So will you not buy the title at all, or just buy it in SD?

I will not buy the title at all.

I will not buy the title at all.

Well gramps, you can still rent it!:p

So will you not buy the title at all, or just buy it in SD?

Sounded like he's put Transformers lower on the list of movies to procure after a boatload of other HD movies. That was an easy non-buy choice. Heck, it even looks like there's a bunch of HD DVDs coming out I might consider buying before I even considering Transformers. Even a lossless track on Transformers only moves it up the list; not necessarily resulting in a purchase.

Not buying the title in any format

Personally I was not interested in seeing Transformers but previously took my family to see it in the theaters. I was very surprised at how great the movie was and all 6 of the others that I took all asked to stay and watch it a second time right after it ended. The movie was very good and left all of us wanting more.

This whole lossless thing to me means little when its known to have no noticable difference with 1.5 mb DD+ tracks, its not like its a 640k bit. I would much rather have prefered an announcement of it being a 7.1 track then worry whether or not its lossless.

This will definitely be a release day purchase for us. To me this is the biggest family movies to come out this year, I'm kind of surprised they didnt push release back closer to the holiday season.

Can't wait to get this title....best movie and only movie I saw at the theaters this year...

Personally I was not interested in seeing Transformers but previously took my family to see it in the theaters. I was very surprised at how great the movie was and all 6 of the others that I took all asked to stay and watch it a second time right after it ended. The movie was very good and left all of us wanting more.

This whole lossless thing to me means little when its known to have no noticable difference with 1.5 mb DD+ tracks, its not like its a 640k bit. I would much rather have prefered an announcement of it being a 7.1 track then worry whether or not its lossless.

This will definitely be a release day purchase for us. To me this is the biggest family movies to come out this year, I'm kind of surprised they didnt push release back closer to the holiday season.


And this is known how?

And this is known how?
It's called math. Dolby Digital + at 1.5 mbs provides 5 channels of 320 kbps audio (with the .1 taking up much less because of the limited frequency range). DD is more efficient than mp3 as far as I know and 320 kbps mp3 are pretty much indistinguishable from CD tracks. The DD+ may actually be better because it can be at higher sample and bit rates.

It's called math. Dolby Digital + at 1.5 mbs provides 5 channels of 320 kbps audio (with the .1 taking up much less because of the limited frequency range). DD is more efficient than mp3 as far as I know and 320 kbps mp3 are pretty much indistinguishable from CD tracks. The DD+ may actually be better because it can be at higher sample and bit rates.

Oh so in theory it is known. Gotcha. (translation, it is not "known" at all)

Don't be afraid to find out for yourselves people, it won't hurt. ;)

Does anyone think the reason no True HD on Transformers is because they moved up the release date for HD DVD by 2 months?

You have a link as to then the date was moved up.... Just curious, hadn't heard that before.

But no, that wouldn't be a reason... TrueHD encodes take little time, and it then just becomes a matter of QC, which wouldn't add more than a calendar day to the process.

Oh so in theory it is known. Gotcha. (translation, it is not "known" at all)

Don't be afraid to find out for yourselves people, it won't hurt. ;)
That was a response to my post?:confused:

Oh so in theory it is known. Gotcha. (translation, it is not "known" at all)

Don't be afraid to find out for yourselves people, it won't hurt. ;)

Yes, it won't hurt. So why don't you go find out if there are any studies which disprove what the post says, instead of relying upon the Eddie Murphy from Beverly Hills Cop "fingers in my ears, I'm not listening to Jeffrey" approach. Unless you are going to stick to the "my ears are golden and I only trust them" theory. Because if you are, then the conversation is useless.

Oh so in theory it is known. Gotcha. (translation, it is not "known" at all)

Don't be afraid to find out for yourselves people, it won't hurt. ;)

Jeez, what does it take to "prove" something to you. There are people who work in the industry who say there is no difference. You have AVS members who say there is no difference. And I'll add this, yet one more time.

I tried to find out for myself. I went through my HD DVD titles and tried to find a movie that would have a TrueHD and DD+ track at the same specs (i.e. bitdepth and bitrate). I came across Happy Feet at 48/16. A/Bed the heck out of it. No difference.

One very important part of the test is to let the player do the decoding and use either analog outs or the resulting HDMI PCM. The player must not be in bitstream mode, it must be in PCM mode to do an adequate test.

One last thing, go here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11799719#post11799719). and read down a couple of posts. There are two others who have found out for themselves.

You have a link as to then the date was moved up.... Just curious, hadn't heard that before.

But no, that wouldn't be a reason... TrueHD encodes take little time, and it then just becomes a matter of QC, which wouldn't add more than a calendar day to the process.

The original date as reported here was December 18th I believe I will do a search but right after the Paramount switch to HD DVD exclusivity a new date was announced for October

The original date as reported here was December 18th I believe I will do a search but right after the Paramount switch to HD DVD exclusivity a new date was announced for October

Maybe they were originally giving enough time for the BD 1.1 players to come out. :D

Jeez, what does it take to "prove" something to you. There are people who work in the industry who say there is no difference. You have AVS members who say there is no difference. And I'll add this, yet one more time.

I tried to find out for myself. I went through my HD DVD titles and tried to find a movie that would have a TrueHD and DD+ track at the same specs (i.e. bitdepth and bitrate). I came across Happy Feet at 48/16. A/Bed the heck out of it. No difference.

One very important part of the test is to let the player do the decoding and use either analog outs or the resulting HDMI PCM. The player must not be in bitstream mode, it must be in PCM mode to do an adequate test.

One last thing, go here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11799719#post11799719). and read down a couple of posts. There are two others who have found out for themselves.

So you are saying don't listen for myself? And since (let's say 10) people have done the EXACT a/b comparison that there is absolutely no reason to ever have to compare myself?

Seriously, is that what you are telling me?

At least you have done the comparisons, most seem to attack me because I am not taking other peoples' word for it. Very puzzling.

Yes, it won't hurt. So why don't you go find out if there are any studies which disprove what the post says, instead of relying upon the Eddie Murphy from Beverly Hills Cop "fingers in my ears, I'm not listening to Jeffrey" approach. Unless you are going to stick to the "my ears are golden and I only trust them" theory. Because if you are, then the conversation is useless.


Studies? Are you kidding?

I can't believe I am reading this. Would you buy a Honda without testing the Toyota?

Reviews and opinions can only get me so far. Do I completely discredit anything that people say? No, I take it with a grain of salt until I can see for myself. Do I have "golden ears"? Not necessarily. Do I trust them? Yes.

I can only get so far with other people's opinions, I am sorry if that disappoints you.

So you are saying don't listen for myself? And since (let's say 10) people have done the EXACT a/b comparison that there is absolutely no reason to ever have to compare myself?

Seriously, is that what you are telling me?

You're telling others to test it for themselves. I did. Did you? And yes, if you (the generic you, not the you you :) ) can't get over your bias then absolutely test it for yourself. No where did I say not to test your theory if you are so inclined. Infact, in the other thread I linked to I actually encouraged others to test for themselves.

Studies? Are you kidding?

I can't believe I am reading this. Would you buy a Honda without testing the Toyota?

Reviews and opinions can only get me so far. Do I completely discredit anything that people say? No, I take it with a grain of salt until I can see for myself. Do I have "golden ears"? Not necessarily. Do I trust them? Yes.

I can only get so far with other people's opinions, I am sorry if that disappoints you.

Then do a fraken test and report back. Until then, with the position you are taking we have nothing further to talk about.

You're telling others to test it for themselves. I did. Did you? And yes, if you (the generic you, not the you you :) ) can't get over your bias then absolutely test it for yourself. No where did I say not to test your theory if you are so inclined. Infact, in the other thread I linked to I actually encouraged others to test for themselves.

I know you have compared, I read the post that you linked, I read Filmixers take, I read a review of the competing NJ titles.

Trust me, I have read it all. Most of it even says very similar things. My findings may be the same. Who knows.

I know most will not find out for themselves, many don't give a crap. I find it funny that many who do not give a crap and will never have any desire to compare them are the ones attacking me for wanting to. *shrug*

Studies? Are you kidding?

I can't believe I am reading this. Would you buy a Honda without testing the Toyota?

Reviews and opinions can only get me so far. Do I completely discredit anything that people say? No, I take it with a grain of salt until I can see for myself. Do I have "golden ears"? Not necessarily. Do I trust them? Yes.

I can only get so far with other people's opinions, I am sorry if that disappoints you.

Trusting your ears is the worst thing you can do. There is a scientifically documented placebo effect which conclusively proves that sometimes we hear just what we want to hear. I would be far less likely to believe my own ears than I would a double-blind scientific study. So unless you are willing to submit to a double-blind, your ears and your opinion is just as much BS as any other. How's that for "trust"?

PS - Just out of curiosity, do you also calibrate your system using "just your ears", or do you use an SPL meter or a receiver based calibration program?

Then do a fraken test and report back. Until then, with the position you are taking we have nothing further to talk about.

The original quote I was responding to said:

"This whole lossless thing to me means little when its known to have no noticable difference with 1.5 mb DD+ tracks"

The poster is obviously going by what was read. Forgive me for not taking "known" from someone who only "knows" what he read.

Trusting your ears is the worst thing you can do. There is a scientifically documented placebo effect which conclusively proves that sometimes we hear just what we want to hear. I would be far less likely to believe my own ears than I would a double-blind scientific study. So unless you are willing to submit to a double-blind, your ears and your opinion is just as much BS as any other. How's that for "trust"?

PS - Just out of curiosity, do you also calibrate your system using "just your ears", or do you use an SPL meter or a receiver based calibration program?

Don't trust my ears. Will do.

So what if my ears tell me there is no difference? What do I do then?

I use an SPL meter to calibrate my system.

So now channel volume = differences in sonic quality? (ie: better channel separation, larger soundstage, lower noise floor, better dynamic range)

Sure I could venture to calibrate my channel levels myself, but what is the point when there is a meter that tells me exactly what I need to know?

Listen, I am a realist. I don't expect to sit down and notice differences in AQ in 5 seconds of listening to each. I don't even necessarily expect to notice differences at all. I hope to, but I don't know that I will. I have a little audiophile (different than a realist to be sure) in me that always wants the absolute best AQ available. AQ is even > than PQ for me.

If there are differences I notice I am sure that they will not be substantial. But any audiophile will tell you that they don't need sustantial to justify wanting better. Many audiophile are full of poop too I know that. I have a bit of audiophile in me, but not enough to want differences so badly that I create them.

The original quote I was responding to said:

"This whole lossless thing to me means little when its known to have no noticable difference with 1.5 mb DD+ tracks"

The poster is obviously going by what was read. Forgive me for not taking "known" from someone who only "knows" what he read.

I see. That is a little over the top. As an example, Richard from R&B films claims he can hear a difference. Perhaps he can, but my poor excuse for tests (not double blind) puts me more in the there is no difference camp.

So I for intellectual integrity I decided to test lossles vs DD and DD+. Lossless IMO was not much beeter or in one case no better than the lossy track.To be honest I really did not expect this. I went to a lot of trouble to hook up analog outputs from my BD and HD DVD players using Zecktor switches and a progammable remote to aid in the switching. I had ground loop problems that proved problematic to get rid of. I really wanted lossless to sound much better than lossy, but I had to do some tesing on my own. Much to my chagrin, lossless did not live up to my preconcieved notions.

But, that is to my beneifit now. I can reliably buy a HD DVD title with DD+ as the main track and be reasonably assured that a lossless track would not improve the sound. At least to my ears. YMMV.

I see. That is a little over the top. As an example, Richard from R&B films claims he can hear a difference. Perhaps he can, but my poor excuse for tests (not double blind) puts me more in the there is no difference camp.

So I for intellectual integrity I decided to test lossles vs DD and DD+. Lossless IMO was not much beeter or in one case no better than the lossy track.To be honest I really did not expect this. I went to a lot of trouble to hook up analog outputs from my BD and HD DVD players using Zecktor switches and a progammable remote to aid in the switching. I had ground loop problems that proved problematic to get rid of. I really wanted lossless to sound much better than lossy, but I had to do some tesing on my own. Much to my chagrin, lossless did not live up to my preconcieved notions.

But, that is to my beneifit now. I can reliably buy a HD DVD title with DD+ as the main track and be reasonably assured that a lossless track would not improve the sound. At least to my ears. YMMV.

Yeah, I have read Richard say he hears differences in dolby THD, PCM, and DTS HDMA too. I will eventually be able to do that comparison too.

But I just file his opinions along with everyone else's, until I can make my own.

Yeah I am going to listen to some tracks first and then have the wife help me with the double blind.

I am sure I can get her to do it for 5 minutes until she tells me I am a ****** and throws the remote at me.

Yeah, I have read Richard say he hears differences in dolby THD, PCM, and DTS HDMA too. I will eventually be able to do that comparison too.

But I just file his opinions along with everyone else's, until I can make my own.

Yeah I am going to listen to some tracks first and then have the wife help me with the double blind.

I am sure I can get her to do it for 5 minutes until she tells me I am a ****** and throws the remote at me.

Fair enough. BTW: Tried same with my wife. Took less than two minutes to have the remote put in a place I really did not like. :D

Don't trust my ears. Will do.

So what if my ears tell me there is no difference? What do I do then?

I use an SPL meter to calibrate my system.

So now channel volume = differences in sonic quality? (ie: better channel separation, larger soundstage, lower noise floor, better dynamic range)

Sure I could venture to calibrate my channel levels myself, but what is the point when there is a meter that tells me exactly what I need to know?

Listen, I am a realist. I don't expect to sit down and notice differences in AQ in 5 seconds of listening to each. I don't even necessarily expect to notice differences at all. I hope to, but I don't know that I will. I have a little audiophile (different than a realist to be sure) in me that always wants the absolute best AQ available. AQ is even > than PQ for me.

If there are differences I notice I am sure that they will not be substantial. But any audiophile will tell you that they don't need sustantial to justify wanting better. Many audiophile are full of poop too I know that. I have a bit of audiophile in me, but not enough to want differences so badly that I create them.

Fair enough. But is it really fair to keep arguing against people who have done this informal test when you have not? Think about it. Also, the placebo effect is not about "wanting differences so badly". It's more subconcious than that. But let's just say that your personal test is definitive enough for you. As others have said, their opinion is what makes the difference for them. Your opinion will make the difference for you. But to immediately discount their opinions because you haven't done the test yet is like the guy who has never driven a Toyota or a Honda arguing with the guy who has driven both.

Fair enough. BTW: Tried same with my wife. Took less than two minutes to have the remote put in a place I really did not like. :D

LOL

Fair enough. But is it really fair to keep arguing against people who have done this informal test when you have not? Think about it. Also, the placebo effect is not about "wanting differences so badly". It's more subconcious than that. But let's just say that your personal test is definitive enough for you. As others have said, their opinion is what makes the difference for them. Your opinion will make the difference for you. But to immediately discount their opinions because you haven't done the test yet is like the guy who has never driven a Toyota or a Honda arguing with the guy who has driven both.

That is not the point I am trying to make, sorry if I confused. The point I am trying to make is the people who have NOT done the testing and believe it because they were told to.

The opinions that I actually will listen to are those exact ones who have done the comparisons. As I said, with a grain of salt of course until I can do it myself.

But I think the people who have done it can absolutely tell me they think I am crazy, (as james and Filmixer have done :)) I am cool with that, as I have no proof or opinion otherwise. My point is have a basis for opinion (as james does, and you may have too, I don't know) before telling me there are no differences.

That is not the point I am trying to make, sorry if I confused. The point I am trying to make is the people who have NOT done the testing and believe it because they were told to.

The opinions that I actually will listen to are those exact ones who have done the comparisons. As I said, with a grain of salt of course until I can do it myself.

But I think the people who have done it can absolutely tell me they think I am crazy, (as james and Filmixer have done :)) I am cool with that, as I have no proof or opinion otherwise. My point is have a basis for opinion (as james does, and you may have too, I don't know) before telling me there are no differences.

I have done an informal comparo and any difference I heard is very minimal and definitely could be due to the placebo, especially since I was new to HDM and thus bright eyed and bushy tailed about HD lossless. Much bigger to me is the difference between DD+ and standard DD. But really now, I've watched a few SD DVD's lately and although not HD quality, even the standard DD/DTS is enough to blow me out of the room. Is it better to have HD audio? Yes! Is it worth enough to not buy a treasured release because of the slight (if any) differences between DD+ and TrueHD? Uhhh, no. I'd be more apt to refuse a classic film because it lacks a true mono soundtrack than to quibble over lossless vs. slightly lossy, especially when the HD formats are better than anything I can get in a theater. If my mission is to replicate the theater experience, anything over DD/DTS is overkill anyway. YMMV.

+1

Studies? Are you kidding?
Reviews and opinions can only get me so far. Do I completely discredit anything that people say? No, I take it with a grain of salt until I can see for myself. Do I have "golden ears"? Not necessarily. Do I trust them? Yes.

You shouldn't be trusting your ears if you DON'T give them an objective testbed. i.e. if you know what format you're testing, your brain might fool your "trusty" ears into thinking the lossless has more "body" or what have (or any number of other useless terms used by audiophiles) when compared to the lossy.

EDIT: Meh, I should read the whole thread, already been covered. :D

EDIT #2: Jgatie's mention of subconscious bias should *not* be taken lightly. Science itself has proven this phenomenon.

You shouldn't be trusting your ears if you DON'T give them an objective testbed. i.e. if you know what format you're testing, your brain might fool your "trusty" ears into thinking the lossless has more "body" or what have (or any number of other useless terms used by audiophiles) when compared to the lossy.

EDIT: Meh, I should read the whole thread, already been covered. :D

EDIT #2: Jgatie's mention of subconscious bias should *not* be taken lightly. Science itself has proven this phenomenon.

"Muddy" (constrained, less detailed, less "open", less dynamic) is my description of listening to typical lossy 640kb DD after listening to a good lossless audio track. My favorite "audiophilic" term was a reviewer using the term "honey-baked sweetness" when discussing the acoustical merits of a particular cable. :)

Can this thread's title be changed to "Lossless v DD+"?

For anyone interested, I am going to do the following test, and have the material on hand for years to come:

Having an SPL meter does nothing for a double blind. or even casual, test if you cannot get the levels matched between two different encodes, which is impossible to do with out a mixing console, which, as luck would have it, I happend to have access to :) You can calibrate the tones on a test disc, but that won't help when trying to compare say a PCM BR vs. an HD DVD DD+ track...

I am going to use a Onkyo SP885 surround processor/pre-amp. I can then record it's output, via analog, via the mixing console and high end A/D's and record that output at 24/48 digitally into a Pro Tools HD audio workstation.

Once inside the worksttion, I will be able to line up each seperate recording with sample accuracy (1/48,000th of a second).

I will then be able to, using our mixing console, level match all encodes to a reference... If I have a PCM track, that will become the reference, and I can then level match the two within 1/10 of 1dB... I can do this via a visual representation on the desk, and it is the only way to get an accurate level match.

I will level match the C track, and this will also tell me if the other channles (i.e. subs or surrounds) are louder or softer in a given encode.

This will also allow me to test the differences between player and processor decoding. Since we are using HDMI for all sources, and using the same pre/pro's DAC's, this will take out any differences in that equation... however, it won't be a definitive test for all players, as each player may or may not have DSP applied to the PCM decode prior to output...

Then, I can put up each enocde, player or pre/pro decoded, and have it unlabeled on the console, and people will be able to A/B away all they want...

I plan on doing this is the next couple of weeks, so anybody who can come my LA way can come by and take a listen :)

I am sure this still won't be enough for some posters around here, but I am going to try and get a large get together arranged so we can have at least 10-20 testers involved...... ;)

^^^
Awesome!

do i get DD+ 1.5 if i connect a hd dvd player through optical? if not then what do i get instead?

do i get DD+ 1.5 if i connect a hd dvd player through optical? if not then what do i get instead?

It gets decoded into PCM and internally re-encoded into DD at 640 or DTS at 1500 depending what player you have (the 360 also allows the re-encode into WMA Pro)

It gets decoded into PCM and internally re-encoded into DD at 640 or DTS at 1500 depending what player you have (the 360 also allows the re-encode into WMA Pro)

thanks, but quite the bummer. i was thinking of adding a hd dvd "internal" drive to my htpc should one become available, but it would have to be connected to receiver via optical.

For anyone interested, I am going to do the following test, and have the material on hand for years to come:

Having an SPL meter does nothing for a double blind. or even casual, test if you cannot get the levels matched between two different encodes, which is impossible to do with out a mixing console, which, as luck would have it, I happend to have access to :) You can calibrate the tones on a test disc, but that won't help when trying to compare say a PCM BR vs. an HD DVD DD+ track...

I am going to use a Onkyo SP885 surround processor/pre-amp. I can then record it's output, via analog, via the mixing console and high end A/D's and record that output at 24/48 digitally into a Pro Tools HD audio workstation.

Once inside the worksttion, I will be able to line up each seperate recording with sample accuracy (1/48,000th of a second).

I will then be able to, using our mixing console, level match all encodes to a reference... If I have a PCM track, that will become the reference, and I can then level match the two within 1/10 of 1dB... I can do this via a visual representation on the desk, and it is the only way to get an accurate level match.

I will level match the C track, and this will also tell me if the other channles (i.e. subs or surrounds) are louder or softer in a given encode.

This will also allow me to test the differences between player and processor decoding. Since we are using HDMI for all sources, and using the same pre/pro's DAC's, this will take out any differences in that equation... however, it won't be a definitive test for all players, as each player may or may not have DSP applied to the PCM decode prior to output...

Then, I can put up each enocde, player or pre/pro decoded, and have it unlabeled on the console, and people will be able to A/B away all they want...

I plan on doing this is the next couple of weeks, so anybody who can come my LA way can come by and take a listen :)

I am sure this still won't be enough for some posters around here, but I am going to try and get a large get together arranged so we can have at least 10-20 testers involved...... ;)



Must....leave......Ohio :D

Woodshed, here's a test for you to try. Rip a song from a CD that you know well as Wav and as 256 and 320 MP3. Compare them and tell us/you how they compare. Then remember that it is music that you know well you are listening to.

Must....leave......Ohio :D

Hey Woodshed,

Why don't you drive to LA? You can dogleg it by driving to Washington, pick me up and then go on to LA. I'll split costs with you and driving duties. Beer is on me!

Jim

Thank you FilmMixer. I truly wished I lived in the LA area because I would take you up in a heartbeat.

Paramount admits they dropped lossless audio on Transformers "due to space limitations on the disc." But the DD+ track gets an excellent review:


When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want. Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff. Even the front soundstage is a stunner -- stereo effects are quite pronounced, and when the sounds ping-pong (as they do just about any time a robot transforms), it's just as cool as the first time you heard that lightsaber effect in 'Star Wars.' If I had had this disc when I was a twelve year-old kid, I don't I would have stopped playing it for months.

Also top-notch are all technical aspects of the mix. As you would expect, this is the kind of disc your subwoofer will devour. Even at moderate volume levels I was blown away by the sheer low frequencies churned out by my poor sub. Whether you're talking about the opening attack, the sequence with that weird sand Decepticon in the desert, or any sequence during the film's last 30 minutes, there's such a sustained low bass presence that it's almost like it's another character in the movie. The realism and texture to every sound -- from the effects to the score to the dialogue -- is pitch perfect. Volume issues are also, thankfully, not a problem -- I was truly shocked that I didn't have to reach for my remote once, as dialogue is leveled nicely throughout.

Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title. Without a TrueHD or PCM mix to compare this one to, there's no way of telling how much better such a track might have been, but based on the upgrade I've seen with other titles, I'm guessing a high-res mix could well have trounced this one. That's not to take anything away from this truly exceptional mix, but this is one case where I think you truly can improve upon perfection.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html

Paramount admits they dropped lossless audio on Transformers "due to space limitations on the disc." But the DD+ track gets an excellent review:

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html

Actually, this is the statement of a Reviewer not an official statement from the studio. For all we know they said nothing of the sort, it's whether you trust the source making the statement or not.

Actually, this is the statement of a Reviewer not an official statement from the studio. For all we know they said nothing of the sort, it's whether you trust the source making the statement or not.

Well, it's a He Said She Said thing ... The reviewer said the Studio said ... What's the differential between DD+ and TrueHD? space-wise? It can't be that much.

That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want. Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff. Even the front soundstage is a stunner -- stereo effects are quite pronounced, and when the sounds ping-pong (as they do just about any time a robot transforms), it's just as cool as the first time you heard that lightsaber effect in 'Star Wars.'

I do not think anyone has brought this up...
If a studio is going to spend money and time one perfecting a great soundtrack, isn't it better to put all the effort into a DD+ version that FAR MORE people can enjoy than a lossless one that only benifits a few?

I am glad to see that they were able to create a soundtrack that rivals any lossless one (and is way better than some like Haloween). Now more people have access to great audio...and isn't that the point of HDM?

Oh, and for those thinking why not create both, that's fine, but in the studio's mind, why waste money?

Yep, too little space for both... That is the reason. THese 51 gb discs can't come fast enough (if they ever come)!?

Yep, too little space for both... That is the reason. THese 51 gb discs can't come fast enough (if they ever come)!?

So why are there titles on Blu-ray that don't have lossless? They obviously have the space ... why not throw it in?

So why are there titles on Blu-ray that don't have lossless? They obviously have the space ... why not throw it in?


Almost all of the BD marquis titles have lossless (Casino Royale, all 3 Pirates of the Caribbean flix, all 3 SPidermans, etc). In fact, BD has 4X to 5X the number of lossless tracks compared to HD DVD. IT is not BD that is the slacker here. Transformers is one of the biggest titles to ever hit HD DVD and, like King Kong, this film took up a lot of space and a lossless track was cut out. I am sure that is the driving force behind 51 gb discs.

I do not think anyone has brought this up...
If a studio is going to spend money and time one perfecting a great soundtrack, isn't it better to put all the effort into a DD+ version that FAR MORE people can enjoy than a lossless one that only benifits a few?

I am glad to see that they were able to create a soundtrack that rivals any lossless one (and is way better than some like Haloween). Now more people have access to great audio...and isn't that the point of HDM?

Oh, and for those thinking why not create both, that's fine, but in the studio's mind, why waste money?

can DD+ 1.5 be bitstreamed? last i heard it has to be decoded in the player and passed via hdmi? i'm wondering this same thing for PC as i'm interested in picking up an internal hddvd drive for my htpc to go neutral for Transformers.

I really think this has gotten out of control, it really feels like it's all coming from BR fanboys that are jealous...

"Hey guy's we don't have this awesome over the top movie which would be a perfect demo for Home Theater and even though it sounds amazing in every review I have read so far it sadly isn't lossless so.... Well it still sounds amazing but it would sound more amazing-er if it had lossless." What a joke IMO.

I am sure 90% of the people bashing DD+ could not be able to tell the difference in a blind test anyway.

Can't wait for Tuesday...

BTW. I will be format Neutral in a couple of weeks with a price drop PS3... I am a movie fanboy. [Reply]

Almost all of the BD marquis titles have lossless (Casino Royale, all 3 Pirates of the Caribbean flix, all 3 SPidermans, etc). In fact, BD has 4X to 5X the number of lossless tracks compared to HD DVD. IT is not BD that is the slacker here. Transformers is one of the biggest titles to ever hit HD DVD and, like King Kong, this film took up a lot of space and a lossless track was cut out. I am sure that is the driving force behind 51 gb discs.

First of all, I'm not talking about marquee ... I'm just asking why so many titles, in general, are lacking lossless? If it's "free to add" and the space is there, then why isn't it being used?

Secondly, how many of those lossless tracks are true to the master? In the case of Spiderman 1-2, for example, doesn't the master have a different bit depth than what is being offered on the disc?

Finally, the whole King Kong thing has been debunked (repeatedly). And all we have so far is a reviewer's comments about what he heard on Transformers. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the title is Tier 0 and received a perfect score on AQ. So does this discussion just prove the point that the Blu-ray argument has always been that it goes to '11' and is therefore better? :confused:

I really think this has gotten out of control, it really feels like it's all coming from BR fanboys that are jealous...

"Hey guy's we don't have this awesome over the top movie which would be a perfect demo for Home Theater and even though it sounds amazing in every review I have read so far it sadly isn't lossless so.... Well it still sounds amazing but it would sound more amazing-er if it had lossless." What a joke IMO.


Blu-ray fanboys could never say that...

The HD DVD PRG has the patent on ungrammatical bombast such as kaboomyer, cutthroatier, romancyer, high-speedyer or testosteronyer.

First of all, I'm not talking about marquee ... I'm just asking why so many titles, in general, are lacking lossless? If it's "free to add" and the space is there, then why isn't it being used?

Secondly, how many of those lossless tracks are true to the master? In the case of Spiderman 1-2, for example, doesn't the master have a different bit depth than what is being offered on the disc?

Finally, the whole King Kong thing has been debunked (repeatedly). And all we have so far is a reviewer's comments about what he heard on Transformers. Either way, I think it's pretty clear that the title is Tier 0 and received a perfect score on AQ. So does this discussion just prove the point that the Blu-ray argument has always been that it goes to '11' and is therefore better?


Look at Widescreen Review and look at the 100s of perfect audio scores for regular old DVD. Can we compare 5/5 scores from 5 years ago with today's? Are they the same quality? No, of course not.

It is all relative.

King Kong is a superlative DD+ track but when it is re-released on a 51 gb disc in a future Special Edition with lossless sound, it will best the current soundtrack with a similar 'perfect' score...

So why are there titles on Blu-ray that don't have lossless? They obviously have the space ... why not throw it in?

can you name a few blu-ray exclusive titles that don't have a lossless track?

I really think this has gotten out of control, it really feels like it's all coming from BR fanboys that are jealous...

"Hey guy's we don't have this awesome over the top movie which would be a perfect demo for Home Theater and even though it sounds amazing in every review I have read so far it sadly isn't lossless so.... Well it still sounds amazing but it would sound more amazing-er if it had lossless." What a joke IMO.

I am sure 90% of the people bashing DD+ could not be able to tell the difference in a blind test anyway.

Can't wait for Tuesday...

BTW. I will be format Neutral in a couple of weeks with a price drop PS3... I am a movie fanboy. [Reply]

Agree ... truly sounds like sour grapes. They've been waiting for this release in the hopes the AQ would suck so they could do their 'neener neener' dance. Now that the majority of reviewers have scored the AQ as Perfect and labeled this Reference/Tier 0 material, the grapes have soured even more.

can you name a few blu-ray exclusive titles that don't have a lossless track?

I didn't say Exclusive ... and I didn't say Marquee.

So again, if the space is there, and lossless is 'Free to Add' ... why is it missing on over 40% of releases?

And, again I ask about Spiderman 1-2 ... isn't the bit depth different from the master on these titles?

yeah bluray fan boys have been trying to make a big deal about it because when they get a non lossless track it means 640kbs when we get one it means 1.5mbs... that's a big difference

I do not think anyone has brought this up...
If a studio is going to spend money and time one perfecting a great soundtrack, isn't it better to put all the effort into a DD+ version that FAR MORE people can enjoy than a lossless one that only benifits a few?

I am glad to see that they were able to create a soundtrack that rivals any lossless one (and is way better than some like Haloween). Now more people have access to great audio...and isn't that the point of HDM?

Oh, and for those thinking why not create both, that's fine, but in the studio's mind, why waste money?

Geez...yet another sensible post. C'mon, insult someone!;)

I really think this has gotten out of control, it really feels like it's all coming from BR fanboys that are jealous...

"Hey guy's we don't have this awesome over the top movie which would be a perfect demo for Home Theater and even though it sounds amazing in every review I have read so far it sadly isn't lossless so.... Well it still sounds amazing but it would sound more amazing-er if it had lossless." What a joke IMO.

I am sure 90% of the people bashing DD+ could not be able to tell the difference in a blind test anyway.

Can't wait for Tuesday...

BTW. I will be format Neutral in a couple of weeks with a price drop PS3... I am a movie fanboy. [Reply]

No...99.5%.

So why are there titles on Blu-ray that don't have lossless? They obviously have the space ... why not throw it in?

I don't know. We should ask Warner why they can't be bothered with it on Blu. We usually get the same slop the HD crowd gets.

Look at Widescreen Review and look at the 100s of perfect audio scores for regular old DVD. Can we compare 5/5 scores from 5 years ago with today's? Are they the same quality? No, of course not.

It is all relative.

King Kong is a superlative DD+ track but when it is re-released on a 51 gb disc in a future Special Edition with lossless sound, it will best the current soundtrack with a similar 'perfect' score...

Wow ... you're really grasping here ... I'm not talking about DVD, why are you even bring it up? I'm not talking about 5 years ago either. I'm talking about the extent of the codecs available to us today. When someone in the Industry that does this for a living is telling us that they *might* be able to tell the difference between Lossless and DD+ 10% of the time, that pretty much speaks volumes.

The fact that we have more than one Tier 0 Title with reference quality Audio encoded with DD+ speaks volumes as well.

Lossless is a marketing point, nothing more. The video we're talking about is lossy, yet those in the industry say it is very true to the master. It goes to show you how good these advanced codecs are.

And, you're right on one thing: It's all Relative. And, relative to the hundreds of HD DVD *AND* Blu-ray releases that contain LOSSLESS tracks, King Kong and Transformers have received *perfect* scores for Audio Quality.

I don't know. We should Warner why they can't be bothered with it on Blu. We usually get the same slop the HD crowd gets.

I don't know either ... the space is there, and it's "free" ... so why not throw it in? Unless, of course, it's not "free" ... and Studio's feel it's not worth it for the cost. But then, replication costs and stuff *would* actually have an effect on what the consumer gets and the BDA Supporters wouldn't be able to argue about how things like that don't matter. :p

I honestly think the lack of lossless tracks on releases from either side is more to do with the fact that hdmi receivers are only just now starting to hit mainstream prices and aren't common in the general public. It also gives them a chance to do something they love, release special editions for all these movies in 2-3 years with lossless sound and get our money again.

I didn't say Exclusive ... and I didn't say Marquee.

So again, if the space is there, and lossless is 'Free to Add' ... why is it missing on over 40% of releases?

And, again I ask about Spiderman 1-2 ... isn't the bit depth different from the master on these titles?

Spiderman 1 is 24bit DolbyTrueHD from 16bit master,
Spiderman 2 and 3 is 24bit DolbyTrueHD from 24bit master

Marek

Here's a question. If the best lossless on BD scores a 5/5 and the best DD+ scores a 5/5 then what's the difference? None I'd say! They could have dropped some of the extras on the first disk and added TrueHD, but would it have bveen worth it? Probably not since the reviewers wouldn't have given it a 6/5. I suspect the law of diminsihing returns kicks in big time when it comes to the difference between lossless and DD+. The fact that DD+ can be enjoyed by many more consumers than TrueHD is a positive for this title, IMO. If Paramount had mislabelled the audio as TrueHD no one who have suspected any mistake after hearing it. The problem for BD supporters is that if HD DVD's DD+ tracks sound as good as the best lossless on BD, and we agree that lossless should sound better than DD+, then BD is obviously underperforming in the audio arena or HD DVD is overperforming! Either way it's a plus for HD DVD.

Cheers,

Grant

Almost all of the BD marquis titles have lossless (Casino Royale, all 3 Pirates of the Caribbean flix, all 3 SPidermans, etc). In fact, BD has 4X to 5X the number of lossless tracks compared to HD DVD. IT is not BD that is the slacker here. Transformers is one of the biggest titles to ever hit HD DVD and, like King Kong, this film took up a lot of space and a lossless track was cut out. I am sure that is the driving force behind 51 gb discs.


Well how many BDs has gotten a 24bit lossless track?

Maybe it's all that "gimicky" internet stuff that's sucking up the space on HD DVD. Who knows what that will require as far as space is concerned with BD's Java implementation... if they ever get it to work! :p

I didn't say Exclusive ... and I didn't say Marquee.

So again, if the space is there, and lossless is 'Free to Add' ... why is it missing on over 40% of releases?

And, again I ask about Spiderman 1-2 ... isn't the bit depth different from the master on these titles?

uh... you didnt say exclusive and you didn't say marquee, but isn't Transformers both and still doesnt come with lossless? being exclusive matters b/c it seems to be only warner and paramount that was excluding lossless audio on titles for blu-ray. most if not all of the 40% (if it's even this high) of releases you mention don't have lossless b/c its hd dvd version did not. paramount actually was going to start including lossless on all titles got bought out right when that was going to happen.

as for spiderman 1 and 2, i'm not sure what the bit depth is on the TrueHD track.

I honestly think the lack of lossless tracks on releases from either side is more to do with the fact that hdmi receivers are only just now starting to hit mainstream prices and aren't common in the general public. It also gives them a chance to do something they love, release special editions for all these movies in 2-3 years with lossless sound and get our money again.

And if this is the case, and movies are not getting longer, I think it's pretty safe to assume that today's codecs will be that much more improved in 2-3 years. With those year over year improvements, I'm pretty sure it will be easy to 'find' any space differential between TrueHD and DD+ if they want to add the marketing point.

Of course, the BDA Supporters could tell us that we shouldn't have to wait because you can get Lossless on Blu-ray now (a little more than half the time) so why wait for it on HD DVD? Of course, they've been saying it's okay to wait for Interactivity and Networking for months and months and months now.

Of course, they could say that Interactivity and Networking is only important to a handful of folks so it doesn't matter. Of course, the percentage of folks with the gear and/or ear to hear lossless is likely smaller than the percentage of people interested in Interactivity/Networking.

At the end of the day, it's pretty clear to me that Studios prefer Interactivity/Networking and are going to shove it on discs. And it's not just the HD DVD Studios. Recent press releases from Fox and Disney (both Blu-ray exclusive) have touted this functionality and feature set.

How many major press releases have been circulated with their cornerstone being lossless audio? Hmmm.

Everyone can take advantage of Interactivity [on HD DVD]. A very small population can take advantage of Lossless. If they both have a similar cost, where do you see the Studios focusing their efforts?

Here's a question. If the best lossess on BD scores a 5/5 and the best DD+ scores a 5/5 then what's the difference? None I'd say! They could have dropped some of the extras on the first disk and added TrueHD, but would it have bveen worth it? Probably not since the reviewers wouldn't have given it a 6/5. I suspect the law of diminsihing returns kicks in big time when it comes to the difference between lossless and DD+. The fact that DD+ can be enjoyed by many more consumers than TrueHD is a positive for this title, IMO. If Paramount had mislabelled the audio as TrueHD no one who have suspected any mistake after hearing it. The problem for BD supporters is that if HD DVD's DD+ tracks sound as good as the best lossess on BD, and we agree that lossess should sound better than DD+, then BD is obviously underperforming in the audio arena or HD DVD is overperforming! Either way it's a plus for HD DVD.

Cheers,

Grant

Exactly ... thebland emphasized this point (ironically). It's all Relative! And Relative to Lossless on Blu-ray, these titles are getting the same (if not better) scores! :D

Spiderman 1 is 24bit DolbyTrueHD from 16bit master,
Spiderman 2 and 3 is 24bit DolbyTrueHD from 24bit master

Marek

Thanks! I thought it was both 1-2.

Sooo ... where do the extra 8 bits from come from? If the data isn't in the master, what's the benefit of 24bit TrueHD? And isn't it possible that by including those extra bits not present in the master, that we incorporate artifacts not originally intended? Either way, it's not the same as the master ... soo ... *shrug*

Transformers
144 Min

Troy
162 Min
*has lossless track

Departed
151 Min
*has lossless track

Superman
154 min
*has lossless track



With logic like this...how can you believe 2nd hand information that there wasnt enough room? Why are people still bringing this up?


Do they really believe there wasnt enough room to place a 144 min movie on a disc with lossless even though other longer movies have been put on HD DVD with lossless? OR are some peope still upset they cant get the movie and still trying to bring down the hype tomake themselfs feel better?

Maybe some people believe George Costanza's point of view "its not a lie if you believe it to be true".

uh... you didnt say exclusive and you didn't say marquee, but isn't Transformers both and still doesnt come with lossless? being exclusive matters b/c it seems to be only warner and paramount that was excluding lossless audio on titles for blu-ray. most if not all of the 40% (if it's even this high) of releases you mention don't have lossless b/c its hd dvd version did not. paramount actually was going to start including lossless on all titles got bought out right when that was going to happen.

I got the data from Blu-ray stats.com ... and do you have any proof that paramount was going to start including lossless? Or is that just your speculation?

Furthermore, the point was, and still is: If it's free to add, and the space is there, why did the Studio's omit it? Neutral of not, if it's "Free" and the space is available, why not add it? Why don't 100% of Blu-ray titles have PCM?


as for spiderman 1 and 2, i'm not sure what the bit depth is on the TrueHD track.

Answered above by MarekM.

Well one difference is that they used VC1 on all the other titles.

The other is that they used 16bit TrueHD on the others, were Tranformers got 24bit DD+.

I honestly think the lack of lossless tracks on releases from either side is more to do with the fact that hdmi receivers are only just now starting to hit mainstream prices and aren't common in the general public. It also gives them a chance to do something they love, release special editions for all these movies in 2-3 years with lossless sound and get our money again.

this isn't true b/c all the hd dvd players can decode truehd and pass via analog outs, which most receivers do have. if space limitation or bandwidth is the reason for not including lossless, we won't see it on any special editions either later down the line, unless they lower the bitrate on video to accomodate audio. i dont think there's ever been a later edition of a title that had lower video bitrate.

supposedly the imax version of the movie had extra footage not included on the dvd/hd dvd. the reviewer at dvdtalk is guessing there will be a double dip when the sequel comes out (by then might be triple dip) that will have extra footage. i dont think the sequel will come out within 18 months so hopefully we'll see a blu-ray version as well.

Transformers
144 Min

Troy
162 Min
*has lossless track

Departed
151 Min
*has lossless track

Superman
154 min
*has lossless track



With logic like this...how can you believe 2nd hand information that there wasnt enough room? Why are people still bringing this up?


Do they really believe there wasnt enough room to place a 144 min movie on a disc with lossless even though other longer movies have been put on HD DVD with lossless? OR are some peope still upset they cant get the movie and still trying to bring down the hype tomake themselfs feel better?

Maybe some people believe George Costanza's point of view "its not a lie if you believe it to be true".

As noted by yourself, and several others, it truely sounds like sour grapes. The house of cards is starting to wobble ... and if they accept that this has nothing to do with space, and that the quality relative to lossless on Blu-ray is the same or better, then what else do they have to stand behind?

Do they really believe there wasnt enough room to place a 144 min movie on a disc with lossless even though other longer movies have been put on HD DVD with lossless?

You're forgetting PiP.

Of the examples you gave, only Troy (theatrical cut) has PiP, which also eats into capacity and bandwidth. And it has a rather soft picture - no grain visible at all.

this isn't true b/c all the hd dvd players can decode truehd and pass via analog outs, which most receivers do have. if space limitation or bandwidth is the reason for not including lossless, we won't see it on any special editions either later down the line, unless they lower the bitrate on video to accomodate audio. i dont think there's ever been a later edition of a title that had lower video bitrate.


only the xa2 and first gen players have analog outs. maybe the new a35? Otherwise it's optical or hdmi.

Well one difference is that they used VC1 on all the other titles.

The other is that they used 16bit TrueHD on the others, were Tranformers got 24bit DD+.

I'm pretty sure there is no home theatre gear on the planet than can reproduce a 24 bit depth anyways, no?

I'm pretty sure there is no home theatre gear on the planet than can reproduce a 24 bit depth anyways, no?

What i was refering to was that they didnt plant for a 16bit TrueHD track but a 24bit trueHD.

A 16bit TrueHD would take about the same space as 1,5mbit DD+

I got the data from Blu-ray stats.com ... and do you have any proof that paramount was going to start including lossless? Or is that just your speculation?

there was an announcement here (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Paramount/Paramount_Adds_High-Res_Audio_to_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD_Menu/796). we all know what happened when BoG was supposed to come out.

Furthermore, the point was, and still is: If it's free to add, and the space is there, why did the Studio's omit it? Neutral of not, if it's "Free" and the space is available, why not add it? Why don't 100% of Blu-ray titles have PCM? b/c a direct port requires no extra effort, whether it is free or not. the space is there doesnt mean they have to fill it. at the time the studios also often elected to use BD25 for hd dvd encodes under 25gb so neither format had the space for lossless audio. or maybe bd didnt have the space being 5gb short and hd dvd didnt have the bandwidth.

one problem i'm noticing is on all the hd dvd discs that has truehd, a dd+ track is also included. this really constrains what's already limited capacity on the hd dvd b/c truehd does not have a core track. it certainly seems tho warner prefers to compromise pq (troy is 3+ hours and has truehd) while paramount prefers to compromise aq (excluding lossless). either way there seems to be no quality issues, not that there's a theoretically better version to compare with. i wonder tho if paramount used a 640 dd+ track like warner does and knock the video bitrate down a few mbps would they have been able to fit a lossless track on there, even if just for marking point.

What i was refering to was that they didnt plant for a 16bit TrueHD track but a 24bit trueHD.

A 16bit TrueHD would take about the same space as 1,5mbit DD+

Right, but I'm just saying, as an aside, that I don't understand why they'd want 24 bits anyways?

there was an announcement here (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disc_Announcements/Paramount/Paramount_Adds_High-Res_Audio_to_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD_Menu/796). we all know what happened when BoG was supposed to come out.


This refers to 'several' titles ... which amount to (2): Next and BoG. Not all.


b/c a direct port requires no extra effort, whether it is free or not. the space is there doesnt mean they have to fill it. at the time the studios also often elected to use BD25 for hd dvd encodes under 25gb so neither format had the space for lossless audio. or maybe bd didnt have the space being 5gb short and hd dvd didnt have the bandwidth.


Ahhh ... so it's possible that TrueHD would have fit on HD DVD, but because of the limited capacity of Blu-ray (on most releases, mind you), the HD DVD version was gimped? You can't relate this to bitrate, because if the Blu-ray version used a higher bitrate, then how did they fit it on a smaller disc? The movie length is the same, so if they increase the bitrate for the video on Blu-ray, it's going to take up more space -- and they were already at negative 5 GB.


one problem i'm noticing is on all the hd dvd discs that has truehd, a dd+ track is also included. this really constrains what's already limited capacity on the hd dvd b/c truehd does not have a core track. it certainly seems tho warner prefers to compromise pq (troy is 3+ hours and has truehd) while paramount prefers to compromise aq (excluding lossless). either way there seems to be no quality issues, not that there's a theoretically better version to compare with. i wonder tho if paramount used a 640 dd+ track like warner does and knock the video bitrate down a few mbps would they have been able to fit a lossless track on there, even if just for marking point.

That's a very good question ... but I thought with decoding in player, they could take the TrueHD source and output the DD track? :confused:

That's a very good question ... but I thought with decoding in player, they could take the TrueHD source and output the DD track? :confused:

I am under the impression that the "core" track can not be taken out of a truHD source. That is why they have to include another audio track. So you have to have two audio tracks instead of one.

That is why DTS HD MA is a nice option. You can get the "core" 1.5 mbps track out of the full bitrate lossless track without adding another english soundtrack. It is essentially Blu Rays version of Dolby Digital +.

By the way jdg345, where did you pick up your copy of "transformers" early??

For me, Transformers is a very bad example to use for this lossy/lossless debate. The probability of me buying it is low because I didn't like the movie. Without lossless the probability is zero.

Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.
In keeping with my mantra, I'm going to say, once again that I have little to no desire for "supplements." Call me crazy, but I'd rather use the space and bandwidth for the actual audio and video of the film. The possibility that HD DVD could support high quality versions of both without these freakin' extras would be enough for me to call it good! And if the only advantage BD might have had would be to pull all three, then I'd pretty much call it even.

I know when it comes to "supplements" and the public as a whole, I'm in the minutest of minorities here. The good news is that it appears that DD+ seems to be quite capable. I've pretty well come to terms with my belief that both formats will be around for quite awhile so... if you can't beat em'... join 'em and start enjoying quality HDM.

A 16bit TrueHD would take about the same space as 1,5mbit DD+

Which means it was likely bandwidth, and not capacity, that was the issue (else the specials could have been put on another disc and they could have maxed up on audio and subtitle tracks like we saw on Blu-ray). Interesting that Bracke claims he was told capacity was the issue, though. Definitely not an issue with BD50.

How Bracke could give that 5 stars for audio when he dings a half star off the video (though one definitely ponders if another 10+ Mbs) could have helped in the areas he specific sites, is yet another indication of his whimsical (and biased) reviewing. :rolleyes:

I am under the impression that the "core" track can not be taken out of a truHD source. That is why they have to include another audio track. So you have to have two audio tracks instead of one.


I thought this was only the case with Blu-ray because mandatory TrueHD decoding was not present?


That is why DTS HD MA is a nice option. You can get the "core" 1.5 mbps track out of the full bitrate lossless track without adding another english soundtrack. It is essentially Blu Rays version of Dolby Digital +.


Only Fox is supporting this so far though, right? Is the PS3 able to do DTS HD-MA ?

Transformers
144 Min

Troy
162 Min
*has lossless track

Departed
151 Min
*has lossless track

Superman
154 min
*has lossless track



With logic like this...how can you believe 2nd hand information that there wasnt enough room? Why are people still bringing this up?


Do they really believe there wasnt enough room to place a 144 min movie on a disc with lossless even though other longer movies have been put on HD DVD with lossless? OR are some peope still upset they cant get the movie and still trying to bring down the hype tomake themselfs feel better?

Maybe some people believe George Costanza's point of view "its not a lie if you believe it to be true".

Here's why...

No lossless tracks on Transformers but you get a lot of superfluous crap compared to the other 3 long flix:rolleyes:. But, you got lossless tracks on your 3 other listed examples, but that's because they didn't load the disc up with extras. Transformers is loaded with extra stuff AT THE COST OF A LOSSLESS TRACK!

PIP vs lossless??? Thanks HD DVD... Even though it is a 2 disc set, the IME kills the main disc as there is little room left for a lossless track.

Transformers

Audio Commentary
Documentaries
Featurette
Still Gallery
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
Picture-in-Picture Commentary
GPS Tracking
Subtitle Fact Track
Customizable Menus


No in movie experience for any of the flicks you mentioned (below). That's why these films have room for lossless tracks.

TROY SE

3 Featurettes
Historical Biographies
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
In-Movie Experience
4 Previsualizations



Departed

Featurettes
Deleted Scenes
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
None

Superman II (Donner)

Supplements
Documentary
Featurette
Deleted Scenes
Theatrical Trailers
Exclusive HD Content
None



Nice try, George...:D

And if this is the case, and movies are not getting longer, I think it's pretty safe to assume that today's codecs will be that much more improved in 2-3 years. With those year over year improvements, I'm pretty sure it will be easy to 'find' any space differential between TrueHD and DD+ if they want to add the marketing point.

Of course, the BDA Supporters could tell us that we shouldn't have to wait because you can get Lossless on Blu-ray now (a little more than half the time) so why wait for it on HD DVD? Of course, they've been saying it's okay to wait for Interactivity and Networking for months and months and months now.

Of course, they could say that Interactivity and Networking is only important to a handful of folks so it doesn't matter. Of course, the percentage of folks with the gear and/or ear to hear lossless is likely smaller than the percentage of people interested in Interactivity/Networking.

At the end of the day, it's pretty clear to me that Studios prefer Interactivity/Networking and are going to shove it on discs. And it's not just the HD DVD Studios. Recent press releases from Fox and Disney (both Blu-ray exclusive) have touted this functionality and feature set.

How many major press releases have been circulated with their cornerstone being lossless audio? Hmmm.

Everyone can take advantage of Interactivity [on HD DVD]. A very small population can take advantage of Lossless. If they both have a similar cost, where do you see the Studios focusing their efforts?
O.K. I thought it was the case that most of the non-lossless BDs were neutral titles a-la lazy Warner that doesn't take the time to take advantage of blu-ray's abilities and just does one mix.

I'm pretty sure there is no home theatre gear on the planet than can reproduce a 24 bit depth anyways, no?

Those of us with (24/96-capable) DVD-A would disagree 16 bit soundtracks are "good enough".

Transformers
144 Min

Troy
162 Min
*has lossless track

Departed
151 Min
*has lossless track

Superman
154 min
*has lossless track



With logic like this...how can you believe 2nd hand information that there wasnt enough room? Why are people still bringing this up?


Do they really believe there wasnt enough room to place a 144 min movie on a disc with lossless even though other longer movies have been put on HD DVD with lossless? OR are some peope still upset they cant get the movie and still trying to bring down the hype tomake themselfs feel better?

Maybe some people believe George Costanza's point of view "its not a lie if you believe it to be true".
As I noted in post # 588, it appears they chose "supplements" over lossless.

That is, of course IF the author is to be believed.

EDIT: Now looking at Jeff's post #591 above, this certainly appears to be the case. Not my preference by any stretch, but likely appealing to the masses. If it actually speeds up adoption, I think I can handle the trade-off. 'Course that being said, I have yet to submit myself to a blind test of DD+ vs. lossless.

Those of us with (24/96-capable) DVD-A would disagree 16 bit soundtracks are "good enough".

I'm guessing he means the ability to resolve that bit depth by the DACS in your gear not what is coming in the delivery container. Is that correct jd?

Here's why...

No lossless tracks on Transformers but you get a lot of superfluous crap compared to the other 3 long flix:rolleyes:. But, you got lossless tracks on your 3 other listed examples, but that's because they didn't load the disc up with extras. Transformers is loaded with extra stuff AT THE COST OF A LOSSLESS TRACK!

PIP vs lossless??? Thanks HD DVD... Even though it is a 2 disc set, the IME kills the main disc as there is little room left for a lossless track.


I'm glad Paramount went this way. I'd much rather prefer to have all these great supplements (and the extras on this disc are FANTASTIC) over a lossless track that is only going to sound marginally better, if at all, over the reference-quality DD+ track on the disc now.

Anyone who says the decision not to go lossless killed the Transformers disc simply has not heard the HD-DVD yet. Period.

I thought this was only the case with Blu-ray because mandatory TrueHD decoding was not present?



Only Fox is supporting this so far though, right? Is the PS3 able to do DTS HD-MA ?

No, yes and sort of. The PS3 can output the DTS HD MA core at 1.5 mbps over optical or hdmi. Which is the "same" as dolby digital +, but you have the option of sending the bistream signal out , via new stand alone players, getting full lossless audio also. All from the same track no waste of space and every person can take advantage of the single soundtrack.

By the way I see you dodged my question on if you own "transformers" on hd dvd yet????

No, yes and sort of. The PS3 can output the DTS HD MA core at 1.5 mbps over optical or hdmi. Which is the "same" as dolby digital +, but you have the option of sending the bistream signal out and getting full lossless audio also. All from the same track no waste of space and every person can take advantage of the single soundtrack.

By the way I see you dodged my question on if you own "transformers" on hd dvd yet????

Has the Ps3 been updated to send HBR out ? I haven't seen that yet.

Jimbology,

You know (as do I) that the PS3 doesn't send out bitstream lossless audio yet. My wording was not clear on my point.

It has been corrected in my original post.

Jimbology,

You know that the PS3 doesn't send out bitstream lossless audio yet. I made a mistake.

It has been corrected in my original post.

I wasn't trying to bust your chops. I hadn't paid much attention to the PS3 lately and hadn't read if there were any updates coming up. I'm hoping it gets in player decoding of DTS HD MA, it keeps getting hinted at but I haven't seen it. Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

I saw a comercial for Transformers last night. It only said available on DVD, no mention of any HD media.in the words of blu-ray exclusive Homer: "Doh!"

I wasn't trying to bust your chops. I hadn't paid much attention to the PS3 lately and hadn't read if there were any updates coming up. I'm hoping it gets in player decoding of DTS HD MA, it keeps getting hinted at but I haven't seen it. Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

No problem, my original comment was not very clear. It would be nice to have DTS HD MA on the PS3. I have the Samsung 1400 for bitstream audio output, so I am one of the lucky few able to listen to full lossless DTS HD MA tracks.

I saw a comercial for Transformers last night. It only said available on DVD, no mention of any HD media.in the words of blu-ray exclusive Homer: "Doh!"
I seen that commercial as well on Fox but there is also a version that states DVD and HD DVD on another network.

phansson/jdg345, for HD DVD... it is not mandatory to include a duplicate Lossy stream of a TrueHD track since all HD DVD playback devices are required to decode it. (The specification demands at least "stereo" decoding, but all devices I know of other than the 1st gen LG combo does multi-channel.) But yes, most authors do currently include some sort of duplicated Lossy track as a best practice... which, I assume, makes the LG owners happy. :)

Here's why...

No lossless tracks on Transformers but you get a lot of superfluous crap compared to the other 3 long flix:rolleyes:. But, you got lossless tracks on your 3 other listed examples, but that's because they didn't load the disc up with extras. Transformers is loaded with extra stuff AT THE COST OF A LOSSLESS TRACK!

PIP vs lossless??? Thanks HD DVD... Even though it is a 2 disc set, the IME kills the main disc as there is little room left for a lossless track.

Transformers

Audio Commentary
Documentaries
Featurette
Still Gallery
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
Picture-in-Picture Commentary
GPS Tracking
Subtitle Fact Track
Customizable Menus


No in movie experience for any of the flicks you mentioned (below). That's why these films have room for lossless tracks.

TROY SE

3 Featurettes
Historical Biographies
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
In-Movie Experience
4 Previsualizations



Departed

Featurettes
Deleted Scenes
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
None

Superman II (Donner)

Supplements
Documentary
Featurette
Deleted Scenes
Theatrical Trailers
Exclusive HD Content
None



Nice try, George...:D

Troy has IME ... you even listed and noted it above. :confused:

Those of us with (24/96-capable) DVD-A would disagree 16 bit soundtracks are "good enough".

I'll see if I can find the thread, but I understood that even most stations were only capable of 20-21 bit reproduction.

Yes, but no PIP (HD).

I'm guessing he means the ability to resolve that bit depth by the DACS in your gear not what is coming in the delivery container. Is that correct jd?

Correct ...

No, yes and sort of. The PS3 can output the DTS HD MA core at 1.5 mbps over optical or hdmi. Which is the "same" as dolby digital +, but you have the option of sending the bistream signal out , via new stand alone players, getting full lossless audio also. All from the same track no waste of space and every person can take advantage of the single soundtrack.


Isn't the bitstream output on PS3 broken for DTS HD MA? Or did they fix that? I thought it needed a firmware update or something -- though I could be off base here.

EDIT: Ooops ... looks like this was already addressed. ;)


By the way I see you dodged my question on if you own "transformers" on hd dvd yet????

How could I own something that doesn't get released until tomorrow. :D

I'll see if I can find the thread, but I understood that even most stations were only capable of 20-21 bit reproduction.

There was a discussion in the Insiders Thread awhile back regarding the capabilities of consumer/pro DACS. I'm too lazy to dig for it but give it a shot if you like. Maybe it is a question you can bring up in there. I think FilmMixer is over there or in the tracking thread. I hope people in Socal take up FMs very generous offer to go to his mixing stage and listen to lossy/lossless there.

I saw a comercial for Transformers last night. It only said available on DVD, no mention of any HD media.in the words of blu-ray exclusive Homer: "Doh!"

Weird ... all the promo's I've seen say available only on DVD and HD DVD. In fact, there were several HD DVD PRG advertisements during the football games yesterday. Something to the effect of, "You watch your Football in HD, you should watch your movies in HD too!".

did anyone notice the "blitzkreig" of Transformers commercials during Family Guy/Amercan Dad?

Both commercials of available on DVD and Availalbe on HDDVD and DVD.

I didn't say Exclusive ... and I didn't say Marquee.

So again, if the space is there, and lossless is 'Free to Add' ... why is it missing on over 40% of releases?

And, again I ask about Spiderman 1-2 ... isn't the bit depth different from the master on these titles?
Just so you know, I am a supporter of HD DVD but own both formats. To be fair, though, using bluraystats for lossless vs lossy tracks is misleading. There are several things wrong.

For example, if you look at the Warner titles, almost all of them do not have a lossless track. The site also still includes Paramount titles that also do not have lossless tracks. If you remove just those two studios the ratio jumps way up. Warner and expecially Paramount are not BD friends.

As another example, I believe all Sony and Fox titles have a lossless track. Sony uses LPCM and Fox uses DTS HD MA. Other BD exlusive studios also tend to inlcude lossless tracks.

I used to make this same argument, I don't any longer because IMO it's false.

And this is why you're one of my favorite posters here at AVS! :D

Seriously though, spending some time in the HD DVD forums makes me appreciate this forum all the more!

Just so you know, I am a supporter of HD DVD but own both formats. To be fair, though, using bluraystats for lossless vs lossy tracks is misleading. There are several things wrong.

For example, if you look at the Warner titles, almost all of them do not have a lossless track. The site also still includes Paramount titles that also do have lossles tracks. If you remove just those two studios the ratio jumps way up. Warner and expecially Paramount are not BD friends.

As another example, I believe all Sony and Fox titles have a lossless track. Sony uses LPCM and Fox uses DTS HD MA. Other BD exlusive studios also tend to inlcude lossless tracks.

I used to make this same argument, I don't any longer because IMO it's false.

Just so you know, I am a supporter of HD DVD but own both formats. To be fair, though, using bluraystats for lossless vs lossy tracks is misleading. There are several things wrong.

For example, if you look at the Warner titles, almost all of them do not have a lossless track. The site also still includes Paramount titles that also do have lossles tracks. If you remove just those two studios the ratio jumps way up. Warner and expecially Paramount are not BD friends.

As another example, I believe all Sony and Fox titles have a lossless track. Sony uses LPCM and Fox uses DTS HD MA. Other BD exlusive studios also tend to inlcude lossless tracks.

I used to make this same argument, I don't any longer because IMO it's false.

Shouldn't the Paramount and Warner releases be counted? Whether or not they're still available (in the case of Paramount) does not preclude the fact that they chose not to add lossless to the releases.

If it's "free" to add, why wouldn't Warner throw it on their Blu-ray releases if the space was there? Unless, of course, it's not "free".

Neutral Studios seem to put the extra effort into providing IME and PiP on tracks for HD DVD and ommitting them on the Blu-ray side (since the spec isn't complete and no players support it) ... why not do the same with lossless? :confused:

Warner was notoriously lazy when it came to encoding -- they weren't about to do different audio or video encodes for the HD DVD and Blu-ray releases, if they could avoid it.

For two studios that have rumored to like HD DVD more than Blu-ray, it wouldn't sense for them to handicap the format by admitting it can't do both all the extras and lossless audio.

Shouldn't the Paramount and Warner releases be counted? Whether or not they're still available (in the case of Paramount) does not preclude the fact that they chose not to add lossless to the releases.

If it's "free" to add, why wouldn't Warner throw it on their Blu-ray releases if the space was there? Unless, of course, it's not "free".

Neutral Studios seem to put the extra effort into providing IME and PiP on tracks for HD DVD and ommitting them on the Blu-ray side (since the spec isn't complete and no players support it) ... why not do the same with lossless? :confused:

Shouldn't the Paramount and Warner releases be counted? Whether or not they're still available (in the case of Paramount) does not preclude the fact that they chose not to add lossless to the releases.

If it's "free" to add, why wouldn't Warner throw it on their Blu-ray releases if the space was there? Unless, of course, it's not "free".

Neutral Studios seem to put the extra effort into providing IME and PiP on tracks for HD DVD and ommitting them on the Blu-ray side (since the spec isn't complete and no players support it) ... why not do the same with lossless? :confused:

As I stated, that's just my opinion. As it relates strictly to the lossless vs lossy debate on titles I tend to feel that I am correct in taking that stance. Even with the high rate of lossless tracks from the BD exclusives, I am still a supporter of HD DVD but this is not the place to discuss why I feel that.

Aside: Early in this thread I have a post about this whole lossy vs lossless debacle. Just to be clear, I have tested both TrueHD and DD+ on the same titles and have come to the conclusion that "I" cannot hear any difference. As I've said before, if they sound the same then for all practical purposes they are the same except for bragging rights.

Shouldn't the Paramount and Warner releases be counted? Whether or not they're still available (in the case of Paramount) does not preclude the fact that they chose not to add lossless to the releases.

If it's "free" to add, why wouldn't Warner throw it on their Blu-ray releases if the space was there? Unless, of course, it's not "free".

Neutral Studios seem to put the extra effort into providing IME and PiP on tracks for HD DVD and ommitting them on the Blu-ray side (since the spec isn't complete and no players support it) ... why not do the same with lossless? :confused:
Actually I believe the "cost" of using PCM or other lossless soundtracks is less than the cost of creating a lossy one that sounds as good as it can for the HD DVD version. For lack of a better term, HD DVD has forced these studios to "dumb down" their soundtracks with greater effort than would be required if there were space and bandwidth for PCM.

Imagine yourself speaking freely to someone with a comparable intelligence and vocabulary level. It requires much more effort to interpret your free thoughts for someone who is less capable. Once you have, it's a good bet that the more intelligent person understood as well so there is no need to restate your thoughts at your normal level.

So to answer your first question, no. Those studios should not be counted when attempting to compare the capabilities of HD DVD and blu-ray. JamesKollar got it right.

... Just to be clear, I have tested both TrueHD and DD+ on the same titles and have come to the conclusion that "I" cannot hear any difference. As I've said before, if they sound the same then for all practical purposes they are the same except for bragging rights.

You should caveat that statement with "YMMV".

Warner and Paramount were notoriously lazy when it came to encoding -- they weren't about to do different audio or video encodes for the HD DVD and Blu-ray releases, if they could avoid it.

For two studios that have rumored to like HD DVD more than Blu-ray, it wouldn't sense for them to handicap the format by admitting it can't do both all the extras and lossless audio.

This is inaccurate, almost every single Paramount release was encoded differently for each format

This is inaccurate, almost every single Paramount release was encoded differently for each format

Really? I was always under the opposite impression. I'll happily stand corrected!

I took a look at MI: III -- the Bluray is an Mpeg-2 encode, while the HD DVD is VC-1 -- both lack lossless tracks.

You should caveat that statement with "YMMV".

Not trying to pick a fight, really I'm not, but why whould I put that in? I don't believe it. Of all the people complaining about the lack of lossless I have not seen any of the complainers state that they compared lossless to lossy. I have. I did double quote the I in my previous post. That should be enough.

I've asked for others to prove me wrong. I've challenged others by posting some of my results. I've admitted that I may have a tin ear. Yet no one has given me any title and what to listen for for a proper comparison. Quite frankly, I put far more value in FilmMixers statements than all of the complainers combined.

If I am wrong, I will immediately retract my statement, but especially with the Transformers release I firmly beleive it is in the lossless camps to prove lossless is superior to DD+.

If a title has both a lossy and lossless track, do they put as much effort into the lossy track as they could? When I have access to both tracks, I generally like the lossless better (though it may be because I expect it to sound better), but it makes me wonder if they bothered to spend the time to optimize the lossy track.

Any thoughts?

Not trying to pick a fight, really I'm not, but why whould I put that in? I don't believe it. Of all the people complaining about the lack of lossless I have not seen any of the complainers state that they compared lossless to lossy. I have. I did double quote the I in my previous post. That should be enough.

I've asked for others to prove me wrong. I've challenged others by posting some of my results. I've admitted that I may have a tin ear. Yet no one has given me any title and what to listen for for a proper comparison. Quite frankly, I put far more value in FilmMixers statements than all of the complainers combined.

If I am wrong, I will immediately retract my statement, but especially with the Transformers release I firmly beleive it is in the lossless camps to prove lossless is superior to DD+.


I don't have good comparison material nor am I willing to buy a movie I'm not interested to attempt such a comparison. I will say the DTS 1.5mbs "core" disks have sounded consistently good; though maybe not as good as your typical lossless audio tracks. I can't really make a good, fair assessment because the soundtracks are from different movies. I will say the DTS core tracks I've heard seem to be better than the DDplus tracks I've heard; but I have this suspicion about my LG players DDplus implementation (e.g. is it really the 1.5mbs soundtrack I'm hearing when I select DD+ ?).

I've got a bunch of Fox titles with DTS HD MA & core) sound tracks (and elegant solution by DTS IMHO). If/when I get access to DTS HD MA-capable hardware, I'll be able to do direct comparisons. Wait a minute, there's an assumption I'll be able to select between DTS core or DTS HD MA when the right hardware comes out. I'm not sure this is a good assumption.

I saw a comercial for Transformers last night. It only said available on DVD, no mention of any HD media.in the words of blu-ray exclusive Homer: "Doh!"

I saw several during my Tivo playing of New England vs. Dallas that pointedly mentioned "and HD DVD.":)

I saw several during my Tivo playing of New England vs. Dallas that pointedly mentioned "and HD DVD.":)

Now there's a real winner...GO PATS :-)

I will say the DTS core tracks I've heard seem to be better than the DDplus tracks I've heard; but I have this suspicion about my LG players DDplus implementation (e.g. is it really the 1.5mbs soundtrack I'm hearing when I select DD+ ?).


I'm pretty sure on that player it is the DD track you're hearing, from what I remember it does not do either TrueHD 5.1 or DD+. Someone care to verify or correct me?

BTW: To get DD+ you must not use an optical connector. If you are, you are NOT getting DD+, you're getting the core.

I saw a comercial for Transformers last night. It only said available on DVD, no mention of any HD media.in the words of blu-ray exclusive Homer: "Doh!"

I can verify that. I had the distinct displeasure of watching my Hawks get whipped last night. There were quite a few Transformer commercials but a couple of them did not mention HD DVD. I know this because the freakin commercials were more exciting to watch than the stupid game.

I'm pretty sure on that player it is the DD track you're hearing, from what I remember it does not do either TrueHD 5.1 or DD+. Someone care to verify or correct me?

BTW: To get DD+ you must not use an optical connector. If you are, you are NOT getting DD+, you're getting the core.

I typically play through the player's analog outputs. With HD DVD plays 2-channel TrueHD and claims to play 5.1 DD+ thru the analog outputs. With Blu-ray, it will play 5.1 TrueHD. Don't ask me why.

How could I own something that doesn't get released until tomorrow. :D

Then how can you have an opinion on the soundtrack of "tranformers" when you haven't heard it?

I don't have good comparison material nor am I willing to buy a movie I'm not interested to attempt such a comparison.
You can always rent.

Then how can you have an opinion on the soundtrack of "tranformers" when you haven't heard it?

huh?

Actually I believe the "cost" of using PCM or other lossless soundtracks is less than the cost of creating a lossy one that sounds as good as it can for the HD DVD version. For lack of a better term, HD DVD has forced these studios to "dumb down" their soundtracks with greater effort than would be required if there were space and bandwidth for PCM.

Imagine yourself speaking freely to someone with a comparable intelligence and vocabulary level. It requires much more effort to interpret your free thoughts for someone who is less capable. Once you have, it's a good bet that the more intelligent person understood as well so there is no need to restate your thoughts at your normal level.

So to answer your first question, no. Those studios should not be counted when attempting to compare the capabilities of HD DVD and blu-ray. JamesKollar got it right.

I guess we'll have to simply agree to disagree then. If the titles are Blu-ray, they should be counted as totals for comparison imo. *shrug*

I don't think it's fair to say, "They support Blu-ray, but not really, so that's why they didn't release lossless" ... and then say ... "Blu-ray has more studio support, by far". *shrug*

huh?

No matter how good the "transformers" hd dvd DD+ soundtrack is, we will never know if it is on par with the same track done in a truhd/pcm/dts hd ma track. That track doesn't exist where we can do a direct comparison.


You can't prove it one way or the other.

No matter how good the "transformers" hd dvd DD+ soundtrack is, we will never know if it is on par with the same track done in a truhd/pcm/dts hd ma track. That track doesn't exist where we can do a direct comparison.


You can't prove it one way or the other.

Okay ... still ... relative to lossless on Blu-ray, it received a perfect score ... so ...

Look, this is a silly round-robin argument ... tomorrow the Blu-ray folks can have the forum and complain about how they would have gone Neutral if Transformers had a lossless track while the rest of everyone watches Transformers in HD DVD goodness. ;)

I guess we'll have to simply agree to disagree then.
Agreed :)

Agreed :)

:)

Okay ... still ... relative to lossless on Blu-ray, it received a perfect score ... so ...

Look, this is a silly round-robin argument ... tomorrow the Blu-ray folks can have the forum and complain about how they would have gone Neutral if Transformers had a lossless track while the rest of everyone watches Transformers in HD DVD goodness. ;)
Ba$tard!!!

:)

I'm in! Gotta' wait for Christmas, though as real estate is not selling like it did a few years back. Then there's the fact that we have a new baby due in mid November. Not exactly easy street days right now.

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

Although I would have preferred a lossless track, I am definitely planning on picking this movie up.I agree 100%. Most complaining are bluRay boys that can't watch it anyway. :rolleyes:

Ba$tard!!!

:)

I'm in! Gotta' wait for Christmas, though as real estate is not selling like it did a few years back. Then there's the fact that we have a new baby due in mid November. Not exactly easy street days right now.


250 is probably all you need to get the HD DVD player Transformers and 5 - 7 additional HD DVDs. Extremely reasonable IMHO.

Okay ... still ... relative to lossless on Blu-ray, it received a perfect score ... so ...

Look, this is a silly round-robin argument ... tomorrow the Blu-ray folks can have the forum and complain about how they would have gone Neutral if Transformers had a lossless track while the rest of everyone watches Transformers in HD DVD goodness. ;)

Now wait a minute, did any of those reviews say that it was a perfect score "relative to Blu Ray"?I don't think so. There are quite a few DVDs that have gotten perfect scores in the past. Does that mean that they are as good as a lossless/1.5 DD+ track??? No.

Don't try to fool your self. It should have had a lossless track. I am sure that the 1.5 mbps DD+ is good. Could it have been better, we will know in about 18 months.:D

Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

Now wait a minute, did any of those reviews say that it was a perfect score "relative to Blu Ray"?I don't think so. There are quite a few DVDs that have gotten perfect scores in the past. Does that mean that they are as good as a lossless/1.5 DD+ track??? No.

Don't try to fool your self. It should have had a lossless track. I am sure that the 1.5 mbps DD+ is good. Could it have been better, we will know in about 18 months.:D

Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

The DD+ is more than "good" and you know it. Oh wait, you won't know it. Ooops, sorry.

But these guys DO know it...

Transformers Audio?

HighDefDigest
5 stars/5 stars

TVPredictions
5 stars/5 stars

DVDTown
10/10

DVDTalk
5 stars/5 stars

HighDefDiscNews
5 stars/5 stars


And as far as knowing it in 18 months, wishful thinking. Blu has to be around in 18 months, and it looks like that could be pretty questionable by then. Maybe they'll have a finalized spec RIGHT before Sony pulls the plug on the whole damn thing.

Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

I'm sure you believe that, but I can't believe that you believe that! :eek:

DD+ is good enough for me, I won't lose any sleep over it not having lossless. I bet 95% of the complainers on this board wouldn't be able to tell the difference in a double-blind test.

Now wait a minute, did any of those reviews say that it was a perfect score "relative to Blu Ray"?I don't think so. There are quite a few DVDs that have gotten perfect scores in the past. Does that mean that they are as good as a lossless/1.5 DD+ track??? No.

Don't try to fool your self. It should have had a lossless track. I am sure that the 1.5 mbps DD+ is good. Could it have been better, we will know in about 18 months.:D

Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

Correct me if am wrong, but the reviewers are comparing the Transformers DD+ track to the best lossless they have heard on BD and HD DVD to this point in time. Most are unequivocally stating that it is at least as good as anything that has gone before - therefore the 5/5 rating. What's interesting is that a DD+ track can even get a perfect score and what's even more interesting is that it's not the first time - Hot Fuzz, another DD+ track also got a "perfect score". I have heard the Hot Fuzz track and it's the best, IMO, that I've heard this far - will hear the Transformers track soon. Interestingly we use acolades to describe highly compressed video that isn't even close to lossless and call it HD and then use pejorative language to describe audio that is often much less compressed than the video.

Cheers,

Grant

Ba$tard!!!

:)

I'm in! Gotta' wait for Christmas, though as real estate is not selling like it did a few years back. Then there's the fact that we have a new baby due in mid November. Not exactly easy street days right now.

I don't agree with you as far as HD formats, but I will congratulate you on your new addition. Your posts always have a certain amount of levity in them which is always a good thing. Good luck........yawn...yawn...yawn. No rest for the wicked.

HOT FUZZ vs TRANSFORMERS. Which one is a hair's breath better in AQ? ;)

It might go to Transformers because it has a lot more looooooow, loooooooud and punchy bass.

Down to 15hz perhaps? :eek:

Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.
A bona fide NON-issue again being blown out of proportion. It's these type claims that are going to get this thread deleted, which would be fine by me.

Now wait a minute, did any of those reviews say that it was a perfect score "relative to Blu Ray"?I don't think so. There are quite a few DVDs that have gotten perfect scores in the past. Does that mean that they are as good as a lossless/1.5 DD+ track??? No.

Don't try to fool your self. It should have had a lossless track. I am sure that the 1.5 mbps DD+ is good. Could it have been better, we will know in about 18 months.:D

Transformers not having a loss-less track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

Why? Because certain posters have ten thousand dollars systems to even notice? Even in this forum I would bet that the majority would not even be able to tell the difference between loss-less and DD+. Filmixer has offered a challenge to anyone in the LA area to differentiate the two. I would LOVE to see the "Golden Ears" in the LA area take him up on his challenge. I don't think we will see him announce any takers. Heck he will even take you to lunch if you can tell the difference. Even if you don't live in the LA area, if you think you "ears" are up to snuff, next time you are in LA give him a ring. If nothing else, his "rig" should be impressive.

Filmfixer has offered the challenge. NO ONE (at least an AVS'er) to my knowledge has publicly accepted it.

The usual suspect should have taken up this offer right away. Confidently.

It says a lot.

Personally, I will buy the SD DVD. My 4 year old son is going to watch it in his room anyway.

Are you sure the only reason you won't be buying the HD DVD version is because you are a blu-ray fan boy??? :D

250 is probably all you need to get the HD DVD player Transformers and 5 - 7 additional HD DVDs. Extremely reasonable IMHO.
No argument. But which one to get. A gen 3 seems like a good idea. I've seen so many threads on reliability issues that I'm a bit reluctant.

I don't agree with you as far as HD formats, but I will congratulate you on your new addition. Your posts always have a certain amount of levity in them which is always a good thing. Good luck........yawn...yawn...yawn. No rest for the wicked.
I appreciate that. I hope to, like you soon be "bi-format" with a preference.

As far as the sleep issue is concerned, I'm trying not to think about that right now. The good news is my mother-in-law will be coming to stay with us to help out, thus... after a few days to get to know my new baby, I'll be working loooooonnnnng hours while she's here.

Filmfixer has offered the challenge. NO ONE (at least an AVS'er) to my knowledge has publicly accepted it.

The usual suspect should have taken up this offer right away. Confidently.

It says a lot.

Yep, the "Golden Ears" are "silent." I would think "The Bland" would take him up on the offer, don't you? I think the point has been made.

I'm curious -- why do you think BR will be out of business in a year and a half?

The DD+ is more than "good" and you know it. Oh wait, you won't know it. Ooops, sorry.

But these guys DO know it...

Transformers Audio?

HighDefDigest
5 stars/5 stars

TVPredictions
5 stars/5 stars

DVDTown
10/10

DVDTalk
5 stars/5 stars

HighDefDiscNews
5 stars/5 stars


And as far as knowing it in 18 months, wishful thinking. Blu has to be around in 18 months, and it looks like that could be pretty questionable by then. Maybe they'll have a finalized spec RIGHT before Sony pulls the plug on the whole damn thing.

I'm curious -- why do you think BR will be out of business in a year and a half?

Can you say Beta or Mini Disc?? LOL....

I'm curious -- why do you think BR will be out of business in a year and a half?

Just speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to see a further drop in player prices (an upconverting player with HD DVD functionality) and lower prices on the HD DVD software.

The AQ will not matter in the long run. Take the filmmixer up on his offer. Can YOU tell the difference. You would even get a free lunch. I know someone posted that he being "anonymous" can post anything he wants but he is a "bona fide" insider so AVS must have checked out his credentials. Well, as I have been defending HD DVD I will get back to the BD "Halloween." Great remaster by the way, but HD DVD does so much more and for so much less.

I agree -- cheaper player prices and cheaper software would be a good thing -- (although some people on this thread would say that's just a gimmick or sign of desperation :D )

I agree that AQ won't be a major selling point in the medium time between when average people are really getting into HD medium -- but in the long run, in HTiB will have lossless capabilities and be sold for $200 at Wally Mart. So, the perceived audio advantages may matter -- just maybe too late.

I have no idea if I could tell the difference -- I've never gotten into the lossless sounds better lossy game precisely because I've never experienced it. And if I had the time (stupid law school!) I would love to take FilmMixer up on his offer -- it'd be a fun experience, if nothing else!

I guess I just disagree that HD DVD will always be so much cheaper than BR -- or that it will always do so much more (especially since the "more" it does is both useless to me and useless to most people, I don't find that persuasive.)

Just speculation but I wouldn't be surprised to see a further drop in player prices (an upconverting player with HD DVD functionality) and lower prices on the HD DVD software.

The AQ will not matter in the long run. Take the filmmixer up on his offer. Can YOU tell the difference. You would even get a free lunch. I know someone posted that he being "anonymous" can post anything he wants but he is a "bona fide" insider so AVS must have checked out his credentials. Well, as I have been defending HD DVD I will get back to the BD "Halloween." Great remaster by the way, but HD DVD does so much more and for so much less.

Can you say Beta or Mini Disc?? LOL....

Or PS1. PS2. The original walkman. Even if Bluray were solely a Sony game, which it isn't -- Sony hasn't always failed.

The DD+ is more than "good" and you know it. Oh wait, you won't know it. Ooops, sorry.


And as far as knowing it in 18 months, wishful thinking. Blu has to be around in 18 months, and it looks like that could be pretty questionable by then. Maybe they'll have a finalized spec RIGHT before Sony pulls the plug on the whole damn thing.

why wouldn't I be able to. I also own an hd dvd player. Do you own a Blu Ray player??

Why? Because certain posters have ten thousand dollars systems to even notice? Even in this forum I would bet that the majority would not even be able to tell the difference between loss-less and DD+. Filmixer has offered a challenge to anyone in the LA area to differentiate the two. I would LOVE to see the "Golden Ears" in the LA area take him up on his challenge. I don't think we will see him announce any takers. Heck he will even take you to lunch if you can tell the difference. Even if you don't live in the LA area, if you think you "ears" are up to snuff, next time you are in LA give him a ring. If nothing else, his "rig" should be impressive.

I personally do not live close enough to L.A. to even think about it. If I lived there, I would take filmixer up on it.


The fact of the matter is 99.9% of the people on this forum have never heard a full bitrate lossless track and the SAME track in 1.5 mbps.

Until you hear both and make your own personal decision, you have no reason to comment whether or not it is better or worse!!!!

I personally do not live close enough to L.A. to even think about it. If I lived there, I would take filmixer up on it.


The fact of the matter is 99.9% of the people on this forum have never heard a full bitrate lossless track and the SAME track in 1.5 mbps.

Until you hear both and make your own personal decision, you have no reason to comment whether or not it is better or worse!!!!
You also have no room to comment on what's better or worse unless you've heard them both blindly and can properly assess what you're hearing without placebo or bias.

You also have no room to comment on what's better or worse unless you've heard them both blindly and can properly assess what you're hearing without placebo or bias.

Really, have I commented that way??? I personally think it should have had a lossless track.

Transformers is the #1 hd dvd release of the year.
A way to show of the format.
Its a science fiction action flick.

For god sakes you put a truhd track on accepted and clerks II. Not on the biggest "blockbuster" ever to be released on hd dvd????


The only reason it should not have been on there was if they COULDN'T fit it on a 30gb disc. Now with the rumors from highdefdigest it appears that was the case from the beginning. Rumored to be from Paramounts mouth.

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html

WHO CARES?!!?

5/5 and 10/10 for AQ. Reference the fact that DD+ is HD audio and that no one here can tell the difference between lossy and lossless HD audio

no one here can tell the difference between lossy and lossless HD audio

Have you heard a full bitrate lossless track and its 1.5 mbps counterpart?

I seriously doubt it....

Glad we got your opinion on it anyway.

WHO CARES?!!?

5/5 and 10/10 for AQ. Reference the fact that DD+ is HD audio and that no one here can tell the difference between lossy and lossless HD audio

Nobody here can tell the difference between 480p and 1080p encoded material. If I can't tell the difference than nobody can, I swear the world isn't bigger than me !:eek:

Do any HD-DVD titles use 3 Mbps bitrate DD+ tracks? I would think it would be a good comprise between space and quality. TrueHD is usually around 3-5 Mbps anyway, and at bitrates that high I doubt anyone with a sub $50K system can hear the difference.

Really, have I commented that way??? I personally think it should have had a lossless track.
No, you haven't as such but you're implying it. There is nil reason to include an audio format (when video is more important) that is perceptually transparent to 99% of us (if not more...the rest are likely victims of the aforementioned placebo/bias).

WHO CARES?!!?

5/5 and 10/10 for AQ. Reference the fact that DD+ is HD audio and that no one here can tell the difference between lossy and lossless HD audio

You know, I keep hearing that "no one can tell the difference" thing -- and either people, including many of the reviewers who rated Transformers so highly, believe they can hear a difference.

But that aside, I can only wonder why Studios would continue to waste their time on useless lossless tracks -- if they cost more money, more time, no one can hear the difference, why in the world would studios use them at all? Certainly the studios have people like FilmMixer who work for them -- why wouldn't they have informed the execs of how useless lossless is?

No, you haven't as such but you're implying it. There is nil reason to include an audio format (when video is more important) that is perceptually transparent to 99% of us (if not more...the rest are likely victims of the aforementioned placebo/bias).

with that logic, you could go back to a standard dvd player hooked up to a SDTV and just sit back a little further.

That will "look" like hd, but it isn't:).

Why should you take any of these reviewers' words at face value unless they can document that they used a proper testing methodology to remove their imagination from the picture?

with that logic, you could go back to a standard dvd player hooked up to a SDTV and just sit back a little further.

That will "look" like hd, but it isn't:).
That is a really lengthy logical reach of your own accord if I've ever heard one. It does not take tens of thousands of dollars (which might or might not afford you a difference in detectable audio quality) to truly see the difference that 1080p provides if you have adequate vision.

Here we go again:

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/resultsz2.png
This is the type of perceptively transparent material 128 kbps can provide (64 kbps per channel).

DDS at 1.5 Mbps divided across 5 channels (320 kbps each) would, in all likelihood, result in transparency for all involved in any similar double blind test. This is why I consider Archangel's question a good one. When did lossless audio first come about in HT? Was it with the advent of these high-def formats? I think that would be part of the answer, another marketing bullet to spread mass hysteria to those easily swayed fools (audiophiles mainly) who were brave enough initially to assume a lossy DD+ encode was good enough.

Why should you take any of these reviewers' words at face value unless they can document that they used a proper testing methodology to remove their imagination from the picture?

I don't take their words at face value, and certainly don't offer it as proof that there is a difference -- only that there is a disagreement. I'm all in favor of Audioholics doing a thorough test of this theory to finally put it to rest.

But I ask you, why do you think studios continue to waste time, money, and effort on useless audio tracks?

Vinnie97,

Yes it is a reach, but to say that lossless is indistinguishable from a 1.5 mbps track without doing any testing is absurd. I do not care about someone elses opinion on the matter. I want personal experiences. Give me some of yours?? Not some graph that you found using google.

There is a thread on the Blu Ray software forum about the DTS HD MA soundtracks on Fox releases. A few AVS'ers have said that they can "hear" a difference between the core DTS track and the lossless DTS HD MA track. How can I say that they are wrong??? Are they making it up?

Is the full lossless track louder, hell yes it is, I can't even watch FF: ROSS at reference levels with the DTS HD MA track. Does it sound good?? It sounds better than the DD+ track on King Kong. That is my opinion, take it or leave it. At least I have listened to both on my own personal setup.

The fact of the matter is 99% (a number you brought up by the way) of the people on this forum, justifying DD+ on Transformers, have nothing to base their opinion on.

I think one poll showed that the majority of hd dvd owners watch on a 720p tv. I guess they have to sit just a little further away. 10/10 PQ!!!!

Archangel, I already presumed that part of the reason might be a marketing bullet to get HT buffs hyped up at the prospect of even "better" sound! Other than that, I have no theories. I'm waiting to see some verifiable proof that someone can truly detect the difference.

Give me some of yours?? Not some graph that you found using google.
Incorrect, I am a regular form member at www.hydrogenaudio.org where the test was organized (and many like it) where you also might consider joining and I *do* engage in tests there whenever I feel like I can contribute. With the hyperacusis in my left ear, I have to be careful because my tolerance is lower. That 128 kbps graph I posted would show 5s all across the board in my case because of the above fact (and I'm not as sensitive to all artifacts).

There is a thread on the Blu Ray software forum about the DTS HD MA soundtracks on Fox releases. A few AVS'ers have said that they can "hear" a difference between the core DTS track and the lossless DTS HD MA track. How can I say that they are wrong??? Are they making it up?

Is the full lossless track louder, hell yes it is, I can't even watch FF: ROSS at reference levels with the DTS HD MA track. Does it sound good?? It sounds better than the DD+ track on King Kong. That is my opinion. Take it or leave it. At least I have listened to both on my own personal setup.
Comparing lossy versus lossless across 2 different films is *not* objective enough to make any conclusion.

The fact of the matter is 99% (a number you brought up by the way) of the people on this forum, justifying DD+ on Transformers, have nothing to base their opinion on.
That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof is on those who claim lossless audio actually makes a difference. Filmixer has already made a claim that it does not and I hope he provides some documentation that chronicles his own inability to detect the difference between the master and the DD+ encode. If not, I hope some of the golden ears take him up on his offer!

I'm not bothering with your 720p remark, as 1080p is all you can get on either format!

archangel

You know, I keep hearing that "no one can tell the difference" thing -- and either people, including many of the reviewers who rated Transformers so highly, believe they can hear a difference.

The key word in there is "believe". A lot of people believe a lot of things that are wrong. Simply believing something doesnt make it true.

phansson,

. A few AVS'ers have said that they can "hear" a difference between the core DTS track and the lossless DTS HD MA track. How can I say that they are wrong??? Are they making it up?

Not to be flip, but quite a few people say they have met aliens, that the moon landing was a fake and so forth. Are they making it up? I doubt it, and they probably believe what they are saying. Just like the AVSers who claim to hear a difference.

However, once again, belief does not make it true. That is why we have science. If these individuals could reliably detect the differences under controlled conditions, then you could believe them.

The problem is, that when these types of tests are done, people cant tell the difference.

Archangel, I already presumed that part of the reason might be a marketing bullet to get HT buffs hyped up at the prospect of even "better" sound! Other than that, I have no theories. I'm waiting to see some verifiable proof that someone can truly detect the difference.

That is what I am waiting on.


Comparing lossy versus lossless across 2 different films is *not* objective enough to make any conclusion.

Agreed, on the King Kong comment. I was trying to get the point across that with DTS HD MA you can listen to both the lossless track and the 1.5 mbps from the exact same track. This is where they are hearing a difference.


That's where you're wrong. The burden of proof is on those who claim lossless audio actually makes a difference. Filmixer has already made a claim that it does not and I hope he provides some documentation that chronicles his own inability to detect the difference between the master and the DD+ encode. If not, I hope some of the golden ears take him up on his offer!

No, the burden of proof is on both sides. Not just one. Filmixers comments are only part of the equation. He shouldn't be the first and final authority. For science to occur, you have to have a theory, a control, a test and a result. we haven't had that on this forum in quite some time. It would be nice if we did.

I'm not bothering with your 720p remark, as 1080p is all you can get on either format!

I was talking about what display type they are using. I know that most discs on both formats are stored 1080p. Actually a lot of hd dvd players can only ouput 1080i, but I will not bother with that remark.

The problem with not reading all the posts -- I've already answered your question when Vinnie asked it -- I wasn't offering as proof, but as proof of a disagreement.

Still, why do you think studios continue to use lossless audio even though its more expensive in time, money, and effort and no one can tell the difference?

archangel


The key word in there is "believe". A lot of people believe a lot of things that are wrong. Simply believing something doesnt make it true.

phansson,



Not to be flip, but quite a few people say they have met aliens, that the moon landing was a fake and so forth. Are they making it up? I doubt it, and they probably believe what they are saying. Just like the AVSers who claim to hear a difference.

However, once again, belief does not make it true. That is why we have science. If these individuals could reliably detect the differences under controlled conditions, then you could believe them.

The problem is, that when these types of tests are done, people cant tell the difference.

The problem is, that when these types of tests are done, people cant tell the difference.

where is this miracle test. I guess no one on this forum has ever seen it.

Do any HD-DVD titles use 3 Mbps bitrate DD+ tracks? I would think it would be a good comprise between space and quality.No... and I don't think anyone would attempt it, even above 5.1 channels. I definitely wouldn't. 1.5 Mbps DD+ for 5.1 content is already at or beyond what Dolby itself considers perceptual transparency and my audio engineer self agrees. For anything beyond (if you really want to use more bandwidth than 1.5 Mbps), it's best to just go Lossless... TrueHD/MLP is quite efficient.

Grommet raises a good point. If we're talking 7.1, sure, lossless all the way (or a higher bitrate Dolby Digital plus ;)).

Phansson, thanks for the clarification. I take any such 1.5 versus DTS HD MA comparison with a grain of salt. Were both decoded in the same manner? And again, the proof rests on the side of the dissenters claiming Dolby Digital plus is not perceptually transparent when compared to the master. I also never claimed Filmixer is the final authority but he has the equipment and can provide the proper listening test environment for multiple brave people to be fully honest with themselves. Since there is no such formal test (we already know the theory...DD+ is perceptually transparent to the master from whence it comes) being arranged, this method is second best.

Interesting! So we may indeed have a need for lossless -- high res 7.1 sound?

Meaning, 1.5 megabits DD+ may not be enough "bits" to be completely transparent to the master like a good lossless track.

And if that's true, does this mean Blu-ray have a real advantage in the future -- the possibility for high res 7.1 lossless where HD DVD might struggle? Hmmm....

By the way, very nice post Vinnie.

Thank you, Archangel. :) It's always nice to find common ground in these heated debates. Blu-Ray *may* be better futureproofed in regards to 7.1 audio (increasing the bitrate to account for the extra channels is another solution but might also push HD DVD to its limits, even with a TL51 disc where bandwidth rather than size might be a problem). With psychoacoustic compression continually improving, however, that advantage could also be canceled out.

I don't take their words at face value, and certainly don't offer it as proof that there is a difference -- only that there is a disagreement. I'm all in favor of Audioholics doing a thorough test of this theory to finally put it to rest.

There is a thread on the Blu Ray software forum about the DTS HD MA soundtracks on Fox releases. A few AVS'ers have said that they can "hear" a difference between the core DTS track and the lossless DTS HD MA track. How can I say that they are wrong??? Are they making it up?
I agree - without tests the argument is just silly...................but I'd be willing to bet the test(s) would turn out like

this one for Amps/Receivers (http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx)

The new Slappy 6000 has a warmer sound with more detail..............oh crap, turns out I can't really tell an amp from an iPod

On the other hand the LPCM vs compressed lossless is stupid & thank goodness the idiots who demand the former aren't in tech fields otherwise we'd never have "new fangled" zip files :D

The question posed by this thread is nonsensical. "What will you buy instead?" Guess what? Whatever you buy instead won't have as high quality audio as the DD+ track on the HD-DVD. Nor will any other media have the 1080p image of the HD-DVD. Paramount made their bizarre move away from format-neutrality, and like it or not, this movie in HD is not going to be available on bluray. What a silly thread!

I agree - without tests the argument is just silly...................but I'd be willing to bet the test(s) would turn out like

this one for Amps/Receivers (http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx)

The new Slappy 6000 has a warmer sound with more detail..............oh crap, turns out I can't really tell an amp from an iPod

On the other hand the LPCM vs compressed lossless is stupid & thank goodness the idiots who demand the former aren't in tech fields otherwise we'd never
have "new fangled" zip files :D

Are you familiar with Audioholics? If you are, you would know their reviews are much more thorough than you average HT magazine. They would be an ideal testing ground for this theory.

And I don't think many people are arguing about uncompressed v. lossless here. I'm sure not!

That is a really lengthy logical reach of your own accord if I've ever heard one. It does not take tens of thousands of dollars (which might or might not afford you a difference in detectable audio quality) to truly see the difference that 1080p provides if you have adequate vision.

Here we go again:

http://www.listening-tests.info/mf-128-1/resultsz2.png
This is the type of perceptively transparent material 128 kbps can provide (64 kbps per channel).
18 Samples?

Enough said.

EDIT: But I'll say more anyway.

This test, even with it's limited sampling shows a range. It gives an average. That is the one part about it that I agree with. Some people can perceive sound nuances better than others. If you can show me tests PROVING that NO ONE or for a large sample... almost no one can tell the difference between 320 (160/ch) and wav, I'll be all ears. As I've said before I am open to the idea that 320kbps/ch. (roughly 1.5M for 5.1) may be imperceptible (to me) from the master or even CD/wav quality, but certainly not the lower bitrates that you are talking about.

Throw me a bone here. I'm almost agreeing with you.

He shouldn't be the first and final authority.

you are right but the thing about this, he is the ONLY one that has heard the MASTER v DD+ or TrueHD. Without anyone else being able to do that, that makes his assesment valid as he has had the opportunity to compare against the master. None of us here, unless there are more film mixers incognito, have the means to hear the master much less compare against it. And the studios will not just release the master audio for sake of a comparo, not happening.

There is a thread on the Blu Ray software forum about the DTS HD MA soundtracks on Fox releases. A few AVS'ers have said that they can "hear" a difference between the core DTS track and the lossless DTS HD MA track. How can I say that they are wrong??? Are they making it up?



If they weren't level matched you know very well that those comments are worthless.

Art

you are right but the thing about this, he is the ONLY one that has heard the MASTER v DD+ or TrueHD. Without anyone else being able to do that, that makes his assesment valid as he has had the opportunity to compare against the master. None of us here, unless there are more film mixers incognito, have the means to hear the master much less compare against it. And the studios will not just release the master audio for sake of a comparo, not happening.
This is NOT a referendum on FilmMixer, but I can tell you that it's a fact that I have gone up against one highly experienced, professional engineer and proven, in a blind test that I can hear better than he. I also proved to him in the same, blind test that I can perceive what he was taught were imperceptible changes (<2db) in both volume and frequency.

Equipment:

Mackie D8B 24-track digital mixer (10 grand at the time)
Genelec studio monitors
Neumann and some classic, tube mics


Just because someone is an engineer does not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can hear better than the rest of us. And this one example (me) does not scientifically prove anything either, other than you need a large sample for a scientific test to be fully valid.

All that said, I am STILL open to the idea that FilmMixer is correct. I wish I had the time and money to pay him a visit. I think that would be fun as he11! Not everyone gets this opportunity, yet all of us in the discussion have been offered. Does no one live close enough or have the means?

I live in the BF"MN" and my job prevents me giong that way. :)

Are you familiar with Audioholics? If you are, you would know their reviews are much more thorough than you average HT magazine. They would be an ideal testing ground for this theory.

And I don't think many people are arguing about uncompressed v. lossless here. I'm sure not!
Yes, quite familiar - that's where I got the reviews on a POS Denon receiver I bought some 10 years ago :D I'm not holding that against them though :D

My comment was not against Audioholics - it was simply that test was the only true measure and what my guess would be as to the outcome.

I realize this isn't LPCM vs lossless - just a side comment :)

archangel,

Still, why do you think studios continue to use lossless audio even though its more expensive in time, money, and effort and no one can tell the difference?

Marketing. Just look at all the people on this board clamoring for a lossless track. It also allows them to say they have a lossless track which is a good marketing trick also.

phansson,

where is this miracle test. I guess no one on this forum has ever seen it.

there is no one test. However, there is a chart that has been posted in this thread. Also go to any of the audiophile websites (e.g. audioholics) and there are plenty of tests that have been discussed.

Sketcha,

If you can show me tests PROVING that NO ONE or for a large sample... almost no one can tell the difference between 320 (160/ch) and wav, I'll be all ears.

No one is claiming that NO ONE can hear the difference. There probably are some people who could, just like there are some people with perfect pitch. That isnt the question, the question is, is the difference so absolutely audibly clear that most people can tell the difference. If only 1 in 100 people can tell the difference between a lossless and 1.5 mb track, then the vaunted superiority of lossless is questionable, and it is arguable that the industry should focus it time on efforts on such a small segment of the population.

You know, I keep hearing that "no one can tell the difference" thing -- and either people, including many of the reviewers who rated Transformers so highly, believe they can hear a difference.

But that aside, I can only wonder why Studios would continue to waste their time on useless lossless tracks -- if they cost more money, more time, no one can hear the difference, why in the world would studios use them at all? Certainly the studios have people like FilmMixer who work for them -- why wouldn't they have informed the execs of how useless lossless is?

archangel37, I'm tying to put together a working theory that I can support that lossless in any format may be holding back higher quality audio tracks. I've been on the insiders thread asking a few questions but I'm not ready yet to post my findings and suppositions, still missing some key pieces of information.

That said, I admit to a bias that has formed over time that has led me to believe that lossless tracks are mostly a marketing gimmick and may actually lead to the degradation of the AQ. Here's some facts:

1) A 5.1 PCM track at 48/24 takes 6912000 mbps for 48/24.
2) Some have called for 6.1 or 7.1. Each addtional track requires and additional 1382400mps. 7.1 would require 9216000 mbps.
3) For 96/24, double the bit rate. For example, 5.1 96/24 would require a whopping 13824000 mbps.
4) Using True HD (should be same for DTS HD MA but I do not have independent verification) there are places in some sound tracks where the compression algorithm cannot compress the sound. For periods of time the lossless compressed codecs will need to output raw PCM at full bit rate to be truly lossless. I have verification that this is indeed done on TrueHD but not on DTS HD MA.
5) Lossy codecs do not have this problem and can deliver a constant bitrate with a cap you can set . For example, DD+ you set the cap at 1.5mps and be assurred that there will not be any bitrate peaks to account for. When these lossless non compressable sections come up, they are still compressable because some resulting missing information can be interpolated and compressed.

What I am trying to do is to flesh this out with real facts to back up what I think may be happening with these lossless tracks and the impact they are having on AQ in general. Being an outsider, it may not be possible, but I do have the insiders thread to try to help me out.

And finally, as you know but others may not, I have posted that I have at least tried to compare lossless to lossy and some of my results. My most telling test was Happy Feet where I could not discern a difference at all. Volume levels between the DD+ and TrueHD tracks were equal so that removed one variable completely. I know it is "only" a 48/16 track, but if you own this title on HD DVD try it for yourself.

Lossless advocate here! Why not?. It's here, its on a high number of BD discs, and the studios including it (except when they run out of disc space)..But then again, I am picky about my audio, and room, and acoustical treatments, noise floor, EQ, etc., etc.. I'll concede that if you have an average set up, then DD+ is more than fine and somewhat an improvement over DD.

Yes, quite familiar - that's where I got the reviews on a POS Denon receiver I bought some 10 years ago :D I'm not holding that against them though :D

My comment was not against Audioholics - it was simply that test was the only true measure and what my guess would be as to the outcome.

I realize this isn't LPCM vs lossless - just a side comment :)

Ah, more than fair! :)

archangel37, I'm tying to put together a working theory that I can support that lossless in any format may be holding back higher quality audio tracks. I've been on the insiders thread asking a few questions but I'm not ready yet to post my findings and suppositions, still missing some key pieces of information.

That said, I admit to a bias that has formed over time that has led me to believe that lossless tracks are mostly a marketing gimmick and may actually lead to the degradation of the AQ. ...

....

It's difficult for me to imagine how the use of lossless audio tracks can result in audio quality degradation. I'm anxiously waiting for the theory you are hinting at (both lossless compression codecs are actually "lossy"?) . This could be interesting.

I'll add one more fact: There are already examples of high def video releases which use 5.1 24/96 uncompressed soundtracks. I'm not sure where you think you are going with your "facts". Maybe reading between the lines is not my forte. :)

Marketing -- exactly -- so then why fail to use it on some high-profile tracks?

archangel,



Marketing. Just look at all the people on this board clamoring for a lossless track. It also allows them to say they have a lossless track which is a good marketing trick also.

phansson,



there is no one test. However, there is a chart that has been posted in this thread. Also go to any of the audiophile websites (e.g. audioholics) and there are plenty of tests that have been discussed.

Sketcha,



No one is claiming that NO ONE can hear the difference. There probably are some people who could, just like there are some people with perfect pitch. That isnt the question, the question is, is the difference so absolutely audibly clear that most people can tell the difference. If only 1 in 100 people can tell the difference between a lossless and 1.5 mb track, then the vaunted superiority of lossless is questionable, and it is arguable that the industry should focus it time on efforts on such a small segment of the population.

Ba$tard!!!

:)

I'm in! Gotta' wait for Christmas, though as real estate is not selling like it did a few years back. Then there's the fact that we have a new baby due in mid November. Not exactly easy street days right now.

New baby or first baby? Because if it's the latter, you can just completely forget about having any time at all to sit down and watch anything ... ;)

Now wait a minute, did any of those reviews say that it was a perfect score "relative to Blu Ray"?I don't think so. There are quite a few DVDs that have gotten perfect scores in the past. Does that mean that they are as good as a lossless/1.5 DD+ track??? No.


We're not talking about DVD's ... we're talking about HDM. If the reviewer is reviewing Blu-ray discs and HD DVD discs, then clearly he has to rate them one against the other. Otherwise, how would they rate them at all without having access to the master? The only way to rate AQ is to do so by listening to the film and comparing it on some level to other things you have reviewed -- including Blu-ray releases.


Don't try to fool your self. It should have had a lossless track. I am sure that the 1.5 mbps DD+ is good. Could it have been better, we will know in about 18 months.:D


I would rather they put the time and money into Extras than lossless, but that's just me.


Transformers not having a lossless track was the 2nd most idiotic thing Paramount has done in the past two months.

Perhaps, in your opinion. Clearly they -- and others -- feel differently. :D

That is an interesting theory -- lossless as a detriment to audio quality. You've peeked my interest.

What you're saying then is that with lossy compression, we can have 96/24 bit audio, while with lossless compression, we may not because of the extreme bandwidth numbers involved in the peak bursts where TrueHD (and maybe DTS MA) cannot compress the data? Something like that?

I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding your point, because the data on DTS's website says DTS MA is more than capable of 96/24 7.1 audio on both Blu-ray and HD DVD, with different max bitrates. Dolby's website claims the same thing.

I remember your threads, and I also seem to remember you mentioned some differences, if incredibly minor, in other movies. Was I mistaken?

archangel37, I'm tying to put together a working theory that I can support that lossless in any format may be holding back higher quality audio tracks. I've been on the insiders thread asking a few questions but I'm not ready yet to post my findings and suppositions, still missing some key pieces of information.

That said, I admit to a bias that has formed over time that has led me to believe that lossless tracks are mostly a marketing gimmick and may actually lead to the degradation of the AQ. Here's some facts:

1) A 5.1 PCM track at 48/24 takes 6912000 mbps for 48/24.
2) Some have called for 6.1 or 7.1. Each addtional track requires and additional 1382400mps. 7.1 would require 9216000 mbps.
3) For 96/24, double the bit rate. For example, 5.1 96/24 would require a whopping 13824000 mbps.
4) Using True HD (should be same for DTS HD MA but I do not have independent verification) there are places in some sound tracks where the compression algorithm cannot compress the sound. For periods of time the lossless compressed codecs will need to output raw PCM at full bit rate to be truly lossless. I have verification that this is indeed done on TrueHD but not on DTS HD MA.
5) Lossy codecs do not have this problem and can deliver a constant bitrate with a cap you can set . For example, DD+ you set the cap at 1.5mps and be assurred that there will not be any bitrate peaks to account for. When these lossless non compressable sections come up, they are still compressable because some resulting missing information can be interpolated and compressed.

What I am trying to do is to flesh this out with real facts to back up what I think may be happening with these lossless tracks and the impact they are having on AQ in general. Being an outsider, it may not be possible, but I do have the insiders thread to try to help me out.

And finally, as you know but others may not, I have posted that I have at least tried to compare lossless to lossy and some of my results. My most telling test was Happy Feet where I could not discern a difference at all. Volume levels between the DD+ and TrueHD tracks were equal so that removed one variable completely. I know it is "only" a 48/16 track, but if you own this title on HD DVD try it for yourself.

Or PS1. PS2. The original walkman. Even if Bluray were solely a Sony game, which it isn't -- Sony hasn't always failed.

It's not the same to compare a format to a device ... clearly, in format's, Sony hasn't done very well. Typically this is because of the draconian DRM they want coupled with the high prices they ask for.

That said, Blu-ray will not go away ... it might only be replicated by Sony for PS3, but it will not go away. Just like UMD is only replicated by Sony for the PSP.

Why not just use 3" DVD? Because they were trying to push it off as a new video format they could collect royalties on. They seem to do that with everything: MiniDisc, Memory Stick, etc, etc. In the end, it becomes relegated to a Sony-only format (that they still charge too much for).

It's difficult for me to imagine how the use of lossless audio tracks can result in audio quality degradation. I'm anxiously waiting for the theory you are hinting at (both lossless compression codecs are actually "lossy"?) . This could be interesting.

I'll add one more fact: There are already examples of high def video releases which use 5.1 24/96 uncompressed soundtracks. I'm not sure where you think you are going with your "facts". Maybe reading between the lines is not my forte. :)

Thanks oscar_in_fw. I said one thing but meant another. Let me clear this up right away in that what I said was poorly worded.

First off, this is part of where I am going but have no proof. When I stated that lossless may be leading to a degradation in AQ, due to the high bit rates of 48/24 I wonder if some of those tracks are dumbed down to 48/16? There sure seem to be a lot of TrueHD titles that have a TrueHD track at 48/16.

I have in the past stated I would rather have a DD+ 48/24 track over a 48/16loassless track. Admittedly, where I am going with my thoughts is that HD DVD is going to have more of a problem than BD with high bitrate lossless encodes. It really will all come down to non compressable audio on lossless tracks and the impact it has on bitrates and the two formats.

We're not talking about DVD's ... we're talking about HDM. If the reviewer is reviewing Blu-ray discs and HD DVD discs, then clearly he has to rate them one against the other. Otherwise, how would they rate them at all without having access to the master? The only way to rate AQ is to do so by listening to the film and comparing it on some level to other things you have reviewed -- including Blu-ray releases.

I doubt that they would compare them to Blu Rays. I would acutally think that they compare them to other hd dvd's.

I would rather they put the time and money into Extras than lossless, but that's just me.

Good for you. Why don't you have a ton of extras and just go with a standard 480kbps DD soundtrack. That way hd dvd wouldn't have to worry about fitting all that info on a 30gb disc.



Perhaps, in your opinion. Clearly they -- and others -- feel differently. :D

As a quick decision, it made a lot of sense. 150 million dollars is more than any studio will make in 18 months on HDM anyway. If you don't think that Transformers and Shrek 3 would sell better on Blu Ray you need to do some heavy thinking. Those two movies fit the Blu Ray adopter base a lot better than hd dvd format.

In the long run, it just cost the consumers a longer wait for this "war" to end.

the point is, I find all of these "Sony failed before" arguments to pointless -- this is not a simple Sony v. the world type game -- the fact is, more CE companies support BR. Studio support is roughly even.

We have, thus far, no reason to believe that BR will go the way of UMD. And until we have REAL analogies based on hard evidence, can finally put this argument to bed?

It's not the same to compare a format to a device ... clearly, in format's, Sony hasn't done very well. Typically this is because of the draconian DRM they want coupled with the high prices they ask for.

That said, Blu-ray will not go away ... it might only be replicated by Sony for PS3, but it will not go away. Just like UMD is only replicated by Sony for the PSP.

Why not just use 3" DVD? Because they were trying to push it off as a new video format they could collect royalties on. They seem to do that with everything: MiniDisc, Memory Stick, etc, etc. In the end, it becomes relegated to a Sony-only format (that they still charge too much for).

Its funny how much time BR's are spending on downplaying an audio track that professionals state there is no noticable difference yet there is no fuss being made that about one third of all BR releases have a 640k DD track, one another third have a track that can not be decoded fully or that most of there highly praised PCM tracks are actually 16b and waste so much space that most titles cant even match the extras in the dvd version.

Personally I'm very happy with having a DD+ track that is equal to the lossless track plus gaining 10hrs of additional content to enjoy.

If only 1 in 100 people can tell the difference between a lossless and 1.5 mb track, then the vaunted superiority of lossless is questionable, and it is arguable that the industry should focus it time on efforts on such a small segment of the population.
Agreed, but...

where did you hear that "only 1 in 100 can tell the difference...?"

This topic was started based on the lamest of premises. It was just another way too find yet one more way for BD fanboys to exercise their bitterness toward HD DVD and Paramount. It is not like there are not enough topics where fanboys fight over meaningless specss.

Transformers is here, the reviews are in the audio is wonderful... If you are dual format capable and have this terrible anti-Red bias because of the lack of lossless audio, do yourself a favor and rent a copy and open your eyes.. I mean your ears.

Perhaps your minds will open a tiny crack as well.

Have you heard a full bitrate lossless track and its 1.5 mbps counterpart?

I seriously doubt it....

Glad we got your opinion on it anyway.

Even a full bitrate lossless track might not be 100% equivilent to the master though, so how do you know?

What we hear in theatres seems to be way less than 1.5mbps DD+ anyways!

And, I think the supposition is that if you can't tell the difference between WAV and MP3 @ 192kb or 256kb or 320kb (etc), then how are you to tell the difference between DD+ @ 1.5 mbps and TrueHD @ 3.0 mbps?

I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns, and all reports seem to indicate it is somewhere around that 192kb - 256kb area.

You know, I keep hearing that "no one can tell the difference" thing -- and either people, including many of the reviewers who rated Transformers so highly, believe they can hear a difference.

But that aside, I can only wonder why Studios would continue to waste their time on useless lossless tracks -- if they cost more money, more time, no one can hear the difference, why in the world would studios use them at all? Certainly the studios have people like FilmMixer who work for them -- why wouldn't they have informed the execs of how useless lossless is?

Easy: Marketing Bullet Point

Whoooooooot!!!!!! Transformers is here!!!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! WHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!

I am going to go enjoy watching the movie!!!!!! If any movie is a demo piece for HT it's this one!!!!

Back to your regularly scheduled thread of nonsense arguing over kbps. I'm out!

2) Some have called for 6.1 or 7.1. Each addtional track requires and additional 1382400mps. 7.1 would require 9216000 mbps.

Is it not true that blu-ray can more capably reproduce 7.1 in any audio format?

New baby or first baby? Because if it's the latter, you can just completely forget about having any time at all to sit down and watch anything ... ;)
2nd.

I'm well versed in the ways of no sleep/time.

Its funny how much time BR's are spending on downplaying an audio track that professionals state there is no noticable difference yet there is no fuss being made that about one third of all BR releases have a 640k DD track, one another third have a track that can not be decoded fully or that most of there highly praised PCM tracks are actually 16b and waste so much space that most titles cant even match the extras in the dvd version.

Personally I'm very happy with having a DD+ track that is equal to the lossless track plus gaining 10hrs of additional content to enjoy.

You must not be reading the same threads I read. Plenty of people are waiting for DTS MA master to come via firmware. Plenty do show dissappointment with blu-ray titles that don't ofter next gen audio. Take of teh blublockers and look at the whole picture ;)

Its funny how much time BR's are spending on downplaying an audio track that professionals state there is no noticable difference yet there is no fuss being made that about one third of all BR releases have a 640k DD track, one another third have a track that can not be decoded fully or that most of there highly praised PCM tracks are actually 16b and waste so much space that most titles cant even match the extras in the dvd version.

Personally I'm very happy with having a DD+ track that is equal to the lossless track plus gaining 10hrs of additional content to enjoy.
I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the restrictions of HD DVD (if it were not around,) the usual suspect studios would be upping their audio ante.

Whoooooooot!!!!!! Transformers is here!!!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! It's here!!! WHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!!!!!!!!

I am going to go enjoy watching the movie!!!!!! If any movie is a demo piece for HT it's this one!!!!

Back to your regularly scheduled thread of nonsense arguing over kbps. I'm out!

just think how much more you could enjoy (or lament) that movie with a bitrate meter.

I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns, and all reports seem to indicate it is somewhere around that 192kb - 256kb area.
I would pretty much agree with this...

when it comes to HD DVD.

With blu-ray there is rarely a restriction, thus no cost to use PCM and/or lossless codecs, thus no diminishing return point.

That said, it's all for naught. Both formats are going to be around for quite awhile so go neutral and be happy.

That is what I am waiting on.




Agreed, on the King Kong comment. I was trying to get the point across that with DTS HD MA you can listen to both the lossless track and the 1.5 mbps from the exact same track. This is where they are hearing a difference.

No, the burden of proof is on both sides. Not just one. Filmixers comments are only part of the equation. He shouldn't be the first and final authority. For science to occur, you have to have a theory, a control, a test and a result. we haven't had that on this forum in quite some time. It would be nice if we did.

I was talking about what display type they are using. I know that most discs on both formats are stored 1080p. Actually a lot of hd dvd players can only ouput 1080i, but I will not bother with that remark.

Actually, scaesare did a test and posted the results. I believe the only person to have gotten it right was FilmMixer. Just about everyone else was way off base.

Is it not true that blu-ray can more capably reproduce 7.1 in any audio format?

Only going to talk about 48/24. I don't believe this to be true if you use 48/16, they are both capable.

Not sure about that. It would have a better chance of doing it in PCM but not sure that is in spec (just don't remember). HD DVD definitely could not.

Lossless compression, absolutely. HD DVD too but you "may" have to take the video encode rate down. But that may be a non issue since most AVC or VC-1 titles ten to range in the 20mbps region anyway.

Lossy compression no problem on either.

I bet there is no BD title that will match the AQ PQ combination of Transformers. Not to say that 24b DD+ is probably just palin superior to the 16b PCM tracks on BD. Anyway, this is an awesome title. If you don't have Transformers on HDM, you're not a real hi-def fan :)

This is the title the seperates the HD fans from the format fanboys...

That is an interesting theory -- lossless as a detriment to audio quality. You've peeked my interest.

What you're saying then is that with lossy compression, we can have 96/24 bit audio, while with lossless compression, we may not because of the extreme bandwidth numbers involved in the peak bursts where TrueHD (and maybe DTS MA) cannot compress the data? Something like that?

I'm guessing I'm misunderstanding your point, because the data on DTS's website says DTS MA is more than capable of 96/24 7.1 audio on both Blu-ray and HD DVD, with different max bitrates. Dolby's website claims the same thing.

I remember your threads, and I also seem to remember you mentioned some differences, if incredibly minor, in other movies. Was I mistaken?

Last question first, you were not mistaken. On End of Days I heard a difference. It was minor (subjective obviously) but still there. I will attempt to perform more tests as time permits.

As to the first part, I know for a fact that not all sound is compressable. What I don't know is how that is taken care of and how long this lasts in typical sound tracks. If there is a section of sound that cannot be compressed and it causes a buffer overflow, there is only one result, loss of audio. That has to be true. But does it really happen in the real world? And if it does, how is that taken care of?

One possibility is they temporarily use a lossy encode. Another would be they manipulate the master. Yet another is they add more overhead on the bitrate for the lossless compression than would otherwise be required.

Lots of question, no answers. Working on it. It could also turn out that in the end it means nothing.

On a lossy encode such as DD+ ot DTS HD we don't care

I would pretty much agree with this...

when it comes to HD DVD.

With blu-ray there is rarely a restriction, thus no cost to use PCM and/or lossless codecs, thus no diminishing return point.

That said, it's all for naught. Both formats are going to be around for quite awhile so go neutral and be happy.

Oh goodness.....There's always a "diminishing return point," that being: the point where no sonic benefit can be gained by further expenditure of financial or space resources. I have yet to see the slightest iota of evidence that there's any audible benefit to anything beyond DD+ at 1.5 Mbps.

What we hear in theatres seems to be way less than 1.5mbps DD+ anyways!


If it is Dolby Digital (no DD+ in cinema) then DD is capped at 320kbps ;)
DTS can still go to 1.5Mbps thanks to the seperate media for audio.
D-cinema has the option for WAV files (PCM files in the Film industry) or any other encode.

If you don't have Transformers on HDM, you're not a real hi-def fan :)

This is the title the seperates the HD fans from the format fanboys...


Couldn't have said it better myself!

Oh goodness.....There's always a "diminishing return point," that being: the point where no sonic benefit can be gained by further expenditure of financial or space resources. I have yet to see the slightest iota of evidence that there's any audible benefit to anything beyond DD+ at 1.5 Mbps.
How much more does a PCM track cost?

I doubt that they would compare them to Blu Rays. I would acutally think that they compare them to other hd dvd's.


I think if you read the reviews of Hot Fuzz, you'll note that they compare it to all HDM, including Blu-ray.


Good for you. Why don't you have a ton of extras and just go with a standard 480kbps DD soundtrack. That way hd dvd wouldn't have to worry about fitting all that info on a 30gb disc.


See? Why do you have to go with these nonsensical points? Clearly DD+ is better than what we had with DD on DVD ... and many many more people can tell the differences there than they can between DD+ and lossless. So if lossless costs money/resources/time and extras cost money/resources/time ... where do you think the Studios should allocated their money/resources/time? Should they allocate it to lossless that a very very small subset of the population might have the gear/ear for? Or should they allocate it to the much larger general consumer base? I'm going with the latter. It's pretty clear that while HDM Fanatics will buy just about every release -- they're only going to buy one copy. The studios are going to cater to the masses, and that's just that. *shrug*


As a quick decision, it made a lot of sense. 150 million dollars is more than any studio will make in 18 months on HDM anyway. If you don't think that Transformers and Shrek 3 would sell better on Blu Ray you need to do some heavy thinking. Those two movies fit the Blu Ray adopter base a lot better than hd dvd format.


I think that Transformers would sell more Copies on Blu-ray ... because it caters to the PS3 demographic and there are millions of them out there with very few games to play. Clearly though, it costs more to produce Blu-ray discs, so would you rather sell Millions at a loss? or a few hundred thousand ast a profit? I'm going with the latter myself. The Blu-ray adopter base today is the PS3 owner which is clearly not the casual average consumer. I'm pretty sure Studios want to cater to the general population ...


In the long run, it just cost the consumers a longer wait for this "war" to end.

Especially with the games the BDA has been playing, for sure. ;)

I'll add one more fact: There are already examples of high def video releases which use 5.1 24/96 uncompressed soundtracks.

Missed this on the first read. Are you sure? All I can find for lossless 5.1 96/24are titles using DTS HD MA.

the point is, I find all of these "Sony failed before" arguments to pointless -- this is not a simple Sony v. the world type game -- the fact is, more CE companies support BR. Studio support is roughly even.

But it is Sony pretty much driving this. Some of those CE Companies and Studios have actually *defected* from Blu-ray. That's pretty significant, no?


We have, thus far, no reason to believe that BR will go the way of UMD. And until we have REAL analogies based on hard evidence, can finally put this argument to bed?

The only reason to believe this is historical. When we have hard evidence, it will be because it has already gone the way of UMD. ;)

Its funny how much time BR's are spending on downplaying an audio track that professionals state there is no noticable difference yet there is no fuss being made that about one third of all BR releases have a 640k DD track, one another third have a track that can not be decoded fully or that most of there highly praised PCM tracks are actually 16b and waste so much space that most titles cant even match the extras in the dvd version.

Personally I'm very happy with having a DD+ track that is equal to the lossless track plus gaining 10hrs of additional content to enjoy.

Simple: they have to trash it to justify their decision to remain Blu-ray only. If they start to actually believe things like DD+ is transparent to PCM and that Paramount switched because they felt HD DVD was technically and economically the more viable format ... well ... then their house of cards really starts to come crumbling down. ;)

2nd.

I'm well versed in the ways of no sleep/time.

Ah, okay ... then you have a system in place. ;)

Congratulations, btw. :D

Actually, scaesare did a test and posted the results. I believe the only person to have gotten it right was FilmMixer. Just about everyone else was way off base.
Nah, he was off too. The results were.... let's just say... recalculated. (He mixed up the actual uncompressed/lossy compressed samples.) So, it turned out to be closer to a double-blind test than originally thought. :)

My favorite part of this is thinking about all the PS3 owners out there without an HDMI receiver that is getting DD+ 640 through their optical. I have caught several of them on this very forum talking about how much better lossless is when their setup prevented them from getting lossless. If you didn't drop atleast 1k on a receiver it is not capable of projecting a difference. Deal with it.

The irony is that the AQ on Transformers has gotten PERFECT ratings in every review I have read despite not having lossless. That should show how important it it.

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/transformershddvd.php

100 for video.
100 for audio.

REFERENCE DISC!

Missed this on the first read. Are you sure? All I can find for lossless 5.1 96/24are titles using DTS HD MA.

I guess I should hang my head in shame. I only found one (1) title with uncompressed 24/96 soundtracks:

24/96 PCM - Chris Botti
24/96 True HD - Dave Mathews
24/96 DTS HD MA - Natures Journey

OTOH, I haven't seen what's on AC/DC or David Gilmour yet.

I would pretty much agree with this...

when it comes to HD DVD.


See? Sometimes we agree. ;)


With blu-ray there is rarely a restriction, thus no cost to use PCM and/or lossless codecs, thus no diminishing return point.


I still think there is a diminishing return point. Blu-ray doesn't have the capability to handle extras to the extent that HD DVD does. When those capabilities arise, they're going to have to do something. Sure, there is some additional capacity on Blu-ray, but if they can't take advantage of it in mass replication due to yield issues, it becomes moot. More importantly, if they have a higher bitrate video encode, and higher bitrate lossless audio, and more languages, then they're going to chew up that capacity that much faster leaving less room for extras, etc. The only way the formula works is if they keep the bitrates right around what HD DVD is doing today -- then they have a 'true' capacity advantage and could add more 'stuff'. But, if they did that, then many of these arguments go right out the window. ;)


That said, it's all for naught. Both formats are going to be around for quite awhile so go neutral and be happy.

Yup, agreed here as well. Though I think it's easier to go Format Neutral if you start Blu-ray due to cost considerations than it is the other way around. There are quite a few people that only jumped into the pool to begin with because HD DVD entry was close to the 'magic price point'.

If it is Dolby Digital (no DD+ in cinema) then DD is capped at 320kbps ;)
DTS can still go to 1.5Mbps thanks to the seperate media for audio.
D-cinema has the option for WAV files (PCM files in the Film industry) or any other encode.

Thank you! :D

sketcha,

Agreed, but...

where did you hear that "only 1 in 100 can tell the difference...?"

The 1 in a 100 was simply meant to say that until the correct tests are done, the number of people who really can tell the difference may be very small, in which case, lossless is simply one of those "marketing must haves".

http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/transformershddvd.php

100 for video.
100 for audio.

REFERENCE DISC!

6 minutes and 30 seconds into the movie... and I agree.

I just sneaked a peek. Not allowed to watch it until the GF gets home.

I bet there is no BD title that will match the AQ PQ combination of Transformers. Not to say that 24b DD+ is probably just palin superior to the 16b PCM tracks on BD. Anyway, this is an awesome title. If you don't have Transformers on HDM, you're not a real hi-def fan :)

This is the title the seperates the HD fans from the format fanboys...

I'll consider it when it comes with a 24bit lossless audio track. It's only redeeming value is as a Special effects movie; otherwise, it's pretty mediocre, actually "rubbish" would be a way to put it. Might be good for a rental though.

My favorite part of this is thinking about all the PS3 owners out there without an HDMI receiver that is getting DD+ 640 through their optical. I have caught several of them on this very forum talking about how much better lossless is when their setup prevented them from getting lossless. If you didn't drop atleast 1k on a receiver it is not capable of projecting a difference. Deal with it.

The irony is that the AQ on Transformers has gotten PERFECT ratings in every review I have read despite not having lossless. That should show how important it it.

I agree that many people think they're getting lossless and they are not ... but you can can an HDMI receiver for less than 1k. The Onkyo's were like $350 on special recently, no?

I'll consider it when it comes with a 24bit lossless audio track. It's only redeeming value is as a Special effects movie; otherwise, it's pretty mediocre, actually "rubbish" would be a way to put it. Might be good for a rental though.

Do all the titles you own currently (either format) include a 24bit lossless audio track? Isn't PE 640kbps DD?

Now that's just silly. On the same silly point, Highdefdigest has twice as many 5 star audio tracks on Blu-ray than HD DVD does.

I'm also not sure how this title separates anyone in the way you claim -- considering it IS an HD DVD exclusive.

I bet there is no BD title that will match the AQ PQ combination of Transformers. Not to say that 24b DD+ is probably just palin superior to the 16b PCM tracks on BD. Anyway, this is an awesome title. If you don't have Transformers on HDM, you're not a real hi-def fan :)

This is the title the seperates the HD fans from the format fanboys...

Do all the titles you own currently (either format) include a 24bit lossless audio track? Isn't PE 640kbps DD?

PE (and other titles) have redeeming features which make it worth the purchase. Since Special effects is the only redeeming feature of "Transformers", they needed to get it right. Or would you like to discuss the genius of character development, acting, plots, directing of "Transformers" which makes this a worthwhile movie ?

thx

If it is Dolby Digital (no DD+ in cinema) then DD is capped at 320kbps ;)
DTS can still go to 1.5Mbps thanks to the seperate media for audio.
D-cinema has the option for WAV files (PCM files in the Film industry) or any other encode.Don't forget Sony's slowly fading 8-channel SDDS cinema format... optically stored & ~2 Mbps if I remember correctly. :)

How embarrassing for DTS and Dolby if it were true that their lossless schemes couldn't handle 96/24 7.1 without dropping the audio, or otherwise negatively affecting it!

If this were a problem, and if as you say, it might affect HD DVD more due to bandwidth constraints, would the inability of HD DVD to do 7.1 96/24 audio sway you to Blu-ray? Or put another way, if the main reason studios don't use more 24 bit lossless tracks is to make sure HD DVD can handle the audio, would that matter to you at all?

Last question first, you were not mistaken. On End of Days I heard a difference. It was minor (subjective obviously) but still there. I will attempt to perform more tests as time permits.

As to the first part, I know for a fact that not all sound is compressable. What I don't know is how that is taken care of and how long this lasts in typical sound tracks. If there is a section of sound that cannot be compressed and it causes a buffer overflow, there is only one result, loss of audio. That has to be true. But does it really happen in the real world? And if it does, how is that taken care of?

One possibility is they temporarily use a lossy encode. Another would be they manipulate the master. Yet another is they add more overhead on the bitrate for the lossless compression than would otherwise be required.

Lots of question, no answers. Working on it. It could also turn out that in the end it means nothing.

On a lossy encode such as DD+ ot DTS HD we don't care

Sorry, my inquiry about the dvd titles program was directed to Rhoq.

Mine is longer than yours......List that is...
I was very impressed with your titles listing program and wondered where you got it.
Below is my "systems." Not exactly matched.... but hey, it's what I've got.
Toshiba 72MX195
Samsung Plasma 50" HP-T5054
JBL subwoofer
Boston Acoustics P442 for centers
Yamaha Towers for fronts and Sony Towers for sides.
HD A20 for hi def dvd player+3 (yup 3 ) Sony 400 disc dvd Players.
Pioneer Elite Receiver + 7000w Technical Pro Blue Ice amplifier that works o.k. but I ain't gonna brag about it.

My favorite part of this is thinking about all the PS3 owners out there without an HDMI receiver that is getting DD+ 640 through their optical. I have caught several of them on this very forum talking about how much better lossless is when their setup prevented them from getting lossless. If you didn't drop atleast 1k on a receiver it is not capable of projecting a difference. Deal with it.

The irony is that the AQ on Transformers has gotten PERFECT ratings in every review I have read despite not having lossless. That should show how important it it.

yeah, show me one non-biased reviewer...good luck

"Defected" -- you mean there is a CE company that used to make Blu-ray players that isn't making them anymore?

Historical reasons aren't enough -- but if the sales lead evaporates, the Blu-ray standalone players never sell well, and PS3 sales thank, THEN we can start talking about Blu-ray being desperate. Before that, I think we're wasting time.

But it is Sony pretty much driving this. Some of those CE Companies and Studios have actually *defected* from Blu-ray. That's pretty significant, no?



The only reason to believe this is historical. When we have hard evidence, it will be because it has already gone the way of UMD. ;)

My favorite part of this is thinking about all the PS3 owners out there without an HDMI receiver that is getting DD+ 640 through their optical. I have caught several of them on this very forum talking about how much better lossless is when their setup prevented them from getting lossless. If you didn't drop atleast 1k on a receiver it is not capable of projecting a difference. Deal with it.

The irony is that the AQ on Transformers has gotten PERFECT ratings in every review I have read despite not having lossless. That should show how important it it.

I purchased my Onkyo 605 for less than a grand -- a lot less, indeed. That's capable of lossless audio. :D

I guess I should hang my head in shame. I only found one (1) title with uncompressed 24/96 soundtracks:

24/96 PCM - Chris Botti
24/96 True HD - Dave Mathews
24/96 DTS HD MA - Natures Journey

OTOH, I haven't seen what's on AC/DC or David Gilmour yet.

Well, that's one more title than I found. :D

BTW: looked it up and seems interesting so I bought it on Amazon. Being from Sony, I would expect this to be reference material. Thanks!!!!!