Wow the title of this thread is so ridiculous. I am shocked it is now 25 pages. Of course it's so long because it's turned into another HD DVD vs BD format bashing thread. (What a shock) Now back to the OP's question. Stupid and illogical. Yes, I have an HD DVD player, but since I'm upset with the lack of lossless audio, I'm going to buy a HIGHLY inferior SD version. Weird. :confused:

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


Ah, good point ... only Studio's have defected. The CE's have gone from Exclusive to Neutral ... they're only one step away from defection. ;)


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.

Time will tell ... the sales lead is already evaporating (though some of this could be masked by all the recent Blu-ray Buy-1-Get-1-Free sales). Considering the masses of Blu-ray players in PS3's being sold every month as compared to HD DVD standalones that is pretty sad indeed.

Blu-ray standalones aren't selling very well, and neither are HD DVD units, imo ... so this is already occuring also.

And, PS3 sales have tanked ... they are *way* below expectations. Do you expect them to get worse? They're pretty pathetic already and by most recent speculation, it looks like PS2+PS3 combined this last month will still not total more than Xbox 360 and Wii individually.

So can we talk about it now? :)

Wow the title of this thread is so ridiculous. I am shocked it is now 25 pages. Of course it's so long because it's turned into another HD DVD vs BD format bashing thread. (What a shock) Now back to the OP's question. Stupid and illogical. Yes, I have an HD DVD player, but since I'm upset with the lack of lossless audio, I'm going to buy a HIGHLY inferior SD version. Weird. :confused:

Exactly; and I think the point of the thread (the OP can correct me if I'm wrong) was to try to identify who were the Format Fans and who were the HDM Fans. It also gave all the Blu-ray only owners a chance to say they'd buy the SD DVD Version -- which is kind of a pointless statement to make. *shrug*

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?

To me, no. I'm not all that impressed with lossless when compared to DD+. They are IMO very much alike. In some cases, they sound the same (at least to me).

But, that's not what I really want. If dropping the lossless tracks would get us more 48/24 lossy tracks I'd be all for that. There are still a lot of lossless tracks out there that are only 48/16. Also, lossy sets the ground for 96/24. As I mentioned when I posted raw PCM bitrates you're at nearly 14mbps for 5.1 96/24 audio. DD+/DTS HD can do nearly transparent (I would say transparent) audio for 48/24 at 1.5mbps and transparent for 96/24 at 3mbps. Both formats can benefit from this.

I am so glad Transformers got a good review on the AQ and hopefully it will help set the groundwork for even better AQ in the future. This seems for now to be the title to beat.

See? Sometimes we agree. ;)



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. ;)



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'.
Glad to see we agree, though we'll have to agree to disagree on the above portion in blue. :)

sketcha,



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".
Thanks for clearing that up, George. ;)

I love how you use the phrase "may be" and then follow up with "in which case, lossles IS..." instead of maybe, "would be..."

Great stuff. It's the subtleties. Leading your reader to conclusions. You're wasting your time teaching. Politics or possibly Law is where you belong.

Aloha :)

In all seriousness I do wish you aloha. All in good fun, G.

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


No, here's a better question, if the best HDDVD PQ scores a 5/5 and the Best DVD PQ scores a 5/5, then what's the difference?? I'd say none...tell me that was a JOKE...you can't seriously believe that!!

No, here's a better question, if the best HDDVD PQ scores a 5/5 and the Best DVD PQ scores a 5/5, then what's the difference?? I'd say none...tell me that was a JOKE...you can't seriously believe that!!

Then you are not comparing two formats even remotely close in their capabilities, so your statement would be borderline ludicrous.

Or are you implying BD is to HD DVD what HD DVD is to SD DVD? :confused:

It seems like your "holy grail" is 96/24 -- whether at 5.1 or 7.1, I'm not sure. But if that's true, and Blu-Ray CAN do 7.1 96/24 @ lossless while HD DVD might struggle -- well, why NOT support the format that can get the absolute best, no questions asked?

Basically, I don't see why lossless on Blu-ray is any less capable of 96/24 than lossy DD+. And we know, for sure, there would be no compromise.

And once we do get to 7.1 audio, how transparent can DD+ be? Do the studios just bump up the bitrates to compensate?

To me, no. I'm not all that impressed with lossless when compared to DD+. They are IMO very much alike. In some cases, they sound the same (at least to me).

But, that's not what I really want. If dropping the lossless tracks would get us more 48/24 lossy tracks I'd be all for that. There are still a lot of lossless tracks out there that are only 48/16. Also, lossy sets the ground for 96/24. As I mentioned when I posted raw PCM bitrates you're at nearly 14mbps for 5.1 96/24 audio. DD+/DTS HD can do nearly transparent (I would say transparent) audio for 48/24 at 1.5mbps and transparent for 96/24 at 3mbps. Both formats can benefit from this.

I am so glad Transformers got a good review on the AQ and hopefully it will help set the groundwork for even better AQ in the future. This seems for now to be the title to beat.

good idea.. i dont think they can fit that on an HD DVD can they? maybe if they drop off all the bonus features....

Then you are not comparing two formats even remotely close in their capabilities, so your statement would be borderline ludicrous.

Or are you implying BD is to HD DVD what HD DVD is to SD DVD? :confused:

WOW...you are quick...

It seems like your "holy grail" is 96/24 -- whether at 5.1 or 7.1, I'm not sure. But if that's true, and Blu-Ray CAN do 7.1 96/24 @ lossless while HD DVD might struggle -- well, why NOT support the format that can get the absolute best, no questions asked?

Basically, I don't see why lossless on Blu-ray is any less capable of 96/24 than lossy DD+. And we know, for sure, there would be no compromise.

And once we do get to 7.1 audio, how transparent can DD+ be? Do the studios just bump up the bitrates to compensate?

Ah, I hope they don't close this thread because because you and I are getting off track.

Your points are perfectly valid as far as they go. There is no argument from me that more disc space and higher bitrates is a good thing. However, I have now seen and heard enough from HD DVD that IMO you can get equal results from HD DVD using lower bit rates and less space. Of course, the BD 25 kinda backs that up too. I really did not expect this, but this is where I come from now.

So where does that leave us?

I don't think either one of needs to rehash the other merits of the two formats. This is just my opinion, but to put it as succinctly as I can, I view HD DVD as being the more mature format and has earned my support.

God hoping, More CEs go from exclusive to neutral! More and cheaper dual format players, please!

Last I read, their 2:1 sales lead was still steady (transformers aside). Do you have info otherwise?

What's also sad is that despite the majority of standalone players being HD DVD players, they aren't selling more movies (ah, lies, damned lies, and statistics!)

I have no expectations that PS3 sales will get worse -- indeed, at 399, they should get better!

Ah, good point ... only Studio's have defected. The CE's have gone from Exclusive to Neutral ... they're only one step away from defection. ;)



Time will tell ... the sales lead is already evaporating (though some of this could be masked by all the recent Blu-ray Buy-1-Get-1-Free sales). Considering the masses of Blu-ray players in PS3's being sold every month as compared to HD DVD standalones that is pretty sad indeed.

Blu-ray standalones aren't selling very well, and neither are HD DVD units, imo ... so this is already occuring also.

And, PS3 sales have tanked ... they are *way* below expectations. Do you expect them to get worse? They're pretty pathetic already and by most recent speculation, it looks like PS2+PS3 combined this last month will still not total more than Xbox 360 and Wii individually.

So can we talk about it now? :)

No doubt Transformers sound good.

But what could have been?

It's receiving perfect scores so far for audio, but based solely on that fact that that's all there is available.

I remember when DVDs early on used to get 5 star ratings.
They wouldn't, and don't, cut it now.

BD 25 kinda backs that up too
Kinda'.

Don't forget bandwidth in all of your scientific inquiries.

Appreciate your efforts, BTW and I look forward to viewing your findings.

To put it succinctly, I agree that HD DVD is a more mature platform in terms of extras. But for me, even the mere possibility that HD DVD may not be as capable in terms of future video or audio quality concerns me, much more so than the inability to play IME or online interactivity.

But again, another fine post.

Ah, I hope they don't close this thread because because you and I are getting off track.

Your points are perfectly valid as far as they go. There is no argument from me that more disc space and higher bitrates is a good thing. However, I have now seen and heard enough from HD DVD that IMO you can get equal results from HD DVD using lower bit rates and less space. Of course, the BD 25 kinda backs that up too. I really did not expect this, but this is where I come from now.

So where does that leave us?

I don't think either one of needs to rehash the other merits of the two formats. This is just my opinion, but to put it as succinctly as I can, I view HD DVD as being the more mature format and has earned my support.

Glad to see we agree, though we'll have to agree to disagree on the above portion in blue. :)

Fair enough ... :)

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.
I'm not suggesting that 64 kbps per channel is imperceptible to you personally but, like you said, up the bandwidth to the level of DD+ and I would wager 99% of the testers (if not more) will be unable to differentiate. I only posted that test since it was relevant to the discussion of lossy audio (and it was conducted back in 2005 so the psychoacoustic models have no doubt improved since then with further tuning).

No, here's a better question, if the best HDDVD PQ scores a 5/5 and the Best DVD PQ scores a 5/5, then what's the difference?? I'd say none...tell me that was a JOKE...you can't seriously believe that!!

Wow ... that's way off base and borderline silly.

When they compare/contrast their scores, they do so against HDM, not DVD. It's clear from reviewers that they compare Blu-ray and HD DVD against each other frequently as HDM is their new baseline.

We're not talking about comparing DVD to Blu-ray or HD DVD ... just like in the ages of DVD, they weren't comparing reviews to VHS. DVD's were compared against one another (and Divx, for a short while); just like HD DVD and Blu-ray is compared against one another.

Even Blu-ray supporters would agree that HD DVD and Blu-ray are compared and rated on the same scale -- just look at some of dobyblue's rating comparison between the formats. If they were apples and oranges, why bother bringing them up?

Clearly, this is just sour grapes on your part. For you to argue that HD DVD and Blu-ray are reviewed independently as some way of maintaing some false reality is sad indeed.

Wow ... that's way off base and borderline silly.

When they compare/contrast their scores, they do so against HDM, not DVD. It's clear from reviewers that they compare Blu-ray and HD DVD against each other frequently as HDM is their new baseline.

We're not talking about comparing DVD to Blu-ray or HD DVD ... just like in the ages of DVD, they weren't comparing reviews to VHS. DVD's were compared against one another (and Divx, for a short while); just like HD DVD and Blu-ray is compared against one another.

Even Blu-ray supporters would agree that HD DVD and Blu-ray are compared and rated on the same scale -- just look at some of dobyblue's rating comparison between the formats. If they were apples and oranges, why bother bringing them up?

Clearly, this is just sour grapes on your part. For you to argue that HD DVD and Blu-ray are reviewed independently as some way of maintaing some false reality is sad indeed.

Do you have any sense for, on average, the PQ and AQ scores of Blu-ray versus HD DVD? Does the fact that Blu-ray has twice as many 5 star audio tracks mean Blu-ray has better audio? Or the fact that it has 2 more 5 star video tracks mean it has better video than HD DVD?

archangel,

Do you have any sense for, on average, the PQ and AQ scores of Blu-ray versus HD DVD? Does the fact that Blu-ray has twice as many 5 star audio tracks mean Blu-ray has better audio? Or the fact that it has 2 more 5 star video tracks mean it has better video than HD DVD?

the answer to both your questions is that until there are some measures of variability associated with the averages, claiming that one is better than the other is rather meaningless.

archangel,



the answer to both your questions is that until there are some measures of variability associated with the averages, claiming that one is better than the other is rather meaningless.

Exactly my point -- so what's the point of saying these 5 star ratings on Transformers means HD DVD is better than Blu-ray. Or that Transformers is better than any Blu-ray movie so far.

These are all subjective ratings done by humans -- arguing over who's format is superior to the other is meaningless based on these ratings, if you ask me.

No doubt Transformers sound good.

But what could have been?

It's receiving perfect scores so far for audio, but based solely on that fact that that's all there is available.

I remember when DVDs early on used to get 5 star ratings.
They wouldn't, and don't, cut it now.

But this encode is being put up against lossless encodes in HD DVD and Blu-ray and still received a perfect score. So how can we do better than lossless? :confused:

I'm not suggesting that 64 kbps per channel is imperceptible to you personally but, like you said, up the bandwidth to the level of DD+ and I would wager 99% of the testers (if not more) will be unable to differentiate. I only posted that test since it was relevant to the discussion of lossy audio (and it was conducted back in 2005 so the psychoacoustic models have no doubt improved since then with further tuning).
It seemed like you were promoting this test a little stronger than that, but I'll accept your point here and agree.

Exactly my point -- so what's the point of saying these 5 star ratings on Transformers means HD DVD is better than Blu-ray. Or that Transformers is better than any Blu-ray movie so far.

These are all subjective ratings done by humans -- arguing over who's format is superior to the other is meaningless based on these ratings, if you ask me.

I believe the only thing being suggested is that the ratings and reviews rank this is a Tier 0 and Reference Quality title for both PQ and AQ. As such, Transformers is, at worst, just as good as the best Blu-ray titles.

But this encode is being put up against lossless encodes in HD DVD and Blu-ray and still received a perfect score. So how can we do better than lossless? :confused:

People have to get over the idea that what's being compared are the encodes -- what's being compared, if anything at all, is the audio soundtrack.

The only way to properly judge encoding is on the same disc, on the same player, on the same HT system. Any other lossless v. lossy judgments are generally useless.

I believe the only thing being suggested is that the ratings and reviews rank this is a Tier 0 and Reference Quality title for both PQ and AQ. As such, Transformers is, at worst, just as good as the best Blu-ray titles.

If that was true, that would have been fine -- however, some were extrapolating from that and saying "a ha, HD DVD audio is better" or "a ha, Transformer is better than any Blu-ray movie," or "a ha, DD+ is just as good as TrueHD!" -- none of which can be said based on these reviews. That's my only issue.

People have to over the idea that what's being compared are the encodes -- what's being compared, if anything at all, is the audio soundtrack.

The only way to properly judge encoding is on the same disc, on the same player, on the same HT system. Any other lossless v. lossy judgments are generally useless.



+1

People seem to love apples vs. oranges here..............

Okay, I'll be brave and admit I'm a hypocrit and won't stand up for my principles in deference to the Almighty Dollar. I checked out the rumors concerning Circuit City and they were true: ALL Blu-Ray AND HD DVDs (under $30 MSRP) were half off. 8PM at night and there were still copies of "Transformers" to be had. I just couldn't pass up this up at $15.00.

To be fair to Blu-ray, in total, I also picked up 14 Blu-Rays (10 at Best Buy) and 2 HD DVDs I probably wouldn't have otherwise picked up simply because the pricing was so good.

This HD-DVD's soundstage rocks... after all this quibbling going on here I was super critical while watching it tonight and it is an amazing disc in both Audio and Visual.

Stop all this useless chatter and go get yourselves a copy... This is Demo material!!! For reference sake, skip ahead to the scene where the copter transforms for the first time and then laugh about all this garbage being posted back and forth. Go duel format and just enjoy the movies!!!

If that was true, that would have been fine -- however, some were extrapolating from that and saying "a ha, HD DVD audio is better" or "a ha, Transformer is better than any Blu-ray movie," or "a ha, DD+ is just as good as TrueHD!" -- none of which can be said based on these reviews. That's my only issue.

Well, DD+ may be just as transparent as TrueHD [for most people]. This, of course, isn't based on Reviews but based on what FilmMixer has said.

Still, I agree, people should test for themselves -- but they should do so in an ABX fashion not knowing what is what.

Like has been posted, there are several posters here on AVS that had claimed lossless sounded way better on their system -- which was connected via SPDIF to their Receiver -- the power of the placebo is pretty spectacular. :confused:

Ignorance is bliss.

DD+ may indeed be transparent at 1.5 megabits for 5.1 channels, but how people can make that argument with Transformers defies logic.

And until we get a good sample size with proper testing, even FilmMixer's views, while they should be treated with extra weight, are not conclusive.

But yeah -- Transformers soundtrack being awesome -- I think we can all agree on that! :D

Well, DD+ may be just as transparent as TrueHD [for most people]. This, of course, isn't based on Reviews but based on what FilmMixer has said.

Still, I agree, people should test for themselves -- but they should do so in an ABX fashion not knowing what is what.

Like has been posted, there are several posters here on AVS that had claimed lossless sounded way better on their system -- which was connected via SPDIF to their Receiver -- the power of the placebo is pretty spectacular. :confused:

Ignorance is bliss.

DD+ may indeed be transparent at 1.5 megabits for 5.1 channels, but how people can make that argument with Transformers defies logic.

And until we get a good sample size with proper testing, even FilmMixer's views, while they should be treated with extra weight, are not conclusive.

But yeah -- Transformers soundtrack being awesome -- I think we can all agree on that! :D

How can anyone make the argument that lossless is true to the master without having heard the master? Remember what happened with the original release of TFE?

Since we're pretty close to 100% of folks not having access to the master, the whole conversation of lossless versus lossy and transparency to the master is moot, no?

Lossless *should* be transparent, but since they have to convert it from the master anyways, not to mention they sometimes alter the bit depth ... we cannot know for sure if it truly is ...

The irony is that the person whose views you suggest which should give some extra weight is someone that *does* have access to the master and does this for a living. And he has stated multiple times that DD+ @ 1.5 mbps is essentially transparent and he would be hard pressed to pick the correct encode even 10% of the time.

So are we to take a big large random sampling of people (some of which think they're getting much better lossless sound via their SPDIF connection) that have never heard the master and treat that as 'proof' and then just give some extra weight to the statements of someone who is in the business with access to the master? :confused:

So....let's err on the side of the lossless track rather than the compressed one.....

So....let's err on the side of the lossless track rather than the compressed one.....

Why not buy the $1000 Power cables too then .... ? Just in case ... ?

This HD-DVD's soundstage rocks... after all this quibbling going on here I was super critical while watching it tonight and it is an amazing disc in both Audio and Visual.

Stop all this useless chatter and go get yourselves a copy... This is Demo material!!! For reference sake, skip ahead to the scene where the copter transforms for the first time and then laugh about all this garbage being posted back and forth. Go duel format and just enjoy the movies!!!
I've never seen the flick...

until NOW!!!

Well... at least about a third of it...

and on DVD with crappy standard DD. Putting my daughter to bed now so I'll have to finish it tomorrow if I want to be able to turn it up. I tried to start early after work, but the wife insisted we have stupid dinner. We've got our eye on a lot down the street and the house plan's got a "bonus room" above the garage that's a world away from the children's wing of the place. I'm so over not having a hideout where I can turn it up anytime I want!

Anyway, I can see what all the fuss is about. The sound effects are phenomenal, even on standard DD! I can only imagine what the rest of you bums are hearing.

None of what I'm saying settles any arguments. Blu boys may love this flick enough to be saddened by what could have been. However, I bet they would quickly forget once they popped the disc in, turned it up and began the experience.

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to watch it again when I go neutral. Don't know whether or not I'll be able to wait for the new house to be built. Just have to send the wife and kids on a trip to grandma's or something.

L8S

Why not buy the $1000 Power cables too then .... ? Just in case ... ?

I remember loaning someone a $500 power cable (mine). He and a fellow skeptic did some blind testing against "stock" power cables and still heard the difference. Eventually, he wound up buying three (3) of them for his components. Don't scoff at prices of so-called "audiophile" power cables; some of them WILL make a difference. Most of the ones I've tried do make a difference (though not always for the better); it's amazing the tonal changes you pick up with different power cords on a decently resolving audio system. I suspect this has a lot to do with non-ideal EMI/EMC environment with interactions between components and AC/line level audio/video, speaker-level signals, etc...

I will admit I'll be surprised if I'm not able to pick up differences between lossy 1.5Mbs encodes and lossless audio from the same movie; I just haven't had the opportunity to hear it for myself (yet) and make my own judgements with real source material.

Well now we are just getting into X-files like conspiracy theory -- "what if lossless REALLY ISN'T LOSSLESS!!!?!?!"

The best example of lossless compression is a zip file -- bit for bit identical, just compressed some.

I don't think it's crazy to take Dolby and DTS at their word that their lossless schemes are bit for bit identical to the master -- and I of course remember what happened to the Final Element -- it got 4/5 stars for audio with an uncompressed track. And......????

Where does your "is it really transparent" theory end? We can just as easily apply it to DD+.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if one is more transparent than the other -- what matters if some number of people can verifiably tell the difference between the two without knowing which track is being played at what time on an typical, lossless-capable HT set-up, on the same disc, and on the same player. Get a wide range of people -- from those who swear they can hear lossless coming out of their optical cables to those who would apparently lay down in traffic for FilmMixer. I'd prefer to have a site like Audioholics handle it.

After that, we'd have a much better idea of how lossy stacks up against lossless. By the way, I don't know how many 7.1 lossless tracks with core/lossy tracks have been released, but that too would be a great test -- see if 1.5 megabits is still sufficient for 7.1 audio!

How can anyone make the argument that lossless is true to the master without having heard the master? Remember what happened with the original release of TFE?

Since we're pretty close to 100% of folks not having access to the master, the whole conversation of lossless versus lossy and transparency to the master is moot, no?

Lossless *should* be transparent, but since they have to convert it from the master anyways, not to mention they sometimes alter the bit depth ... we cannot know for sure if it truly is ...

The irony is that the person whose views you suggest which should give some extra weight is someone that *does* have access to the master and does this for a living. And he has stated multiple times that DD+ @ 1.5 mbps is essentially transparent and he would be hard pressed to pick the correct encode even 10% of the time.

So are we to take a big large random sampling of people (some of which think they're getting much better lossless sound via their SPDIF connection) that have never heard the master and treat that as 'proof' and then just give some extra weight to the statements of someone who is in the business with access to the master? :confused:

I remember loaning someone a $500 power cable (mine). He and a fellow skeptic did some blind testing against "stock" power cables and still heard the difference. Eventually, he wound up buying three (3) of them for his components. Don't scoff at prices of so-called "audiophile" power cables; some of them WILL make a difference. Most of the ones I've tried do make a difference (though not always for the better); it's amazing the tonal changes you pick up with different power cords on a decently resolving audio system. I suspect this has a lot to do with non-ideal EMI/EMC environment with interactions between components and AC/line level audio/video, speaker-level signals, etc...

I will admit I'll be surprised if I'm not able to pick up differences between lossy 1.5Mbs encodes and lossless audio from the same movie; I just haven't had the opportunity to hear it for myself (yet) and make my own judgements with real source material.

You are wasting your time talking hi-fi with many of the posters here, the majority are clueless.

"If it costs alot, it is nothing but overpriced" :rolleyes:

If it costs alot, it is nothing but overpriced" :rolleyes:

That should be the mantra for AVScience now.

How about,

"if it is theoretically better, most people won't care".

That should be the mantra for AVScience now.

How about,

"if it is theoretically better, most people won't care".

Or, how about,

"If it goes to 11, it is definitively better than anything that 'only' goes to 10". ;)

Or, how about,

"If it goes to 11, it is definitively better than anything that 'only' goes to 10". ;)

Wouldn't that be....

Lossless= 10
DD+ = 3.3

It is a third less information.

Wouldn't that be....

Lossless= 10
DD+ = 3.3

It is a third less information.

Nope ... I meant 11 and 10 ... clearly. ;)

Wouldn't that be....

Lossless= 10
DD+ = 3.3

It is a third less information.

There are DTS tracks on some DVD's with just over 1500 kbps DTS.

There are DTS tracks on some DVD's with just over 1500 kbps DTS.

I think SPR was one of them. I know there were some, but not a lot.

Maybe we should just use 1.5 mbps DTS on all discs. That is transparent to the master right???

The only way to properly judge encoding is on the same disc, on the same player, on the same HT system. Any other lossless v. lossy judgments are generally useless.

That one is easy. Out of the hundreds of HDM reviews, I challenge you to find me a SINGLE review that saids the lossy track is better than the lossless track. Just a SINGLE review.

I think SPR was one of them. I know there were some, but not a lot.

Maybe we should just use 1.5 mbps DTS on all discs. That is transparent to the master right???

Found this list, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. Answer is no for SVP, that was 700+.
http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

Found this list, though I can't vouch for its accuracy. Answer is no for SVP, that was 700+.
http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

Wow, SPR wasn't 1500 kbps DTS. I all ways thought it was. I only see about 20 titles @ that 1500 number.

Interesting site. Thanks

That one is easy. Out of the hundreds of HDM reviews, I challenge you to find me a SINGLE review that saids the lossy track is better than the lossless track. Just a SINGLE review.

Here's the easy argument: although these reviewers THOUGHT they were hearing difference, they really weren't -- put to a test in which they had no idea which track was which, chances are, they couldn't tell them apart.

At least, that's what many on these threads will argue.

But thankfully, I never said that a single reviewer thought, rightfully or not, the lossy track was better than the lossless track.

You're right, that was easy! :p

You're right, that was easy! :p

Sorry, too quick on the keyboard. We are both in agreement.

After following all of the discussion I have concluded having DD+ on HD DVD is better than having zero, nada, zilch, nothing on BD.

Sorry, too quick on the keyboard. We are both in agreement.

No problem!! :cool:

After following all of the discussion I have concluded having DD+ on HD DVD is better than having zero, nada, zilch, nothing on BD.

As in having DD+ on Transformers is better than having a Blu-ray machine and Not having Transformers?

I tell you, Dual Format is the Answer*!


*As soon as Samsung gets it act together. Or if LG can do things properly!

After following all of the discussion I have concluded having DD+ on HD DVD is better than having zero, nada, zilch, nothing on BD.

I think I would call that 100% lossy on both the PQ and the AQ. :)

After following all of the discussion I have concluded having DD+ on HD DVD is better than having zero, nada, zilch, nothing on BD.
That's about the size of it.

Well I put my little girl to bed and then went and committed a sacrilegious act...

I finished the film with my AKG K240s and Dolby Headphone from my H/K 635. The movie was too much fun and the alone time I would need to turn it up was not going to come anytime soon so I opted to press on...

I'm glad I did. Thoroughly enjoyed it. I cranked it up which helped keep me in the moment so I would forget what I might be missing from the HD version. I'm absolutely certain that I will have no problem seeing it a second and perhaps a third time (which is rare for me) so Santa hurry up!!!

Certainly not for the snobs. It's fairly teen loaded and corny at times but that was to be expected so I wasn't shocked. Just good, plain fun and killer audio and visual effects. A perfect film to put a home theater to the test. I hope that the DD+ version is as good as people say it is, 'cuz this film deserves the best.

JMHO


EDIT: BTW... FWIW the DD soundtrack was quite a step above F4ROTSS which I viewed the same way a few nights back. I have renewed faith in my occasionally required, fatherhood fallback of headphone viewing.

God I need to build that dedicated theater! I feel like half a man. :(

:)

Just got done watching Transformers on HD DVD. My take, ignoring as the numerical arguments, the DD+ is still sub par compared to DTS soundtrack.

DD for some reason, the sound is all mixed, muffled like compared to DTS, where it's just crystal clear in sound field.

I not like any of you guys when it comes to knowledge wise on the technical aspect, but I'm pretty keen when it comes to detail in SQ and PQ, DTS is just far superior in SQ compared the DD in any format.

The PQ on this movie though has it's ups and downs. There were many scenes where the pic was just grainy, but some identical lighthing scenes, they were pretty clean.

It may have already been said but HD and BD both have those PQ issue.

I also noticed that on this movie, they cut a certain scene at the underground dam, where they were about the see the Allspark cube. In IMAX, they have a scene where the "Simmons" guy makes a short speech before entering the room to view the Allspark cube.

Over all, I still pretty much enjoyed it.

Great movie and as most reviews already have put it a perferct score for picture, audio and interactive features.

DD for some reason, the sound is all mixed, muffled like compared to DTS, where it's just crystal clear in sound field. I not like any of you guys when it comes to knowledge wise on the technical aspect, but I'm pretty keen when it comes to detail in SQ and PQ, DTS is just far superior in SQ compared the DD in any format.You are all ready for your job interview at DTS. :) Sorry, the differences between Dolby Digital Plus and DTS @ 1.5Mbps are far less pronounced. You also do not have the original source or a DTS compressed version of it to directly compare. Anyway, I just don't like seeing broad statements like that... even in an anonymous forum. :confused:

I remember loaning someone a $500 power cable (mine). He and a fellow skeptic did some blind testing against "stock" power cables and still heard the difference. Eventually, he wound up buying three (3) of them for his components. Don't scoff at prices of so-called "audiophile" power cables; some of them WILL make a difference. Most of the ones I've tried do make a difference (though not always for the better); it's amazing the tonal changes you pick up with different power cords on a decently resolving audio system. I suspect this has a lot to do with non-ideal EMI/EMC environment with interactions between components and AC/line level audio/video, speaker-level signals, etc...

I will admit I'll be surprised if I'm not able to pick up differences between lossy 1.5Mbs encodes and lossless audio from the same movie; I just haven't had the opportunity to hear it for myself (yet) and make my own judgements with real source material.

I hope you have that cable plugged into it's own 20 amp circuit.

I hope you have that cable plugged into it's own 20 amp circuit.

Actually I do. I once threw a party where I hooked up a Refridgerator in the garage temporarily. While playing a particularly boisterous movie soundtrack, the circuit breaker popped and half the house lights (and the HT rig) went out. The Circuit breaker was never the same after that and that's when I decided to put in dedicated lines. A dedicated feed to the transformer might've been better...

Actually I do. I once threw a party where I hooked up a Refridgerator in the garage temporarily. While playing a particularly boisterous movie soundtrack, the circuit breaker popped and half the house lights (and the HT rig) went out. The Circuit breaker was never the same after that and that's when I decided to put in dedicated lines. A dedicated feed to the transformer might've been better...

Good for you. My amp and pre-amp in my 2 channel room run on their own circuits but I could't tell you if it ever made a difference because it was a different rig in my other home. It only cost me 40 bucks to have them put in when I had the house built so it was no big deal. Probabaly a bigger difference than a 500 cable to be honest with you but it's your cash.

I remember loaning someone a $500 power cable (mine). He and a fellow skeptic did some blind testing against "stock" power cables and still heard the difference. Eventually, he wound up buying three (3) of them for his components. Don't scoff at prices of so-called "audiophile" power cables; some of them WILL make a difference. Most of the ones I've tried do make a difference (though not always for the better); it's amazing the tonal changes you pick up with different power cords on a decently resolving audio system. I suspect this has a lot to do with non-ideal EMI/EMC environment with interactions between components and AC/line level audio/video, speaker-level signals, etc...

I will admit I'll be surprised if I'm not able to pick up differences between lossy 1.5Mbs encodes and lossless audio from the same movie; I just haven't had the opportunity to hear it for myself (yet) and make my own judgements with real source material.

Way off topic but...

I thought I read from several engineers that since all components have power supplies that convert the current from AC to DC, that all power is clean no matter what cord you use. The big issue is with components themselves and how well they are shielded.

I think it all comes down to people like to spend a lot $ so that they can perceive themselves as being better. Its why Rolex, Bose, and Monster sell so well.

Or they can plain afford such.....

Those that can't afford such may be more likely to scoff at things......

Who knows?

Heh...the only thing I've found myself scoffing at is the BR selection of movies, but to each their own...if I was a Disney fan, I might've felt differently....

Or they can plain afford such.....

Those that can't afford such may be more likely to scoff at things......

Who knows?

Most of us who can afford things like Rolexs know that people are paying for the brand name, and not the watch.
Same goes for Bose.

Scoff..scoff..scoff!:D

I should mention that I do have a 1940s Rolex that is very nice.

Or they can plain afford such.....

Those that can't afford such may be more likely to scoff at things......

Who knows?

Bland, we get it that you have a home theater costing as much as some people's annual home mortgage.

No need to gloat and flaunt it in every thread. If only money could buy some humility.. :rolleyes:

Bland, we get it that you have a home theater costing as much as some people's annual home mortgage.

No need to gloat and flaunt it in every thread. If only money could buy some humility.. :rolleyes:


That is just a cop out.....jealous of those that buy $1000 power cords??

The bottom line is many feel such tweaks are worth while and many who would never pay $1000 for a cable might pigeon hole it as junk. The debate is wide open..

But try and be open minded. Rather than type another acerbic post.

There are folks that have a different view of the world (and audio purchases) than you do.

I'm only providing balanced to an unfair pile on.

And FWIW....I use pro amps instead of the boutique HT amps,I use Gefen cheapy HDMI cables, Pro Audio subs and LCRs..And nothing other than stock power cables... So get the whole story before you type about someone you obviously know nothing about....

Have a nice day.

I too scoff at the $500.00 power cords. I also can't afford them. But I also have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and there is nothing in my training that would indicate that power cords have anything to do with improving sound. If you claim EMI interference, that can be dealt with in other ways for lots less money. Heck, your house wiring is gonna put out more EMI than a short power cable.

James,

How about balanced power...How do you feel about that.

I installed 4 Equitech Isolation trasformers for all my equipment (except subs). Got all of them on close out from Equitech for under $1K.

I have found subtle improvements in my noise floor (audio and video) and overall video performance..... Emphasis on subtle (but perceptible).

I too scoff at the $500.00 power cords. I also can't afford them. But I also have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Electrical Engineering and there is nothing in my training that would indicate that power cords have anything to do with improving sound. If you claim EMI interference, that can be dealt with in other ways for lots less money. Heck, your house wiring is gonna put out more EMI than a short power cable.

Heck, my two skeptical friends were EEs. It makes a difference and they convinced themselves it made a difference even in blind testing. I've experimented with a number of power cords, each making varying degrees of change to the sound (and not always for the better). Heck, you can almost use them as tonal controls and I'll be danged if I know why. I suspect properly shielded PCs help compensate for improperly shielded components and cables (and I do have a spaghetti network of wires running between components) and EMI "traffic" from wireless communications.

BTW, $500 is on the lower side of "audiophile" power cords. You can probably go much cheaper going DIY but time is also money). Some people will spend tens of thousands of dollars on exotic power cords; some of dubious "benefit" as far as I can tell.

Now we are seriously off-topic and they need to shut down this thread anyway.

I once bought a $250 Eichmann Power Conditioning cord...Tried it, saw no difference and sold it.... That particular model did little in my system. I used it on my PJ (video).

I actually had a RG rep tell me I needed their most expensive unit for my system (a 9" CRT stack at the time) I said why?. He said "to get better blacks". I said "better than what, but I already have the best blacks on the planet."

Too much BS not enough of calling these guys out.

Art

I actually had a RG rep tell me I needed their most expensive unit for my system (a 9" CRT stack at the time) I said why?. He said "to get better blacks". I said "better than what, but I already have the best blacks on the planet."

Too much BS not enough of calling these guys out.

Art

And there are plenty of sucke... er customers who keep RG in business. A local dealer's standard policy is lend the RG out to prospective customers and let them hear/see for themselves in a home trial. They seemed fairly confident I'd keep it and they acted shocked when I returned it a week later. I didn't try it on a display hooking it up to the stereo system instead. Yes, it did make a difference lowering the background noise level. I returned it because it also seemed to dampen any dynamics I had in the system (probably unduly suppressing AC transients during music transient peaks).

Most of us who can afford things like Rolexs know that people are paying for the brand name, and not the watch.
Same goes for Bose.

Scoff..scoff..scoff!:D

I should mention that I do have a 1940s Rolex that is very nice.

Does it still think it's 1940? ;)

"I use pro amps instead of the boutique HT amps,I use Gefen cheapy HDMI cables, Pro Audio subs and LCRs..And nothing other than stock power cables... So get the whole story before you type about someone you obviously know nothing about...."

I'm really curious about this. Why use pro amps? What's the advantage, other than perhaps wattage/power? Aren't those supposed to be noisier, with the fans, etc.?

Does it still think it's 1940? ;)

Damn Y2K bug! :D As long as we do not make some months 32 days, I am good.

Since we've gotten way off topic, I'll just assume the original topic has run its course and take the earlier suggestion that we close the thread.

We hope you had a pleasant stay.