At least that's how the film industry sees it right now.

While I love the potential for a soundtrack with lossless audio, the reality of my situation is that since I will be listening to any HDM through an older 6.1 channel receiver on speakers which cost about $250 I seriously doubt that the difference between DD+ and "lossless" will be noticeable.

And frankly that is the situation which the majority of consumers in America are in right now. 95% of the people out there do not have the audio gear to appreciate the difference in quality between a standard digital soundtrack and the latest and greatest in audioHD.

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.

Why would you expect the movie industry to cater to anything other than the majority of the potential market? To expect anything else is entirely unreasonable.

At this point in time they are preparing to push HDM into the mainstream and to do that they will need to have enough media available on the shelves to entice J6P into buying their players.

Of course they are going to push the titles out with DD or DD+ rather than waiting months to tweek the codecs to the point where Lossless audio can be on every disc. That will happen, just not fast enough for the media to be on the shelves this holiday season.

This is just like what happened in the late 90's, when several DVDs were released with sub-par audio tracks due to the fact that 99% of the homes in America didn't have a home theater audio setup.

Later on, the companies came back with "remastered" disc and "special editions" (Superbit anyone?) which gave them even more money and satisfied the demands of the general public once the audio tastes of the masses had matured.

This is exactly what is happening once again and frankly to expect anything else is basically wishful thinking.

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.

Lossless Audio is a really big deal to me. Amazing audio tracks are a major part of having the total home cinema experience.

I really cannot express how happy I am with Sony/MGM/Columbia and Disney for listening to us and including so many lossless tracks.

IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!

And sadly for people like you, you are in a very small minority at this point in time.

AQ is more important than PQ to me
this may change when I own a FP and 100"+ screen.

Lossless audio - Only a concern for a few consumers?

Yes.

I don't have a high end system (Onkyo 605, Polk Audio R50 speakers etc.) and I CAN hear a difference between lossy and lossless audio. There is a depth and vibrancy in lossless that is absent from vanilla DD & DTS. I can only imagine just how much better it would sound if I had high end components.

My components put me squarely in the 95% crowd, not the 5%.

While the OP is certainly correct in stating that lossless audio is lost on the masses, frankly so is this AVS Forum. The surprise that we discuss the need for more and more quality in both sound and picture should come, of course, as no surprise. We're the classic early adopters. We can and do have an influence (more about quality control than new feature sets, of course). Ultimately, though, the masses rule. Let's hope quality implementations of lossless audio is economical enough, and drives new equipment sales enough to continue on, regardless of whether joe sixpack fully understands and appreciates it.

Lossless audio is a no-brainer for at least one format. The other format is a bit more problematical because of bandwidth issues.

The capability is there for lossless audio; some of us will demand it; especially if it is cheap and easy for at least one of the formats.

I think the number of people who care about lossless is lager than the number that can actually perceive the difference, but both are fractional.

From my experience, and with the rarest exceptions both lossless and and lossy HD audio tracks offer markedly better sound than DVD, but not, markedly better sound than each other, and that's what I think most notice. Few have either the ear or equipment discern it's perceived advantage.

All you're going to get with this thread is the same 18-24 people who always claim it's a must, which will appear as a larger number than the many, many more who are bored witless by the whole concern.

I don't doubt that there are a handful of audiophiles who genuinely, sincerely, and passionately care about this issues, but from what I can tell they are only a handful.

At least that's how the film industry sees it right now.

While I love the potential for a soundtrack with lossless audio, the reality of my situation is that since I will be listening to any HDM through an older 6.1 channel receiver on speakers which cost about $250 I seriously doubt that the difference between DD+ and "lossless" will be noticeable.

And frankly that is the situation which the majority of consumers in America are in right now. 95% of the people out there do not have the audio gear to appreciate the difference in quality between a standard digital soundtrack and the latest and greatest in audioHD.

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.

Why would you expect the movie industry to cater to anything other than the majority of the potential market? To expect anything else is entirely unreasonable.

At this point in time they are preparing to push HDM into the mainstream and to do that they will need to have enough media available on the shelves to entice J6P into buying their players.

Of course they are going to push the titles out with DD or DD+ rather than waiting months to tweek the codecs to the point where Lossless audio can be on every disc. That will happen, just not fast enough for the media to be on the shelves this holiday season.

This is just like what happened in the late 90's, when several DVDs were released with sub-par audio tracks due to the fact that 99% of the homes in America didn't have a home theater audio setup.

Later on, the companies came back with "remastered" disc and "special editions" (Superbit anyone?) which gave them even more money and satisfied the demands of the general public once the audio tastes of the masses had matured.

This is exactly what is happening once again and frankly to expect anything else is basically wishful thinking.

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.

Nice speculation, at least provide some concrete info with your thread title. I can do it too:

Interactive extras - Only a concern for a few consumers.

At the very least you need to change your title; your thread title sounds like some survey or research has been done prove your point, but it is really speculating. Quite misleading...

I don't have a high end system (Onkyo 605, Polk Audio R50 speakers etc.) ...My components put me squarely in the 95% crowd, not the 5%.

Dude. You are in the top 5%. BTW, why didn't you compare DD+ to lossless?

Most people think an Insignia HTiB that supports 5.1 DD is high end.
They also use their TV speakers and no receiver.

"IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!"

Indeed, a movie is about the audio and visual experience not just visual.

"IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!"

Indeed, a movie is about the audio and visual experience not just visual.

I think there can be bad lossless encodes and amazing DD+ encodes, so I completely disagree.

I think there can be bad lossless encodes and amazing DD+ encodes, so I completely disagree.

Definitely can be bad lossless encodes, I agree with that. As well as amazing for what DD+ is capable just as amazing encodes for audio and vidoe for what a DVD is capable of.

I'll pimp for scaesare's thread. You folks going to participate?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=909957

While lossless obviously avoids the potential for bad encodes, a good 1.5mbit DD+ is near indistinguishable from lossless. After all, you're talking 300kbit/channel (the LFE takes pretty much nothing), and in music compression that's essentially transparent.
The problem most people have with DD+ is that many discs are at 640k, and that really isn't good enough.

Of course, unless peak bitrate is _really_ tight, TruHD takes hardly any more than that 1.5mbit, and most modern HDDVDs shouldn't have a problem fitting it in (unless it's really grainy or at 1.85:1, and has IME as well).

Uncompressed PCM is of course just plain silly, but Bluray has enough bitrate that it doesn't really matter - however once they move to 24bit 7.1 then it starts to become more of a hassle, cos that eats almost 10mbit.

... both lossless and and lossy HD audio tracks offer markedly better sound than DVD, but not, markedly better sound than each other, and that's what I think most notice. Few have either the ear or equipment discern it's perceived advantage...
Is this "lossless" being talked about uncompressed PCM? If so, uncompressed audio is almost as stupid as uncompress video. >99% will be happy with the new HD audio compression formats.

Dude. You are in the top 5%. BTW, why didn't you compare DD+ to lossless?...

This "5%" is major FUD. No way is it 5%. More like 0.5%, dude included.

This "5%" is major FUD. No way is it 5%. More like 0.5%, dude included.

:D:D I just like it when I get to type the word "dude"! You are right though.

BTW, I love the movie Metropolis. If it comes to HDM, for some reason I doubt it would be any better with lossless audio. So I guess it can never make Tier 0.

From my experience, and with the rarest exceptions both lossless and and lossy HD audio tracks offer markedly better sound than DVD, but not, markedly better sound than each other, and that's what I think most notice. Few have either the ear or equipment discern it's perceived advantage.

So theres alot of difference between some lossy and alot of lossy, but barely a difference between some lossy and no lossy??????:confused:

You need to remember that probably 80% of folks who own the new plasma/lcd etc HDTV's are either:

* Listening to ONLY their TV speakers
* Bought a HTiB and love it

These folks who everyone here is so eager to win over into the hi-def DVD world must realize the average consumer has NO plan to upgrade their audio to what it would take to even hear a lossless soundtrack...they are content with what they have.

Remember a lot of folks have a hurdle to get over..that being the Wife Approval Factor...getting the big 'ol 57" TV into the house was hard work in some cases...no way they are going to be able to get "approval" to rewire the whole living room to get full on audio nirvana.

Oh sure there will be folks who can and do get to that point, but the shoppers roaming BB/Sears/WM/CC etc are forever going to be content with basic 5.1 surround sound.

And sadly for people like you, you are in a very small minority at this point in time.Just like all of us at AVS who own an HD DVD or Blu-ray player, we are the minority who believe in this format. ;)

So theres alot of difference between some lossy and alot of lossy, but barely a difference between some lossy and no lossy??????:confused:

Sure. Its like this...

Its easy to tell the difference between one discarded PS3 and a pile of 100 discarded PS3s. But it is a lot harder to tell the difference between a pile of 5000 and a pile of 5100 discarded PS3s.

A corollary to this is that lots of PS3s owners are playing Halo 3 today.

:D:D I just like it when I get to type the word "dude"! You are right though.

BTW, I love the movie Metropolis. If it comes to HDM, for some reason I doubt it would be any better with lossless audio. So I guess it can never make Tier 0.

Well the proof to your point can be had sooner than that. Look at the review of Halloween on Hifi Digest it got like a 2.5 for sound and it was PMC 5.1 which everyone raves about. The problem was not with the codec but the source is so poor that well it comes through crappy no matter what. So even if you released this title on 4K video with 192/24 audio it would still look and sound worse than say Underworld at 480P and 448kb Dolby. If you have good source and treat it the best possible release than go for it but please keep in mind the quality of the source material is far more important than the encode used (to a point, I am assuming something better than 192K here)

Not sadly, I think about what my family and I want when buying my home theater gear not what somebody else wants that I don't know. I still find it amusing that people at AVS shout off J6P wants this, doesn't want that as if that has any bearing on what I'm buying. Great you bought a Venturer DVD player or Daewoo TV, go knock yourself out with that but it isn't for me.

Not sadly, I think about what my family and I want when buying my home theater gear not what somebody else wants that I don't know. I still find it amusing that people at AVS shout off J6P wants this, doesn't want that as if that has any bearing on what I'm buying. Great you bought a Venturer DVD player or Daewoo TV, go knock yourself out with that but it isn't for me.

Only this worse would be to have a closed mind, set arbitrary goals and say...
"IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!"

...not ever considering the fact that some movies can sound just as good with 1.5 mbit DD+. Sad indeed.

I'm very glad that Universal is now putting TruHD lossless audio on all of their HD DVD releases from now on.

This is a good example to other studios. TruHD or DTS MA lossless audio is a great addition to any release.

Only this worse would be to have a closed mind, set arbitrary goals and say...
"IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!"

...not ever considering the fact that some movies can sound just as good with 1.5 mbit DD+. Sad indeed.

I'm open to any examples you provide. So far I haven't listened to any DD+ that have as good of audio, certainly nothing that is reference material. Then again when a review says the lossless track is better than the DD+ track you discredit/make excuses anyways so there really is no point as clearly you and I will never agree on this.

Bottom line is I'm fortunate to have normal hearing and vision to enjoy the benefits of my purchase. It is a big part of why I love watching movies at home :)

I'm very glad that Universal is now putting TruHD lossless audio on all of their HD DVD releases from now on.

This is a good example to other studios. TruHD or DTS MA lossless audio is a great addition to any release.

Indeed, a big move in the right direction.

When did this forum become a blog area. I keep seeing long winded opinion pieces pop up in this forum.

Why shouldn't we demand lossless for the majority of titles? Why did HD DVD mandate Dolby TrueHD decoding on every player if there is no intention to use it? While I agree that DD+@1.5mbps sounds great for most titles, there is no reason not to expect TrueHD or PCM when applicable. I can tell the difference between lossless and DD+ on a number of titles, and while I have invested a fair amount of money on my equipment and media room, I have not broke the bank either.

I am fine with DD+/DTS@1.5mbps on select titles but studios should push lossless sound. Is it that much more expensive to add it? Dolby does not charge any extra fees to support TrueHD on a track.

We should all (both formats) expect the best since we are paying a very premium price for HDM.

When did this forum become a blog area. I keep seeing long winded opinion pieces pop up in this forum.

People clearly are trying to justify their decision to support one format over the other. Going format neutral (started out HD DVD) was the best thing I ever did.

Only this worse would be to have a closed mind, set arbitrary goals and say...
"IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!"

...not ever considering the fact that some movies can sound just as good with 1.5 mbit DD+


^^^


DD 1.5 is inherently LOSSY. It will never sound as transparent as 7.1 PCM if you have a real audio setup, and the audio comes from a modern master.

I seriously doubt that the difference between DD+ and "lossless" will be noticeable.

Yet, you haven't even tried it.

It was a $250 set of speakers that let me appreciate the difference between the DD 5.1 and 24/48 DVD-A 5.1 tracks on Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral DualDisc.

^^^
LOL This statement is almost worthy of putting into a forum signature its so .........

DD 1.5 is inherently LOSSY. It will never sound as transparent as 7.1 PCM if you have a real audio setup, and the audio comes from a modern master.

^^^
LOL This statement is almost worthy of putting into a forum signature its so bad (unlike you, I won't name call). Look at Haloween and other "lossless audio" that sounds awful!

Sadly audio is much more subjective than video. Its why some people swear their 128 bit MP3s sound amazing and can not tell the difference between them and the wav files on their CDs. Its also why SACD and DVD-A failed so miserably, and DD music DVDs have easily won that battle.

Most people will agree that speakers, DACs and environment mean more than DD+ vs. lossless. I am confident that I can create a system that plays a DD+ soundtrack that sounds better than any lossless audio on a $500 receiver and $250 speakers. I am sure that there are about 5 people out here though that will never agree with this. Watch...here come their replies...

Yet, you haven't even tried it.

It was a $250 set of speakers that let me appreciate the difference between the DD 5.1 and 24/48 DVD-A 5.1 tracks on Nine Inch Nails' The Downward Spiral DualDisc.

As for me as well. But how many people are buying standalone BD players, almost every BD player is a PS3, so you have virtually all of its users transmitting via Toslink. Very, very few people have a HDMI receiver. And almost all of the HD DVD players sold don't have analog outputs, so the majority of them will be transmitting over Toslink as well.

I'm still PO'd about Year Zero not being on DVD-A/SACD :mad:

Most people will agree that speakers, DACs and environment mean more than DD+ vs. lossless. I am confident that I can create a system that plays a DD+ soundtrack that sounds better than any lossless audio on a $500 receiver and $250 speakers. I am sure that there are about 5 people out here though that will never agree with this. Watch...here come their replies...

Of course you can create a 7.1 system that sounds better than someone elses $750 home theater with lossless. But thats not the point at all.

"These People" that you are referring to.... want it to sound better on their own system. "These People" want their own system to sound as good as possible.

And if you bought into HDDVD and/or BD because your goal was to have the best high Definition experience possible.(within your budget of course) ....
.... then you should demand more than awesome picture and pretty good audio.

Sadly audio is much more subjective than video. Its why some people swear their 128 bit MP3s sound amazing and can not tell the difference between them and the wav files on their CDs. Its also why SACD and DVD-A failed so miserably, and DD music DVDs have easily won that battle.

Most people will agree that speakers, DACs and environment mean more than DD+ vs. lossless. I am confident that I can create a system that plays a DD+ soundtrack that sounds better than any lossless audio on a $500 receiver and $250 speakers. I am sure that there are about 5 people out here though that will never agree with this. Watch...here come their replies...

that's fine and maybe you can create a DD+ system to do it (it'll cost oodles of money though). I'll agree J6P usually won't have anything better than a $500 receiver and $250 speakers. But that doesn't stop ME from wanting to have lossless audio with all my movies. I've spent a lot more than J6P and I want the source material to take full advantage of that investment.

BTW, Add high-def video to that DVD-A 24/96 lossless audio and you have killer video format (Blu-ray at least) which will trounce DVD music videos; at least to my ears/eyes.

I think the number of people who care about lossless is lager than the number that can actually perceive the difference, but both are fractional.

From my experience, and with the rarest exceptions both lossless and and lossy HD audio tracks offer markedly better sound than DVD, but not, markedly better sound than each other, and that's what I think most notice. Few have either the ear or equipment discern it's perceived advantage.

All you're going to get with this thread is the same 18-24 people who always claim it's a must, which will appear as a larger number than the many, many more who are bored witless by the whole concern.

I don't doubt that there are a handful of audiophiles who genuinely, sincerely, and passionately care about this issues, but from what I can tell they are only a handful.

What he said!:cool:

As for me as well. But how many people are buying standalone BD players, almost every BD player is a PS3, so you have virtually all of its users transmitting via Toslink. Very, very few people have a HDMI receiver. And almost all of the HD DVD players sold don't have analog outputs, so the majority of them will be transmitting over Toslink as well.

I'm still PO'd about Year Zero not being on DVD-A/SACD :mad:

Before I had a HDMI receiver I simpley went two channel depending on the content as you can get 2 channel lossless over toslink. I switched back and forth at my buddies house who doesn't have HDMI and he now goes 2 channel as well depending on the movie. For example Black Hawk down sounds much richer in two channel lossless than the lossy 5.1. on his setup.

Lossless audio is great, but why settle for "good enough"? Lossless video is what is really needed in the HDM market. Anything less is just pandering to the movie companies and CEM's. :eek:

I don't get the reverence that people have for lossless. CDs have been around for over 20 years and they are lossless PCM. I don't hear people saying "I wonder if I should get into CDs because I don't have a system that can play them to their fullest." People just go out and buy CDs and listen to them.

As to studio supports, the major BD studios use lossless. The neutral studio, Warner, is getting on board. The major HD DVD studios do not.

Before I had a HDMI receiver I simpley went two channel depending on the content as you can get 2 channel lossless over toslink. I switched back and forth at my buddies house who doesn't have HDMI and he now goes 2 channel as well depending on the movie. For example Black Hawk down sounds much richer in two channel lossless than the lossy 5.1. on his setup.

My dealer's LG only supports 2 channel TrueHD and he seemed to prefer that over the 5.1 DD output with "Batman begins".

My dealer's LG only supports 2 channel TrueHD and he seemed to prefer that over the 5.1 DD output with "Batman begins".

I knew there were others. Shame the LG only does 2 channel TrueHD.

I knew there were others. Shame the LG only does 2 channel TrueHD.

Let's rephrase that, LG only supports 2-channel TrueHD for HD DVD. It supports 5.1 TrueHD for Blu-ray. Took me many moons and lurking on an AVSforum post or two to figure this out, but once I did, I suddenly had new interest in certain Blu-ray titles.

I don't get the reverence that people have for lossless. CDs have been around for over 20 years and they are lossless PCM. I don't hear people saying "I wonder if I should get into CDs because I don't have a system that can play them to their fullest." People just go out and buy CDs and listen to them.


Would they still buy CD's if the players were still $500? Nope.

Besides, CD's are so last year. Lossy MP3 is where it's at now! Look around.

People that demand the very very best technology available will continue to be able to get that technology at the very very highest price and in a small niche market. The way Bluray will go if they keep up their fantastic pricing strategy.

Let's rephrase that, LG only supports 2-channel TrueHD for HD DVD. It supports 5.1 TrueHD for Blu-ray. Took me many moons and lurking on an AVSforum post or two to figure this out, but once I did, I suddenly had new interest in certain Blu-ray titles.

That is kind of weird and lame for HD DVD at the same time. Thanks for the info.

That is kind of weird and lame for HD DVD at the same time. Thanks for the info.Remember, the original LG combo isn't an approved HD DVD playback device... what do you expect?

Remember, the original LG combo isn't an approved HD DVD playback device... what do you expect?

Heck 5.1 TrueHD isn't part of HD DVD spec either.

Would they still buy CD's if the players were still $500? Nope.

Besides, CD's are so last year. Lossy MP3 is where it's at now! Look around.

People that demand the very very best technology available will continue to be able to get that technology at the very very highest price and in a small niche market. The way Bluray will go if they keep up their fantastic pricing strategy.

The comparison to MP3s vs CDs is completely invalid.

People like MP3s because
A) They are cheap or Free
B) You can carry 100x more MP3s than Full Rez CDA
C) You can carry 15000 songs in your pocket
D) You can easily copy it everywhere. IE, the car, my mp3 player, computer, home theater.
E) You can use it while doing other activities, IE workout, driving, at work, in a plane... etc

Unless DVD/HDDVD/BD can do all the things listed above... comparing the two is an apples to oranges comparison.

Wow. Only a minority of people have fancy audio setups, so studios shouldn't bother putting the best audio on hidef disks? Most people don't have 1080p sets (or even players)...in fact most don't even have HDTVs yet. Why should the studios bother with HDM at all???

This whole thing is stupid. The point is to put out a premium product for HT enthusiasts, with enough bonus and interactive stuff to appeal to movie buffs in general. The finest audio and video should always be included, because it doesn't hurt anyone who has a mediocre setup, and it benefits those who have a really good one. Also, it encourages HT spending, since you can aquire PQ and AQ benefits with your upgrades.

It's worth noting that one format seems to usually put lowless and uncompressed tracks on their disks, so the problem can't simply be "that studios don't think anyone is interested."

I second RdJam in giving kudos to Universal for starting to use more lossless tracks. All releases on both formats should have the same every time.

At least that's how the film industry sees it right now.

While I love the potential for a soundtrack with lossless audio, the reality of my situation is that since I will be listening to any HDM through an older 6.1 channel receiver on speakers which cost about $250 I seriously doubt that the difference between DD+ and "lossless" will be noticeable.

And frankly that is the situation which the majority of consumers in America are in right now. 95% of the people out there do not have the audio gear to appreciate the difference in quality between a standard digital soundtrack and the latest and greatest in audioHD.

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.

Why would you expect the movie industry to cater to anything other than the majority of the potential market? To expect anything else is entirely unreasonable.

At this point in time they are preparing to push HDM into the mainstream and to do that they will need to have enough media available on the shelves to entice J6P into buying their players.

Of course they are going to push the titles out with DD or DD+ rather than waiting months to tweek the codecs to the point where Lossless audio can be on every disc. That will happen, just not fast enough for the media to be on the shelves this holiday season.

This is just like what happened in the late 90's, when several DVDs were released with sub-par audio tracks due to the fact that 99% of the homes in America didn't have a home theater audio setup.

Later on, the companies came back with "remastered" disc and "special editions" (Superbit anyone?) which gave them even more money and satisfied the demands of the general public once the audio tastes of the masses had matured.

This is exactly what is happening once again and frankly to expect anything else is basically wishful thinking.

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.

I'm starting to like your "make sense" posts. I agree that some who complain about lossless audio are only trying to defend their expensive purchases and, feel offended when they are not able to fully utilize them. This makes them no different then average joe and not superior IMO.

I have spent more on my audio setup in the last three years or so than I did on my DLP
^^
For example

People seem to be very caught up with "right now" around here at AVS with regards to the format war. I don't own a 1080p/24fps HDTV right now (I own a 56" Samsung DLP which is 720p native). I have spent more on my audio setup in the last three years or so than I did on my DLP set that I bought almost 3 years ago. That said, you better believe that I want my HDM media on 1080p discs. Why? Because I plan on updating my HDTV in the next 12-18 months to a larger set that supports 1080p/24fps.

My point. The cost for quality audio components (recievers, speakers) has dropped quite a lot over the years. It will most likely continue to do so. Sure you may not be able to take advantage of all the lossless codecs right now, but what about 2-7 years from now?

...
Of course they are going to push the titles out with DD or DD+ rather than waiting months to tweek the codecs to the point where Lossless audio can be on every disc. That will happen, just not fast enough for the media to be on the shelves this holiday season.

....

I forgot to point out that there's really no reason to "tweek the codecs" very much (if at all) with one of the formats....

I think studios are afraid that if they "tweek the codecs" very much in support of lossless audio on a certain format, they run the risk of unduly compromising PQ because of bandwidth/storage limitations. Not that much of an issue with the other format. This probably helps explain why the vast majority of HD DVD releases do not include lossless today. And another reason why HD DVD needs to die quickly.

I forgot to point out that there's really no reason to "tweek the codecs" very much (if at all) with one of the formats....

I think studios are afraid that if they "tweek the codecs" very much in support of lossless audio on a certain format, they run the risk of unduly compromising PQ because of bandwidth/storage limitations. Not that much of an issue with the other format. This probably helps explain why the vast majority of HD DVD releases do not include lossless today. And another reason why HD DVD needs to die quickly.

The other format has much bigger problems than "tweeking codecs". Like maybe building a player that can support the new specs! :p Actually this recent attack on HD DVD related to lossless audio is just a smokescreen to divert attention away from the serious issues that the BD camp faces. Master and Commander delayed 4 months because it won't work on 10% of the existing players. BD HW maufacturers rushing new "old spec" players to market just before the 1.1 profile deadline. Concerns that BD-J releases won't play on existing HW. I'd clean up my own house before I'd start casting stones!

Wow. Only a minority of people have fancy audio setups, so studios shouldn't bother putting the best audio on hidef disks? Most people don't have 1080p sets (or even players)...in fact most don't even have HDTVs yet. Why should the studios bother with HDM at all???


That is not the point. If the movie industry were focused entirely on the upper 5% of consumers (admittedly many of whom frequent these forums) then yes, it would be understandable to expect, even demand the absolute highest quality media for your HDM players.

However that is not the case. The early adopters are for the most part a "test market" in many ways that the industry uses to sort out various product lines before making the major push into middle America.

The movie execs know that the vast majority of their true target audience will honestly not care one bit if their favorite movie is shipped on HDM with either DD, DD+ or TrueHD audio. They also know that this holiday season will be the one to start making that push to get HD players into the mainstream.

To that end, they are going to try to get as many titles on the shelves in their respective formats and if that means dropping a few extras or a high end audio codec then that is what they are going to do.

Of course in a couple of years they will re-release the same movie "upgraded" with the extras and codecs which were originally dropped.

Ultimately, if you are unhappy about the audio track on a title then just don't buy it. Rent it if you have to see it now but just wait 18 to 24 months, after the industry has penetrated into J6P's living room and I practically guarantee you that the same film will be out again only this time just the way you wanted it.

Because by then it will be time for the industry to start marketing the new audio equipment to J6P so he can "appreciate" what you were demanding from the start.


And there are a lot more people out there with HD sets today than you might think. Tens of millions actually, which is why the industry is now looking to this market as the next big source of revenue.

I'm starting to like your "make sense" posts. I agree that some who complain about lossless audio are only trying to defend their expensive purchases and, feel offended when they are not able to fully utilize them. This makes them no different then average joe and not superior IMO.

Thank you.

That is not the point. If the movie industry were focused entirely on the upper 5% of consumers (admittedly many of whom frequent these forums) then yes, it would be understandable to expect, even demand the absolute highest quality media for your HDM players.

However that is not the case. The early adopters are for the most part a "test market" in many ways that the industry uses to sort out various product lines before making the major push into middle America.

The movie execs know that the vast majority of their true target audience will honestly not care one bit if their favorite movie is shipped on HDM with either DD, DD+ or TrueHD audio. They also know that this holiday season will be the one to start making that push to get HD players into the mainstream.

To that end, they are going to try to get as many titles on the shelves in their respective formats and if that means dropping a few extras or a high end audio codec then that is what they are going to do.

Of course in a couple of years they will re-release the same movie "upgraded" with the extras and codecs which were originally dropped.

Ultimately, if you are unhappy about the audio track on a title then just don't buy it. Rent it if you have to see it now but just wait 18 to 24 months, after the industry has penetrated into J6P's living room and I practically guarantee you that the same film will be out again only this time just the way you wanted it.

Because by then it will be time for the industry to start marketing the new audio equipment to J6P so he can "appreciate" what you were demanding from the start.


And there are a lot more people out there with HD sets today than you might think. Tens of millions actually, which is why the industry is now looking to this market as the next big source of revenue.

can't agree with this. this would be like saying when dvd's first came out there was no reason to include digital audio b/c vast majority of ppl are connecting their dvd players to tv's via rca and have no receivers. when you make a new format you should always include the best the format can offer. including lossless track that has a lossy core allows you to cater to everyone, not just j6p.

when i first got into HDM with the PS3, i didnt have a hdmi receiver and watched potc1 and 2 on dd640. after i upgraded i went back to watch the same discs with lossless audio. and i think most would prefer to go back and rewatch what they already bought for the extra stuff their equipment couldnt handle rather than having to buy new discs of the same movie after upgrading equipment.

AQ is more important than PQ to me
this may change when I own a FP and 100"+ screen.


Yes, it sure will.:)

Wow. Only a minority of people have fancy audio setups, so studios shouldn't bother putting the best audio on hidef disks? Most people don't have 1080p sets (or even players)...in fact most don't even have HDTVs yet. Why should the studios bother with HDM at all???

This whole thing is stupid. The point is to put out a premium product for HT enthusiasts, with enough bonus and interactive stuff to appeal to movie buffs in general. The finest audio and video should always be included, because it doesn't hurt anyone who has a mediocre setup, and it benefits those who have a really good one. Also, it encourages HT spending, since you can aquire PQ and AQ benefits with your upgrades.

It's worth noting that one format seems to usually put lowless and uncompressed tracks on their disks, so the problem can't simply be "that studios don't think anyone is interested."

I second RdJam in giving kudos to Universal for starting to use more lossless tracks. All releases on both formats should have the same every time.

Remember this industry is into selling hardware also. The HD audio tracks are there to sell hardware.
J6P says " Mmm wonder what that TrueHD would sound like if I upgraded to that new fangled reciever they got??"

;)

Remember this industry is into selling hardware also. The HD audio tracks are there to sell hardware.
J6P says " Mmm wonder what that TrueHD would sound like if I upgraded to that new fangled reciever they got??"

;)

No they don't. The average joe doesn't know the difference nor care. Their willingness to stick with DVD proves that. Using your own scenario, they would wonder what the PQ is like vs DVD, not the AQ. Stop fooling yourself.

We are hobbyists....of course we want lossless over lossy.

can't agree with this. this would be like saying when dvd's first came out there was no reason to include digital audio b/c vast majority of ppl are connecting their dvd players to tv's via rca and have no receivers. when you make a new format you should always include the best the format can offer. including lossless track that has a lossy core allows you to cater to everyone, not just j6p.


Actually when DVDs first came out many of them had extremely substandard audio tracks. And since the majority of people didn't have 5.1 sound systems in their living rooms many didn't care, that is until the big "theater sound" marketing push rolled out in the early 2000's.

This is why so many DVD were re-released a few years later with "remastered" audio and extra audio tracks.

BTW, anyone else remember the audio format wars between Dolby and Lucasarts?

Actually when DVDs first came out many of them had extremely substandard audio tracks. And since the majority of people didn't have 5.1 sound systems in their living rooms many didn't care, that is until the big "theater sound" marketing push rolled out in the early 2000's.

This is why so many DVD were re-released a few years later with "remastered" audio and extra audio tracks.

BTW, anyone else remember the audio format wars between Dolby and Lucasarts?
Not only that, what ever happened to HD music titles on CD? Hmm?

No they don't. The average joe doesn't know the difference nor care. Their willingness to stick with DVD proves that. Using your own scenario, they would wonder what the PQ is like vs DVD, not the AQ. Stop fooling yourself.

You assume they don't. You under estimate the consumer. You make it sound like everyone out there is ignorant.
Most informed consumers want to get the best that they can afford. Who do you think is buying this stuff, not just the small minority enthusiast.

Here is what is silly about the lossless argument.
I have 5 DVD players. 4 will NEVER need lossless audio. Why the heck would I pay extra $$ for BR when it will provide ZERO benefit for 4 out of 5 of my players. There is no way I would ever pay BR prices to replace those players, but I sure will to make them HD DVD. 3 of them do have Ethernet ports near by (I wired my whole house when I bought it) so HD DVD provide a benefit there.

The BR plan seems to be have one high end player for HDM, and a lot of discs that can only be played in one location.

The HD DVD plan is to have inexpensive players everywhere, and discs that work everywhere (like combos ant TL discs).

Now the nice thing to know is that I do have a bunch of discs like Harry Potter GoF tht do provide lossless audio, so we all know that HD DVD can provide that.

Also, check out the CC offer on the A2 this weekend. It will be either $149 or $199, so I may buy 2 more players.

You assume they don't. You under estimate the consumer. You make it sound like everyone out there is ignorant.
Most informed consumers want to get the best that they can afford. Who do you think is buying this stuff, not just the small minority enthusiast.

Wrong, and spinning it won't help your cause. While you twist my words to say the consumer are ignorant you are the one who's actually implying they are ignorant because they don't care for lossless.

The other format has much bigger problems than "tweeking codecs". Like maybe building a player that can support the new specs! :p Actually this recent attack on HD DVD related to lossless audio is just a smokescreen to divert attention away from the serious issues that the BD camp faces. Master and Commander delayed 4 months because it won't work on 10% of the existing players. BD HW maufacturers rushing new "old spec" players to market just before the 1.1 profile deadline. Concerns that BD-J releases won't play on existing HW. I'd clean up my own house before I'd start casting stones!

Since my only interest is movie playback and AQ/SQ thereof, I'm not sure I care about the profiles hullabaloo. I've yet to encounter any software-related issues playing back Blu-rays (Or HD DVD for that matter).

Since my only interest is movie playback and AQ/SQ thereof, I'm not sure I care about the profiles hullabaloo. I've yet to encounter any software-related issues playing back Blu-rays (Or HD DVD for that matter).

How many disks are out with anything approaching advanced features now? Let's see, POTC has problems with liars dice, Natures Journey had to be delayed because it exposed player problems with its advanced menu features and now M&C delayed. How long do you think the studios will dink around with BD before they decide it's not worth the effort. Yeah, you only care about AQ and PQ but you don't own any content.

How many disks are out with anything approaching advanced features now? Let's see, POTC has problems with liars dice, Natures Journey had to be delayed because it exposed player problems with its advanced menu features and now M&C delayed. How long do you think the studios will dink around with BD before they decide it's not worth the effort. Yeah, you only care about AQ and PQ but you don't own any content.

You might want to read his sig, it would save you from making such idiotic statements ;)

Yeah, you only care about AQ and PQ but you don't own any content.

I don't follow that one at all.

Are you sure?

that's fine and maybe you can create a DD+ system to do it (it'll cost oodles of money though). I'll agree J6P usually won't have anything better than a $500 receiver and $250 speakers. But that doesn't stop ME from wanting to have lossless audio with all my movies. I've spent a lot more than J6P and I want the source material to take full advantage of that investment.

BTW, Add high-def video to that DVD-A 24/96 lossless audio and you have killer video format (Blu-ray at least) which will trounce DVD music videos; at least to my ears/eyes.

+1

Noone cares!!

Ummm, I do.

Definitely can be bad lossless encodes, I agree with that. As well as amazing for what DD+ is capable just as amazing encodes for audio and vidoe for what a DVD is capable of.

So what the hell are you talking about?..can there on can't there be a Tier 0 title without lossless..

So, we'll see all you audio aficianados as early participants in Caesar's next audio test? :rolleyes: We'll be looking for you :p

The funny thing is, there are actually a lot of people who can take advantage of lossless audio. All you really need is 5.1 analog hookups on your reciever...The sticking point is, in my humble opinion, is actually setting the player up to decode the audio to PCM and selecting the correct audio track on the disc.

The quality of lossless audio on a decent HTiB is actually very good. I was quite surprised to hear a TrueHD track, decoded to PCM and sent to my brothers Onkyo SR600 HTiB...It sounded very good. I think the system cost him 250 bucks.

So, we'll see all you audio aficianados as early participants in Caesar's next audio test? :rolleyes: We'll be looking for you :p


Uh, I've been busy.......err, can't find the time, ah....I know I'm hearing a difference, and dun need no steenking test!....Oh, I'll be doing my own test, under carefully "controlled" ;) conditions. Can't wait!

Uh huh. Sure....and lot's of people swear they've seen an alien mother-ship, too.

I don't follow that one at all.

Are you sure?

He has purchased copies of content, but he owns nothing! He has nothing to sell and those that sell determine how that that content will be presented. He cannot for example, take a disk into his local watering hole, and play that disk for the customers. The rights belong to the content provider and the provider will decide how it is presented, be it lossless or not. Be it with enhanced features that work on some players or not. And if the content providers want interactivity and you can't support it, it does not bode well for your format.

There is no lossless audio codec, really. As a matter of fact, it's all lossy. (DSOTM "Eclipse")

Doug

There is no lossless audio codec, really. As a matter of fact, it's all lossy. (DSOTM "Eclipse")

Doug

Actually, wouldn't that be "As a matter of fact it's all lossless".

That is not the point. If the movie industry were focused entirely on the upper 5% of consumers (admittedly many of whom frequent these forums) then yes, it would be understandable to expect, even demand the absolute highest quality media for your HDM players.

However that is not the case. The early adopters are for the most part a "test market" in many ways that the industry uses to sort out various product lines before making the major push into middle America.

The movie execs know that the vast majority of their true target audience will honestly not care one bit if their favorite movie is shipped on HDM with either DD, DD+ or TrueHD audio. They also know that this holiday season will be the one to start making that push to get HD players into the mainstream.

To that end, they are going to try to get as many titles on the shelves in their respective formats and if that means dropping a few extras or a high end audio codec then that is what they are going to do.

Of course in a couple of years they will re-release the same movie "upgraded" with the extras and codecs which were originally dropped.

Ultimately, if you are unhappy about the audio track on a title then just don't buy it. Rent it if you have to see it now but just wait 18 to 24 months, after the industry has penetrated into J6P's living room and I practically guarantee you that the same film will be out again only this time just the way you wanted it.

Because by then it will be time for the industry to start marketing the new audio equipment to J6P so he can "appreciate" what you were demanding from the start.


And there are a lot more people out there with HD sets today than you might think. Tens of millions actually, which is why the industry is now looking to this market as the next big source of revenue.


Great post. I fully agree. We are still in beta with HD.

So, we'll see all you audio aficianados as early participants in Caesar's next audio test? :rolleyes: We'll be looking for you :p


Hehe - good point. All those so adamantly proposing lossless can prove the difference that way.

Personally, I suspect near nobody outside the profressional encoders will be able to consistently tell the difference between 16 bit lossless and a good 1.5mbit DD+ track. If the past test is a guide a fair number will even prefer the compressed sound.

Hehe - good point. All those so adamantly proposing lossless can prove the difference that way.

Personally, I suspect near nobody outside the profressional encoders will be able to consistently tell the difference between 16 bit lossless and a good 1.5mbit DD+ track. If the past test is a guide a fair number will even prefer the compressed sound.


Regardless of whether folks can or cannot pass this next test will in no way impede the desire for lossless sound favoring for HD Media.... If it is as close to the master as possible, is there any reason not to want it?

Regardless of whether folks can or cannot pass this next test will in no way impede the desire for lossless sound favoring for HD Media.... If it is as close to the master as possible, is there any reason not to want it?

Aren't you just giving everyone a pass who fails the test?

"Don't worry about if you can tell the difference . . . . just give it to us."

Aren't you just giving everyone a pass who fails the test?

"Don't worry about if you can tell the difference . . . . just give it to us."

Nice try.


Seriously, can you think of valid reasons why you'd prefer to have lossy releases over lossless? I mean, any hobbyist would want a soucce, be it audio or video, to be as close to reference as possible. Am I correct?

Anyone here preferring otherwise has a non-hobbyist (lobbyist) agenda and likely a garbage system..

Regardless of whether folks can or cannot pass this next test will in no way impede the desire for lossless sound favoring for HD Media.... If it is as close to the master as possible, is there any reason not to want it?

In such a scenario, with lossless being audibly no different from lossy, it doesn't make any difference either way.

However, that assumes there's no cost to using the extra bandwidth, and space. A couple of 16bit LPCM tracks on a 150 min movie eat over 10GB of space, and 9mbit of bandwidth. That's a fair old chunk; if there is no difference compared to lossy, and it means sacrificing quality or extras, then it's no contest.

Of course with TrueHD it's not such a dramatic tradeoff - the cost in disc space compared to DD+ is minimal, and in bandwidth it's only going to be a factor with the most tightly-crammed bitrates. Bluray will eventually switch to compressed lossless, and when that happens there won't be any reason to use lossy on that format.

I think the OP hit the nail on the head. 90% of the people could care less about lossless. Go to any big box electronics store, and you will see the majority of what they sell does not support lossless. Go to Walmart or Target and you will see NONE of what they sell supports lossless.

This is the reason why it it great we have 2 formats. One is for people who only want to watch the movie, and also want lossless on as many titles as possible. The other is more affordable, comes with better extras, Internet connectivity, HD video, HD audio (not always lossless though) and is more of what the average person is going to want.

I think it is great people are passionate about losssless audio. You guys will be happy with Blu-Ray. Just do not try to force it on the rest of us who could care less. I am not going to pay the high BR premium for something I do not want or need.

HD DVD is for the rest of us. The 90% of us who either do not have high end equipment or just do not need it. Its also for the people like me who want more than one HDM player. I will soon have one in my bedroom, one in my family room, and one in my basement. Why on earth would I pay $500 for a player that has less features but provides lossless audio in my bedroom? For that price I could buy 3 HD DVD players and then not have to worry about if a disc will play in a particular locaton.

Again, Blu-Ray will create that high-end niche, and HD DVD will clearly be for the masses.

Well there is no reason to want the best possible and obviously many of us on this forum have systems that can take advantage of the best possible. What I don't get is why we enthusiasts are fighting amongst each other on this topic. It won't change what the studios in the least bit.

I think the reason that a majority of the blu-ray discs are released in 5.1 PCM is because they don't need to pay the dolby royalties for Dolby Digital plus and it isn't mandated by Blu-ray. This allows the studios to tout the better sound and picture of the hidef format. Its also the reason they don't use TrueHD often even though the are able to decode it. PCM is a space pig but its free and Blu-ray has the capacity.

So we can all ask for the best available but it will all fall to the owners of the property to determine how it will be released IMHO. I do think though that your displeasure at this should not be aimed at each other in these forums. Forum member 1 arguing with Forum member 2 is not going to change Paramounts audio descisions on the type of audio released. HDM is a big step up over DVD and although I would like to see the finest audio always presented I will still appreciate the improvements in both audio and video that this format offers.

He has purchased copies of content, but he owns nothing! He has nothing to sell and those that sell determine how that that content will be presented. He cannot for example, take a disk into his local watering hole, and play that disk for the customers. The rights belong to the content provider and the provider will decide how it is presented, be it lossless or not. Be it with enhanced features that work on some players or not. And if the content providers want interactivity and you can't support it, it does not bode well for your format.

That one pegged the BS meter. It was a nice try at a tapdance to "gracefully" (?) cover the original bonehead post. :)

That one pegged the BS meter. It was a nice try at a tapdance to "gracefully" (?) cover the original bonehead post. :)

You should know, you peg the meter quite often. I only substituted provider with owner for clarity.

Lossless Audio is a really big deal to me. Amazing audio tracks are a major part of having the total home cinema experience.

I really cannot express how happy I am with Sony/MGM/Columbia and Disney for listening to us and including so many lossless tracks.

IMO its not Tier 0 without lossless audio!

amen

PQ=AQ

Nice try.


Seriously, can you think of valid reasons why you'd prefer to have lossy releases over lossless? I mean, any hobbyist would want a soucce, be it audio or video, to be as close to reference as possible. Am I correct?

Anyone here preferring otherwise has a non-hobbyist (lobbyist) agenda and likely a garbage system..

amen

what happened to hd fans?

amen

PQ=AQ

So the issue of decerning ears not being able to tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD . . . we should ignore this fact?

Or are we falling prey to the Spec Warriors?

Speak for yourself.

You are obviously agenda driven...I am highest quality audio/video driven.

Remeber, this is an enthusiast site and a source close to the master is always desired. You can't even present a decent argument to the contrary that wouldn't get laughed at.

I'll pimp for scaesare's thread. You folks going to participate?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=909957

And I promise I'm working on getting the details ironed out so we can get Round 2 off the ground soon.

It would be great of the folks here would particpate.

There is no lossless audio codec, really. As a matter of fact, it's all lossy. (DSOTM "Eclipse")

Doug


Not true in this context of perceptual coding as found on HD media.

Nice try.


Seriously, can you think of valid reasons why you'd prefer to have lossy releases over lossless? I mean, any hobbyist would want a soucce, be it audio or video, to be as close to reference as possible. Am I correct?

Anyone here preferring otherwise has a non-hobbyist (lobbyist) agenda and likely a garbage system..


Pretty broad brush there, isn't it Jeff?

Streaming, server storage, additional space for other material, etc... are valid reasons for preferring smaller file sizes, which losssy coding provides. It may not be your preference, but it's no lesl valid.

Let me ask you this: How will you categorize your systems, should you not be able to tell the difference a majority of the time?

Sure. Its like this...

Its easy to tell the difference between one discarded PS3 and a pile of 100 discarded PS3s. But it is a lot harder to tell the difference between a pile of 5000 and a pile of 5100 discarded PS3s.

A corollary to this is that lots of PS3s owners are playing Halo 3 today.


So they are dual format owners? ;)

PQ=AQ

So if PQ=AQ then P=A?

Look at most DVD players. You know the things HDM players are trying to replace. How many are plugged in to high end receivers that support lossless audio? Like .0000001%?

Look around your house. How many of your players need lossless audio? Maybe 1?

I would rather have 3 inexpensive HDM players that are compatible than 1 more expensive HDM player that is not compatible with my other players.

Right now if I am watching a movie in my HT room, I can take it upstairs and finish watching it there.

......I think the reason that a majority of the blu-ray discs are released in 5.1 PCM is because they don't need to pay the dolby royalties for Dolby Digital plus and it isn't mandated by Blu-ray.......PCM is a space pig but its free and Blu-ray has the capacity.
Sort of like pigging out at a cheap buffet. You'll pay the price for the bloat when server storage/streaming becomes the norm, except BD may not permit that, and may not even last that long. It also limits on the number of alternate language tracks and extras possible.

Sort of like pigging out at a cheap buffet. You'll pay the price for the bloat when server storage/streaming becomes the norm, except BD may not permit that, and may not even last that long. It also limits on the number of alternate language tracks and extras possible.

Don't worry, server storage is cheap, downloading and streaming could be an issue but that concept has serious conflicts with the Blu-ray business model. If anything, the more "stuff" Blu-ray crams onto a disk, the more inconvenient it will be for someone to stream pirated content.

And if/when the number of alternate language and/or extras becomes an issue, they'll just start using TrueHD/DTS HD MA. They've already started using it for whatever reasons. Besides, storage limitations are far more constraining on HD DVD than they are on 50G Blu-rays.

Sort of like pigging out at a cheap buffet. You'll pay the price for the bloat when server storage/streaming becomes the norm, except BD may not permit that, and may not even last that long. It also limits on the number of alternate language tracks and extras possible.


Exactly...and that is the best part of Bd. Alot of space, tons of data and a lot less superfluous crap. Just 1080P video and uncompressed sound... The hobbyists' choice.


RE: server storage/streaming (like who cares about that today?) and limits on the number of alternate language tracks and extras possible...all pluses..

Exactly...and that is the best part of Bd. Alot of space, tons of data and a lot less superfluous crap. Just 1080P video and uncompressed sound... The hobbyists' choice.

OK, so BR in the HT room. Its the hobbyists' choice.
What about the playroom, bedroom, family room, etc.?
Are you going to put cheap HD DVD players there?

Speak for yourself.

You are obviously agenda driven...I am highest quality audio/video driven.

That's fair enough. So if you can't tell a difference in the test thread, you'll be happy with DD+? :-)

Looking at the compression ratios applied to audio, they're absolutely tiny compared to video. Off the top opf my head, uncompressed 1080p24 is something like 1100mbit/sec, and losslessly compressed at best a third of that. Most recent Bluray/HDDVDs average around 17/18mbit video bitrate, 1/60th the size of the original. Meanwhile, the 1.5mbit is DD+ is 1/3rd the original.

Unless Dolby and DTS have completely screwed up, 1.5mbit should be way more than plenty for complete transparency - 300k per channel is a bucketload.

OK, so BR in the HT room. Its the hobbyists' choice.
What about the playroom, bedroom, family room, etc.?
Are you going to put cheap HD DVD players there?

I must be the only one who watches optical media in my HT? I must be an oddball.

Why the hell would I want to watch optical media without surround sound?

The more and more I read about this, the clearer and clearer it gets that HD DVD apologists clamoring about "lossless doesnt matter" must watch alot of movies in their bedroom on the TV speakers.

To each, his own I suppose.

I must be the only one who watches optical media in my HT? I must be an oddball.

Why the hell would I want to watch optical media without surround sound?

The more and more I read about this, the clearer and clearer it gets that HD DVD apologists clamoring about "lossless doesnt matter" must watch alot of movies in their bedroom on the TV speakers.

To each, his own I suppose.

Who said no one has SS in their bedroom? Doesn't everyone?;)

I mean I have it so everyone else must have it . . . right?:rolleyes:

....
Unless Dolby and DTS have completely screwed up, 1.5mbit should be way more than plenty for complete transparency - 300k per channel is a bucketload.

I'll disagree with that statement. Yes DD/DTS 1.5m can sound very good and quite "clean" (at least compared to DVD lossless), but they start to sound "muddy", constricted when compared to well-done uncompressed PCM or TrueHD. I will admit the differences may not be noticeable on your typical HTIB systems, but anyone (enthusiasts perhaps?) with a decent audio/video rig will appreciate the differences (whether or not some wouldbe objectivists suggests it's only a placebo effect or not).

I must be the only one who watches optical media in my HT? I must be an oddball.

Why the hell would I want to watch optical media without surround sound?

The more and more I read about this, the clearer and clearer it gets that HD DVD apologists clamoring about "lossless doesnt matter" must watch alot of movies in their bedroom on the TV speakers.

To each, his own I suppose.

What on earth are you babbling about?
I have an HT room too. I have a 100" screen and a 1080p projector. My receiver and HDM support lossless audio, and I have plenty of movies with lossless audio tracks....but I also have an HDM player in my family room connected to my 50" plasma. I just got an HDM player for my bedroom TV where I use TV speakers. Why on earth would I care about lossless audio in those last 2 locations? Why would I pay a premium for a player when I am connecting it to TV speakers?

I would much rather have compatiblity between my HDM players than more lossless audio.

As I said before. If you are just going to have one HDM player and you are an enthusiast, and you only want to watch movies, great go BR. Everyone else though will want HD DVD.

What on earth are you babbling about?
I have an HT room too. I have a 100" screen and a 1080p projector. My receiver and HDM support lossless audio, and I have plenty of movies with lossless audio tracks....but I also have an HDM player in my family room connected to my 50" plasma. I just got an HDM player for my bedroom TV where I use TV speakers. Why on earth would I care about lossless audio in those last 2 locations? Why would I pay a premium for a player when I am connecting it to TV speakers?

I would much rather have compatiblity between my HDM players than more lossless audio.

As I said before. If you are just going to have one HDM player and you are an enthusiast, and you only want to watch movies, great go BR. Everyone else though will want HD DVD.

OK man, whatever you say. I am an enthusiats who wants lossless regardless of format.

Question: If they put lossless onto an HD DVD, does it NOT play in your other HD DVD players?

Who said no one has SS in their bedroom? Doesn't everyone?;)

I mean I have it so everyone else must have it . . . right?:rolleyes:

I don't get it.

Did I say I have ss in my bedroom?

I have 1 room where everything I play sounds/looks awesome. That is where I watch movies.

Not sure what you are getting at.

I'll disagree with that statement. Yes DD/DTS 1.5m can sound very good and quite "clean" (at least compared to DVD lossless), but they start to sound "muddy", constricted when compared to well-done uncompressed PCM or TrueHD. I will admit the differences may not be noticeable on your typical HTIB systems, but anyone (enthusiasts perhaps?) with a decent audio/video rig will appreciate the differences (whether or not some wouldbe objectivists suggests it's only a placebo effect or not).

+1

But since someone told them there is no difference they won't bother to find out for themselves.

And 95% of people don't care, so we shouldnt either.;)

Who said no one has SS in their bedroom? Doesn't everyone?;)

I mean I have it so everyone else must have it . . . right?:rolleyes:

so you promote encoding for mediocrity? that's what drives me crazy on this board. everyone seems to willingly accept mediocrity. Look at the starz transfers. every one fubared. :(

IMO the ultimate system money can buy tomorrow should be the platform each release strives to over accommodate.

+1

But since someone told them there is no difference they won't bother to find out for themselves.

And 95% of people don't care, so we shouldnt either.;)

strive for mediocrity! the model fanboys love to promote unfortunately. Be HD enthusiasts! both formats and the studios supporting them have sucked so far. let's push for something better!

RJB Films deserves out money IMO. they alone have heeded the call of the PQ/AQ enthusiast.

strive for mediocrity! the model fanboys love to promote unfortunately. Be HD enthusiasts! both formats and the studios supporting them have sucked so far. let's push for something better!

RJB Films deserves out money IMO. they alone have heeded the call of the PQ/AQ enthusiast.

I'm all for pushing technology and getting the best of the best. The reality is enthusiasts don't account for enough sales which creates a niche.

Prime examples are VHS, Wii, MP3 Players -- All most definately the "poorer performing" formats. What brought them mainstream was price and features.

I say keep Bluray for niche and bring HD-DVD mainstream. Something that will likely happen.

...I have an HT room too. I have a 100" screen and a 1080p projector. My receiver and HDM support lossless audio, and I have plenty of movies with lossless audio tracks....but I also have an HDM player in my family room connected to my 50" plasma. I just got an HDM player for my bedroom TV where I use TV speakers. Why on earth would I care about lossless audio in those last 2 locations? Why would I pay a premium for a player when I am connecting it to TV speakers?...

Question: If they put lossless onto an HD DVD, does it NOT play in your other HD DVD players?

I do not think you understand. Lossless is fine, but the majority of players even in an early adoptors home have ZERO use for it. Right?
HT Room? Sure.
My small LCD HDTV in the bedroom? No need for lossless.
My 50" plasma with the old 5.1 dolby system in the family room. No need for lossless.

This is why I bought $199 players for those rooms. I can now watch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in all 3 locations. In all its lossless audio glory in the basement, in the family room with the kids, or in the bedroom when I am to sleepy to watch anywhere else.

strive for mediocrity! the model fanboys love to promote unfortunately. Be HD enthusiasts! both formats and the studios supporting them have sucked so far. let's push for something better!

RJB Films deserves out money IMO. they alone have heeded the call of the PQ/AQ enthusiast.

Why not focus on getting HDM to be mainstream first. As long as you focus on things like lossless audio, it will always be a tiny niche product for people with full blown HT rooms. It will end up like SACD and DVD-A.

Let's strive for more than 2% of the market. Let's call for lower prices, and players that will fit all the other places that we currently have SD DVD players.

After that we can focus on the other things like lossless audio.

I love how folks here "in the know" can spew facts about the tiniest details of their systems yet when someone says "95% of people (yada yada)" they take that as gospel. Where did 95% come from? are we sure it's not 92%? 74.35912%? My point is no one knows (seriously) and it's all conjecture.

To me this thread boils down to this:
- Lossless is better than lossy.
- Some people care about it, others don't.
- Eventually everything will be lossless and high definition.

Me? I much prefer lossless because I have the equipment able to bring it to life in my HT and it is noticeably better than lossy. My 82 year neighbor could give a rat's behind about it. Her Zenith 27" tube TV is simply perfect :) Different strokes....

Why not focus on getting HDM to be mainstream first. As long as you focus on things like lossless audio, it will always be a tiny niche product for people with full blown HT rooms. It will end up like SACD and DVD-A.

Let's strive for more than 2% of the market. Let's call for lower prices, and players that will fit all the other places that we currently have SD DVD players.

After that we can focus on the other things like lossless audio.

Correct. But then there could be a real split in the emerging markets:

1. BD becomes LD Part 2 - a niche format for the AV Geek

2. HD DVD becomes the successor to DVD - for the masses.

Fine with me.

Why not focus on getting HDM to be mainstream first. As long as you focus on things like lossless audio, it will always be a tiny niche product for people with full blown HT rooms. It will end up like SACD and DVD-A.

Let's strive for more than 2% of the market. Let's call for lower prices, and players that will fit all the other places that we currently have SD DVD players.

After that we can focus on the other things like lossless audio.

Whether it's HD DVD or Blu-Ray, economies of scale will eventually drive down prices, provided at least one of these formats can survive. I'd rather that format be Blu-ray because of the better PQ/SQ capabilities.

Also, I can see Blu-ray being the killer app for music videos: DVD-A (or better) quality sound combined with high def video.

To me this thread boils down to this:
- Lossless is better than lossy.
- Some people care about it, others don't.
- Eventually everything will be lossless and high definition.



I think you can add:
-Some people choose a formar because one has a high percentage of titles with lossless audio.
-Others prefer look at price, Internet connectivity, extras, content, etc. when choosing.

Nothing wrong with either of those.

Actually, wouldn't that be "As a matter of fact it's all lossless".

Grammatically, yes, it would be, but I was just having a little fun.

Not true in this context of perceptual coding as found on HD media.

"perceptual coding" Wow, now that's a can of worms I won't eat out of. This whole argument is like arguing whether $100,000 speakers are 33% better than $75,000 speakers. It has been scientifically proven by countless DBTs that once you get above 200-300k audio resolution, the vast, VAST!, majority of people cannot tell the difference from the "original", including myself. How exactly does everyone think the original CD was developed, by the way? Do you think they just picked a number out of a hat?

In using my pun I was trying to point out that everything recorded is lossy compared to what our ears hear in the natural world. That's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Once you add electricity, components, wires, speakers, and room acoustics on top of digital recordings, you only degrade the sound more. Think about it. You are sitting in your HT watching a scene of a wide open space, with birds chirping and cows mooing, and you know darn well that what you hear is not how it really sounds in the natural world. It can't because you are sitting in an enclosed room hearing sounds "lossy" recorded, filtered, amplified, mixed, mushed up, mangled, and then recreated on small surfaces that vibrate.

My take on all this? If you don't like the way your system sounds, upgrade your system, but thinking that buying another 33% of audio resolution for the average system, at the levels we are talking about, is not going to do it. Sorry. In a perfect world, then yes, I would say give us lossless (whatever the heck that means), but I already know it would not make any difference until we get some real breakthroughs in playback systems.

Doug

I'm all for pushing technology and getting the best of the best. The reality is enthusiasts don't account for enough sales which creates a niche.

Prime examples are VHS, Wii, MP3 Players -- All most definately the "poorer performing" formats. What brought them mainstream was price and features.

I say keep Bluray for niche and bring HD-DVD mainstream. Something that will likely happen.

Let's talk about MP3 Players... Ipod vs the Rest

Ipod cost more than ' The Rest'
Ipod have less function than 'the rest' (They can't even put a FM radio built in LOL)
'The Rest' is cheaper

But then. Ipod CRUSH the competition

Whether it's HD DVD or Blu-Ray, economies of scale will eventually drive down prices, provided at least one of these formats can survive. I'd rather that format be Blu-ray because of the better PQ/SQ capabilities.

Also, I can see Blu-ray being the killer app for music videos: DVD-A (or better) quality sound combined with high def video.

Yeah, eventually SACD and DVD-A players will be cheap enough that everyone has one too. Oh, wait. No wants one no matter what the price.

There appears to be two line of thinking here:

"Everyone wants SACD and DVD-A and they will want Blu-Ray too!"
"No one wants SACD and DVD-A but they will like saving $ with HD DVD"

Yeah, eventually SACD and DVD-A players will be cheap enough that everyone has one too. Oh, wait. No wants one no matter what the price.

There appears to be two line of thinking here:

"Everyone wants SACD and DVD-A and they will want Blu-Ray too!"
"No one wants SACD and DVD-A but they will like saving $ with HD DVD"

They are saving even more money sticking with DVD (which unfortunately, a lot of them are doing). Heck, you can probably get four (4) upsampling DVD players for your bedroom systems for the price of the cheapest HD DVD players.

A 1080p Toshiba is only 50$ or so cheaper than than a similarly equipped Sony so the only real HD DVD cost advantage is with barebones (aka CHEAP) 1080i players (for now). The price premium for both HD DVD and Blu-Ray software is also a deterrent to mass market adoption. I'm perfectly happy with Blu-ray as a niche; just so long as it's survival is not threatened by HD DVD.

Let's talk about MP3 Players... Ipod vs the Rest

Ipod cost more than ' The Rest'
Ipod have less function than 'the rest' (They can't even put a FM radio built in LOL)
'The Rest' is cheaper

But then. Ipod CRUSH the competition

Actually GB to GB, the iPod is priced fairly. You also get access to the FREE itunes app that makes management simpler.

There is a lot of value add to the iPod.

iTouch...now that is another deal, but it is different than the iPod.

Ironically, the iPod hurt Sony!

...
"... How exactly does everyone think the original CD was developed, by the way? Do you think they just picked a number out of a hat?

... Doug

The resolution on CD was selected based more on the commercial viability of the available technology than how much information was needed to reproduce the original music. We are lucky they didn't select 14 or 12 bits.

16 bit/44.1Khz is not nearly enough of a sampling rate to accurately reproduce the nuances of music. That's why vinyl despite it's inconveniences, TLC, wow, flutter, tone arm adjustments, scratch, wear&tear, etc continues to thrive, It provided almost "infinite resolution" if you will, compared to CD. It does a much better job of reproducing horn overtones, the shimmer of cymbals, voices, strings, instrument placement in the soundfield, etc... than CD ever could.

DVD-A and SACD are digial audio formats with much higher sampling rates than CD and are therefore much better at reproducing the original event. What killed them was the MP3 revolution and emphasis on downloads and portability rather than music reproduction. Same phenomena is killing CD.

You need to go listen to a good DVD-A 5.1 24/96 or MC SACD soundtrack. They'll kill anything available on your DVD music videos with DD/DTS lossy soundtracks.

Video is much less conducive to portability and may represent a "safe ground" for high resolution lossless audio to thrive in an MP3 world. There's already a trickle of high def music videos with lossless 5.1 24/96 soundtracks (e.g Chris Botti, Dave Mathews). Hopefully there will eventually be a flood of these soon.

So the issue of decerning ears not being able to tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD . . . we should ignore this fact?

Or are we falling prey to the Spec Warriors?

Spec warriors! It's the way many guys think. They'll tend to lock in to what they believe is theroretically best and ignore the rest to a greater extent. Hamburger 'B' may improve but they're locked-in on hamburger 'A'..... ;)

In the long, I hope we get lossless audio, always. It seems to me that the best losless format and the one that wins out might be the one that downmixes for the audio deprived the best...? That would hand the best to everybody. There's so many choices now for audio for the studios to stew over using at this point. This assumes that audio processing stays in the players to a great extent.

At this point I'd never boycott discs because they didn't meet my preferred audio specifications. I just buy the films I really wanna see. Many of the so-called, patentedly inferior lossy tracks have suprised the dickens out of me. They didn't end up sounding so inferior. If ya put on blinders, you'll see, well hear what you wanna hear, aye? Besides, many film's audio needs are way below lossless, warp factor nine.... ;)

I can't see turning up my nose at $20 HD titles 'cause the audio could be tweeked a bit. "I like to watch" :D

so is the argument now that lossless isn't necessary because the vast majority of consumer's don't have the proper gear to appreciate lossless? Does that mean 1080p isn't necessary since the vast majority of HDTVs are still 720p?

The issue is really simple..

Either you want the real thing or a compressed version of it.

Put me down for the formaer.

Those, like Lee, are perfectly happy with mediochrity or an editted version of the true soundtrack...

But any enthusiast would always, given a choice, take the master audio track over a compressed one.

The issue is really simple..

Either you want the real thing or a compressed version of it.

Put me down for the formaer.

Those, like Lee, are perfectly happy with mediochrity or an editted version of the true soundtrack...

But any enthusiast would always, given a choice, take the master audio track over a compressed one.

Well Jeff - at least HD DVD doesn't resort to "fake" special features does it? Like the numerous "fake PIP" movies?

But you go right ahead and only buy lossless audio movies. And if it isn't there - then don't buy it. Fine with me. Like I said - BD=LD Part 2 while HD DVD = DVD Part 2.

so is the argument now that lossless isn't necessary because the vast majority of consumer's don't have the proper gear to appreciate lossless? Does that mean 1080p isn't necessary since the vast majority of HDTVs are still 720p?

Heck, the vast majority still use SDTVs, so why bother with anything higher than 480p? There's already a bunch of really inexpensive DVD players; who needs HD DVD or Blu-ray players ? $30 movies ? f*ck that !

The issue is really simple..

Either you want the real thing or a compressed version of it.

Put me down for the formaer.


Even if you can't tell any audible difference?

You could go to 50mbit or 100mbit video, and nobody could tell the difference between that and a good 20mbit encode. I don't see anybody demanding we have lossless (300-400mbit) video, yet somehow there's an insistence that audio compressed at 3:1 is a problem?

Anyway, as somebody else said, those who insist they can hear a difference are welcome to take part in the audio double blind thread. Then you really know if it's a placebo or not....

Even if you can't tell any audible difference?

You could go to 50mbit or 100mbit video, and nobody could tell the difference between that and a good 20mbit encode. I don't see anybody demanding we have lossless (300-400mbit) video, yet somehow there's an insistence that audio compressed at 3:1 is a problem?

Anyway, as somebody else said, those who insist they can hear a difference are welcome to take part in the audio double blind thread. Then you really know if it's a placebo or not....

Whether I can detect the tracks correctly is secondary. It doesn't change the fact that when the real track is available, I'd prefer to have it over the compressed one.

I imagine anyone with any systemf substance would agree. Let's not forget the goals of pursuing the ideal when possible.

Like wine, I may not be able to tell the difference between a $400 bottle of Harlan Estates versus a $150 bottle of Plumjack - two excellent California reds, but if given a choice, I'd certainly rather experience the Harlan.

Heck, the vast majority still use SDTVs, so why bother with anything higher than 480p? There's already a bunch of really inexpensive DVD players; who needs HD DVD or Blu-ray players ? $30 movies ? f*ck that !


At least the option is there, I don't need a 1080p player since the HDTV I bought a few months ago is only 1080i. Why should I have to pay a surcharge for something I can't support? When I get a larger screen it will be 1080p and I'll have low cost options for 1080p players as well, all HD DVD's are in recorded in 1080p anyway.

BTW, HD DVD players are getting really close to higher-end upscaling dvd players so the option will be a no brainer soon. Since, at least universal has finally got around to making combos the same price as standard releases the choice is becoming more and more clear for people that want to take the plunge into HDM.

Blu-ray is a niche and the only reason it isn't relegated to that already is the fact they have exclusive studios. Its the only thing keeping them afloat, not bitrate, not lossless support(which is still not 100%). Heck the only reason Blu is even remotely close to HD DVD player prices is because of HD DVD, not because they want to release an affordable HDM solution for the masses.

It can't because you are sitting in an enclosed room hearing sounds "lossy" recorded, filtered, amplified, mixed, mushed up, mangled, and then recreated on small surfaces that vibrate...

...In a perfect world, then yes, I would say give us lossless (whatever the heck that means), but I already know it would not make any difference until we get some real breakthroughs in playback systems.Agreed! If you go through the effort of doing thorough acoustic treatments of your listening room and are able to achieve very low background noise -- then all the effort of time aligning and frequency response leveling (uber $ drivers, placement, equalization, etc) start to benefit from a lossless audio encode. Then >19 bit depth and lossless audio encoding may really matter.

Otherwise I don't try to fool myself into thinking that I can reliably tell the difference between a very high bitrate lossy perceptual coding codec and a lossless one. Participate in Steve's tests and see if you can reliably pick out the lossless versus the high bitrate lossy tracks.

Action movies that only have high bitrate lossy soundtracks don't upset me. King Kong sounded fine.

Like wine, I may not be able to tell the difference between a $400 bottle of Harlan Estates versus a $150 bottle of Plumjack - two excellent California reds, but if given a choice, I'd certainly rather experience the Harlan.

Thats why they fill the Harlan bottle with Plumjack and laughs all the way to the bank. ;)

Its the end result that matters. Its what you can hear, not what you can read.

I think the number of people who care about lossless is lager than the number that can actually perceive the difference, but both are fractional.

From my experience, and with the rarest exceptions both lossless and and lossy HD audio tracks offer markedly better sound than DVD, but not, markedly better sound than each other, and that's what I think most notice. Few have either the ear or equipment discern it's perceived advantage.

All you're going to get with this thread is the same 18-24 people who always claim it's a must, which will appear as a larger number than the many, many more who are bored witless by the whole concern.

I don't doubt that there are a handful of audiophiles who genuinely, sincerely, and passionately care about this issues, but from what I can tell they are only a handful.

*applause*

+1

Sort of like pigging out at a cheap buffet. You'll pay the price for the bloat when server storage/streaming becomes the norm, except BD may not permit that, and may not even last that long. It also limits on the number of alternate language tracks and extras possible.

Does it really matter. If Jeff has a system with high end amplifiers and players then he is likely to prefer the method that pleases him the most. If that means Blu-ray mainly then God bless him. The reason that PCM is being used is one that fits the model best. If TrueHD puts a big smile on my face for my HD-DVD movies then great. If the Dolby digital + track makes me happy then great. I chose HD-DVD because well I bought it for really cheap. Does that mean I don't care about quality, absolutely not. I have maximized my system within the budget that I have. It does not make me any less of an enthusiast. I get superior performance form my HD-DVD player over my DVD player. Will I get a blu-ray player probably I will just wait for a great deal to come along. So to the original post I do agree that most will not care about lossless but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't ask for it. Just don't fly off the handle when a studio releases in lossy.

The issue is really simple..

Either you want the real thing or a compressed version of it.

Put me down for the formaer.

Those, like Lee, are perfectly happy with mediochrity or an editted version of the true soundtrack...

But any enthusiast would always, given a choice, take the master audio track over a compressed one.

So the PCM track is an exact copy of the studio master???? It's not modified in any way, such as reducing it to 16 bits?

I don't think many here are happy with mediocrity, nor do I think many of the DD+ soundtracks I've heard are mediocre. That said, if I was offered a TrueHD or PCM track, I'm not going to turn it down.

I'm all for pushing technology and getting the best of the best. The reality is enthusiasts don't account for enough sales which creates a niche.

Prime examples are VHS, Wii, MP3 Players -- All most definately the "poorer performing" formats. What brought them mainstream was price and features.

I say keep Bluray for niche and bring HD-DVD mainstream. Something that will likely happen.


WHAT? Its crazy to say that price is the main & only factor in these "victories". EACH one of those items have huge practical advantages over their competition

1) VHS had a longer record time than Beta. Beta was 1 hour at the start... not long enough for movies.

2) The Wii is taking off because of its interactive controller. DO you think retired people are buying the Wii... because its cheap? Why didnt they buy the gamecube when it was cheaper than the PS2 and xbox?

3) MP3s have many many advantages over their CDA couterpart. Thats a terrible comparison.

I do not think you understand. Lossless is fine, but the majority of players even in an early adoptors home have ZERO use for it. Right?
HT Room? Sure.
My small LCD HDTV in the bedroom? No need for lossless.
My 50" plasma with the old 5.1 dolby system in the family room. No need for lossless.

This is why I bought $199 players for those rooms. I can now watch Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire in all 3 locations. In all its lossless audio glory in the basement, in the family room with the kids, or in the bedroom when I am to sleepy to watch anywhere else.

No, I don't think you understand. If an HD DVD had lossles then you could still play it in your non-lossless systems. Your argument is stupid.

Why DON'T you want lossless?

So the PCM track is an exact copy of the studio master???? It's not modified in any way, such as reducing it to 16 bits?

I don't think many here are happy with mediocrity, nor do I think many of the DD+ soundtracks I've heard are mediocre. That said, if I was offered a TrueHD or PCM track, I'm not going to turn it down.

LOL, you are reaching.

So a 24 bit master converted to 16 bit pcm is now lossy?

But DD+ is good enough?? :D

I don't know why so many insist on comparing the iPOS or DVD-A/SACD to HDM. It's like comparing motorcycles and automobiles. Different priorities.

Music is something most listen to on-the-go. Quality is secondary. Very, very few people, just sit there with a glass of scotch listening to music by themselves anymore, we're all too busy.

Movies are something that you sit down and give your undivided attention to (usually). It can even be a family/friends experience. Due to the attention given to it, quality recording are appreciated by a wider range of people.

Does it really matter. If Jeff has a system with high end amplifiers and players then he is likely to prefer the method that pleases him the most. If that means Blu-ray mainly then God bless him. The reason that PCM is being used is one that fits the model best. If TrueHD puts a big smile on my face for my HD-DVD movies then great. If the Dolby digital + track makes me happy then great. I chose HD-DVD because well I bought it for really cheap. Does that mean I don't care about quality, absolutely not. I have maximized my system within the budget that I have. It does not make me any less of an enthusiast. I get superior performance form my HD-DVD player over my DVD player. Will I get a blu-ray player probably I will just wait for a great deal to come along. So to the original post I do agree that most will not care about lossless but it doesnt mean that we shouldn't ask for it. Just don't fly off the handle when a studio releases in lossy.


To be clear,

I look forward to TRUE HD tracks equally as I do LPCM... Sometimes more, if they are 24 bit. Whether I could pick between lossy and lossless tracks everytime, I highly doubt it...but I still want the best quality wine running through my system if it is available!!!:D

I can't imagine picking the DD+ track a HD DVD I own, whether I could hear the differences or not, if a TRUE HD track is also on that same disc.....Who would??

strive for mediocrity! the model fanboys love to promote unfortunately. Be HD enthusiasts! both formats and the studios supporting them have sucked so far. let's push for something better!

RJB Films deserves out money IMO. they alone have heeded the call of the PQ/AQ enthusiast.

I am just convinced that many of these posters are just not traditional "early adopters" Since HD DVD was cheap, they bought 1, ran a cable to their 32"-42" LCD and are now considering themselves enthusiasts.

People who bought into new formats on the bleeding edge who ALWAYS want the best in PQ/AQ available just seem to be rare.

We are just in a different time where Ipods rule, downloads rule and people are happy with what is being fed to them.

The time where the majority of enthusiasts demand the best there is to offer when it comes to AQ and PQ for the money they spend is gone. We are now stuck with "j6p won't notice so we shouldnt care either". Very sad.

Don't be afraid to demand the best a format has to offer. There is no reason that HD DVD shouldnt ALWAYS have a lossless track, just as there isnt a good reason why BR doesnt have the "extras" capability that HD DVD has.

I happen to fall on the side where I much prefer PQ/AQ to extras. But neither should get the free pass that they are getting from the sides that support them.

To be clear,

I look forward to TRUE HD tracks equally as I do LPCM... Sometimes more, if they are 24 bit. Whether I could pick between lossy and lossless tracks everytime, I highly doubt it...but I still want the best quality wine running through my system if it is available!!!:D

I can't imagine picking the DD+ track a HD DVD I own, whether I could hear the differences or not, if a TRUE HD track is also on that same disc.....Who would??



+1

I would LOVE both of them on a disc, just to sit and listen for differences.

so is the argument now that lossless isn't necessary because the vast majority of consumer's don't have the proper gear to appreciate lossless? Does that mean 1080p isn't necessary since the vast majority of HDTVs are still 720p?

This is a good point. Is a bit like the early days of DVD where initial players were interlaced only, moving to progressive and then to upconverting. Initially, at least, most people still had NTSC televisions that could largely not take advantage of the better players. Fast forward to 2005+ and even the cheaper players offer 'advanced' capabilities.

The only caveat here for me is that where audio quality is concerned, consumers lack of 'the proper gear' likely includes their ears :).

To be clear,

I look forward to TRUE HD tracks equally as I do LPCM... Sometimes more, if they are 24 bit. Whether I could pick between lossy and lossless tracks everytime, I highly doubt it...but I still want the best quality wine running through my system if it is available!!!:D

I can't imagine picking the DD+ track a HD DVD I own, whether I could hear the differences or not, if a TRUE HD track is also on that same disc.....Who would??

And I am only talking about the DD+ track when its the only one available as well. I do preffer the TrueHD track when available. And if I had a wine collection like yours why wouldn't I choose something thats really out there when given the choice. I like Burboun and I reach for Knob Creek over Makers Mark. If Knob Creek is not available then I'll drink the Makers Mark its still better than the bar brand.

2) The Wii is taking off because of its interactive controller. DO you think retired people are buying the Wii... because its cheap? Why didnt they buy the gamecube when it was cheaper than the PS2 and xbox?


So you are saying the lower price coupled with increased interactivity made it the consumers choice over the much more sophisticated superb PQ/AQ found in PS3/360 games?

Sounds familiar.

I can't imagine picking the DD+ track a HD DVD I own, whether I could hear the differences or not, if a TRUE HD track is also on that same disc.....Who would??

If the DD+ track is 24bits and the TrueHD/PCM track is 16 bit.

So you are saying the lower price coupled with increased interactivity made it the consumers choice over the much more sophisticated superb PQ/AQ found in PS3/360 games?

Sounds familiar.

Yeah... I see people boxing and bowling with their HD-DVD systems all the time :rolleyes:

If the DD+ track is 24bits and the TrueHD/PCM track is 16 bit.

I would love to have that ability too.

If the DD+ track is 24bits and the TrueHD/PCM track is 16 bit.

Now that'd be a comparison I'd like to make..

If the DD+ track is 24bits and the TrueHD/PCM track is 16 bit.

While a comparison might have intellectual interests, I'd just as soon make the whole discussion moot and use a 24 bit TrueHD/PCM track. Why bother with 24 bit to 16 bit conversion ? or a lossy conversion ?

LOL, you are reaching.

So a 24 bit master converted to 16 bit pcm is now lossy?

But DD+ is good enough?? :D

edit - Sorry, I type too slow, other's have already mentioned. :)

I didn't say it's lossy, just saying it's not the exact same thing as the master. They could have added fart noises to a 24 bit PCM copy of the 24 bit master. It's not lossy, but is it better?

Is 16 bit pcm better than 24 bit DD+? I think it's more complicated than just saying "lossless is better than lossy".

I think we should let our ears be our guide. I have heard a number of DD+ soundtracks that I thought sounded great. Would a lossless track have sounded better, I don't know. I've tried different track on discs with both. I preferred the TrueHD track. That said, did they spend as much time on the DD+ track as they would have if it was the only track?

Short of someone creating a disc with a studio master and all the different audio codecs maxed out to compare them to each other, I think we're going to keep having these same conversations over and over again. Those that are concerned about bit rates and lossless/lossy, and those that are just concerned about having a great movie with great picture and audio are unlikely to ever see eye to eye.

Flying a helicopter to work might be great, but if it takes the same amount of time to get to work due to closest landing site being far away, I don't see the need for the extra expense/hassle.

While a comparison might have intellectual interests, I'd just as soon make the whole discussion moot and use a 24 bit TrueHD/PCM track. Why bother with 24 bit to 16 bit conversion ? or a lossy conversion ?

I'd guess space. Why are the majority of PCM tracks 16 bit?

Grammatically, yes, it would be, but I was just having a little fun.



"perceptual coding" Wow, now that's a can of worms I won't eat out of. This whole argument is like arguing whether $100,000 speakers are 33% better than $75,000 speakers. It has been scientifically proven by countless DBTs that once you get above 200-300k audio resolution, the vast, VAST!, majority of people cannot tell the difference from the "original", including myself. How exactly does everyone think the original CD was developed, by the way? Do you think they just picked a number out of a hat?

In using my pun I was trying to point out that everything recorded is lossy compared to what our ears hear in the natural world. That's the nature of the beast, I'm afraid. Once you add electricity, components, wires, speakers, and room acoustics on top of digital recordings, you only degrade the sound more. Think about it. You are sitting in your HT watching a scene of a wide open space, with birds chirping and cows mooing, and you know darn well that what you hear is not how it really sounds in the natural world. It can't because you are sitting in an enclosed room hearing sounds "lossy" recorded, filtered, amplified, mixed, mushed up, mangled, and then recreated on small surfaces that vibrate.

My take on all this? If you don't like the way your system sounds, upgrade your system, but thinking that buying another 33% of audio resolution for the average system, at the levels we are talking about, is not going to do it. Sorry. In a perfect world, then yes, I would say give us lossless (whatever the heck that means), but I already know it would not make any difference until we get some real breakthroughs in playback systems.

Doug


Ah... methinks I didn't catch you were making a tongue-in-cheek comment.

Move along... nothing to see here... ;)

16 bit/44.1Khz is not nearly enough of a sampling rate to accurately reproduce the nuances of music. That's why vinyl despite it's inconveniences, TLC, wow, flutter, tone arm adjustments, scratch, wear&tear, etc continues to thrive, It provided almost "infinite resolution" if you will, compared to CD. It does a much better job of reproducing horn overtones, the shimmer of cymbals, voices, strings, instrument placement in the soundfield, etc... than CD ever could.Vinyl was able to reliably and be repeatable (re-playing same record many times) in getting > 22 kHz frequency response on the same record? Those very high audio freqs would disappear (worn off) the record after just a few plays even with phono cartridges that tracked at 3/4 gram. You have a better argument using open reel tape.

Early CD players had issues with the anti-aliasing low pass filters after the D/A's causing phase response problems. The advent of 4x oversampling before the final D/A conversion made doing a good job of the final analog recovery low pass filters far easier to implement.

These audio reproduction issues need a reasonable scientific/engineering analysis basis -- not opinions based on other things, $, buzzwords, etc.
44.1 kHz gets 22 kHz as a recovered top end frequency response per Nyquist.

Whether I can detect the tracks correctly is secondary. It doesn't change the fact that when the real track is available, I'd prefer to have it over the compressed one.

I imagine anyone with any systemf substance would agree. Let's not forget the goals of pursuing the ideal when possible.


Of course, of course, we can agree on that. However, if your video is compressed at 70:1, and the audio at 3:1, then to me moving closer to the ideal means putting the bits into video.

Flying a helicopter to work might be great, but if it takes the same amount of time to get to work due to closest landing site being far away, I don't see the need for the extra expense/hassle.

Unless expense was not an issue. You have to admit that would be cool. There are people who want to do things because well they can.

I'd guess space. Why are the majority of PCM tracks 16 bit?

25G disks and/or master was only 16 bit is my guess.

If you use 50G Blu-ray discs, the use of 24/48 lossless is basically a freebie for all but the longest movies. No need to discuss/complain about resolution.

But any enthusiast would always, given a choice, take the master audio track over a compressed one.

I understand your points, but I think you are confusing enthusiasts with spec whores.

Please understand, the point of this thread wasn't to say that lossless audio was undesired or that it shouldn't be available.

It was to explain why so many current HDM releases do not have it and why there will many more which also don't include a lossless track released over the short term (6-12 months).

Again, its the numbers. Since the majority of potential owners don't understand the differences in DD, DD+ and Lossless right now the industry will place the disks on the shelves which require the least tweaking and time investment to produce.

In a few years that will all change but for now it is a simple fact.

I would imagine that 2009 or 2010 will be when the industry starts promoting "True HD audio" to the masses and that will be when the "remastered" versions of the HDM which today are shipped with only DD or DD+ will be released.

I mean it's obvious that the corporate world doesn't really care about HD Audio yet.

Look at the big box retailers and see if you can find any of them actively promoting the format to the public, having the audio components needed to take advantage of it in stock or even demonstrating the differences in audio formats on their sales floors.

Right now the only retailers who are actively demonstrating the technology needed to enjoy HD Audio are the high-end audio and home theater stores which in all honesty cater to less than 2% of the retail market.

As for myself...

Right now my equipment can't handle HD audio and I will likely not be upgrading my sound system for another couple of years.

I will almost certainly be buying some form of HDM player though before the end of the year. The good news is that whatever format I purchase, the player I buy will be capable of playing disks with HD Audio tracks even if the media released at that time may not have them.

And I will enjoy what is available and watch it with DD or DD+ (whichever my system can handle). To avoid having to buy media twice I will simply rent films that are not released with HD audio and save my purchasing dollars for the media which does contain the lossless tracks.

Ultimately I'll pick up the other disks that I want once their "Remastered for HD Audio!" versions are released in a couple of years.

And I am content to deal with the problem this way.

Because frankly, the industry is going to follow this pattern of releases and no amount of protesting, demanding or outrage by what the media giants consider to be a very small percentage of their overall target market (the early adopters) is going to make them do anything differently.

The way I see it, why raise your blood pressure and shorten your lives tilting pointlessly at a windmill which you know is ultimately going to fall over anyway a couple of years from now?

Of course, of course, we can agree on that. However, if your video is compressed at 70:1, and the audio at 3:1, then to me moving closer to the ideal means putting the bits into video.

And you can, easily, with 50G Blu-ray diss. No bandwidth concerns with 24/48. No PQ/SQ tradeoffs to figure out the audio/video bandwidth split because of 30Mbs limitations. Your only constraint will be the video bandwidth upper limit at 40 mbs. It'll take a next-generation format to deal with that constraint.

AQ is more important than PQ to me
this may change when I own a FP and 100"+ screen.


And after having that screen for a while SQ will again become more important. To me they go hand in hand in suspension of disbelief and that sense of virtual reality that's possible in this hobby with the new formats hd and 1080p. SQ gets you closer to the "real" thing, and should be what we all shoot for no matter how much we've spent on our reproduction systems and lossless to me is a huge step forward for the industry in completing what 1080p gives me visually.

25G disks and/or master was only 16 bit is my guess.

If you use 50G Blu-ray discs, the use of 24/48 lossless is basically a freebie for all but the longest movies. No need to discuss/complain about resolution.

But what about 300? It was 16 bit and only used ~ 34.8GB. Why didn't they put 24 bit on it?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714

I've long been convinced that most audiophiles really can indeed hear a bunch of things that I cannot. I have no problem with that.

But I personally do not have either the ears or the equipment to hear any improvement in lossless audio over a high bit rate lossy encoding. So to me lossless audio is just a waste of bits, an inefficiency that might degrade my video quality and I don't need or want that.

So I can sympathize with those with other priorities but lossless is just not a selling feature to me.

I do admit I rip my CD's to lossless FLAC but that's mostly in case I want to port them again to something else in the future.

- Tom

But what about 300? It was 16 bit and only used ~ 34.8GB. Why didn't they put 24 bit on it?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714

Blame the studio for that one. My best guess is storage/bandwidth issues kept them from putting 24/48 on the HD DVD version and they didn't want to to spend the effort to update the audio/video encode for Blu-ray to anything better than what was on the HD DVD disc.

Blame the studio for that one. My best guess is storage/bandwidth issues kept them from putting 24/48 on the HD DVD version and they didn't want to to spend the effort to update the audio/video encode for Blu-ray to anything better than what was on the HD DVD disc.


Or has Warner ever put 24/48 on any title?

Whether I can detect the tracks correctly is secondary. It doesn't change the fact that when the real track is available, I'd prefer to have it over the compressed one.

Like wine, I may not be able to tell the difference between a $400 bottle of Harlan Estates versus a $150 bottle of Plumjack - two excellent California reds, but if given a choice, I'd certainly rather experience the Harlan.

BD Thought:

I don't care if I can't see the difference. I don't care if I can't hear the difference. I want to pay twice as much and know that I am getting the best.

Couldn't have said it better for you myself Bland.

I think everyone would agree that all else being equal (room for excellent video encodes, extras, whatever you're into... cost... etc.) no one would bitch about there being a lossless compressed audio, or even uncompressed audio track - or 73 uncompressed audio tracks - no one is saying they should be outlawed. The question becomes "Is it really necessary?" That's the issue here. The "good enough for 99.9%" crowd (which includes me, due to my less-than-golden ears) probably agrees you should have your lossless encodes - all else being equal. I 'know' I can't tell the difference, but I'd still put it on TrueHD - I do that now... just because it's there and I can.

As I've said before, the problem occurs when zealots make absurd statements like "No lossy encode belongs in Tier 0" - that's a blanket statement that is basically useless. There have been some OUTSTANDING lossy encodes with stellar reviews. To write them off without even listening, or prejudging them based on type of encode is ridiculous - the same way saying "No MPEG-2 video encode can be Tier 0" is off-the-wall rubbish.

I think everyone would agree that all else being equal (room for excellent video encodes, extras, whatever you're into... cost... etc.) no one would bitch about there being a lossless compressed audio, or even uncompressed audio track - or 73 uncompressed audio tracks - no one is saying they should be outlawed. The question becomes "Is it really necessary?" That's the issue here. The "good enough for 99.9%" crowd (which includes me, due to my less-than-golden ears) probably agrees you should have your lossless encodes - all else being equal. I 'know' I can't tell the difference, but I'd still put it on TrueHD - I do that now... just because it's there and I can.

As I've said before, the problem occurs when zealots make absurd statements like "No lossy encode belongs in Tier 0" - that's a blanket statement that is basically useless. There have been some OUTSTANDING lossy encodes with stellar reviews. To write them off without even listening, or prejudging them based on type of encode is ridiculous - the same way saying "No MPEG-2 video encode can be Tier 0" is off-the-wall rubbish.

+1

...
But I personally do not have either the ears or the equipment to hear any improvement in lossless audio over a high bit rate lossy encoding. So to me lossless audio is just a waste of bits, an inefficiency that might degrade my video quality and I don't need or want that.

So I can sympathize with those with other priorities but lossless is just not a selling feature to me.

...
- Tom


You don't really think the "lossless proponents" don't care about video do you ? When push comes to shove, I'd probably prefer they not significantly degrade the video to give me lossless audio.

But the studios don't have to make that hard choice; they can simply decide to use 50G Blu-ray discs which can automatically default to the use of 24/48 lossless (Master tape-permitting) while continuing to use the maximum video bitrate capability the format supports.

As I've said before, the problem occurs when zealots make absurd statements like "No lossy encode belongs in Tier 0" - that's a blanket statement that is basically useless.

You realize only zealots care about "tier 0" anyways, right? Not to say that rational people don't care about PQ/AQ, but which bucket a collective of anonymous people on the net put something. . . .

BD Thought:

I want to pay twice as much and know that I am getting the best.


The bad news is.... lossless is dependent media/content.

So when you buy a disc without Lossless you are paying approximately the same... but getting less than a disc with lossless.

Secondly, even if you argue to include player prices. A 1080P HD-DVD player is still $310 on amazon, vs $440 on BD. The difference is $130. Add in 20 discs at $25 each

$310
$500
=$810

vs
$440
$500
=$930

The difference is 16%.

Secondly, even if you argue to include player prices. A 1080P HD-DVD player is still $310 on amazon, vs $440 on BD. The difference is $130.


Yes thats why its so good that HD DVD has a cheaper 720P/1080i player. Gives people that dont need 1080P an affordable alternative. Were can I find a cheap 720P/1080i BD player?

In the end you cant hardly complain on the visual and audio experience you get from HD DVD, just as you cant complain on the Visual and audio experience you get from BD.

The times we are letdown by a release it has been through poor masters and poor studiopolicy, not what the format itself limit.

And frankly already at DD640 are we starting to get an enjoyable movieexperience, anything better is just a bonus. It wasnt that we were dissapointed with the DVD format when we heard a DD448 track for the first time.

Yes thats why its so good that HD DVD has a cheaper 720P/1080i player. Gives people that dont need 1080P an affordable alternative. Were can I find a cheap 720P/1080i BD player?

In the end you cant hardly complain on the visual and audio experience you get from HD DVD, just as you cant complain on the Visual and audio experience you get from BD.

The times we are letdown by a release it has been through poor masters and poor studiopolicy, not what the format itself limit.

And frankly already at DD640 are we starting to get an enjoyable movieexperience, anything better is just a bonus. It wasnt that we were dissapointed with the DVD format when we heard a DD448 track for the first time.

Did you know you can also get a 1080i DVD player for $45?

If you are going to keep settling for less... where does it stop.

Isn't the end game for everybody that your HDM of choice is a successor of DVD and a staple in homes for the next 10 years?

Why wouldn't you want the best possible audio and video when you pop in your copy of "Cars" on HD DVD or "Transformers" on Blu-ray into your system?

Just because I don't have a hybrid car, I don't want Ford/GM/Toyota/Honda to stop working on them.

Did you know you can also get a 1080i DVD player for $45?

If you are going to keep settling for less... where does it stop.

Totally different device and you KNOW it.

One simply makes standard DVDs look a bit better the other takes full advantage of the maximum resolution available to the owner of a 720p or 1080i set.

If you are going to support your point of view, at least try to post a reasonable argument.

Did you know you can also get a 1080i DVD player for $45?

If you are going to keep settling for less... where does it stop.

You actually dont know the difference between upconverted DVD and HD

For many people including a large number of 1080P displays you dont get any benefit from a 1080P player against a 1080i player. Why then spend the extra bucks on getting something you dont need.

In the end all that matter is the endresult, and the endresult doesnt always equals the specs on the papper.

And how many people dont spend alot of money on Full HD Displays, 7.1 SuperAudioMultiOmnipotentChannel recievers and at the same time dont know how to calibrate it.

Yes thats why its so good that HD DVD has a cheaper 720P/1080i player. Gives people that dont need 1080P an affordable alternative. Were can I find a cheap 720P/1080i BD player?



Wouldn't that be nice?

I'd happily shell out $200 for a 720p capable Blu-Ray player.

Wouldn't that be nice?

I'd happily shell out $200 for a 720p capable Blu-Ray player.

Bring me a dualformatplayer with 576P for 100$ I would be happy to.

The Secondly, even if you argue to include player prices. A 1080P HD-DVD player is still $310 on amazon, vs $440 on BD. The difference is $130. Add in 20 discs at $25 each

$310
$500
=$810

vs
$440
$500
=$930

The difference is 16%.

I just bought 2 A2s for $199 each. One is on a 50" plasma with an awesome de-interlacer and the other is on my 30" bedroom TV. Neither can play lossless. So, why on earth would I pay $440 for on player when I could buy 2 for $398? Now I can buy an HD DVD disc and play it multiple locations.

As people start to buy multiple HDM players for compatiblity, they will see just how expensive BR is. Not to mention the whole profile issue BR has.

One other note. I had my house wire with RJ45 to every room, so now I will be able to watch CURRENT movie previews and do other interactive stuff with all my players.

The times we are letdown by a release it has been through poor masters and poor studio policy, not what the format itself limit.

there are also times where the omission of features were caused by the format limits. interactivity features not present on BD due to unfinalized specs, lossless audio not available to HD DVD (and in some cases it transfers over to BD) due to low bandwidth (ex Nature's Journey).

Its that why RB films going to put lossless in their next release.

Or has Warner ever put 24/48 on any title?

Bandwidth may be a more important reason. The "Nature's Journey" thread discusses why lossless was left off the HD DVD version. It was all about bandwidth (16 bit vs. 24 bit is also a bandwidth consideration.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=889998&page=16

Its that why RB films going to put lossless in their next release.


It would be interesting to see RB Films put 24/48 bit lossless encode on both Blu-ray and HD DVD. Then maximize the remaining available bandwidth for video. I think he was afraid to do this initially because the HD DVD folks weren't going to like the end result PQ-wise. Now they are pummeling him for not including a lossless audio track on "Nature's Journey".

You actually dont know the difference between upconverted DVD and HD

For many people including a large number of 1080P displays you dont get any benefit from a 1080P player against a 1080i player. Why then spend the extra bucks on getting something you dont need.

In the end all that matter is the endresult, and the endresult doesnt always equals the specs on the papper.

And how many people dont spend alot of money on Full HD Displays, 7.1 SuperAudioMultiOmnipotentChannel recievers and at the same time dont know how to calibrate it.

So upconverted 1080i DVD players are not good enough.... but 1080P and lossless audio are unneccessary added expenses?

How do you make the distinction on where to stop? So 1080i with lossy is the end all? People Shouldnt want anything better?

First you guys argue
1) HD audio is a wasted expense
then
2) 1080P is a wasted expense

but why stop there? You could argue that 1080i upconverted is also "good enough". And thats where you really get some savings

The point is, you can always settle for less... and you can always argue that less is "good enough". This is an enthusiest forum... errr at least it was a year or two ago.

So upconverted 1080i DVD players are not good enough.... but 1080P and lossless audio are unneccessary added expenses?

How do you make the distinction on where to stop? So 1080i with lossy is the end all? People Shouldnt want anything better?

The point is, you can always settle for less.

First
Can you tell me the difference when you watch a 1080/24P movie on a 1920*1080/60P display if the signal is 1080/60i or 1080/60P

Second
If people dont have a 1080/24P display why should they buy anything other then a 720P/1080i player?

You actually dont know the difference between upconverted DVD and HD

For many people including a large number of 1080P displays you dont get any benefit from a 1080P player against a 1080i player. Why then spend the extra bucks on getting something you dont need.

It is no surprise HDM is not selling in great quantities when people insist on perpetuating this kind of twaddle ... perhaps you cannot tell the difference between upconverted DVD and HDM, but I certainly can - and the differences are not subtle!

It never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people who have spent $$$ over the years on scalers that, frankly, make only modest improvments over far cheaper upconverting DVD players then blithely say things like 'well, of course, HDM is no better than DVD on my system'. Me thinks new eyeglasses are in order!

The second point about 1080i versus 1080p players is an interesting one. Unless one is fortunate enought to own a player that will output 1080p24 and has a display that will accept 1090p24 and then multiply the frame rates (and i think most people do not have this capability), a 1080p player is probably unnecessary. Certainly it is unnecessary for those of us whose display will only accept 1080i@60, but also probably for those who have sets that will accept 1080p@60 as the scaling engine in the display is likely better than in the player (new Realta based players notwithstanding).

just my 2 cents - and completely unrelated to the original thread :D

If high resolution lossless audio is lost on most consumers, then I would hazard a guess that the same consumers are lost on HD media formats (ie. DVD is good enough for 'em).

DVD compressed audio, although good, was a stepdown from PCM 2.0 on laserdisc. Lossless audio brought back the airyness, clarity and dynamic experience that I was missing.

Lossless >> than any lossy format

First
Can you tell me the difference when you watch a 1080/24P movie on a 1920*1080/60P display if the signal is 1080/60i or 1080/60P

Second
If people dont have a 1080/24P display why should they buy anything other then a 720P/1080i player?

1) Yes. Here is how it works with 1080i HDDVD Player hooked to a 1080p TV

1080p24 source -> Interlace and convert -> 1080i60 out to tv -> Deinterlace and output 1080p60.

You will remove 2 conversions when you have a 1080p player

2) Yes, people should buy a 1080p player. You never know when you could get a new 1080p TV.

If you make the argument that you shouldn't buy a 1080p player because you dont have a 1080p TV... then you could also make the arguement that you shouldn't buy a 1080pTV... because your dont have a 1080p source.

"Well, I am not going to buy a 1080P TV, because I dont have a 1080P source"

"Well, I am not going to buy a 1080p source because I dont have a 1080p TV"

And then you never need to upgrade again... and you could have made that arguement with 1080i/720p TVs.

I think there can be bad lossless encodes and amazing DD+ encodes, so I completely disagree.

Garbage in = Garbage out

A good master = good sounding lossless encode > good sounding lossy encode
A bad master = bad sounding lossless encode > bad sounding lossy encode

No matter how you argue it. A lossy encode is never bit for bit perfect. That's why they call it lossy.

So upconverted 1080i DVD players are not good enough.... but 1080P and lossless audio are unneccessary added expenses?



Absolutely correct.

For the majority of HDTV owners (the ones with 720p and 1080i sets) 1080p is worthless while a player outputting the maximum resolution of their set is highly desired.

The same holds true for even more so regarding people who do not have audio systems capable of taking advantage of True HD sound.

Only an insignificant percentage of the consumers out there are going to race out and purchase a new 1080p set, $400+ HDM player and $1500+ audio system all at the same time, for the rest it is an upgrade path.

By the time the owners of 720p sets upgrade to 1080p (or potentially 1440p) televisions, it will cost about $100 for the equivalent of that same $400+ player today.

So for those people, spending $150-$200 today plus $100 in a few years is a far smarter move than throwing big dollars today at a player when the format that player uses has a 50% chance of being phased out in 2-3 years.

Especially when you factor in that the $400 player you buy today may not even be completely compatible with the television sets of three years from now (Anyone remember DVI?).

First
Can you tell me the difference when you watch a 1080/24P movie on a 1920*1080/60P display if the signal is 1080/60i or 1080/60P

Second
If people dont have a 1080/24P display why should they buy anything other then a 720P/1080i player?

I guess the real point is some of us want the studios to push the envelope on the new formats. Don't settle for "good enough" just because the hardware (or format) ain't up to snuff yet. I may not have a 1080p display, but I want my source to be 1080p capable because eventually I will have a 1080p display. I may not have DTS HD MA-capable hardware now, but DTS HD MA on some discs is still attractive because sometime down the road, I will have DTS HD MA decoding in my hardware. I've already got the hardware to support uncompressed PCM and TrueHD, so why should I settle for lossy audio ? And the larger the display/resolution, the better chances you will have for picking out video compression artifacts which you will have for any video encode because the compress is pretty drastic. Maximizing the video bitrate as high as the format allows minimizes the number of /chances for discernable video artifacts.

By the time you eventually will buy a 1080P tv you can buy a dual format player for 50$.

If you have a large amount of money, sure buy whatever you want. But not everyone has unlimited funds. And for them any saving is welcome.

As for what rout is best, that very much to how good your TV is in converting the signal vs the players ability.

And noone in their right mind can say that a cheap 720P/1080i player has hurted the sales of HD DVD. The lack of a cheap BD player is a problem for the BD camp.

I guess the real point is some of us want the studios to push the envelope on the new formats. Don't settle for "good enough" just because the hardware (or format) ain't up to snuff yet. I may not have a 1080p display, but I want my source to be 1080p capable because eventually I will have a 1080p display. I may not have DTS HD MA-capable hardware now, but DTS HD MA on some discs is still attractive because sometime down the road, I will have DTS HD MA decoding in my hardware. I've already got the hardware to support uncompressed PCM and TrueHD, so why should I settle for lossy audio ? And the larger the display/resolution, the better chances you will have for picking out video compression artifacts which you will have for any video encode because the compress is pretty drastic. Maximizing the video bitrate as high as the format allows minimizes the number of /chances for discernable video artifacts.

Noone is arguing that it isnt nice with 1080P sources, but you dont need a 1080P player for a 720P display unless it can accept 1080/24P = 720/24P (as it doesnt exist 720/24P signals.)

2) Yes, people should buy a 1080p player. You never know when you could get a new 1080p TV.

OK now, that's just a poor argument.

Most people are fairly comfortable deciding when they will be making high dollar purchases. For most people new TVs don't magically appear on their doorsteps without warning.

Again, for the majority of people in America, buying a new set is something carefully considered and not taken lightly. Most who have already purchased 720p and 1080i sets are not going to be willing to spend yet another big chunk of cash after only 2-3 years and will likely use those sets until they fail.

$800-$2500 items are not impulse purchases to the vast majority of people in this country.


If you make the argument that you shouldn't buy a 1080p player because you dont have a 1080p TV... then you could also make the arguement that you shouldn't buy a 1080pTV... because your dont have a 1080p source.



Understand please, 1080p sets have only been on the market roughly a year and a half (sets which could accept 1080p signals that is) and frankly, most people do not see a huge difference in the image from a 720p set and a 1080p one.

That is why the 1080p TV will only become the default display purchase for most new buyers once the sets reach the point where 720p is completely phased out (within the year). In a few years the number of 1080p sets will exceed the number of 720p and 1080i sets in people's homes, but as of today there are far more of the older sets in the mainstream than the newer ones.

And the majority of those people will NOT buy a new set just because the industry has introduced what to their eyes appears to be a marginal upgrade.

Those people are who the lower end HDM players are marketed for, the MAJORITY of HDTV owners.

Not people like yourself who are in the minority.

95% of Americans do not have limitless disposable income to spend on constantly upgrading every year in order to have the "latest and greatest" .

And the movie industry is not going to be making a profit by marketing to only 5% of their potential customers.

well, i have a 720p display right now. and if i were to ever buy a hd dvd player i would not bother with the a2/a3 b/c i know somewhere down the line i will want a 1080p display. even the a20 is hard to considering after finding out it is also a 720p/1080i player but with an upconverter/deinterlacer to make it 1080p. this leaves xa2 as the only option and that one costs more than the ps3.

I'm finding it hard to understand what some here have been arguing about HD DVD "being for the masses" and BR for the niche market because of lossless audio.

I think we can all agree that if given the chance, we'd prefer to have lossless audio. The only reason you wouldn't want lossless audio is if it was to the detriment of the video or extras.

But we hear all the time that 30 GB "is more than enough" -- so then why the concern for adding lossless audio? If HD DVD really is "more than enough," why worry?

And last I checked, BR movies are often cheaper than HD DVD movies, despite their lossless audio tracks.

Cheaper bluray players are on their way -- but worrying about cheaper players has nothing to do with what kind of audio we'd like to have on HDM. Movies aren't more expensive when they include lossless audio and I haven't heard anything about them being substantially harder to produce because of lossless. Nor have I heard about any HD disk that suffered in PQ or extras because of inclusion of lossless audio.

In closing, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support lossless audio. If you're worried about losing out on PQ or extras, then I think you backed the wrong format, because BR doesn't seem to have that issue.

In closing, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support lossless audio. If you're worried about losing out on PQ or extras, then I think you backed the wrong format, because BR doesn't seem to have that issue.

Some of us "support" lossless audio, while taking issue with the oft-repeated proposition that its' inclusion is necessary for high quality presentation, or that not demanding lossless, somehow means your "audiophile" credentials aren't up to snuff. The former notion lacks anything in the way of meaningful supporting evidence, while the latter is well, just stupid, IMO.

In closing, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support lossless audio.

Same here. I don't understand any argument for lesser quality. I know I can rarely blindly tell the difference between my CDs ripped at 256kbps AAC and the original, but I still ripped my whole collection lossless for streaming to my stereo and kept the AACs for the iPod.

It's not a matter of whether I can tell the difference all the time. It's a matter of what is the best quality I can get. I understand the ABX tests will likely NOT reveal differences at higher bit rates, but that doesn't mean the depth of enjoyment won't be increased by differences and nuances that could not be specifically identified and pointed out.

Of course, there's a cost for the quality. Ripping everything lossless was not practical until the costs of hard drives came down. With HD media, I'm not convinced the lack of lossless has much to do with HD DVD's bandwidth and storage, but if that's really the case, BD does have a real advantage. As an HD DVD owner, I can easily say the BD should win this thing if they can deliver greater quality and all of the extras and interactivity while being able to mass produce full featured players and discs.

If you truly are interested in high definition, please don't argue in favor of reduced quality because most people won't know the difference. After all, when it comes to hobbies, most people rarely choose what discerning enthusiasts prefer.

Some of us "support" lossless audio, while taking issue with the oft-repeated proposition that its' inclusion is necessary for high quality presentation, or that not demanding lossless, somehow means your "audiophile" credentials aren't up to snuff. The former notion lacks anything in the way of meaningful supporting evidence, while the latter is well, just stupid, IMO.
Well, we can argue until we are blue in the face what is "necessary" for high quality presentation -- and I agree that the second statement is just silly.

But if you believe the HD DVD marketing hype, then yes, lossless audio is a necessity to enjoy the "look and sound of perfect."

This is the real question -- why NOT have lossless audio? If it doesn't hurt those without the equipment to play it, why NOT have it?

It's not a matter of whether I can tell the difference all the time. It's a matter of what is the best quality I can get. I understand the ABX tests will likely NOT reveal differences at higher bit rates, but that doesn't mean the depth of enjoyment won't be increased by differences and nuances that could not be specifically identified and pointed out.

I'm sorry, that sounds like smoke and mirrors, to me.

Of course, there's a cost for the quality. Ripping everything lossless was not practical until the costs of hard drives came down. With HD media, I'm not convinced the lack of lossless has much to do with HD DVD's bandwidth and storage, but if that's really the case, BD does have a real advantage. As an HD DVD owner, I can easily say the BD should win this thing if they can deliver greater quality and all of the extras and interactivity while being able to mass produce full featured players and discs.

Your POV is swimming against the tide. Compression effectiveness and efficiency is rising, and it's here to stay.

If you truly are interested in high definition, please don't argue in favor of reduced quality because most people won't know the difference. After all, when it comes to hobbies, most people rarely choose what discerning enthusiasts prefer.

Please. I have invested over 20k in my HT equipment, and don't feel compelled to argue in favor of exceeding the point of diminishing returns if it offers nothing in the way of real, tangible, discernible benefit. There will always be a market for products which offer benefits which are largely or entirely intangible. The lossless debate on AVS has made that transparently obvious on innumerable occasions.

I'm sorry, that sounds like smoke and mirrors, to me.



Your POV is swimming against the tide. Compression effectiveness and efficiency is rising, and here to stay.



Please. I have invested over 20k in my HT equipment, and don't feel compelled to argue in favor of exceeding the point of diminishing returns if it offers nothing in the way of real, tangible, discernible benefit. There will always be a market for products which offer benefits which are largely or entirely intangible. The lossless debate on AVS has made that transparently obvious on innumerable occasions.

I guess the point is that some people DO believe there is a real, tangible, discernible difference between lossy and lossless audio -- the numerous HDM reviews wherein these differences are noted are at least evidence of a real disagreement.

So, if there is a real difference, even a small one, and that improvement, however small, comes at no extra cost, why not choose it?

I guess the point is that some people DO believe there is a real, tangible, discernible difference between lossy and lossless audio -- the numerous HDM reviews wherein these differences are noted are at least evidence of a real disagreement.

There's often a clear difference between individual belief and objective truth.

So, if there is a real different, even a small one, and that improvement, however small, comes at no extra cost, why not choose it?

It hasn't been established that there's any benefit, but if it had been, I'd totally agree with you. In the absence of such evidence, I don't sweat lossless inclusion, or the lack thereof on HDM. If there's no discernible benefit, purchasing one over the other would be pointless. At this point, (IMHO) my skepticism is entirely appropriate and proper.

There's often a clear difference between individual belief and objective truth.



It hasn't been established that there's any benefit, but if it had been, I'd totally agree with you. In the absence of such evidence, I don't sweat lossless inclusion, or the lack thereof on HDM. If there's no discernible benefit, purchasing one over the other would be pointless. At this point, (IMHO) my skepticism is entirely appropriate and proper.

You're often correct -- what exactly do you think would count as "objective truth" in the lossy v. lossless debate?

My problem is that you make it seem like it has been objectively determined that DD+ is just as good as TrueHD, or that lossless provides no real benefit over lossy.

My point is that that the many, many reviews of HDM, where lossy and lossless tracks are provided, the reviewers often notice a difference or real benefit -- to them. I'm not trying to argue that there is a 100% objective, scientific benefit to using TrueHD over DD+ -- but that many people, including experts in the field, apparently do believe this.

So, I state again, if at least some people believe there is a real benefit, and there is no real cost to including them, why not include them? Whether you can hear the difference or not, why not include them?

My audio equipment really exploits 640 Dolby and 1500 DTS really, really well. I'm more centred on video in this youthful phase of the new formats. I find alot more fault with video than audio, for the most part. The worst audio I'm getting from these formats is typically, spectacularly good.

It's good to hear my Dolby Digital decoder finally operate at it's top capacity, 640. Lack of lossless doesn't ruin my day. I just buy the films I really want to see and take a listen. I'm paying less for discs now than I did in 97-98 when DVD started, except for Fox...what's new there...? Nada! The audio is always better than DVD for the most part and sometimes way better. I'm a happy camper!

My audio equipment really exploits 640 Dolby and 1500 DTS really, really well. I'm more centred on video in this youthful phase of the new formats. I find alot more fault with video than audio, for the most part. The worst audio I'm getting from these formats is typically, spectacularly good.

It's good to hear my Dolby Digital decoder finally operate at it's top capacity, 640. Lack of lossless doesn't ruin my day. I just buy the films I really want to see and take a listen. I'm paying less for discs now than I did in 97-98 when DVD started, except for Fox...what's new there...? Nada! The audio is always better than DVD for the most part and sometimes way better. I'm a happy camper!
I'm truly happy for you, I am.

I would only add that if lossless audio didn't cost you anything extra and you could still hear your fuller quality DD, and full quality video, would you support the idea of having lossess on all HD media?

Noone is arguing that it isnt nice with 1080P sources, but you dont need a 1080P player for a 720P display unless it can accept 1080/24P = 720/24P (as it doesnt exist 720/24P signals.)

But I will have a 1080p display sometime in the future and I want to be ready for it. I could find a buyer for my projector, or I could decide I'm sick of "lowly" 720p and give it to a relative while I splurge on a 1080p display or my projector catastrophically fails. I certainly wouldn't have to buy another source player to take full advantage of 1080p.

I'm sorry, that sounds like smoke and mirrors, to me.

Your POV is swimming against the tide. Compression effectiveness and efficiency is rising, and it's here to stay.

Please. I have invested over 20k in my HT equipment, and don't feel compelled to argue in favor of exceeding the point of diminishing returns if it offers nothing in the way of real, tangible, discernible benefit. There will always be a market for products which offer benefits which are largely or entirely intangible. The lossless debate on AVS has made that transparently obvious on innumerable occasions.

Either you missed my point or we just disagree. Real life audio and video are not compressed (I realize we're not talking about real live audio and visual here. I'm referring to the abilities of our senses), and I believe we see and hear in nuances that can't be measured or distinctly identified in an ABX test. That's all. Are you saying that may be the case, but it's good enough anyway?

I do believe that DD+ is excellent, and transparent in most if not all listening tests. However, I'd still want uncompressed if it's possible. You've still made no real point as to why you wouldn't support the higher quality. Just because you don't want to?

I'm truly happy for you, I am.

I would only add that if lossless audio didn't cost you anything extra and you could still hear your fuller quality DD, and full quality video, would you support the idea of having lossess on all HD media?

I suppourt the idea, of course. It's just not the number one priority when buying a disc at this point. Roughly half the discs I have are PCM or True if I bothered to count. Some of the 640 stuff I've heard is competative with lossless. Not all movies demand the best audio possible.

The last HD disc I viewed this week is a purr-fect example. I was pretty pleased with the crappie Dolby audio. I was less pleased about the print that has the colour faded badly. PQ is job one right now for me.

I'm not against lossless. It's just secondary to the video to me. We don't know for sure what lossless will be the standard issue yet, True looks like top contender but.....?

Either you missed my point or we just disagree. Real life audio and video are not compressed (I realize we're not talking about real live audio and visual here. I'm referring to the abilities of our senses), and I believe we see and hear in nuances that can't be measured or distinctly identified in an ABX test. That's all. Are you saying that may be the case, but it's good enough anyway?

I do believe that DD+ is excellent, and transparent in most if not all listening tests. However, I'd still want uncompressed if it's possible. You've still made no real point as to why you wouldn't support the higher quality. Just because you don't want to?

Possibly because he's afraid HD DVD may not be able to support it consistently without jeopardizing PQ so he doesn't want to insist on it. Of course that goes against the idea 30G/30Mbps is "good enough".

I suppourt the idea, of course. It's just not the number one priority when buying a disc at this point. Roughly half the discs I have are PCM or True if I bothered to count. Some of the 640 stuff I've heard is competative with lossless. Not all movies demand the best audio possible.

The last HD disc I viewed this week is a purr-fect example. I was pretty pleased with the crappie Dolby audio. I was less pleased about the print that has the colour faded badly. PQ is job one right now for me.

I'm not against lossless. It's just secondary to the video to me. We don't know for sure what lossless will be the standard issue yet, True looks like top contender but.....?

Oh, it's perfectly understandable that it isn't the number one priority and I can't fault you for that. Not everyone can take advantage of lossless, so it makes sense that they don't mind not have lossless tracks. What I don't get are people (not you!) who aren't agnostic, but seem to say lossless is pointless or unnecessary, and because they can't hear a difference, think it shouldn't be included.

In the end, HD media is only as good as the source -- lossless can't make a crappy sound mix sound better -- but even a crappy sound mix has the potential to sound less crappy in lossless versus lossy. And nor do I like the "who cares, studios will just double dip later with lossless audio" argument -- that's frustrating too.

If studios can provide lossless, why not provide it? Or, if DD+ really is as good as PCM or TrueHD or DTS MA, then why have any of those specs in the first place?

I wanted to quote from the review for Training Day at highdefdigest, not as "proof" that lossless is automatically better, but that real people are hearing real differences:

"With the setup stuff out of the way, it was time to fire up 'Training Day.' As I wrote in my initial review of the Dolby Digital-Plus track, the film's sound design has a lot going for it. Gunfire, explosions, a driving score and a pulsing hip-hop beat -- all are very lively in the mix. So it wasn't too hard to find a few scenes in which to put the Dolby TrueHD track through its paces. And the results were pretty much what I expected -- the differences are not necessarily night and day, but they are considerable, and became more pronounced the more in-depth I got in my A/B comparisons. Which is all a good thing. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone expected that Dolby TrueHD would necessarily sound like a completely new experience, but instead be more akin to the upgrades we've have heard in the past between Dolby Digital and DTS, or Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital-Plus. But based just on 'Training Day,' I would go a little farther and say that at times, Dolby TrueHD delivered such a significant upgrade that I can't imagine choosing any other option if a Dolby TrueHD track was included on a disc."

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/trainingday.html

Sure, it's just a subjective review -- but telling nonetheless, no?

I wanted to quote from the review for Training Day at highdefdigest, not as "proof" that lossless is automatically better, but that real people are hearing real differences:

"With the setup stuff out of the way, it was time to fire up 'Training Day.' As I wrote in my initial review of the Dolby Digital-Plus track, the film's sound design has a lot going for it. Gunfire, explosions, a driving score and a pulsing hip-hop beat -- all are very lively in the mix. So it wasn't too hard to find a few scenes in which to put the Dolby TrueHD track through its paces. And the results were pretty much what I expected -- the differences are not necessarily night and day, but they are considerable, and became more pronounced the more in-depth I got in my A/B comparisons. Which is all a good thing. Quite frankly, I don't think anyone expected that Dolby TrueHD would necessarily sound like a completely new experience, but instead be more akin to the upgrades we've have heard in the past between Dolby Digital and DTS, or Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital-Plus. But based just on 'Training Day,' I would go a little farther and say that at times, Dolby TrueHD delivered such a significant upgrade that I can't imagine choosing any other option if a Dolby TrueHD track was included on a disc."

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/trainingday.html

Sure, it's just a subjective review -- but telling nonetheless, no?

No. Actually, it's not "telling" in the least. Do some research about DBT testing, and how frequently audio professionals have believed that they've heard differences when in fact, they were totally mistaken.

If studios can provide lossless, why not provide it? Or, if DD+ really is as good as PCM or TrueHD or DTS MA, then why have any of those specs in the first place?


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11738614#post11738614

My expectations for the media will evolve over time and I may demand all True or PCM down the road....maybe DTS will make a comeback? I, and my HDTV, waited years and years for HD disc media. Now that it's here I'm not blacklisting any films for not having one of the top couple of audio formats, yet. Eventually, I might when things settle down....when we get to either a winning format or uni-players. I imagine True has the inside track to being the industry standard lossless for either of the formats...???....possibly?

For now, when pickin's are slimer, I just buy the films I want to see. I have way more video complaints than audio.

Sure, it's just a subjective review -- but telling nonetheless, no?

Imagine the improvement they will hear when they put a "+" after the TrueHD moniker a few years from now? :p (the humanity...)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11738614#post11738614

I appreciate the sarcastic tone -- no need to get snoody, eh?

More importantly, I think this post backs up what I'm saying -- of course we're all familiar with "Feature creep" -- but even if TrueHD is only marginally better (or hell, even if only better on paper), why not use it over DD+?

The point is, even if you're absolutely right, and everyone who thinks they are hearing a difference is fooling themselves, there are enough people who think it to warrant using TrueHD, assuming the HD media can take the extra space required.

You're not saying TrueHD is worse than DD+ are you? So why not use it instead of DD+?

Imagine the improvement they will hear when they put a "+" after the TrueHD moniker a few years from now? :p (the humanity...)

:D

Indeed -- I know that personally feel much better with pluses by my name brands.

My expectations for the media will evolve over time and I may demand all True or PCM down the road....maybe DTS will make a comeback? I, and my HDTV, waited years and years for HD disc media. Now that it's here I'm not blacklisting any films for not having one of the top couple of audio formats, yet. Eventually, I might when things settle down....when we get to either a winning format or uni-players. I imagine True has the inside track to being the industry standard lossless for either of the formats...???....possibly?

For now, when pickin's are slimer, I just buy the films I want to see. I have way more video complaints than audio.

I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating boycotting studios or movies because they don't provide lossless audio. That's not it at all.

My question is very simply this: if both formats have the capacity and ability to provide lossless audio, even if the benefit is marginal (or technically indistinguishable), why NOT include it? No one has given me a satisfactory answer so far.

My question is very simply this: if both formats have the capacity and ability to provide lossless audio, even if the benefit is marginal (or technically indistinguishable), why NOT include it? No one has given me a satisfactory answer so far.In some cases lack of bandwidth (on HD DVD); depending on the video bw used and IME-type features. I agree, it should be there just as a marketing point; but it may not always be possible, and when it is, there could be other commercial considerations that we don't know about. In addition, there are flavors of lossless; there's 16 bit; 20 bit, and 24 bit; with stuff like 24/96 @ 7.1 taking up the most bandwidth & capacity at lossless. Some feel that other audio spec improvements are more important than lossless, when a compromise is required (see Nature's Journey HD DVD).

In closing, I don't see why anyone wouldn't support lossless audio. If you're worried about losing out on PQ or extras, then I think you backed the wrong format, because BR doesn't seem to have that issue.

I personally would love it if every single release by both camps came with lossless audio.

But due to the fact that the movie industry will always market to the lowest level of quality that they feel will satisfy J6P we will be seeing many, many releases over the next year or so which do not carry HD Audio tracks.

The point of this thread was simply to explain the reason why this will happen but has mutated into some sort of "Pro-Lossless vs. Against Lossless" debate by some of the participants.

Not certain why it took that turn but it certainly has been interesting to watch.

I personally would love it if every single release by both camps came with lossless audio.

But due to the fact that the movie industry will always market to the lowest level of quality that they feel will satisfy J6P we will be seeing many, many releases over the next year or so which do not carry HD Audio tracks.

The point of this thread was simply to explain the reason why this will happen but has mutated into some sort of "Pro-Lossless vs. Against Lossless" debate by some of the participants.

Not certain why it took that turn but it certainly has been interesting to watch.

While I know that we'll be facing lots of lossy audiotracks for some time to come, I don't think that your answer is sufficient. Certainly some studios are more likely to market to the lowest common denominator (seems like mostly HD DVD studios) than others, but even those who have mainly put out lossy audio tracks have put out lossless ones.

I don't think anyone, myself included, has given a good answer for why studios, like Paramount or Universal, have been so inconsistent about lossless audio -- supporting it one disc and avoiding it next.

Is it the extra cost on production of the disc? Is it the lack of space for HD DVD? Is it because they think most people don't have the necessary hardware?

I just don't think the "lowest common denominator" answer is a very good one when you realize that those studios have released some lossless tracks.

Anyone with some real insider information have any clue?

Come to think of it, it's funny that the recent discussion on this thread could be characterized as "Pro-Lossless vs. Against Lossless."

Is anyone here truly "against lossless" on a philosophical level? Does anyone believe we are worse off for having lossless audio options? Does anyone think that not only is DD+ good enough, but better than lossless? Even if you believe lossless has absolutely ZERO benefit over DD+, would you go so far as to say that lossy is a better choice for HD movies?

I think that many prefer 24bit lossy compared to TrueHD/PCM 16bits.

But for most it isnt a dealbreaker. I was happy already at the good old DVD days with AQ, but not PQ.

In some cases lack of bandwidth (on HD DVD); depending on the video bw used and IME-type features. I agree, it should be there just as a marketing point; but it may not always be possible, and when it is, there could be other commercial considerations that we don't know about. In addition, there are flavors of lossless; there's 16 bit; 20 bit, and 24 bit; with stuff like 24/96 @ 7.1 taking up the most bandwidth & capacity at lossless. Some feel that other audio spec improvements are more important than lossless, when a compromise is required (see Nature's Journey HD DVD).

Just to put it into perspective, an uncompressed 24/96 @ 7.1 audio track takes 3 * 8 * 96000 * 60 * 60 * 2 = 16.5 GB for a two hour movie. If you want to support 3 languages then even a BD 50 has NOTHING left for video at that point. So we are not yet at the point where uncompressed audio takes a negligible amount of space relative to the media. It will end up subtracting from the video in most cases.

- Tom

I agree with many here that lossless would be great for all of us. I pick it if there is a choice only in my HT as that's the only place in my house that supports it.

That being said I understand the OP's topic as this war will be won by the masses and I hardly doubt the majority of them will care.

I have not once watched a HD movie in my bedroom or family room and thought to myself I am not getting the full resolution audio. Rather I watch these movies and think that they would be much better on my 150" screen in my HT, but sometimes the majority (wife) wins out as to where we watch them.

I'm finding it hard to understand what some here have been arguing about HD DVD "being for the masses" and BR for the niche market because of lossless audio.

Pretty obvious! ...only about 1% of the people even have systems that support lossless. BR fans have always stated that they are in this for the movie only. BR costs twice as much. Sounds like a high end niche to me! Its the same with SACD and DVD-A...and now Blu-Ray.

BTW, got to BB or CC and you will see that the vast majority of the audio systems they sell will not support lossless. Go to Walmart or Target and you will see that NONE of the systems they sell support it.

I have yet, to see a single post that says that lossless audio should not be included on discs. But most people think that there are far more important things to spend time on like PQ. Let's spend time on things that will benefit EVERYONE and not just 1%.

As an example, look at Haloween. It has lossless audio. Both PQ and AQ stink. I can live with bad audio, but there is no excuse for bad PQ.

While I know that we'll be facing lots of lossy audiotracks for some time to come, I don't think that your answer is sufficient. Certainly some studios are more likely to market to the lowest common denominator (seems like mostly HD DVD studios) than others, but even those who have mainly put out lossy audio tracks have put out lossless ones.

I don't think anyone, myself included, has given a good answer for why studios, like Paramount or Universal, have been so inconsistent about lossless audio -- supporting it one disc and avoiding it next.

Is it the extra cost on production of the disc? Is it the lack of space for HD DVD? Is it because they think most people don't have the necessary hardware?

I just don't think the "lowest common denominator" answer is a very good one when you realize that those studios have released some lossless tracks.

Anyone with some real insider information have any clue?

Not sure if you will ever get an answer to that question or a least one that satisfies you. At best we know this much HD-DVD DD+ is mandated but the version of DD+ can vary in its through put since it can be anywhere from 448 all the way up to 6mbs I believe. TrueHD can vary as well. It would be interesting to see a comparison between the the 24bit 1.5 and 3 mbs versions of DD+ vs TrueHD.

In the end I think the reason you see the inconsistency is its not the studios demanding it be one way or another, but it is an artistic decision. On Blu-ray its a little more complex since PCM 5.1 is available for free studios now have an incentive to put the mix out there. My take is this if Blu-ray also had the DD+ mandated and TrueHD as the lossless option I don't think you would see as many lossless titles and once again it would be more of an artist preference. Thats JMHO.

In the end though its your choice. I think I notice some differences between a lossless track and one that isn't. I wouldn't say its night and day though. I have also heard DD+ soundtracks that are fantastic as well but they were the only option on the disk. I agree with Rachael in that the big diff for me is the picture quality over SD. I find it hard going back to the other. The improved audio is tasty gravy in addition.

[QUOTE=archangel37;11738324]I'm finding it hard to understand what some here have been arguing about HD DVD "being for the masses" and BR for the niche market because of lossless audio.
QUOTE]
Pretty obvious! ...only about 1% of the people even have systems that support lossless. BR fans have always stated that they are in this for the movie only. BR costs twice as much. Sounds like a high end niche to me! Its the same with SACD and DVD-A...and now Blu-Ray.

BTW, got to BB or CC and you will see that the vast majority of the audio systems they sell will not support lossless. Go to Walmart or Target and you will see that NONE of the systems they sell support it.

I have yet, to see a single post that says that lossless audio should not be included on discs. But most people think that there are far more important things to spend time on like PQ. Let's spend time on things that will benefit EVERYONE and not just 1%.

As an example, look at Haloween. It has lossless audio. Both PQ and AQ stink. I can live with bad audio, but there is no excuse for bad PQ.

Not true you can get a RCA 5000 or a Phillips BDP and a JVC 5060 at the Walmart near me and it supports lossless via 5.1 channel in. Target has the Pioneer 817 in stores and the Philips player and those support lossless as well. That being said its not likely most will put 2 and 2 together.

I think that many prefer 24bit lossy compared to TrueHD/PCM 16bits.

But for most it isnt a dealbreaker. I was happy already at the good old DVD days with AQ, but not PQ.

I might ask the same thing about 24 bit lossy that people have said about lossless in general -- can you actually tell the difference between 24 bit lossy and 16 bit lossless in a double blind test? Or are you just fooling yourself?

I agree with many here that lossless would be great for all of us. I pick it if there is a choice only in my HT as that's the only place in my house that supports it.

That being said I understand the OP's topic as this war will be won by the masses and I hardly doubt the majority of them will care.

I have not once watched a HD movie in my bedroom or family room and thought to myself I am not getting the full resolution audio. Rather I watch these movies and think that they would be much better on my 150" screen in my HT, but sometimes the majority (wife) wins out as to where we watch them.

You forget how much the "masses" love their name brands, and important looking labels. Even as a pure marketing standpoint, people will like seeing the TrueHD sticker or option, even if they have no idea what it means.

I mean, it's TRUE HD -- how can that NOT be better!?! ;)

[QUOTE=archangel37;11738324]
As an example, look at Haloween. It has lossless audio. Both PQ and AQ stink. I can live with bad audio, but there is no excuse for bad PQ.

I cancelled my pre-order, but I thought the PQ was supposedly great except for the color timing issue and that the audio was as good as could be hoped for an old release.

As an example, look at Haloween. It has lossless audio. Both PQ and AQ stink. I can live with bad audio, but there is no excuse for bad PQ.
Just curious, is this based on your own experience viewing the HiDef DVD version or from a review ?

[QUOTE=archangel37;11738324]I'm finding it hard to understand what some here have been arguing about HD DVD "being for the masses" and BR for the niche market because of lossless audio.
QUOTE]
Pretty obvious! ...only about 1% of the people even have systems that support lossless. BR fans have always stated that they are in this for the movie only. BR costs twice as much. Sounds like a high end niche to me! Its the same with SACD and DVD-A...and now Blu-Ray.

BTW, got to BB or CC and you will see that the vast majority of the audio systems they sell will not support lossless. Go to Walmart or Target and you will see that NONE of the systems they sell support it.

I have yet, to see a single post that says that lossless audio should not be included on discs. But most people think that there are far more important things to spend time on like PQ. Let's spend time on things that will benefit EVERYONE and not just 1%.

As an example, look at Haloween. It has lossless audio. Both PQ and AQ stink. I can live with bad audio, but there is no excuse for bad PQ.


My larger point is that both HD DVD and BR are niche products right now. They are both far from mainstream products. And I fail to see how having more lossless titles makes BR more of a niche product.

Even you want to get into the price war, the cheapest HD DVD player at Best Buy is 299. The cheapest Bluray player is 449 -- $150 difference, and more than a little shy of twice as much.

Look, if price alone was going to win the war for HD DVD, why hasn't it already?

Well, I ask you, how many of those audio systems sold at BB or CC have analog inputs? Or at target or wal mart?

Let me save you the trouble: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8254621&st=receiver&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1169512522811 -

- less than $150 at BB will buy you a lossless capable receiver. Nifty huh? And you can buy complete HTiB with analog connections at Target. Probably Wal mart too.

Next.

The only reason lossless audio should affect video quality is due to space or bandwidth constraints -- and if HD DVD is facing those constraints already (I said IF!), then I think that format deserves to die a quick death. Either 30 GB is "good enough" for high quality PQ and lossless audio or it isn't. You tell me.

And your Halloween example is horrendous -- the picture quality wasn't terrible because they provided lossless audio. Indeed, MANY reviewers said the PQ was great considering the print's age -- that ONE review gave such a low score for color issues. And as has been beaten to death before, bad sources can't be made magically better by more bitrates or lossless codecs.

[QUOTE=Everdog;11742133]

Not true you can get a RCA 5000 or a Phillips BDP and a JVC 5060 at the Walmart near me and it supports lossless via 5.1 channel in. Target has the Pioneer 817 in stores and the Philips player and those support lossless as well. That being said its not likely most will put 2 and 2 together.
Thank you!

I cancelled my pre-order, but I thought the PQ was supposedly great except for the color timing issue and that the audio was as good as could be hoped for an old release.

Watch out. You don't want to imply that older releases will not benefit from lossless audio. People will jump all over you.:D

...That being said its not likely most will put 2 and 2 together.


Thank you!

And thank you.

And thank you.

So let me get this straight -- you claim that "only 1% of people have systems that support lossless."

We know that's wrong.

You then say that you can't buy a lossless capable system at Target or Wal Mart, and only a few at CC or BB.

We know that's wrong.

Now you're shifting your argument to say that even if more systems do support it and more people can buy them, they're too stupid to figure out how to do it.

The people who incapable of buying the right cables and putting them in the right spot aren't buying HD players or media anyway.

And those that are buying are likely capable of figuring it out or asking someone who knows.

But who knows, I am just a crazy, crazy optimist. :D

[QUOTE=Everdog;11742133]

I cancelled my pre-order, but I thought the PQ was supposedly great except for the color timing issue and that the audio was as good as could be hoped for an old release.

Why would you do that? Obviously you like the movie so why would you want to cancel your order based on the review. Look as I have said repeated times there is more to the matrix than just loss-less. Keep your mind open to the possibilities and enjoy the show. If the HD release of Halloween is superior to the DVD then its an upgrade. Being a fan of lossless is one thing. Letting this guide your decision making is foolish in my book. Yes this is a concern for those who want the best but it shouldn't be looked at as the only deciding factor. Rent it and see what you think.

So let me get this straight -- you claim that "only 1% of people have systems that support lossless."

We know that's wrong.



Huh? How many people do you think even own AV receivers? Almost everyone does not. Of those who do, most don't support lossless. Even those who have receivers with 5.1 analog outputs, most do not know what they are. Heck almost all HDM players do not have 5.1 analog outputs (PS3s sure don't).

Almost all TVs just use TV speakers and are not connect to anything.
Do you deny that too?

The people who incapable of buying the right cables and putting them in the right spot aren't buying HD players or media anyway.

That is the Blu-Ray argument. Only the privileged who know all about things like lossless buy HDM. It only belongs in an HT room with a high end receiver.
The HD DVD argument is, that it is inexpensive enough to go anywhere there is a DVD player. You do not even need a high end receiver.


Face it, the topic of the thread is " Lossless audio - Only a concern for a few consumers ", and is completely correct.

[QUOTE=Everdog;11742133]



Well, I ask you, how many of those audio systems sold at BB or CC have analog inputs? Or at target or wal mart?

Let me save you the trouble: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8254621&st=receiver&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1169512522811 -

- less than $150 at BB will buy you a lossless capable receiver. Nifty huh? And you can buy complete HTiB with analog connections at Target. Probably Wal mart too.



Here is the problem with that.

J6P has no clue what "Lossless audio" is. The industry hasn't put the information out there on a broad enough level for the average consumer to be able to identify the difference between DD, DD+, Lossless, True HD, Etc.

For the past few years, all the media has told the consumer market is that 5.1 sound is "adequate", 6.1 is "better" and that 7.1 is "most desirable".

Bitrates, audio codecs and compressed audio vs. non-compressed audio are concepts outside the knowledge base of the average consumer.

So when J6P walks into BB and sees that receiver you linked with the 5.1 analog inputs he isn't going to be thinking "GREAT! Lossless audio analog inputs!", he'll be thinking "Meh, another 5.1 system.. I wonder if they have any cheap 7.1 receivers on sale?"

Add into this the fact that only a few of the HDM players which have been produced support 5.1 analog audio output from the player and it becomes even less likely that the average consumer will understand how to take advantage of this audio format.

And the movie industry knows this which is why they are not focused on the audio portion of the HDM as a priority yet.

Right now they simply want more titles of their respective formats on the shelves so they can say to the consumer this Christmas.."Hey, buy our HD Player! Look it has Hundreds (thousands) of titles available for it RIGHT NOW!"

The film industry is looking to make a big push into the home for HDM between now and the end of the year and re-recording extra audio tracks takes time and money which they don't want to spend since they consider it to be a non-issue for the vast majority of potential customers right now.

Especially since they know they can simply release "remastered for HD Audio" editions in a few years at their leisure, gaining additional revenue once the whole "format war" is a thing of the past.

You forget how much the "masses" love their name brands, and important looking labels. Even as a pure marketing standpoint, people will like seeing the TrueHD sticker or option, even if they have no idea what it means.

I mean, it's TRUE HD -- how can that NOT be better!?! ;)

Actually they dont. They go for perceived value when it comes to CE devices. Being a person that used to sell CE devices I can tell you the 80's and 90's way of buying is gone. Internet reviews and lower pricing are now the kings of the CE market.

Most consumers will not ask if it does DTS or Dolby or DD+, they will ask if it does surround sound and can they hook up their Ipod to it.

What most people consider home theater is a flat screen panel with a 5.1 system, regardless of what the interconnects are. Go into a BB or CC and just linger around the TV's and audio and listen to what consumers are asking. They ask why the name brand is more expensive than the bargain brand. Then they will ask (for the display) what the extra money gets them from the name brand. They will hear that it looks better and that it's piece of mind. The consumer then asks about the warranty (which to me then signifies "in one ear out the other"). As for audio, you hardly see anybody going into the audio room, and ask if what they're hearing from a movie is lossless or not (and 9 out of 10 times they are listening to a regular DVD). I hate to say this but it's only the extreme HT enthusiasts like us that do care about lossless, not the masses. Like almost every survey points to, regular DVD is good enough.

Actually they dont. They go for perceived value when it comes to CE devices. Being a person that used to sell CE devices I can tell you the 80's and 90's way of buying is gone. Internet reviews and lower pricing are now the kings of the CE market.

I havent kept up but have Bose Lifestyle systems and Monster cables gone out of style then?

Face it, the topic of the thread is " Lossless audio - Only a concern for a few consumers ", and is completely correct.

The Same can be said about HD media. What is more important or at least more relavent to the current discussion is ...

How many owners of HD Media players would like to have lossless or at least that option?

Well, I wouldn't venture a guess about how many people own HT systems -- but you seem more than willing to, so you tell me, from where did you get your 1% figure?

Most AV Receivers have 5.1 inputs -- therefore, most receivers do, in fact, support lossless audio. I don't get why that's so difficult for you to understand.

HD media, now, is a niche product that hasn't broken into the mainstream -- I would guess that a fair few people buying HD DVD or BR do in fact have HT systems with analog systems. And by George, I'd even bet they know how to plug in cables.

Moreover, HDMI receivers have been around for awhile -- and whether Toshiba chooses to include analog inputs, many standalone BR products DO have them. So, coupled with the prevalence of AV receivers with analog inputs AND newer receivers with HDMI, many people can enjoy lossless audio. Either you have a HD player with analog inputs and an AV receiver with analog inputs or an AV receiver with HDMI.

Are you really going to tell me that you think that only 1% of people who have purchased HD players have HT systems with either analog inputs or HDMI?

Seeing as I've never argued how most people connect their systems, no, I don't deny that most people simply connect their dvd player to TVs. But that's so not the point it isn't even funny.

Ah, the ol' shifting argument.

And most importantly, why should HD players and media, which are designed to provide optimal PQ and SQ, cater to the lowest common denominator? It won't hurt the average consumer to have a lossless track on a movie, will it?

I'm sorry, but that "bluray = rich, HD DVD = masses" argument is silly. The cheapest HD DVD player is still more than $200 -- throw in a HDTV which costs at least $400-500 for something decent, and you're at $600+. When you consider that upconverting players can be bought for $45, and DVDs for less than $20. More than that, you can't even get every movie you want.

HD DVD players are still not inexpensive enough to replace dvd players -- fact. That's partly why they aren't selling well.

Also a fact --- a BR player does just fine hooked up to a TV alone.

Hell, your previous argument even backs me up -- the largest number of HD players aren't sold to elitists or the privileged -- they're PS3s, many of which are never hooked up to HT systems. Good for them.

But why should that mean lossless audio shouldn't be more greatly supported by studios?

Yes, the thread title is correct -- but you can just as easily say:

"HD Media / the Format War -- Only a concern for a few consumers."

yeah, and?

Huh? How many people do you think even own AV receivers? Almost everyone does not. Of those who do, most don't support lossless. Even those who have receivers with 5.1 analog outputs, most do not know what they are. Heck almost all HDM players do not have 5.1 analog outputs (PS3s sure don't).

Almost all TVs just use TV speakers and are not connect to anything.
Do you deny that too?



That is the Blu-Ray argument. Only the privileged who know all about things like lossless buy HDM. It only belongs in an HT room with a high end receiver.
The HD DVD argument is, that it is inexpensive enough to go anywhere there is a DVD player. You do not even need a high end receiver.


Face it, the topic of the thread is " Lossless audio - Only a concern for a few consumers ", and is completely correct.

Well,
Most AV Receivers have 5.1 inputs -- therefore, most receivers do, in fact, support lossless audio. I don't get why that's so difficult for you to understand.



Not around here they don't.

My Sony 5.1 receiver does not have 5.1 inputs. The only way to get a 5.1 signal into it is through either the coax or optical feeds.

My friend's Onkyo receiver is the same way as is my wife's older Pioneer.

I will actually have to ask around and see just how many of my friends who own A/V receivers actually do have 5.1 inputs.

1) Yes. Here is how it works with 1080i HDDVD Player hooked to a 1080p TV

1080p24 source -> Interlace and convert -> 1080i60 out to tv -> Deinterlace and output 1080p60.

You will remove 2 conversions when you have a 1080p player

2) Yes, people should buy a 1080p player. You never know when you could get a new 1080p TV.


Don't believe what you say is completely correct. Is my understanding that in order to output 1080p@60, the HDM players do: 1080p24 source -> interlace and convert -> 1080i60 -> deinterlace/convert (within the player) and output 1080p60 to the TV. The differentiator, then, is whether the deinterlace process is better done by the player or the TV. It is not until you have a TV that will accept native 1080p24 (so far, most 1080p sets only take in 1080p60) that you eliminate the interlace/deinterlace steps (and get smoother video) - although with film based sources, the interlace/deinterlace process should be transparent.

I havent kept up but have Bose Lifestyle systems and Monster cables gone out of style then?
Good question. Me thinks no. Could be wrong!