurbs as working for the Ridgefield Press, a genuine newspaper in Connecticut which however has never employed any such reviewer (Jun. 12, 2001, Mar. 13, 2004).

Class lawyer Norman Blumenthal said moviegoers would be able to collect $5 rebates by affirming that they attended the original runs of the movies; remaining moneys will go to charity. The AP's coverage does not discuss how if at all the attendance claims are to be verified, nor the question of how much the lawyers are going to get in fees. When the California courts agreed to let the suit go forward as a class action, a dissenting judge called it a "farce" and "the most frivolous case with which I have ever had to deal", saying: "We should be occupying ourselves with resolving legitimate disputes instead of laughable cases designed not to gain anything for the plaintiffs, but rather to generate fees for the only true beneficiaries of this disgrace, the attorneys." (Alex Veiga, "Sony to Pay $1.5M Over Fake Movie Critic", AP/Tuscaloosa (Ala.) News, Aug. 3).



Not the most flattering article, but it is fact. ;)

Also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4741259.stm

Care to back up that statement with facts?

That's pretty well known actually ... do a search for David Manning.

O.K. There's one piece of evidence. "Science" has clearly spoken!

No, science has not spoken. Science has spoken when you realize that "state of the art" is only possible in the lab and never in the living room. In your living room you are looking at best at value electronics. "Economy" has spoken.

So you don't own a player for either high definition format yet you have a strong opinion as to why lossless audio is better? :confused:


Since you feel the need for me to explain myself to you,

I told myself I wouldnt buy a player until this stupid war was over, but I could no longer resist the temptation, so I broke down and bought an S300. I took it back a month later (which was my plan).

2 SACD players and 1 DVD audio player later, I am pretty much covered when it comes to familiarity with lossless vs. lossy audio. ;)

And I have stated NUMEROUS times that I want the ability to A/B compare the tracks myself. To see the difference, (if any)

So wait, re-reading your question, you are now arguing that lossy is better than lossless? I pretty much thought it was a foregone conclusion that lossless was better, it was just a matter of whether we could hear it or not.

But judging from your question, am I not to assume that lossless is what we all should want on a disc (even filmmixer)?

When did people start watching movies with their eyes closed? All of a sudden it's the Audio that is the most important aspect of a movie hence this question posed by the OP. Sorry but I think this thread is an insult to our intelligence and don't think it's matters one iota what audio codec is being used when deciding to buy a movie or not. 99.9% of people will buy a movie based on it's video quality first and foremost, the audio is secondary, granted we all want it to be good but for it to have a factor in buying it or not is ridiculous. Those are the plain facts, now if you want to talk CD's then I would agree that sound quality matters and that it would play a part in your purchase decision for those that care about such things.

Actually, it seemed that most have not really answered the OP's question. If they own an HD DVD player, will they buy the SD DVD version of Transformer's because it only contains a DD+ track and not a TrueHD/PCM track? Or will they buy the HD DVD version?

Your in the .1% bracket I was talking about. congrats

Thanks?

So you don't own a player for either high definition format yet you have a strong opinion as to why lossless audio is better? :confused:

Would you like my home address, or for me to list my gear for you too? :)

I am not sure about Oscar. But I want A-B comparisons. When I get my new player, I will be able to do it with NJ, I can't wait.
I wouldn't trust such results from someone with your bias...only if the test in which you engaged was done blindly with the help of a second party.

Actually, it seemed that most have not really answered the OP's question. If they own an HD DVD player, will they buy the SD DVD version of Transformer's because it only contains a DD+ track and not a TrueHD/PCM track? Or will they buy the HD DVD version?

It's no fun just simply answering the question. You have to have excuses to argue er discuss the question. :)

In case I forgot, the answer is none of the above: I'll wait for the HD media version which does include a lossless audio track to go with pristine hi-def video. I did it with the first LOTR trilogy on DVD; I can do it with "Transformers" as well (especially when the movie plot isn't especially good).

I wouldn't trust such results from someone with your bias...only if the test in which you engaged was done blindly with the help of a second party.

+1

I wouldn't trust such results from someone with your bias...only if the test in which you engaged was done blindly with the help of a second party.

Awww, you wouldnt trust me? :( Now I am a sad panda


I will just post them for Filmmixer because he asked ;)

Has it occurred to any of you people that all digital media is lossy? Even if it matches the original digital recording exactly, the original is lossy.

This should be understood by everyone. Our senses perceive well beyond the digital realm, and whenever we consider digital media, we really are just looking for "good enough."

In defense of DD+, I believe the DD+ tracks on BR are like 640kbs, vs. 1.5mbs on HD DVD. I could be wrong on that though.
1+, good point...I apologize for calling you biased (though we're all guilty of course and I'd take your A/B results with a grain of salt ;)).

Comparing a 640 kbps encoded (divided across a 5.1 setup, providing less than 128 kbps to each channel) film to one that is losslessly encoded is hardly a fair comparison. DD+ or bust.

Care to back up that statement with facts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

Oops...

It's no fun just simply answering the question. You have to have excuses to argue er discuss the question. :)

In case I forgot, the answer is none of the above: I'll wait for the HD media version which does include a lossless audio track to go with pristine hi-def video. I did it with the first LOTR trilogy on DVD; I can do it with "Transformers" as well (especially when the movie plot isn't especially good).

Didnt you buy LOTR on DVD because you wanted lossless??? Then you were in for a long wait.

Do you really believe that a 24bit lossy DD+ track will distract you from a pleasant viewing experience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Manning_(fictitious_writer)

Oops...

That's old news. I thought you had something new.
What does that have to do with HDM or Blu-ray ?

I'm pretty sure every Studio, even on Blu-ray, has had a release without PCM. So you won't support any studios? At all? :confused:

I'm trying to think of a Fox, Disney or Sony title that didn't have DTS MA, PCM, or True HD as the main track. I don't think there is any.

1+, good point...I apologize for calling you biased (though we're all guilty of course and I'd take your A/B results with a grain of salt ;)).

Comparing a 640 kbps encoded (divided across a 5.1 setup, providing less than 128 kbps to each channel) film to one that is losslessly encoded is hardly a fair comparison. DD+ or bust.

LOL, fair enough. :)

That's old news. I thought you had something new.
What does that have to do with HDM or Blu-ray ?


Wow. :confused:

Here's his quote:
Whatever it may be called campaignHD or PhaseHydra.
I know that companies like Sony have been know to have fake reviews posted for their movies. I figure they were the ones trying to do the same (negatively) for HD DVD.

What exactly in there led you to believe he had "something new". And if it was old news, how come you asked for facts? He certainly qualified his second statement ("trying to do the same (negatively) for HD DVD") as speculation, not fact. Otherwise you wouldn't have seen the little "I figure" in there. In other words he was making a logical leap from Sony planting positive reviews for their movies to the possibility they are planting negative reviews for HD DVD. Not a very big leap, IMHO.

What does that have to do with HDM or Blu-ray

Everything.... it was Sony behind the rootkit crap, it was Sony behind the bogus movie reviews, I wouldn't be surprised if the Hydra stuff is true (and Sony's behind that), and.... wait for it... Sony is behind Blu Ray...

THis question can go round and round forever.

I'll give you what I think the short answer is. The studios are playing to the current market. Seriously, how many TrueHD receivers do you think people have right now? I'm wagering not a lot. TrueHD is not backwards compatible with existing equipment, DD+ is and at a HD quality. If you're going to force TrueHD on people you're then asking them to go out and buy new receivers too?

Studios I believe are playing to their customer base. When more TrueHD receivers are out in the wild, I'm sure you'll see more movies with it. For the time being it seems to me the studios will do DD+ first, and then think about TrueHD afterwards and see if it's worth the time and effort.
Fair enough for HD DVD, but don't many blu-ray players do the decoding and output analog and/or PCM?




Maybe I am what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
Maybe you are sure.





It's kind of funny. I view it as settling for more. I don't get DD+ and 1080i/1080p with Comcast HD, or Xbox Live Marketplace. And certainly more than DVD, which I have over 500 of. So I am getting more out of my HDM.
Of course you are correct. HD DVD is miles above anything cable, Sat or OTA, but it's just not up to par with blu-ray except maybe in the interactive department which has little to no appeal for me personally.

HD DVD playback devices decode DD+ and TrueHD in the player (mandatory) and will output it via perfect PCM (via HDMI), analog outputs (if outfittted) or can convert it to compatible audio like DTS or DD for optical (SPDIF). So, TrueHD is as backwards compatible as DD+. For BD playback devices, discs with TrueHD also have a DD stream for players that don't support TrueHD.

In a nut-shell, receivers do not need to have DD+ or TrueHD decoders for you to enjoy next-gen audio.
Nice! Thank you

Just for clarification, he is clearly stating HD DVD studios. The BR studios tend to give you lossless on most discs. They just aren't "playing to their customer base" I guess.
Oh yeah! Keep 'em comin'!

...it's just not up to par with blu-ray

And we come full circle back to that BS line.... very nice.

I suspect that the majority of people around here that are not buying the HD DVD version don't own an HD DVD player....
+1

If they are planning on getting the DVD instead of the HD-DVD, I would change "the majority of people" to "virtually everyone".


Although I would have preferred a lossless track, I am definitely planning on picking this movie up.
+2

That's old news. I thought you had something new.
What does that have to do with HDM or Blu-ray ?
Why would you think I would have something new? I was merely providing the info you asked for. A few others have done the same.
Whatever it may be called campaignHD or PhaseHydra.
I know that companies like Sony have been know to have fake reviews posted for their movies. I figure they were the ones trying to do the same (negatively) for HD DVD.
Care to back up that statement with facts?
The statement was backed up by facts, but apparently now the criteria has been changed to: Care to back up that statement with facts that I consider recent enough to matter? :rolleyes:

Don't get mad at others because you put your foot in your mouth.

DD+ is 24 bit.

HD DVD has less bandwidth and space than BR. It always will.

Despite that fact, I have been more than pleased with my mixes on HD DVD and BR.... and I know there is no perceivable difference between a high bit rate lossy codec vs. the master or a lossless encode.

The root of your argument becomes: Because of these HD DVD tradeoffs, are we saddled with less quality?

You cannot answer that question because you have never seen a video master or heard the audio master the discs have come from.

People like you have turned their attention to audio because you have seen that BR's greater capacity and bandwidth have not given BR any advantage in regards to picture quality.... remember that before the formats launched, that was your war cry.... proved short lived and false. Because you can never have uncompressed video on these formats, are you settling for good enough with AVC/VC1/MPEG2?

I agree that if you can do lossless, then do it. It stops this argument.

Sometimes, it might not be possible to be that way due to the limitations of the format, true, or due to the policies of a given studio, but if it doesn't affect the quality, WHO CARES?

As someone who has dedicated my life to making sound tracks with my own two hands, I lose no sleep knowing that my work will forever be preserved in a "wimpy" encode...

Next time you mix a movie, tell me how terrible the DD+ encode sounds compare to the master you crafted.

Until then, get your facts straight, and try to add something insightful to this discussion.

I don't mind quoting this again.

I don't know FilmMixer, but I'm going to run on the assumption that he is legit. If that is indeed the case, then I am given high hopes that my fears are unfounded and will have fewer misgivings about HD DVD if it becomes the format winner.

I look forward to hearing some more blind A/B tests as I look forward to hearing the lack of difference for myself.

His post ALMOST makes me want to run out and pick up an HD DVD player. Is BSG out on HD DVD yet?:)

And we come full circle back to that BS line.... very nice.
Hey thanks!;)

Is BSG out on HD DVD yet?:)
Dec 4th - $69.95. (http://www.amazon.com/Battlestar-Galactica-Season-One-DVD/dp/B000V5IPA6/)

You took a direct shot at BR in your post saying this:

"People like you have turned their attention to audio because you have seen that BR's greater capacity and bandwidth have not given BR any advantage in regards to picture quality.... remember that before the formats launched, that was your war cry.... proved short lived and false. Because you can never have uncompressed video on these formats, are you settling for good enough with AVC/VC1/MPEG2?"

Taking blatant shots at a format is an agenda if you ask me.

I agree wholeheartedly about comparing the same tracks. I would never venture to say "POTC sounds better than KK" I want apples to apples.

I am very excited about doing comparisons, and getting my new player.



I was questioning his reasoning and argument, not the format. I still have not seen any titles on either format that I could say looked better than the best that either fromat has to offer... why does that make me a "biased insider?"

I don't need to prove my neutrality to anybody around here... I have no affiliation with either camp. I own 2 Blu Ray players, one HD DVD player (with a 2nd one on the way.) I have approximately 35 HD DVD's and 20 BR's.

I personally feel that in terms of software, HD DVD has delivered some really great examples that defy the size and supposed limitations of the format (i.e. "The Matrix" with IME and lossless.) The HD DVD camp has also delivered on their promise of connectivity and madatory networking with all players being able to handle all of the variations of the spec. They have had issues with combos (or so it seems) and some buggy hardware issues (althogh Toshiba seems to take care of those issues in due time.)

I think Blu Ray has shown that size and bandwidth are not of concern in regrads to audio, and they have proven that on many titles. I wish they had madatory support for both DD+/THD and DTS-HD/-MA on all players, as there are issues in using PCM when going above 5.1. They have yet to show me how their promised interactivity will work, and I expect when we see new profile players they will have some really cool titles and features.

Yes I took your accusation personally. I've been here 8 years and most that know me usually find me unbiased and helpful, strong and opinionated.

And I think I've earned that right :)

(I am a bit of an audio nut ;)

I think that 16 years in the film sound business qualifies me as a "nut" too... no agenda, no bias, just experience and my lifes work to back me up.

EDIT... Sorry for the sloppy spelling and poor form.. I'm writing this while trying to mix... I won't telly you what film, because when it come out on BR, you'll say I wasn't paying attention :)

All these lossless threads remind of this scene in Spinal Tap for some reason:

Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to a customized Marshall amplifier head unit] This is a top, to, uh, you know, what we use on stage, but it's very, very special, because, if you can see...

Marty DiBergi: Yeah...

Nigel Tufnel: [pointing to the control dials] ...the numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board: eleven, eleven, eleven, eleven...

Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?

Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.

Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is that any louder?

Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most... most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up... you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?

Marty DiBergi: I don't know...

Nigel Tufnel: ...nowhere! Exactly! What we do is if we need that extra... push over the cliff, you know what we do?

Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.

Nigel Tufnel: ...Eleven. Exactly. One louder.

Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder, and make ten be the top... number, and make that a little louder?

Nigel Tufnel: [pause, blank look and snapping chewing gum] These go to eleven


Don't know why, but the debate sounds about the same. Would actually be a good slogan for them: Blu-ray, cause we go up to eleven. :p

If you want to try an A/B on HD DVD between lossles and DD+ try these two titles:

Happy Feet (low end encode at 16/48 for both)
End of Time (can't verify but have been told that is 24/28 for both)

I've A/Bed Happy feet and cannot tell the difference. Haven't done End of Time. Filmmixer, do you know about these titles? Thanks.

BTW: I have also A/Bed POTC II. There is a difference to my ears between LPCM and DD. It's very minor, but it is there. For example, there scene where Jack shoots his way out of a casket. The DD track seems not to be quite as directional and the reverberations are not quite as sharp. Very, very monor though and I had to listen to over and over to quatify the difference. Would I notice it if I wasn't A/B ing the sound? No. And that was with a DD encode, not DD+.
HOLY CRAP! Was that test done with an Acoustimass system???!!!

Now I believe DD might run a little faster on HDM, but ANY track I hear on DD sounds like 128k mp3 compared to regular DTS!!!

I must be missing something here, right?

Dec 4th - $69.95. (http://www.amazon.com/Battlestar-Galactica-Season-One-DVD/dp/B000V5IPA6/)
Now when's it coming out on blu-ray?:D

...Now I am a sad panda
Nice South Park reference!

HOLY CRAP! Was that test done with an Acoustimass system???!!!

Now I believe DD might run a little faster on HDM, but ANY track I hear on DD sounds like 128k mp3 compared to regular DTS!!!

I must be missing something here, right?

May I remind you, take the high road, don't attack the poster. I find your post on a presonal level very insulting. And I believe you are missing something here. POTC was encoded at 24/48 which is still rare for these formats. The DD track is also at 24/48. It's why I chose it. It's not bad in comaprison if you let the player do the decoding.

I did compare the DD track decoded by my player (via Toslnk) and would agree that that sounded awful. BTW: POTC does not do DTS. Before you go blowing smoke, I suggest you try it for yourself, post back with the differences you find between what I said and what you observe, and maybe, just maybe we can learn from each other. Fair enough?

May I remind you, take the high road, don't attack the poster. I find your post on a presonal level very insulting. And I believe you are missing something here. POTC was encoded at 24/48 which is still rare for these formats. The DD track is also at 24/48. It's why I chose it. It's not bad in comaprison if you let the player do the decoding.

I did compare the DD track decoded by my player (via Toslnk) and would agree that that sounded awful. BTW: POTC does not do DTS. Before you go blowing smoke, I suggest you try it for yourself, post back with the differences you find between what I said and what you observe, and maybe, just maybe we can learn from each other. Fair enough?
I don't wish to add fuel here, but I think you are being a bit sensitive. To say that I "attacked" you seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Fact is I certainly meant no insult. I had a legitimate feeling of shock at the results of your testing. Obviously I figured I must be missing something since I clearly stated that.

Since the post you quoted I have read down and found your post regarding your system which, as I now see is most likely up to the task.

And to be perfectly honest, I am still shocked at your findings. I would like to hear the results from more people performing a similar test.

P.S. I'm guessing you meant "receiver" in your 2nd, Toslink decode?

Now when's it coming out on blu-ray?:DI'm pretty sure BSG will be on Blu-ray the same day they see Transformers...d'oh, that's right...:D:cool:

I don't wish to add fuel here, but I think you are being a bit sensitive. To say that I "attacked" you seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Fact is I certainly meant no insult. I had a legitimate feeling of shock at the results of your testing. Obviously I figured I must be missing something since I clearly stated that.

Since the post you quoted I have read down and found your post regarding your system which, as I now see is most likely up to the task.

And to be perfectly honest, I am still shocked at your findings. I would like to hear the results from more people performing a similar test.

P.S. I'm guessing you meant "receiver" in your 2nd, Toslink decode?

Sorry sketcha,

I am a bit sensitive. I was on another thread where I saw a poster being attacked (not me) and the thread was eventually closed. Thank you for being civil in your reply.

Yeah, I was kinda shocked by my results also. DTS has alsways sounded better to me than DD. But that's DD at at lower bitrates than what's on POTC. I am assuming the the DD decoded by the player is at least 1.5 or perhaps even 3.0 mbps for POTC. This is much higher that any "standard" DD you're gonna hear from broadcast TV, CDs, etc.

BTW: I was using analog outs from the reciever for both the LPCM and DD tests.

Also, I mentioned Happy Feet. It's at 16/48 for TrueHD and DD+. It does decode to DTS in the reciever and is indeed quite nice. However, DD+ decoded from the player for me was the same as TrueHD. This is what I observed. I fully admit I may not have the most discriminating ears but I am trying.

And yes, I meant the reciever was doing the decode in the toslnk connection.

Sorry sketcha,

I am a bit sensitive. I was on another thread where I saw a poster being attacked (not me) and the thread was eventually closed. Thank you for being civil in your reply.

Yeah, I was kinda shocked by my results also. DTS has alsways sounded better to me that DD. But that's DD at at lower bitrates than what's on POTC. I am assuming the the DD decoded by the player is at least 1.5 or perhaps even 3.0 mbps for POTC. This is much higher that any "standard" DD you're gonna hear from broadcast TV, CDs, etc.

BTW: I was using analog outs from the reciever for both the LPCM and DD tests.

Also, I mentioned Happy Feet. It's at 16/48 for TrueHD and DD+. It does decode to DTS in the reciever and is indeed quite nice. However, DD+ decoded from the player for me was tha same as TrueHD. This is what I observed and I fully admit I may not have the most discriminating ears.

And yes, I meant the reciver was doing the decode in the toslnk connection.
No problem. Glad we're back on track.

Well those are some pretty high bitrates so I am indeed encouraged by your findings. You and others here are certainly edging me toward a red purchase. Maybe I'll wait for BSG.:)

OMG - the BD posters are still keeping this thread alive every day? :eek:

Just buy the DVD and move on already... ;)

OMG - the BD posters are still keeping this thread alive every day? :eek:

Just buy the DVD and move on already... ;)
This coming from you... the meek, quiet and always non-controversial rdjam?:D

Who luvs ya' man.;)

No problem. Glad we're back on track.

Well those are some pretty high bitrates so I am indeed encouraged by your findings. You and others here are certainly edging me toward a red purchase. Maybe I'll wait for BSG.:)

:cool:

BTW: BSG is one of my favorite shows. Sorry this will be the last season. If I buy the HD DVD series (who am I kidding, I definitely will buy it!) I'll be double dipping.

Some of the best sounding HD DVDs are DD+. The best sounding ones are 1.5Mbps from either Universal and Paramount as would be expected. I am not much of a fan of Warner's 640Kbps DD+ in comparison. I wonder why they don't want to do two encodes one for HD DVD at 1.5Mbps and one for Blu-ray at 640Kbps. Hmmm...makes ya think. Thankfully Warner offers TrueHD more often lately.

I don't have a system like others here but it is pretty decent. I've spent more than most people I know...but A LOT less than some here...:eek: I can't wait to hear what DreamWorks has in store for us with Transformers. I imagine the audio will be nothing short of amazing. Bourne Supremacy, We Were Soldiers, Hot Fuzz and many others are downright incredible!!...:D

:cool:

BTW: BSG is one of my favorite shows. Sorry this will be the last season. If I buy the HD DVD series (who am I kidding, I definitely will buy it!) I'll be double dipping.
Ditto all the way around this post.

Only a couple of months to go now for the final season! It's been a long wait!

Now if I can only hold off and start up on Universal this time. It's so freakin' hard to delay that gratification!

Now if I can only hold off and start up on Universal this time. It's so freakin' hard to delay that gratification!

Yikes, I think we might be related! :D

Yikes, I think we might be related! :D
Maybe we should form a support group. I might be able to do it if I have someone to hold me accountable.:)

Nice,

As another poster said, no of course we don't have access to the master. I do know 1 thing though, doesnt a lossless track sound EXACTLY like the master? ;)

You can complain as much as you want about not being able to "hear" the difference. I imagine if there were no differences, why would lossless even have been introduced? It is more expensive to lisence, harder to encode, takes more banwidth. What is the point of including it?

As I go back and read your posts I am beginning to see a trend. So much for an un-biased insider huh? You sound just like 75% of the posters on this board.

How about this, you have hundreds of thousands of $$ worth of equipment (i imagine) and you cannot hear a difference between a 24 bit THD track and a 24 bit DD+ track. From reading your past posts, and seeing your agenda, I am sorry but I just don't believe you.

I am sure that you don't care, but I will trust my ears over yours. I can't hear the master, but I can compare a lossless track vs. a lossy track no?Come with a little less of an agenda and I will take your word for it.


RBFilms hears a difference, you do not. I will find out for myself and "not believe the hype on either side"

Why do I get the feeling that if you were sitting in a mixdown studio with Film Mixer, instead of anonymously posting stupendous ironies, you'd be begging to twiddle his knobs instead of giving him a hard time?

DTS has always sounded better to me than DD. But that's DD at at lower bitrates than what's on POTC. I am assuming the the DD decoded by the player is at least 1.5 or perhaps even 3.0 mbps for POTC. This is much higher that any "standard" DD you're gonna hear from broadcast TV, CDs, etc.Are you talking about Pirates of the Caribbean, a BD title? If so, I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Dolby Digital 5.1 is limited to 640 Kbps, the maximum supported on BD discs. So, POTC has a 640 Kbps 5.1 DD track on it (as well as a 48/24 5.1 PCM track).

(For reference: Dolby Digital on old-school DVD is generally 448 Kbps or 384 Kbps.)

(I am a bit of a nut ;))

Fixed! :D

Fixed! :D

Totally.............:D

Why do I get the feeling that if you were sitting in a mixdown studio with Film Mixer, instead of anonymously posting stupendous ironies, you'd be begging to twiddle his knobs instead of giving him a hard time?

I would love to sit in and listen. That would be awesome. Alas, I live in OH, and I fear not too many films are mixed here.

I would also love to meet someone like him face to face as it would be much easier for me to see where he is coming from. It would also be much easier to have a constructive conversation about all of this junk.

Are you kidding? Being able to A/B on $100,000+ sound system? Where do I sign?

I was questioning his reasoning and argument, not the format. I still have not seen any titles on either format that I could say looked better than the best that either fromat has to offer... why does that make me a "biased insider?"

I don't need to prove my neutrality to anybody around here... I have no affiliation with either camp. I own 2 Blu Ray players, one HD DVD player (with a 2nd one on the way.) I have approximately 35 HD DVD's and 20 BR's.

I personally feel that in terms of software, HD DVD has delivered some really great examples that defy the size and supposed limitations of the format (i.e. "The Matrix" with IME and lossless.) The HD DVD camp has also delivered on their promise of connectivity and madatory networking with all players being able to handle all of the variations of the spec. They have had issues with combos (or so it seems) and some buggy hardware issues (althogh Toshiba seems to take care of those issues in due time.)

I think Blu Ray has shown that size and bandwidth are not of concern in regrads to audio, and they have proven that on many titles. I wish they had madatory support for both DD+/THD and DTS-HD/-MA on all players, as there are issues in using PCM when going above 5.1. They have yet to show me how their promised interactivity will work, and I expect when we see new profile players they will have some really cool titles and features.

Yes I took your accusation personally. I've been here 8 years and most that know me usually find me unbiased and helpful, strong and opinionated.

And I think I've earned that right :)



I think that 16 years in the film sound business qualifies me as a "nut" too... no agenda, no bias, just experience and my lifes work to back me up.

EDIT... Sorry for the sloppy spelling and poor form.. I'm writing this while trying to mix... I won't telly you what film, because when it come out on BR, you'll say I wasn't paying attention :)

Well,

potato/potato. You "attacked" the BR poster about his format.

BTW, you can say whatever you want it is a public forum. I am not asking you to prove neutrality, and you don't need to have an affiliation to have a bias.

I am stating that clearly you had some input on the issue, and clearly you had an opinion about the poster and his format.

I am not disregarding your experience/expertise. (god knows I wish I loved what I do) It is just hard for me to:

1. Form an opinion without experiencing the differences myself.
2. Take any opinion posted on an internet message board as unbiased either way.

Well,

potato/potato. You "attacked" the BR poster about his format.

BTW, you can say whatever you want it is a public forum. I am not asking you to prove neutrality, and you don't need to have an affiliation to have a bias.

I am stating that clearly you had some input on the issue, and clearly you had an opinion about the poster and his format.

I am not disregarding your experience/expertise. (god knows I wish I loved what I do)

Oscar posted mis-information and represented it as fact. Calling him out on that is not an attack.

You accused me of having an agenda, which isn't the same thing as bias. You can't take back that accusation, and I don't feel the need, or think I have the right, to try and convince you of anything that you can't convince yourself of.

It is just hard for me to:

1. Form an opinion without experiencing the differences myself.
2. Take any opinion posted on an internet message board as unbiased either way.

If the this is true, what are you doing engaging in a debate on this subject if you have no opinion of your own to share?

Bias is a result of experience, knowledge, rationale and common sense blending together in helping to form a position.

All of my opinions on HDM are biased.

Filmmixer, I wouldn't worry about it too much. I stopped reading the back and forth when you talked about actually being a film mixer and doing this for a living, only to be rebutted with:

"Well, I've watched enough movies to know............"

You have to remember everyone here is a self-proclaimed expert, and know more than even those people that do these things for a living.

So many people have stated that they are not Going to buy the Transformers HD-DVD because it doesn’t contain the lossless track. Are you going to buy the DD SD version instead? I would think that the difference between DD and DD+ is much greater then DD+ and lossless.

I'm sure it will be available on Blu-Ray from my local Chinese grocery store within a week of the release date. I'll probably pick it up then.:D

No, I don't condone piracy. But...

Are you talking about Pirates of the Caribbean, a BD title? If so, I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Dolby Digital 5.1 is limited to 640 Kbps, the maximum supported on BD discs. So, POTC has a 640 Kbps 5.1 DD track on it (as well as a 48/24 5.1 PCM track).

(For reference: Dolby Digital on old-school DVD is generally 448 Kbps or 384 Kbps.)

I checked and you're correct, POTC DD is 640Kbps. So I wasn't hearing a "high" bitrate encode. Even more surprising to me because the DD track was to my ears quite good. Not as good as the LPCM track but if I did not have the two to compare against I would have been totally happy with the DD track. (I was using a Philips BDP9000 and analog outs).

So I would assume that Transformers will have a high bit rate encode. I would also say it is safe to assume that a high rate encode is going to sound better than a lower rate encode all else being equal. Using that logic and my personal experience with POTC, the conclusion I draw is that lossless is not necessary on Transformers. DD+ will sound great.

I checked and you're correct, POTC DD is 640Kbps. So I wasn't hearing a "high" bitrate encode. Even more surprising to me because the DD track was to my ears quite good.

What we dont know doesnt hurt us?

by the way isnt POTCs PCM track only 16bits?

Hey sketcha,

I was wrong about the bitrate on POTC. What gets me is all these people saying they are not going to buy Transfromers for lack of a lossless track. I know that this is the HD DVD area, but where are the BD guys when it comes to BD AQ. 45% of all BD tracks do not have lossless and another 10% only have DD DTS MA which most players can't decode. 41% have DD as the main sound track and as pointed out that is at 640KBps.

So sketcha, get yourself a player. The water's fine.

BTW: I like the idea of a support group to wait for the UPN version of BSG. Great idea. :)

What we dont know doesnt hurt us?

by the way isnt POTCs PCM track only 16bits?

Nope, 24 bits. As to your first point, LOL. You are correct sir!

Nope, 24 bits. As to your first point, LOL. You are correct sir!

Even if a top shelf lossless and bitrate rich DD+ track were on the same disc, many "audiophiles" would convince themselves that they could hear the improvement out of pride and ego if nothing else.

Only by having the tracks A/B'd with volume matching can you really make the claim.

Interestingly many so called "audiophiles" vehemently refuse and object to such tests, for what reasons we can't possibly know.

Only by having the tracks A/B'd with volume matching can you really make the claim.

Interestingly many so called "audiophiles" vehemently refuse and object to such tests, for what reasons we can't possibly know.

Agree that many presumed differences are not perceptable for most sets of ears.

The objection to double blind listening tests in audiophile circles is the transient nature of such tests. Differences between speakers, for example, may take months to become apparent (and possibly then objectionable). I know that I personally have bought speakers that sounded great in the store only to find them somewhat less so after having lived wih them for some months.

There is a place for duble blind, but there is also a place for longer term subjective listening.

Hey,

I haven't seen the film but the trailer looks cool.

I'm hoping when Paramount comes back to Blu Ray this may have lossless audio and I can wait for this title.

-Brian

Forever could be a long time to wait Brian.

I heard 18 months but wasn't that a month ago aready?

I heard 18 months but wasn't that a month ago aready?

You heard other BD fanboys claim 18 months. Paramount officially said indefinate.

Cling to whatever you feel you need to. Most BD folk are used to waiting for titles to come out that already hit HD DVD (cough cough Warner). So I guess holding out hope for a Transformers release 18 months later is about on par.

Well,

Doesn't matter in my case becuase far too many titles I want are out or coming out on Blu.

Today I couldn't decide between Halloween or Dracula both of which were out early and priced at $24.99. And all the while I want The Fly more than either one,.. there's just too much good stuff.

-Brian

Let's say it's 18 months.

Is it really worth saving $150 to wait this long?

That's $2 a week.

Steve W

Pecker,

Quote "Is it really worth saving $150 to wait this long?"

Send me the $150 and I'll think about. Truth is I'm in no hurry to see it or I would have made it to the theatrical run. Like I said today marked a first for me in that there's more on the shelf that I want then I can afford to get (I wasn't kidding.)

As a father of 3,.. My Blu Ray Budget is tight, but I can still pick up at least one a week.

In short ,.. it's worth it to me. But feel free to send me the cash if $150 means nothing to you. I can't find the $199 HD DVD players much less the $150 ones that come with Transformers.

-Brian

Nope,

Still confused here.. I've already got a PS3 (that's why you mention the $499 right) and that isn't going to get it done unless I want to upconvert it but I would still rather wait. (Esp will the flood of readily available native HD titles I'm interested in.)

Seriously Micheal,

I'm interesting in learning more about the $199 players (aside from first gen refurbished if possible) and now the $150 players with transformers,. where do I learn more? I won't move on one till spring at the soonest but I'm interested in starting to read up on them now.

-Brian

Ok,

But you brought up the $199 players right? Can you give a link? Do we need PM's or something?

What the heck,.. I'll go google it,.. thanks anyway.

Oh snap the first thing that came up was a story saying retailers rejected this $199 player..

"We have no plans to have Venturer in our stores this holiday," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien said.

Maybe there's hope for mail order?

Edit- Still can't find the $199 much less the $150/with Transformers deals. Got to sharpen my deal hunting skills.

-Brian

woodshed,

I am confused by your posts. you stste that 250 dollars is a lot of money, and represents a large chunk of change.

and yet when hd dvd supporters bring up the price differential in players, most of the braintrust dismiss that argument as irrelevant.

and yet here you are arguing that money (and hence price) matters.

Good news.............I've had it confirmed from an 'insider' at Paramount that whilst it is indeed a lossy soundtrack, they're only losing the 'bad' sound so it looks like HD DVD is getting the definitive version of the soundtrack........any lossless version on Blu-Ray in 18 months will therefore obviously be worse.........and that's a fact.:p

michael

it is interesting at the number of experts here just because they have a home theater and watch some movies.

it is almost like thinking you are a doctor because you got sick or treated your kids sickness

Ok,

But you brought up the $199 players right? Can you give a link? Do we need PM's or something?

What the heck,.. I'll go google it,.. thanks anyway.

Oh snap the first thing that came up was a story saying retailers rejected this $199 player..

"We have no plans to have Venturer in our stores this holiday," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien said.

Maybe there's hope for mail order?

Edit- Still can't find the $199 much less the $150/with Transformers deals. Got to sharpen my deal hunting skills.

-Brian

So wait. The $199 unit exists, but because no one has put it on shelf yet......because it's only September.........it doesn't really exist?

We know it's being manufactured. Be patient.

Or not, it sounds to me like you lean fanboy anyway. So this conversation has really been a waste of my time.

Here, let me translate:





See how easy that works?

Yeah except that BR folks don't say "it's only $499 do they?" ;)

Thanks for proving my point.

woodshed,

I am confused by your posts. you stste that 250 dollars is a lot of money, and represents a large chunk of change.

and yet when hd dvd supporters bring up the price differential in players, most of the braintrust dismiss that argument as irrelevant.

and yet here you are arguing that money (and hence price) matters.

1. I never said the argument of $250 vs $499 is irrelevant. Stop putting words into my mouth.

2. I never said $250 was "alot" of money either

I said that people trying to ram the "it's only $250" down your throat have no idea what $250 means to the people they are trying to convince.

All things being equal if people prefer Para and Uni to the BR studios and they have $250, it is an absolute no brainer. Also if someone wants HDM and they only have $250 to spend it is also a no brainer.

What is stupid is people trying to convince people who don't have an HD DVD player to buy one because they are "only $250" like $250= $10 or something.

Good news.............I've had it confirmed from an 'insider' at Paramount that whilst it is indeed a lossy soundtrack, they're only losing the 'bad' sound so it looks like HD DVD is getting the definitive version of the soundtrack........any lossless version on Blu-Ray in 18 months will therefore obviously be worse.........and that's a fact.:p

+1

Now the bold line was actually pretty funny.

So wait. The $199 unit exists, but because no one has put it on shelf yet......because it's only September.........it doesn't really exist?

We know it's being manufactured. Be patient.

Or not, it sounds to me like you lean fanboy anyway. So this conversation has really been a waste of my time.

The new "MMM" (Michael Mullis mantra) "if you like BR you are not worth my time"

Classic

Stop the bickering.

I'm sure it will be available on Blu-Ray from my local Chinese grocery store within a week of the release date. I'll probably pick it up then.:D

No, I don't condone piracy. But...

Oh...that'll be a great copy!

...............NOT!

Hey sketcha,

I was wrong about the bitrate on POTC. What gets me is all these people saying they are not going to buy Transfromers for lack of a lossless track. I know that this is the HD DVD area, but where are the BD guys when it comes to BD AQ. 45% of all BD tracks do not have lossless and another 10% only have DD DTS MA which most players can't decode. 41% have DD as the main sound track and as pointed out that is at 640KBps.

So sketcha, get yourself a player. The water's fine.

BTW: I like the idea of a support group to wait for the UPN version of BSG. Great idea. :)
1. Well 640 is still faster than most of DD on DVD. That said, it's surprising that you hear so little a' difference.

2. Chalk me up as one who would not boycot an HDM film I liked, because it only had DD+. I would be content with DTS, but I'd be pissed if it had 448 DD!!! In that case, I would merely rent it.

Thread Jack On

3. The support group idea is now copyrighted. I want all credit due.:)

I wonder if "Razor" and the "mini-sodes" will wind up on Universal. The mini-sodes are due to air during Flash Gordon beginning in October and "Razor" is supposed to hit Nov. 24th!!! I'm sure "Razor" will make it over to Universal.

Digression.

Thread Jack Off

No worries Kevin. As you can see Woodshed has simply devolved on this forum to being a childish poster. Woodshed has headed to my ignore list where there is no need to engage him any further.

Sorry for my end of the bickering.

You heard other BD fanboys claim 18 months. Paramount officially said indefinate.



Last they said was that they weren't "married for life to anyone."

Last they said was that they weren't "married for life to anyone."

I'll take that quote now Grubert. I figure you saying this there has to be one.

I'll take that quote now Grubert. I figure you saying this there has to be one.

Why yes there is:

Philippe Dauman, President and CEO of Viacom, INc., which owns Paramount, 'didn't discuss Paramount reportedly receiving $50 million to go exclusively with HD DVD, except to say the studio wasn't "married for life to anyone."'

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom092307/index.php?startpage=22

Dauman gave his speech on September 18 at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference:

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/pr/index.cfm?story=PR-20070912-001450-0953

I found it a week ago, but I decided against making a big noise about it lest I look partisan or something. ;)

1. Well 640 is still faster than most of DD on DVD. That said, it's surprising that you hear so little a' difference.



Perhaps it was due to the Yukon Jack. :rolleyes: I freely admit I may have tin ears, but the DD track to me was not that much off, not the same but close. Perhaps that is why we don't see complaints from the BD crowd about the 34% of BD titles that have DD as the primary track and by definition must be at a max of 640kbps.

Another factor that may have helped is if the DD track was at 48/24 which would help create even a smaller difference (at least on paper). But I do not know that to be true, just conjecture.

I sure wish others in this thread would try and A/B some titles and put their necks on the chopping block. Quite frankly, I have little use for posts that say lossless or else without the poster having even tried to test the verocity of their statement. There are others on this thread that clearly state lossless is not necessary. Having tried it for myself, I put myself in that camp.

Thread Jack On:

Amazon is taking pre-orders on Razor for release on Dec 4th.

Thread Jack Off:

Why yes there is:

Philippe Dauman, President and CEO of Viacom, INc., which owns Paramount, 'didn't discuss Paramount reportedly receiving $50 million to go exclusively with HD DVD, except to say the studio wasn't "married for life to anyone."'

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom092307/index.php?startpage=22

Dauman gave his speech on September 18 at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia conference:

http://www.smartmoney.com/news/pr/index.cfm?story=PR-20070912-001450-0953

I found it a week ago, but I decided against making a big noise about it lest I look partisan or something. ;)

Oh, it's ok G. You've been looking partisan for months now. ;)

Other than that, I appreciate the backing up with an actual link. Interesting that the head of Paramount says one thing, and then their owners say something else.

Of couse, also oddly enough, he explained once again in plain terms why they chose HD DVD, believes it will expedite consumer adoption, and said releasing in both formats was "inefficient".

I'll also point out that not "married for life to anyone" also doesn't translate into 18 months. But I digress.........

Forever could be a long time to wait Brian.

Mods these posts are what need to be dealt with all this does is incite people towards harsh words.... I didn't type what I wanted to or I would get time out!
Derek

Oh, it's ok G. You've been looking partisan for months now. ;)

Other than that, I appreciate the backing up with an actual link. Interesting that the head of Paramount says one thing, and then their owners say something else.

Of couse, also oddly enough, he explained once again in plain terms why they chose HD DVD, believes it will expedite consumer adoption, and said releasing in both formats was "inefficient".

I'll also point out that not "married for life to anyone" also doesn't translate into 18 months. But I digress.........

Yeah he read it right off of a piece of paper that was handed to him 10 minutes before he had the presser if you think having 50-50 studio support will speed up adoption then you are mistaken all that did was extend this thing.

...these posts are what need to be dealt with all this does is incite people towards harsh words

No, this is simply challenging the validity of the "18 months" rumor, started by the "unnamed Viacom exec" (who was likely David Manning disguising his voice) when Paramount said buh-bye to Blu several weeks ago.

Mods these posts are what need to be dealt with all this does is incite people towards harsh words.... I didn't type what I wanted to or I would get time out!
Derek

...and yet you ignore the much more argumentative/flaming posts directed toward Michael Mullis?

Amazing how that works. :rolleyes:

No worries Kevin. As you can see Woodshed has simply devolved on this forum to being a childish poster.
Way to take the high road, MM.;)

Thread Jack On:

Amazon is taking pre-orders on Razor for release on Dec 4th.

Thread Jack Off:

HD?

HD?

Some debate on that. Check the HD DVD software area.

...and yet you ignore the much more argumentative/flaming posts directed toward Michael Mullis?

Amazing how that works. :rolleyes:

I appreciate the that John. Don't worry, I have zero intention of even pretending he said something.


Way to take the high road, MM.

Hey, I put him on ignore didn't I?

It's becoming overly apparent in the last month that a feature of AVS that I have only used with one other person in the over 6 years I've been a member of these forums needs to not only be put to use, but in a wide net.

...and yet you ignore the much more argumentative/flaming posts directed toward Michael Mullis?

Amazing how that works. :rolleyes:

I'm not ignoring them I think all of semi personal attacks need to be dealt with from both sides

So wait. The $199 unit exists, but because no one has put it on shelf yet......because it's only September.........it doesn't really exist?

We know it's being manufactured. Be patient.

Or not, it sounds to me like you lean fanboy anyway. So this conversation has really been a waste of my time.


Anyone seen pictures of the assembly line? Funny pictures of both the ps3 and 360 leaked from those plants lets get some photos of these and to be truth if they are showing up before Christmas they already need to be in the distribution pipeline unless they airdropping all of them!

Hey,

The $199 players were rejected by WallMart (considering what they do have in the hifi section this speaks volumes) but I'm sure they will be the main video source component of high end theaters soon.

Article snip.. (I googled them)

Wal-Mart, Ultimate Electronics and Bjorn’s all say they are not committed to carrying the Venturer player, stating they would prefer products from bigger brand companies.

"We have no plans to have Venturer in our stores this holiday", Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien said.

"We will continue to offer the best values on popular HD DVD and Blu-ray products from leading consumer brands like Sony, Samsung, Philips, Toshiba and RCA."

-Brian

Way to take the high road, MM.;)

+1

Hey,

The $199 players were rejected by WallMart (considering what they do have in the hifi section this speaks volumes) but I'm sure they will be the main video source component of high end theaters soon.

Article snip.. (I googled them)

Wal-Mart, Ultimate Electronics and Bjorn’s all say they are not committed to carrying the Venturer player, stating they would prefer products from bigger brand companies.

"We have no plans to have Venturer in our stores this holiday", Wal-Mart spokeswoman Melissa O’Brien said.

"We will continue to offer the best values on popular HD DVD and Blu-ray products from leading consumer brands like Sony, Samsung, Philips, Toshiba and RCA."

-Brian

Yet they have no problem selling Durabrand and ILO electronics, Wal-mart exclusive Alco brands. Even Target has an Alco brand(Trutech), nice try though. When Wal-mart announces they will not carry any Alco electronics, I'll start believing this PR release.

Well,

I know they carry durabrand because I actually have some of that stuff. But don't take my word for it I quoted a WalMart spokeswoman.

-Brian

Well,

I know they carry durabrand because I actually have some of that stuff. But don't take my word for it I quoted a WalMart spokeswoman.

-Brian

I'm not, the statement came out around the same time as the Venturer announcement. Just knowing Wal-marts track record, they don't admit anything until it's sitting on the shelves. Don't know if it has to do with contracts to be worked out or just to keep people from calling them asking where the players are. I do know the Alco 06/07 financial statement says they are just the OEM for HD DVD so anyone that wants to brand them probably can. And Venturer(the brand), while no longer at Wal-mart brand uses the others I mention now. She made a truthful statement for sure, she just left out some details that could change the "No cheap HD DVD players at Wal-mart" rumors.

You guys need to get back on topic. Walmart selling or not selling HD DVD players has nothing to do with lossless sound on Transformers.

True,

In fact the issue isn't the lossless sound on Transformers but the lack of lossless sound on Transformers.

-Brian

HD?

http://www.amazon.com/Battlestar-Galactica-Razor-HD-DVD/dp/B000VS8NE6/103-2638429-7739061?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1191257206&sr=1-2

HD DVD, $42 on an SRP of $59.98, vs the DVD, which is $20 on an SRP of $26.98.

Does anyone think the reason no True HD on Transformers is because they moved up the release date for HD DVD by 2 months?

Not sure what DH DVD is was that a typo?

I didn't know the date was moved up by 2 months,.. maybe a special edition is planned for Tl51 with lossless sound and IME.

-Brian

Not sure what DH DVD is was that a typo?

I didn't know the date was moved up by 2 months,.. maybe a special edition is planned for Tl51 with lossless sound and IME.

-Brian

And a very good reason for waiting. I had quite enough doubledipping during the DVD era. Though I think lossless audio on "Transformers" may never happen on HD DVD.

Here's the way I look at it. At my age quality time is very important to me, and there are more HD movies out there than I will probably ever get around to watching. So I will be very selective of what I buy, and an easy filter for me to use is "I will not buy any HD title that doesn't have loseless".

Now of course many of you are younger, or perhaps quality time is not as important, but for me, this is an easy decision. No Transformers.

Here's the way I look at it. At my age quality time is very important to me, and there are more HD movies out there than I will probably ever get around to watching. So I will be very selective of what I buy, and an easy filter for me to use is "I will not buy any HD title that doesn't have loseless".

Now of course many of you are younger, or perhaps quality time is not as important, but for me, this is an easy decision. No Transformers.

So will you not buy the title at all, or just buy it in SD?