...DD+ is far superior to the DD5.1 you were listening to.

Actually this is only true if the data rate of the DD+ track is encoded above 640Kbps. Warner uses the same audio track as DD+ on HD DVD as the DD on BD. So in this case they are the same.;)

I'll take 16bit HD DVD (or 24bit for BD) lossless any day over lossy DD+ 1.5 Mbps track from a 24bit master.

Also BD supports DD+ as an option but because of the 8Mbps bandwidth dedicated for audio it is a wast of bandwidth NOT to use lossless.

The TrueHD is very noticeable in 300, but less in Batman Begins, imo.

Actually this is only true if the data rate of the DD+ track is encoded above 640Kbps. Warner uses the same audio track as DD+ on HD DVD as the DD on BD. So in this case they are the same.;)

I'll take 16bit HD DVD (or 24bit for BD) lossless any day over lossy DD+ 1.5 Mbps track from a 24bit master.

Also BD supports DD+ as an option but because of the 8Mbps bandwidth dedicated for audio it is a wast of bandwidth NOT to use lossless.

Actually, DD+ is a more advanced codec than DD. The DD on BD is not the same as DD+ on HD DVD even for Warner titles (Say that 10 times real fast) :). But, I do agree that the 1.5mbps DD+ encode is superior to a 640kps DD encode and it is even superior to to DD encode at 1.5mbps.

Als0, I never said BD doesn't support DD+. I only said that the PS3 does not.

BTW: 15% of BD is not lossless and another 21% of that is DTS HD MA which the PS3 cannot decode giving a not lossless rate of 36% on BD exclusive titles. Source: bluraystats.com.

Select filter by exclusive.

Given the fact that the format war will not be won by sales from early adopters and high end audiophiles it seems odd to me that there is so much concern on these boards over the inclusion/exclusion of lossless audio tracks.

<...>

The movie industry views the few people who have already dived into the HDM market as "hobbyists" and while they certainly appreciate your input as to building the "dream platform" they are nevertheless going to market the majority of their product to the remaining 95% of the country.

Expect anything else and you are just setting yourselves up for severe disappointment and a major reality check.

Personally, I'm only too happy to have lossless audio tracks, and both my setups are capable of delivering very respectable quality audio (originally built for music reproduction), but that doesn't mean I require lossless tracks, and it doesn't mean I think lossless tracks will generally sound better than high-bitrate lossy :)!

I DO think that many on this board are fooling themselves as to how much difference a lossless track usually makes. Further, the typical comparison made between a lossless track and a companion low bit-rate lossy track does nothing to support the lossless argument (nor do lossy to lossless track comparisons between different titles) -- though most don't seem to understand that :(!

As I said, I'm only too happy to have a lossless track option, and if there's no particular reason not to include one, I'm all for the studio doing so, but it's far from a priority consideration -- just an appreciated nicety :)!

Actually, DD+ is a more advanced codec than DD. The DD on BD is not the same as DD+ on HD DVD even for Warner titles (Say that 10 times real fast) :). But, I do agree that the 1.5mbps DD+ encode is superior to a 640kps DD encode and it is even superior to to DD encode at 1.5mbps.

Never read or heard of DD supporting bitrates higher than 640Kbps -- and that includes BD, are you sure there are exceptions?

Never read or heard of DD supporting bitrates higher than 640Kbps -- and that includes BD, are you sure there are exceptions?

No, you're right. DD maxes out at 640kbps.

Never read or heard of DD supporting bitrates higher than 640Kbps -- and that includes BD, are you sure there are exceptions?


Sorry, my bad. That was more of a theoretical statement than real life. From what I have read, it is my understanding that DD+ uses a more advanced compression algortithm that is aurally closer than a like DD track. I used a bad comparison. :o

Mea Culpa.

Personally, I'm only too happy to have lossless audio tracks, and both my setups are capable of delivering very respectable quality audio (originally built for music reproduction), but that doesn't mean I require lossless tracks, and it doesn't mean I think lossless tracks will generally sound better than high-bitrate lossy :)!

I DO think that many on this board are fooling themselves as to how much difference a lossless track usually makes. Further, the typical comparison made between a lossless track and a companion low bit-rate lossy track does nothing to support the lossless argument (nor do lossy to lossless track comparisons between different titles) -- though most don't seem to understand that :(!

As I said, I'm only too happy to have a lossless track option, and if there's no particular reason not to include one, I'm all for the studio doing so, but it's far from a priority consideration -- just an appreciated nicety :)!

But how would you really know if there is or is not a difference ? Until I have a fair sampling of movie soundtrack content with both lossless/uncompressed and high bit lossy for some meaningful comparisons, my working assumption is to assume lossless/uncompressed is always better.

Warner's might be able to make a point that high bit lossy is "good enough" by demonstrating so by releasing a number of titles with both. I'd also like to see them maximize the video bitrate on their Blu-ray releases to demonstrate HD DVD is "good enough" to be as good as the (high video bitrate) Blu-ray discs.

But how would you really know if there is or is not a difference ? Until I have a fair sampling of movie soundtrack content with both lossless/uncompressed and high bit lossy for some meaningful comparisons, my working assumption is to assume lossless/uncompressed is always better.

Warner's might be able to make a point that high bit lossy is "good enough" by demonstrating so by releasing a number of titles with both.
Without having access to the audio master, to be sure, I can't know for certain whether lossless would be beneficial. But that simply means that someone with access to the master has to make that judgement -- it's not as if consumers have some inalienable rights in that area (and the vast majority of consumers give not a fig :))! I do know that I've heard many an LD PCM track that sounded a tad on the harsh side when played on a high resolution system, (reminiscent of some of my theater viewings in the past), and so you won't find me voting for lossless on soundtracks that are less than perfectly clean to begin with :).

It's my opinion the reason for the popularity of lossless on this board is purely due to the possibility, not because it is tyically either necessary or appropraite to fully deliver the film experience. I've no question that some films would benefit from a lossless track, but I suspect that in most cases, the benefit would be marginal and typically none.

The only studio I'd like to see approach audio differently would be Warner, since they almost always use low bitrate lossy. While I believe that to make complete sense for most older films, I can't help but question it for more recent productions.

I'd also like to see them maximize the video bitrate on their Blu-ray releases to demonstrate HD DVD is "good enough" to be as good as the (high video bitrate) Blu-ray discs.
As I understand, Paramount already tried that and the general conlusion was making separate video encodes for the two formats resulted in the same visual quality. Don't see much point in other studios repeating the experiment. This is just another issue that has been argued to death on this board and ultimately, people are free to believe what they will :)!

... This is just another issue that has been argued to death on this board and ultimately, people are free to believe what they will :)!
So true. Probably why we don't see new threads popping up about this stuff. Arguments have been made, people believe what they believe, nuff said. It's been fun though. :D

You haven't heard DD+, a lossy format. Nor will you ever hear it on your PS3 since it doesn't decode it. Not all lossy formats are the same. DD+ is far superior to the DD5.1 you were listening to.

Who are you to tell me what i have and have not heard? I HAVE heard DD+ on a Onkyo 605 Bitstreamed. It is nowhere in the same league as Lossless PCM/TrueHD/DTS HD MA. So please dont make anymore ASSumptions of what i have and have not listened to.

Who are you to tell me what i have and have not heard? I HAVE heard DD+ on a Onkyo 605 Bitstreamed. It is nowhere in the same league as Lossless PCM/TrueHD/DTS HD MA. So please dont make anymore ASSumptions of what i have and have not listened to.


From your PS3? Not possible. If bitstreamed from what player? Only the Samsung 1400 on BD and the Tosh A35 (maybe some other models) can do DD+ bitstreamed. So if you did hear it from one of these then I did make an ASSumption, otherwise, you have not heard DD+ bitstreamed.

BTW: Here's where I got my ASSumption from, your words.

<<My buddy bought a PS3 and the Onkyo SP-908 HTIB (Onkyo 605 receiver + 7.1 speaker setup). >>

Finally, what blu ray title were you listening to that has dd+. According to blu ray stats there are only 2.

Bye

Jeez.

You mean the same True Cinema Experience that uses a Dolby compressed bitstream at a bitrate of 320Kbps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Digital#Applications_of_Dolby_Digital

On edit: Well apparently a mod opted to edit the quote to which I was replying out of my post. I didn't find the original post particularly inflammatory (it demaded lossless for a true cinema experience), but what can ya do?

Since I cannot do lossless yet, I really like the DTS-MA tracks.

I can extract a really good core that sounds better than anything I have heard on DVD.

When it comes time for an AVR upgrade (not for I while cuz I bought the last high-end Onkyo that doesn't support HDMI or lossless:( DOH!) I will be able to enjoy them in all the lossless splendor.

Who are you to tell me what i have and have not heard? I HAVE heard DD+ on a Onkyo 605 Bitstreamed. It is nowhere in the same league as Lossless PCM/TrueHD/DTS HD MA. So please dont make anymore ASSumptions of what i have and have not listened to.
Right...just like a 320 kbps MP3 is nowhere in the same league as a WAV audio, amirite?:rolleyes:

Jack and James are cracking me up. James run away now. James is very knowledgable on these matters and knows his stuff far better than you.

I have caught too many PS3 owners saying how great their lossless sound was on equipment that would not allow the transfer of lossless (no HDMI receiver). It is one of those BD talking points that gets some folks pretty excited. I called a few out on it but have given up.

I went to a friends HT. He has NICE stuff. Did a few A/Bs and while I was eventually able to hear a mild difference, I couldn't have said which one was better. Just that they were a little different. Different tracks sound a little different. Quantifying which is better and how much better would have been impossible. Eventually you have to allow 99.999% to round up to 100%.

On the other hand I have bought some HDM that did not possess a sufficient upgrade on PQ to warrant the extra cost, frustrating me no end. I can see how audiophiles might feel the same way about AQ.