http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6326

Have a read through and see what you think.

Several findings are of particular interest. First, regardless of the format, the AVC CODEC seems to produce a more pleasing presentation than the VC-1 CODEC. Second, regardless of CODEC, Blu-ray Disc seems to offer a more pleasing presentation than HD DVD. Third, the differences between the appearance of transfers compressed with the two CODECs are more noticeable on Blu-ray Disc than on HD DVD, suggesting once again that BD is more revealing. Admittedly, the original data points are based on purely subjective assessments, but I’m confident that the data are representative of accurate observations rather than bias.

I’m still baffled by the few readers who cannot accept the technical explanation that a higher bit rate and less compression for any given CODEC will produce a better image. Sony’s Superbit DVDs demonstrated very clearly that less compression and a higher average bit rate produces a better looking video transfer. Why doesn’t that experience with MPEG-2 convince skeptics that similar improvements will occur with VC-1 and AVC on HD discs?


http://www.dvdfile.com/images/stories/stills_jon/300x150_4/hd_disc_quality_trends.gif


There's a lot more in there too than this quote.

Admittedly, the original data points are based on purely subjective assessments, but I’m confident that the data are representative of accurate observations rather than bias.

?

:confused:

Oh, OK then...that settles that seeing as DVDfile is the God of PQ assessment. :rolleyes:

What a bunch of 'TARDS!

PQ is 100% identical on each format. This is a known fact. Thankyou for an enjoyable game. :p

FLAME ON!!!

Here we go again....let the HD vs. Blu bitchslap-fest start in...5....4....3...2....

"Third, the differences between the appearance of transfers compressed with the two CODECs are more noticeable on Blu-ray Disc than on HD DVD, suggesting once again that BD is more revealing"

rofl.

Love the marching orders aspect to this, leave this kind of fud over at bd.com

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=21278

Admittedly, the original data points are based on purely subjective assessments, but I’m confident that the data are representative of accurate observations rather than bias.


The data are? It should be "the data is."

Extremely poor analysis which does not take the most important factor into consideration: BD has many more recent blockbusters and big budget eye candy films than HD DVD because Sony, Disney, & Fox have more of these types of movies than Universal.

All Dan Ramer proved is that the BD exclusive studios have newer movies, bigger budget movies that result in cleaner masters. Whooptie-do, that is a studio content issue, not a technical format issue.

More storage space has proven that it does NOT help Blu-Ray look by as evidenced by this real world data... Look for yourself:

Nature's Journey 18gb/37mbps VC-1 BD25 vs 12gb/26mbps VC-1 HD15:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/naturesjourney_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having over 10mbps more bitrate.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD taking up over 10gb more space (much higher avg/peak bitrate).

The Prestige - 20gb AVC BD50 vs. 16gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having significantly higher peak and average bitrate.


The bottom line is, the new AVC/VC1 codecs do not benefit from the extra space and bandwidth Blu-Ray offers; many BD fans have repeated this mantra but when asked to provide real-world proof such as screenshots demonstrating the difference, they cannot primarily because the difference is nonexistant. These nextgen codecs plateau in quality at some point, and that point arrives well within HD DVD's space/bandwidth territory. The Blu-Ray format was engineered based on a Sony MPEG2 recordable format, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch MPEG2 quality. HD DVD was engineered with AVC/VC1 in mind, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch AVC/VC1 quality. Studios aren't going to be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat a year from now and all of a sudden there will be some significant gain when right now a 10mbps+ increase in bitrate over what is possible on HD DVD does jack squat for the image when using AVC/VC1; if anything, HD DVD will benefit more with time because the plateau will simply be reached earlier as encoders become more efficient and require less human involvement. There are diminishing returns with these new codecs after some point, and that point is well within the capabilities of HD DVD.

Dan's latest revision comparing Silver Surfer to Transformers and making a conclusion about each format based on this single comparison is especially humorous. He keeps digging himself deeper and the more he digs the sillier and less credible he looks.

Hey Dan, want to really be unbiased? Plot the age of original release date of the HD/BD reviewed versus the video score you gave it. Then, compare that graph to your HD DVD/BD graph. You will find movies from the 70s/80s/90s will look worse than movies from 00s. Blu-Ray has more from 00s and HD DVD has more from the 70s/80s/90s. Therefore BD on average has a higher score - that does not mean BD has better video quality, it simply means BD's newer movies have masters in better shape than HD DVD's older movies. This is not news, and this is not something to draw conclusion of formats on.

For starters these are based on one mans experiances so they are hardly legitimate conclusions. I have nothing against AVC but it has an edginess to it and is not as smooth as VC1. A lot of this boils down to PQ taste. Lets not forget as well the majority of hddvd releases are older catalog titles. Bluray are mostly new releases or direct to video jargon. Now wonder they look better!

Extremely poor analysis which does not take the most important factor into consideration: BD has many more recent blockbusters and big budget eye candy films than HD DVD because Sony, Disney, & Fox have more of these types of movies than Universal.

I am pretty sure the studio releasing the most "older" titles is Warner and doing it on both formats, so that argument is pretty weak.

For starters these are based on one mans experiances so they are hardly legitimate conclusions. I have nothing against AVC but it has an edginess to it and is not as smooth as VC1. A lot of this boils down to PQ taste. Lets not forget as well the majority of hddvd releases are older catalog titles. Bluray are mostly new releases or direct to video jargon. Now wonder they look better!

Actually they are based on several people's experiences as one of the examples shows five different site's reviews compared and on every one the PQ for Blu-ray is rated higher on average.

War is Over!

BD has over 4X the lossless tracks so it has a major advantage right there. Not surprised but I imagine video wise the format's would be very close.

GREAT! So BD has better PQ. Think the public is going to see this on their 37" HDTV? Or the 40 million who have a 768P HDTV?

So how many people are shooting im 35mm versus Digital (not movies - just pictures of the kiddies)

35mm is vastly superior to Digital, especially in blowups.

Lets not forget as well the majority of hddvd releases are older catalog titles. Bluray are mostly new releases or direct to video jargon. Now wonder they look better!

Uh yeah, The Fly, Dracula, Rising Sun, Rocky, Speed, Usual Suspects, Entrapment, Phone Booth, Broken Arrow, Species, Robocop, The Terminator, The tailor of Panama, The big Hit, The Fifth Element, Secret Window, Donnie Brasco, reservoir Dogs, First Blood, Stir of Echoes, Total Recall; they're all such new movies.

Let's not forget the majority of older catalog titles, and I mean OLDER, are on both formats.

Just like every other review site has consistently higher ratings for Blu-ray than HDDVD.

When does DVD File show us the overwhelming lead in AQ?

Actually they are based on several people's experiences as one of the examples shows five different site's reviews compared and on every one the PQ for Blu-ray is rated higher on average.

The titles for Paramount, Universal and Warner are hardly new releases are they. For Fox, Sony, Disney the vast majority are.

The titles for Paramount, Universal and Warner are hardly new releases are they. For Fox, Sony, Disney the vast majority are.

I could have sworn most of Warner's titles are on both formats and capable of 4star or higher PQ ratings, like 1956's The Searchers - 4.5/5 from HDD.

I also could have sworn that with the exception of the last two or three titles, all of Paramount's titles have been on both formats too.

I can see lots of catalog titles from Sony and Fox and I've already listed several.

The only video quality comparisons that have meaning are the same title on both formats, otherwise you are comparing one compressionist or master to a different one.

rub salt on the wound, doby!!!!:D

get em while they're down!

You guys....this is the end, face it...trade in your HD-DVD stuff while you can still can make some money off of it.
120k copies of Transformers couldn't even save you.

In her 1969 book, On Death and Dying, Swiss-born psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross outlined the five stages of grief of someone who is dying:


• Denial and isolation: "This is not happening to me."
• Anger: "How dare God do this to me."
• Bargaining: "Just let me live to see my son graduate."
• Depression: "I can't bear to face going through this, putting my family through this."
• Acceptance: "I'm ready, I don't want to struggle anymore."


Which stage is HD-DVD in right now?!

The only video quality comparisons that have meaning are the same title on both formats, otherwise you are comparing one compressionist or master to a different one.

Yes basicly you can really only compare films that comes from the same master.

Wich really norrows it down to Paramount titles when they still were neutral.

You have some exclusive that has been released overseas also.

But has we lernt something there it has been that the films more or less look the same.

I would say many films on both format would have benefitted from remastering. Thats what really defines the quality.

Take MI:2 as an example, im very sure its master were dated, and if it got the same threatment as Matrix, it would have looked better.

The only video quality comparisons that have meaning are the same title on both formats, otherwise you are comparing one compressionist or master to a different one.

stop thinking logically!

DAMN....................IF only Paramount would have known about this revelation from DVD File before they went HD DVD exclusive, they probably would have done an about face!!! I swear you have A.D.D. You might just as well talk to yourself in the mirror, 'cause you're about the only person you'll convince. Must be a slow HDM news week? Anyone heard about some fires in Southern California?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

DAMN....................IF only Paramount would have known about this revelation from DVD File before they went HD DVD exclusive, they probably would have done an about face!!! I swear you have A.D.D. You might just as well talk to yourself in the mirror, 'cause you're about the only person you'll convince. Must be a slow HDM news week? Anyone heard about some fires in Southern California?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yeah...umm...a better product or $150 million dollars?

I shall choose foods ending in "amburger" for $200 please Alex.

Just like every other review site has consistently higher ratings for Blu-ray than HDDVD.

When does DVD File show us the overwhelming lead in AQ?

We already know about that one:

HDD 257HD/270BD, HTS 231HD/239BD, HTF 98HD/97BD, UD 150HD/133BD, Talk 288HD/298BD
09.28.07
HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.89 3.62 3.75 HighDef 3.97 3.83 3.90
HTSpot 3.94 3.86 3.90 HTSpot 4.07 4.27 4.17
DVDTalk 3.64 3.49 3.56 DVDTalk 3.67 3.72 3.70
HTForum 3.90 3.68 3.79 HTForum 4.28 4.07 4.18
UpDisc 3.98 3.80 3.89 UpDisc 4.03 4.12 4.07
Totals 3.84 3.67 3.76 Totals 3.94 3.96 3.95

This bickering about the supposed superiority in PQ of BD over HD is ridiculous.

The question is, is J6P, who already don't appreciate the difference between SD and HD, willing to pay 100% more for a BD player to gain a miniscule difference (if any) in PQ?

The real question.

Has any title gotten worse PQ rating because it wasnt given enough bitrate?

Or has most gotten a worse PQ rating because they had old/bad masters?

The data are? It should be "the data is."

"Data are" is fine.

You guys....this is the end, face it...trade in your HD-DVD stuff while you can still can make some money off of it.
120k copies of Transformers couldn't even save you.

You're right. Selling an EQUAL number of titles as the "winning" format clearly means the war is over.

:confused:

Do you actually believe the crap that you're typing, or are you just trying to be funny?

Seriously, unless the ratio this week was 100% HD DVD, BD folks would be claiming that HD DVD somehow "failed".

Yeah...umm...a better product or $150 million dollars?

Same old, same old, same old, same old, same old........song and dance. That's the best you got??? Here's a clue, 99% of the WORLD doesn't CARE about HDM!!! And 99.9% of the world has NO clue what DVD File even is!!! :D Therefore, your post is a retread of something that is virtually worthless to the ENTIRE WORLD!!!! If you believe BR PQ is better/superior to HD DVD, as does Dan Ramer, that's great for both of you. We're all very proud of you that you have your opinion. What's your favorite flavor of cookie??

Seriously, who are you trying to convince?

Seriously, unless the ratio this week was 100% HD DVD, BD folks would be claiming that HD DVD somehow "failed".

Actually, no...

I was absolutely expecting HD to win this week...but, this isn't that thread..I don't want to close doby's thread for derailing it...

Transformers was HD's apex....once you reach the highest point, you can only go down........

More storage space has proven that it does NOT help Blu-Ray look by as evidenced by this real world data... Look for yourself:

Nature's Journey 18gb/37mbps VC-1 BD25 vs 12gb/26mbps VC-1 HD15:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/naturesjourney_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having over 10mbps more bitrate.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD taking up over 10gb more space (much higher avg/peak bitrate).

The Prestige - 20gb AVC BD50 vs. 16gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having significantly higher peak and average bitrate.



The BD versions are better in those cases. HD is missing details, suffers from softer picture. BD has more texture and better detail preservation. Also fine grain has become smoothed over in many low bitrate releases. Some people like to downplay the differences but the differences are there.

...but, this isn't that thread..I don't want to close doby's thread for derailing it...

Transformers was HD's apex....once you reach the highest point, you can only go down........

If you don't want to derail the thread, you probably shouldn't have made the post in the first place. And I notice that, even after saying you don't want to derail the thread, you can't resist one last dig in your final sentence.

Nice. :rolleyes: Just keep right on believing that, if it helps you sleep at night. The rest of us will live in the real world, where a 51/49 split for a single week doesn't spell the end for either format.

"Data are" is fine.

Actually, "data points are" is the original quote and it was correct. Notice, the operative word is "points" not "data".

The above was brought to you by ABC-TV and Schoolhouse Rock. We now return you to the petulant little 13 year old fanboy skirmish. :D

The BD versions are better in those cases. HD is missing details, suffers from softer picture. BD has more texture and better detail preservation. Also fine grain has become smoothed over in many low bitrate releases. Some people like to downplay the differences but the differences are there.

Yeah, if you look close, you can see the fine detailed stitchwork in the Emperor's new clothes...

Give us a break.

MEC2

Same old, same old, same old, same old, same old........song and dance. That's the best you got??? Here's a clue, 99% of the WORLD doesn't CARE about HDM!!! And 99.9% of the world has NO clue what DVD File even is!!! :D Therefore, your post is a retread of something that is virtually worthless to the ENTIRE WORLD!!!! If you believe BR PQ is better/superior to HD DVD, as does Dan Ramer, that's great for both of you. We're all very proud of you that you have your opinion. What's your favorite flavor of cookie??

Seriously, who are you trying to convince?

99% of the rest of the world? What the hell are you talking about?
Hello McFly, HDM is about US, the people who are buying it, not J6P.
Either Blu-ray will win and J6P will start buying Blu-ray come Xmas 2009 or both formats will continue to stay around and HDM will be a niche market and J6P will never get involved, just like DVD-Audio and SACD.

This constant referral to J6P is not only ridiculous, but asinine and pointless.

Uh yeah, The Fly, Dracula, Rising Sun, Rocky, Speed, Usual Suspects, Entrapment, Phone Booth, Broken Arrow, Species, Robocop, The Terminator, The tailor of Panama, The big Hit, The Fifth Element, Secret Window, Donnie Brasco, reservoir Dogs, First Blood, Stir of Echoes, Total Recall; they're all such new movies.

Let's not forget the majority of older catalog titles, and I mean OLDER, are on both formats.

Too bad like half of those titles you mention have shoddy PQ.... The Fly as an example was a disappointment and looks NO better than most SD DVD versions. Please explain with all that BIT-rate horse dung... :confused:

:rolleyes:

99% of the rest of the world? What the hell are you talking about?
Hello McFly, HDM is about US, the people who are buying it, not J6P.
Either Blu-ray will win and J6P will start buying Blu-ray come Xmas 2009 or both formats will continue to stay around and HDM will be a niche market and J6P will never get involved, just like DVD-Audio and SACD.

This constant referral to J6P is not only ridiculous, but asinine and pointless.

No it isn't. Because J6P will decide if HDM is the true successor to DVD or will HDM be LD Part 2.

No it isn't. Because J6P will decide if HDM is the true successor to DVD or will HDM be LD Part 2.


I vote the latter. I always wanted to own LD.:D Hopefully we are buying enough to where we can keep both formats alive. If the holiday season isn't HUGE for HDM in general, we will and always will have a niche product on our hands. Better gobble up during every sale b/c who knows what will be released once the studios realize this.

The data are? It should be "the data is."

Nope, actually it was correct the first time. "the data are"...

I come from a science education background, and my instructors drilled this into our heads.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD taking up over 10gb more space (much higher avg/peak bitrate).

Sorry, but FoOF on BRD has signficantly less compression artifacts than the HD-DVD in intense scenes and has overall bettter definition:

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3926/flagsbeachxq2.png

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3422/flagscuffrt6.png

Of course it's not significant if you have a 720p set and/or are sitting more than 2 screen widths away.

Actually, "data points are" is the original quote and it was correct. Notice, the operative word is "points" not "data".

The above was brought to you by ABC-TV and Schoolhouse Rock. We now return you to the petulant little 13 year old fanboy skirmish. :D

Points is used in the previous phrase, data points are is a correct usage for that phrase. What you have is two complete phrases (or sentences) joined by a "but."
Are is the correct verb in the first phrase because it has a plural noun associated with it (points). In the next phrase it appears to be refering to the data as a whole (singular) and has no plural pronoun associated with it, hence my question regarding the verb is.

Of course it's not significant if you have a 720p set and/or are sitting more than 2 screen widths away.

I don't know that I'd call that significant going back and forth on my monitor comparing blown up images, let alone normal viewing circumstances. To each their own, I guess.

Haha wow, this has really turned into a grammar discussion.

"Data" can be either singular or plural. Traditionally, it was the plural of "datum" and therefore took the plural. However, use of a singular verb with "data" has been so widespread that it has become acceptable.

However, traditionally it took only the plural and that's how it's still used in many scientific environments today. So, "data are" is definitely ok, and "data is" is also ok, except some scientists might tell you that's not correct according to traditional usage, and they'd be right.

Yeah, if you look close, you can see the fine detailed stitchwork in the Emperor's new clothes...

Give us a break.

MEC2

And if Sony had a $198 Bluray player on the shelves of Walmart I'd be saying heck yeah. Get the one that shows more fine detailed stitchwork in the emperor's new clothes...

but... since they don't.

HD-DVD is the best HDM value hands down!

There should be a difference in PQ between the two, but Blu Ray has the studios that seems to do a better with their transfers. Universal chruns out a lot of duds.

doby,

Either Blu-ray will win and J6P will start buying Blu-ray come Xmas 2009

2009?

I thought BD had already won (at least half a dozen times) and that the war was already over.

They did win...doby is just a bit tired today from the Transformers loss.

This thread is idiotic.
And I am amazed that this ridiculous idea that Blu-ray is better than HD DVD just because the average number of stars its releases get is higher (by decimals) still ends up here.

This is the worst service Blu-ray fans can render to their beloved format... and it is proof that when you have nothing better to say, it is better to stay quiet - instead of saying nonsense.

It is obvious that one thing is the format in itself. The other is what studios decide to do with it.

hd-dvd fans should support hd-vmd instead since all the care about is "good enough" and cheap player price.

hd-dvd fans should support hd-vmd instead since all the care about is "good enough" and cheap player price.

Really......

Would you talk this way if you were having a conversation with an actual human being standing in front of you??

BTW, do you consider me an HD-DVD fan because I have a player

They did win...doby is just a bit tired today from the Transformers loss.


I'd figure a guy with as many posts as you have would not be thread crapping as much as you do (experienced with online communications and all)....or maybe that's why you have so many posts?

AVC has to have twice the bit rate to look as good as VC-1.
It is that simple.

Those super blown up sleeve pictures are a good example of the different codecs displaying a different kind of blurriness, neither has significantly more detail. IMO the one of those caps with the lowest file size is the winner, whichever that is.

BD has over 4X the lossless tracks so it has a major advantage right there. Not surprised but I imagine video wise the format's would be very close.:)


War is Over!

I'd figure a guy with as many posts as you have would not be thread crapping as much as you do (experienced with online communications and all)....or maybe thats why you have so many posts?

I don't take this war so seriously....thread crapping is more for those that look for any post they don't like and making a mountain out of a mole hill.. This is fun for me.. I see people here actually get angry..hard to believe. I own both formats and buy from both catalogs. I could care less about the day to day bickering..

Haha wow, this has really turned into a grammar discussion.



A grammar discussion is a hell of a lot more useful than the other BS in this thread. Sheesh, the last time I saw a bunch of socially inept 13 year old nerds go at it like this was back in junior high when the D&D club caught the Matheletes stealing their 20 sided dice. :confused:

I don't take this war so seriously....thread crapping is more for those that look for any post they don't like and making a mountain out of a mole hill.. This is fun for me.. I see people here actually get angry..hard to believe. I own both formats and buy from both catalogs. I could care less about the day to day bickering..

Aww Bland, someone must have given him a wedgie this morning. don't antagonize him or we might have to read about his masters thesis in meaningless cr@p. :p

A grammar discussion is a hell of a lot more useful than the other BS in this thread. Sheesh, the last time I saw a bunch of socially inept 13 year old nerds go at it like this was back in junior high when the D&D club caught the Matheletes stealing their 20 sided dice. :confused:


...and we were older than 13, so get your information straight:D

...and we were older than 13, so get your information straight:D

Sorry, I meant to say the JV Matheletes. :cool:

Those super blown up sleeve pictures are a good example of the different codecs displaying a different kind of blurriness, neither has significantly more detail. IMO the one of those caps with the lowest file size is the winner, whichever that is.

Thank you. If that guy was trying to show a significant (or even existing at all) difference in PQ between the two formats, he failed miserably!!!

Aww Bland, someone must have given him a wedgie this morning. don't antagonize him or we might have to read about his masters thesis in meaningless cr@p. :p
You mean PhD

Thank you. If that guy was trying to show a significant (or even existing at all) difference in PQ between the two formats, he failed miserably!!!

Naw, everyone can see the difference if they are sitting 3 inches from the screen. I saw it, and it ruined the movie for me (I got a sleeve fetish . . . so sue me!). :D

Aww Bland, someone must have given him a wedgie this morning. don't antagonize him or we might have to read about his masters thesis in meaningless cr@p. :p


Lee, watch out, you live close enough that I could give you a wedgie myself:eek:

War is over!!! again

A few thoughts.

1. Most DVD reviews come up with some questionable results.

2. The high amount of crap or mediocre transfers that Universal have put out (see "Big Lebowski", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", "Lost in Translation", "Eternal Sunshine" etc) probably didn't help HD DVD.

hd-dvd fans should support hd-vmd instead since all the care about is "good enough" and cheap player price.

Whats wrong with Good Enough? Its subjective....good enough is good enough..... right?

For example, the PQ of my PS3 is good enough for me. :D Just like my Toshiba A2 player is good enough. Sounds like someone conned you into an overpriced 1080p set and now you have to rant about how anything less is NOT good enough.

Lemme guess..... Bitrates? Or is it Throughput?

:p

Lee, watch out, you live close enough that I could give you a wedgie myself:eek:


I used to spend so much time traveling to Rockford for my kids soccer games and tournaments, my car could make the drive by itself.:D

A few thoughts.

1. Most DVD reviews come up with some questionable results.

2. The high amount of crap or mediocre transfers that Universal have put out (see "Big Lebowski", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", "Lost in Translation", "Eternal Sunshine" etc) probably didn't help HD DVD.

Universal did botch a lot of catalog titles but Eternal Sunshine wasn't one of them. Most reviews gave it 4.5/5 or 9/10 for PQ

http://hddb.net/reviews/1125

You mean PhD

Yes I did, but you do mean "Piled Higher and Deeper, don't you?

99% of the rest of the world? What the hell are you talking about?
Hello McFly, HDM is about US, the people who are buying it, not J6P.
Either Blu-ray will win and J6P will start buying Blu-ray come Xmas 2009 or both formats will continue to stay around and HDM will be a niche market and J6P will never get involved, just like DVD-Audio and SACD.

This constant referral to J6P is not only ridiculous, but asinine and pointless.

Haha... I never referred to J6P once, and that 99% 'worldwide' figure can certainly be used for the US only if that makes you happy. Several thousand bozos on the Internet care, not many others. Which gets back to my original post to you about plucking a DVD File story saying BR pq is better than HD DVD. Who cares? Few do! Let me ask you a serious question, what are you 'specifically' trying to accomplish with your original post?

This thread is idiotic.
And I am amazed that this ridiculous idea that Blu-ray is better than HD DVD just because the average number of stars its releases get is higher (by decimals) still ends up here.

This is the worst service Blu-ray fans can render to their beloved format... and it is proof that when you have nothing better to say, it is better to stay quiet - instead of saying nonsense.

It is obvious that one thing is the format in itself. The other is what studios decide to do with it.

You just posted in an idiotic thread - well done!!

It's not because of the number of stars, it's because of the higher bandwidth which allows for a greater number of stars.
No it isn't. Because J6P will decide if HDM is the true successor to DVD or will HDM be LD Part 2.

Not anytime soon - hence asinine and pointless.
Too bad like half of those titles you mention have shoddy PQ....

Of course they do, and they're probably all just outright awful movies too right?

:rolleyes:

Haha... I never referred to J6P once
Um....99% of the world is J6P. You know what J6P means yes?
and that 99% 'worldwide' figure can certainly be used for the US only if that makes you happy.
No that's "us" as in the word, not the country.

Let me ask you a serious question, what are you 'specifically' trying to accomplish with your original post?

Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious.

I used to spend so much time traveling to Rockford for my kids soccer games and tournaments, my car could make the drive by itself.:D

Ahhh yes....the destination of soccer parents in northern Illinois - The Sports Core.


You know, you are not too far away to enjoy the HT meets we have in this neck-of-the-woods.

Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious.

But it isn't obvious to most folks...only some folks on these forums;)

Ahhh yes....the destination of soccer parents in northern Illinois - The Sports Core.


You know, you are not too far away to enjoy the HT meets we have in this neck-of-the-woods.


I'll be there!!!!!!

But it isn't obvious to most folks...only some folks on these forums;)

Hopefully in a few years when most folks become relevant, they will only see DVD and Blu-ray and will not need to make a choice.

"One is HD, one isn't, do you have an HDTV sir? Then might I recommend a Blu-ray player. We have them over here starting at $69.99 for this Sylvania model"

:)

But it isn't obvious to most folks...only some folks on these forums;)

As long as they are close the winner will be decided on other factors. Hey, Beta lost and that was a very clear difference. The other factors were far more important though.

I'll be there!!!!!!


The new guy has to bring the latest HDM though....

Why is it that there are so many stupid threads on this forum (this being one of them) that are nothing more than a "my format is better than your format" or "my format did better than your format" claim?
Do people feel the need to pat themselves on the back because they think they somehow contributed to their format being better?
The only thing asinine here is the OP thinking that a bunch of subjective scores that reviewers give to movies is actually proof that one format is better than another. The score doesn't mean crap, the real information is what the reviewer wrote not the score he or she gave.

The score doesn't mean crap, the real information is what the reviewer wrote not the score he or she gave.

That doesn't make any sense - what the reviewer writes explains why he gave it the score he did.

:confused:

Have a read through and see what you think.Single dumbest piece of tripe masquerading as science since the 9/11 Truth movement. I thought I was reading "The Onion". :)

I'm surprise Dan Ramer spent that much time slapping that POS together...

DVD File must be starving for web hits.

Single dumbest piece of tripe masquerading as science since the 9/11 Truth movement. I thought I was reading "The Onion". :)

I'm surprise Dan Ramer spent that much time slapping that POS together...

DVD File must be starving for web hits.

Why don't you add them up and see what you get? I bet you'll come to the same conclusion.

It's simple maths. You can't manipulate it at all.

who cares injoy HD have fun.

That doesn't make any sense - what the reviewer writes explains why he gave it the score he did.

:confused:

The score is completely subjective, there are other factors that could enter into the decision, they could have just watched a different movie that had a better encode, they may not particularly care for the movie they are watching, or they may even have a bias toward a certain format, codec, or lossless over lossy, and so on. Everyone has biases, and while I am sure that reviewers try to be objective the biases always will be a factor.

Yes what they wrote tells you why they awarded that score, They could have reduced the score simply because the audio was a lossy format DD+ instead of TrueHD, maybe even DTS-MA over PCM. They also could have reduced the score simply beacause someone used an encoder they don't like.

The real information is in the writing, not the score. There is where you get the information on what the reviewer saw and heard , what problems, if any, that he saw in the encode, how the audio sounded, etc...

I don't suppose you remember the Spiderman 1 thread about the reviewer who thought the first movie was basically below average in its quality, but the other 2 were very good. Everyone blasted the guy because other sites were giving it excellent reviews. You read his review and he listed out the problems he saw in the movie, that was the information that you needed. It sounded like the movie had some bad spots in it, but overall it was a pretty good encode and may not have deserved as low a score as he gave it. What may have affected the score was the fact that he reviewed the other 2 movies at the same time and that could have been a factor in the low score he gave S1.

Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious.

Ok! Ok! Ok! You win! Blu wins! We've all converted and burned our HD DVD's. I'm gonna go get the Blu logo superimposed over a big "TRUE HD" tattooed on my ass. Now just tell me where to send your cookie and then we can end this BS . . . :p

http://www.dvdfile.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6326

Have a read through and see what you think.



http://www.dvdfile.com/images/stories/stills_jon/300x150_4/hd_disc_quality_trends.gif


There's a lot more in there too than this quote.

ANY idea what's wrong with those trend lines? Any?

I'll give you a hint: what would the slope of the HD DVD trend line look like if the first batch of movies coming out had crappy quality ratings?

I've generally been more impressed with PQ on Blu-ray compared to HD-DVD. I'm not sure if it is just Sony and Disney doing better transfers or perhaps the higher bit rates are making a difference. The only way to really tell is to use the same source material and do separate transfers - one with a significantly higher bit rate than what HD-DVD can offer. No such disc exists, and until it does, claims made either way are ultimately still conjecture.

One thing to consider that I have mentioned many times is that neither format can do anywhere near lossless video. All other things being equal, using the higher bit rates blu-ray offers will produce results with less distortion from the master than HD-DVD is capable of - that is fact. The question is the difference visible? That is a complicated issue because it depends on the person, the display, etc., etc.

The new guy has to bring the latest HDM though....


I'll be there with the latest HDDVD

Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious.

Congratulations. You are the first ever in my ignore list. I'm tired of your fan boy mis-information and flame war bait. I'm interested in real information. Not your baiting.

Extremely poor analysis which does not take the most important factor into consideration: BD has many more recent blockbusters and big budget eye candy films than HD DVD because Sony, Disney, & Fox have more of these types of movies than Universal.

All Dan Ramer proved is that the BD exclusive studios have newer movies, bigger budget movies that result in cleaner masters. Whooptie-do, that is a studio content issue, not a technical format issue.

More storage space has proven that it does NOT help Blu-Ray look by as evidenced by this real world data... Look for yourself:

Nature's Journey 18gb/37mbps VC-1 BD25 vs 12gb/26mbps VC-1 HD15:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/naturesjourney_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having over 10mbps more bitrate.

Flags of Our Fathers - 32gb AVC BD50 vs. 20gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/flagsofourfathers_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD taking up over 10gb more space (much higher avg/peak bitrate).

The Prestige - 20gb AVC BD50 vs. 16gb VC-1 HD30:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/01.html
No significant difference despite BD having significantly higher peak and average bitrate.


The bottom line is, the new AVC/VC1 codecs do not benefit from the extra space and bandwidth Blu-Ray offers; many BD fans have repeated this mantra but when asked to provide real-world proof such as screenshots demonstrating the difference, they cannot primarily because the difference is nonexistant. These nextgen codecs plateau in quality at some point, and that point arrives well within HD DVD's space/bandwidth territory. The Blu-Ray format was engineered based on a Sony MPEG2 recordable format, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch MPEG2 quality. HD DVD was engineered with AVC/VC1 in mind, therefore its bandwidth/space specs match up mostly with what is needed for top notch AVC/VC1 quality. Studios aren't going to be able to pull a rabbit out of their hat a year from now and all of a sudden there will be some significant gain when right now a 10mbps+ increase in bitrate over what is possible on HD DVD does jack squat for the image when using AVC/VC1; if anything, HD DVD will benefit more with time because the plateau will simply be reached earlier as encoders become more efficient and require less human involvement. There are diminishing returns with these new codecs after some point, and that point is well within the capabilities of HD DVD.

Dan's latest revision comparing Silver Surfer to Transformers and making a conclusion about each format based on this single comparison is especially humorous. He keeps digging himself deeper and the more he digs the sillier and less credible he looks.

Hey Dan, want to really be unbiased? Plot the age of original release date of the HD/BD reviewed versus the video score you gave it. Then, compare that graph to your HD DVD/BD graph. You will find movies from the 70s/80s/90s will look worse than movies from 00s. Blu-Ray has more from 00s and HD DVD has more from the 70s/80s/90s. Therefore BD on average has a higher score - that does not mean BD has better video quality, it simply means BD's newer movies have masters in better shape than HD DVD's older movies. This is not news, and this is not something to draw conclusion of formats on.

Nature's Journey - there is an advantage. The same video quality (because it's enough for this source), but audio section makes Blu-ray better release.

If HD DVD would have the same audio tracks than video difference would be much bigger.

Again- the biggest problem with HD DVD are the peaks (especially with losses audio) not the space.

There are not many projects which can prove that (because of few reasons), but I think soon there will much more.
HD DVD is good enough to give for a average user "HD pleasure", but sometimes it slightly lacks bandwidth.

Andrew

hd-dvd fans should support hd-vmd instead since all the care about is "good enough" and cheap player price.

It's about VALUE.

What you get for your money. What you get if you pay less than you did vs. what you would get if you pay more. The sweet spot is inbetween. The "best value for your money"

HD-VMD could very well be the best value for your money, but without major studio support, it's more like no value.

Now for those that want to pay several hundred dollars more for their players just to be able to see a few pixels in a few scenes.. all the power to you. When you throw J6P in front of his 42" TV at 6 feet away, he's not going to see ANYTHING that would justify paying more than twice the price.

It's all about value.

Again- the biggest problem with HD DVD are the peaks (especially with losses audio) not the space.

Can you provide screen captures or link to screen captures that show visible compression artifacts in HD DVD that have TrueHD audio, or failing that give the timecode and title of one?

Thanks!

The only way to really tell is to use the same source material and do separate transfers - one with a significantly higher bit rate than what HD-DVD can offer. No such disc exists, and until it does, claims made either way are ultimately still conjecture.


I think Natures Journey did that. And If I read the entire thread on here correctly, most AVSers were not actually able to say which one looked better/worse. They could tell some differences but not that one was specifically that much better than the other. This was a blind test and results should be posted/soon.


The question is the difference visible? That is a complicated issue because it depends on the person, the display, etc., etc.

If this is true, expect J6P to buy the cheaper one. Unless the differences are far from complicated and very easy to see regardless of the person or the display, it's simply not going to justify spending that much more.

J6Ps don't walk into Best Buy, stand 6" from a 60" TV and ask the guy to pause the picture and then do side by side comparisons using the exact same frame on Bluray vs. HD-DVD. No. That's only for people like us! :)

They walk in.. see Transformers or Pirates of the Carribean playing on a 60" set and say "Wow that there picture looks incredible compared to my DVDs".

Then the look at the price and decide.

Remember how incredibly important even the slightest gains in PQ where last year, when HD DVD was ahead? Ah yes, Blu-ray was a failure because they weren't using an advanced codec like VC-1 (usually). And HD DVD's mandatory "support" of advanced codecs gave it the nod with audio too, remember (even if it does only require stereo decoding)???

Now that Blu-ray has embraced AVC and routinely gets better PQ ratings, and now that there are twice as many BDs with lossless or uncompressed audio as HD DVD, the differences are so small it doesn't matter. Totally irrelevant! Why would anyone care???

It's fun to aim at a moving target. Enjoy Pip as your talking point while it lasts for another 2-4 months, and continue to ignore your lack of marketshare, cause why would that matter?

If this is true, expect J6P to buy the cheaper one. Unless the differences are far from complicated and very easy to see regardless of the person or the display, it's simply not going to justify spending that much more.

J6Ps don't walk into Best Buy, stand 6" from a 60" TV and ask the guy to pause the picture and then do side by side comparisons using the exact same frame on Bluray vs. HD-DVD. No. That's only for people like us! :)

They walk in.. see Transformers or Pirates of the Carribean playing on a 60" set and say "Wow that there picture looks incredible compared to my DVDs".

Then the look at the price and decide.

This may be true, but it isn't related to the subject of this thread.

I think Natures Journey did that. And If I read the entire thread on here correctly, most AVSers were not actually able to say which one looked better/worse. They could tell some differences but not that one was specifically that much better than the other. This was a blind test and results should be posted/soon.

I wasn't aware of this. Can you provide the thread's link? How much higher was the bit rate on the blu-ray? I assume they used the same codec?

Can you provide screen captures or link to screen captures that show visible compression artifacts in HD DVD that have TrueHD audio, or failing that give the timecode and title of one?

Thanks!

I've done some operas on HD DVD (with 2 TrueHD tracks) and soon it's going to be released on Blu-ray also, so you will be able to compare 2 formats. Video is very noisy and according to my tests it's going to look better on Blu-ray. The only problem can be if we will have to use the same encoding, but that is unfortunately client choice. I'm against that, but at the end it's not my decision.


Andrew

Dobyblue = ignore list.

Should have done this a long time ago. This is now two threads in the last few days that, in my opinion, is started with the intent to start a fight on these forums. It is making coming here a lot less enjoyable.

AVC has to have twice the bit rate to look as good as VC-1.


The Pirates of the Caribbean movies were all AVC, and 18-19mbit abr video.

Here are the facts:

We've seen avc and vc-1 generally beat the pants off of mpeg-2.

Avc has bettered vc-1 in a few instances.

Vc-1 has yet to beat avc.

The more high bitrate avc titles the better.

+1

Andrew

Remember how incredibly important even the slightest gains in PQ where last year, when HD DVD was ahead? Ah yes, Blu-ray was a failure because they weren't using an advanced codec like VC-1 (usually). And HD DVD's mandatory "support" of advanced codecs gave it the nod with audio too, remember (even if it does only require stereo decoding)???

Now that Blu-ray has embraced AVC and routinely gets better PQ ratings, and now that there are twice as many BDs with lossless or uncompressed audio as HD DVD, the differences are so small it doesn't matter. Totally irrelevant! Why would anyone care???

It's fun to aim at a moving target. Enjoy Pip as your talking point while it lasts for another 2-4 months, and continue to ignore your lack of marketshare, cause why would that matter?

Wow, take a breath man. Live up to your signature why don't you. We're all glad Blu-ray has finally caught up to HD DVD in terms of video quality, but "routinely gets better PQ ratings"? I don't think so. Only on sites with a bias.:rolleyes:

Stace

This bickering about the supposed superiority in PQ of BD over HD is ridiculous.

The question is, is J6P, who already don't appreciate the difference between SD and HD, willing to pay 100% more for a BD player to gain a miniscule difference (if any) in PQ?

That's all they have basically.. flame threads like this are expected from dobyblue, after all it's in his job description.

I especially like his table with PQ ratings from review sites like every movie is exactly the same so they can take averages just like that, not to mention that most of the review site authors favor Blu-Ray and give it 5 stars without a flinch.


Don't worry, they know that the time is coming. $198 HD DVD players, free movies and possible Xbox 360 with HD DVD embedded all sing an end to the Blu fairytale. No numbers, bit rate meters nor biased reviews and misleading cult like sites can change this fact. All we need is Warner now and it's capuccino.

You just posted in an idiotic thread - well done!!

It's not because of the number of stars, it's because of the higher bandwidth which allows for a greater number of stars.


Guess what: I'll do it again! :D

This thread IS idiotic because the idea of picking a format winner based on the most senseless form of evaluation possible (mere averages between releases who offer no relation to one another from which you can base any average) is simply idiotic.

The studios are NOT the same, the films are NOT the same, the age of those films is NOT the same, the importance of those films is NOT the same, the context in which those masters were made (or used) is NOT the same, the money spent by the studio on those releases is NOT the same, the visual and sonic characteristics of those films are NOT the same... one could go on and on.

How can these averages ever mean anything conclusive?
How do you explain Blu-ray titles with bad image or sound?

If anyone feels the urge to post, here is a good example of some valuable information that is worth posting: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=928922

Video is very noisy and according to my tests it's going to look better on Blu-ray. The only problem can be if we will have to use the same encoding, but that is unfortunately client choice. I'm against that, but at the end it's not my decision.


Andrew
These are done with AVC?. Does VC-1 do better with noisy sources, as claimed, or not?

Is some of the problems with TrueHD caused by the regular peaks in bitrate introduced by Dolby to the improve audio seeking, which causes the the video bitrate to be reduced?

Davidcw8

I don't take this war so seriously....thread crapping is more for those that look for any post they don't like and making a mountain out of a mole hill.. This is fun for me.. I see people here actually get angry..hard to believe. I own both formats and buy from both catalogs. I could care less about the day to day bickering..


If you dont care about the day to day bickering, why are you posting in thesse threads?

I have a feeling you care more than you will admit.

Remember how incredibly important even the slightest gains in PQ where last year, when HD DVD was ahead? Ah yes, Blu-ray was a failure because they weren't using an advanced codec like VC-1 (usually). And HD DVD's mandatory "support" of advanced codecs gave it the nod with audio too, remember (even if it does only require stereo decoding)???

Now that Blu-ray has embraced AVC and routinely gets better PQ ratings, and now that there are twice as many BDs with lossless or uncompressed audio as HD DVD, the differences are so small it doesn't matter. Totally irrelevant! Why would anyone care???

It's fun to aim at a moving target. Enjoy Pip as your talking point while it lasts for another 2-4 months, and continue to ignore your lack of marketshare, cause why would that matter?

Uh Oh, HDDVD is dying again huh?

How do you explain the dead walking?

"When there is no more room in hell, the HDDVD will walk the earth":D

BD has over 4X the lossless tracks so it has a major advantage right there. Not surprised but I imagine video wise the format's would be very close.

Wow! BD has more stuff that can't be discerned! Fantastic!

Wow! BD has more stuff that can't be discerned! Fantastic!

Today on HIdefDigest

Que BD fans saying he is a shill in 5..4..3..2..1..

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Joshua_Zyber/Commentary:_Specs_vs._Reality/1096


Commentary: Specs vs. Reality
Fri Oct 26, 2007 at 04:22 PM ET
Tags: Joshua Zyber (all tags)
Editor's Note: A long-time movie buff and collector of discs from laserdisc to DVD, Joshua Zyber is a veteran disc reviewer, and an enthusiastic supporter of all things High Definition. In his twice-monthly High-Def Digest column, Josh discusses a broad range of topics of interest to other early adopters.

By Joshua Zyber

One of the inevitable side effects of the High Definition revolution is that the advanced video and audio technology used in the Blu-ray and HD DVD formats tends to bring out the know-it-all tech geek in home theater fans. Sometimes this can be a great benefit, when knowledgeable users band together to analyze specific technical deficiencies that have occurred and share their feedback with the parties responsible, hopefully leading to improvements in the future. We've seen some of this at various points during the format war. Early Blu-ray releases such as 'The Fifth Element' exhibited obvious visual deficiencies due to weak source materials and poor digital compression encoding. Likewise, HD DVD catalog titles from Universal have been hit-or-miss in quality, many of them recycled from dated and problematic video masters (like 'In Good Company', with its ghastly edge enhancement artifacts). Reviews published on this site and others were negative, and buyers voiced their displeasure to the studios, eventually resulting in improved mastering on subsequent releases. 'The Fifth Element' was even remastered in significantly better quality as a direct result of owner feedback. That wouldn't have happened had no one spoken up about it.

Generally speaking, the High Definition studios, knowing the intense scrutiny their work is placed under, have maintained a much higher standard of quality on recent releases (with some notable exceptions, of course). Just imagine what might have happened had the public been apathetic and merely accepted whatever shoddy treatment they were handed. In this case, the voice of the people resulted in a better end product for everyone to enjoy.

Unfortunately, the above example is a best case scenario. On the flip side of that coin, we have countless cases of agenda-driven individuals attempting to use a partial understanding of technical matters as a bludgeon in arguments supposedly "proving" the superiority of one format over the other. Anyone who's spent time browsing home theater discussion forums has suffered through an endless string of debates about how the HD DVD format "sucks" because its discs can only store 30 gb of content, while Blu-ray discs can store up to 50 gb, and therefore must be amazingly superior. Never mind that HD DVD has time and again proven capable of delivering exceptional picture and sound quality, plus copious bonus material, easily equaling even the best available on Blu-ray. At the same time, there are others who point to the occasional Blu-ray encoded with MPEG-2 compression as being "unacceptable", even though MPEG-2 can certainly achieve excellent results when given enough room to breathe (witness 'Black Hawk Down'). To some people, the actual quality presented to them is irrelevant if they don't like the sound of the specs on paper.

This "specs above all else" mentality has reared its ugly head again recently with the release of 'Transformers' on HD DVD, a title that delivers stunning video and audio, as well as a number of innovative interactive features. What could possibly be the problem here? Well, the soundtrack is only encoded in Dolby Digital Plus format, not a lossless codec such as Dolby TrueHD or an uncompressed one like PCM. In his review of the disc for this site, our Peter Bracke gave the DD+ track a perfect "5" for audio quality and said of it that, "Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff." Nonetheless, in the minds of many, this disc is a huge failure, and its soundtrack a pathetic disgrace for not including a TrueHD or PCM option.

I should mention at this point that at least one working Hollywood sound mixer has voiced his opinion that, when played back on his professional dubbing stage, well-mastered Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks encoded at the high 1509 kb/s bit rate that Paramount uses can be audibly transparent to the studio masters, when tested on movies that he mixed himself and would presumably know better than anyone else. But what use is the informed opinion of an expert in the field when it's easier to just point to the specs list on the back of a disc's packaging to make conclusive statements about matters of quality? In the forum on this site, a number of readers have made proclamations such as, "Compressed audio is just not acceptable these days" and "Whether you can tell the difference or not is irrelevant."

The disc's audio being indistinguishable from its studio master is "irrelevant"? Even with just a Dolby Digital Plus track, the 'Transformers' disc rated the highest score for audio quality that we can give. What more could we demand from it? It's absolutely terrific, but it's just not absolutely terrific enough if the packaging doesn't have a listing for TrueHD or PCM, even when it's likely impossible for human ears to tell the difference? What kind of argument is that?

The lossy compressed audio formats offered by Dolby and DTS use perceptual encoding techniques to filter out data from the studio masters in order to conserve disc space. The intent of perceptual encoding is that the data removed should consist mainly of either frequencies beyond the range of human hearing or frequencies that would normally be masked by other frequencies in the track anyway. With the most heavily compressed formats, including basic Dolby Digital and DTS (the standards on regular DVD), often additional frequencies within the range of hearing are affected, and this has resulted in much variability in sound quality. However, Dolby Digital Plus, especially the 1509 kb/s variety found on a disc like the 'Transformers' HD DVD, uses much more efficient encoding techniques at a very high bit rate. The people who actually make these movie soundtracks have found it pretty impressive, and yet average home listeners seem to believe with absolute certainty that the home theater speakers in their living rooms would be capable of resolving with precision the mathematical difference between a high bit rate Dolby Digital Plus track and a lossless one, and that their golden audiophile ears would also be capable of discerning it. Personally, I would like to put these people to a properly-controlled blind test, where all of the audio levels have been carefully matched to the same volume, and then see how well their hearing fares.

I would not claim that all DD+ tracks are flawless or transparent to their masters; it does take some effort to encode them properly. But to dismiss the format out of hand simply because the soundtrack isn't labeled as lossless or uncompressed demonstrates an ignorance of the technology being used. If the audio codec alone were the only important criteria in sound quality, how could it be that a disc like 'Dinosaur' with a 48 kHz / 24-bit PCM 5.1 track would sound so underwhelming? With specs like those, why isn't that disc a spectacular audio showcase? Somehow I doubt you'll find too many critical listeners who would ever claim that 'Dinosaur' sounds better than 'Transformers', but based on the specs, shouldn't it? Perhaps it's time we all realize that there's more to quality than the specs can tell us.

Yet we see the same thinking applied to matters of video. How many more arguments must there be about the different video compression codecs? Proponents on one side proclaim the infallible superiority of VC-1 above all other options, while those opposed insist that VC-1 is garbage and only AVC MPEG-4 is any good. Both camps attempt to prove their point by capturing screen shots on their computers, which they run through PhotoShop to crop, zoom, filter, and distort in all manner of convoluted ways in order to locate individual errant pixels, completely invisible to the naked eye in the normal course of movie watching, and heartily declare their victory in the debate.

The truth of the matter is that all video compression codecs have the same purpose, to accurately represent the source using a fraction of the storage space. In the hands of a good operator, both VC-1 and AVC are more than capable of achieving this goal. Even the dated MPEG-2 codec has been known to deliver excellent results (owners of the now-defunct D-Theater tape format sure didn't seem to have any problem with it). There are plenty of examples of "reference quality" transfers using any of the above, from 'King Kong' (VC-1) to 'Final Fantasy' (AVC) to 'Kingdom of Heaven' (MPEG-2). In all cases, the skill of the compressionist and the quality of the work is more important than the codec used to get there.

It's also more important than the bit rate. As far as I'm concerned, Sony's decision to incorporate a bit rate meter in their PS3 Blu-ray player is one of the worst things to have ever happened to the home theater hobby. Because of that one seemingly-innocuous and frequently-inaccurate data display, now just about anyone, no matter how technologically ignorant, can believe themselves to be experts in the field of video reproduction, based on nothing more than whether their bit rate meters read a high number or a low one -- as if that number were even relevant. The whole point of video compression is to squeeze a High Definition picture into as little space as possible. A compressionist who's maintained a high-quality picture with a low bit rate has done an excellent job, but that's a point lost on most consumers, who assume that a good picture needs a high bit rate, regardless of what they actually see on their TV screens. The bit rate alone is a meaningless statistic and says nothing about the quality of the compression work. It is equally possible to create a lousy video image with a high bit rate, or a great image with a low bit rate, depending on the complexity of the content and how well the work is done. I found it extremely amusing to read complaints about the low bit rate used on 'TMNT', a disc with a razor sharp and amazingly detailed picture that some owners nonetheless decried as "soft" against the evidence their own eyes gave them, for no reason other than an ill-founded assumption that the picture would have been even sharper if the bit rate meter spiked a little higher. How would they know? Have they compared it against the studio master?

This misconception has reached such heights of absurdity that certain viewers have started petitions demanding that Warner Bros. stop using the same video encodes on HD DVD and Blu-ray, and instead "maximize" the bit rates on their Blu-ray releases if the extra disc space is available. But for what purpose? Video compression doesn't work on a linear scale. Using advanced codecs like VC-1 and AVC, there are diminishing returns above a certain point, and throwing more bits at a picture that doesn't require them accomplishes nothing more than to make the meter number go up. As time goes on, compression tools and techniques become more efficient, requiring even less space to achieve visual transparency to the original master. Warner Bros. has many times over demonstrated outstanding results within the 30 gb limit of HD DVD, even on very long films such as the 'Troy: Director's Cut', a movie that runs 3 1/2 hours and yet fits comfortably on a 30 gb disc with beautiful picture quality, despite also squeezing in a lossless Dolby TrueHD audio track and a bunch of supplements. So what if the Blu-ray edition has an extra 20 gb of space available? Are we watching the movie or watching the bit rate meter? If there were no bit rate meter, would anyone have a legitimate basis to complain?

Back when they were supporting both High-Def formats, Paramount actually did what these users are demanding. They authored every movie separately for HD DVD and Blu-ray, each maximized to its format's potential. And what were the results? The same movie looked visibly identical on the bit rate maximized Blu-ray as it did on the lower bit rate HD DVD. Once again, the quality of the compression trumped other considerations regarding tech specs or bit rate.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to imply that all HD DVDs and Blu-rays are perfect now. Video artifacts do occur, and the studios have been known to rest on their laurels and allow shoddy work to slip through. Sometimes disc space really does strain the limits of what a studio wants to include on a High-Def title. It's important to scrutinize their results, lest we return to a state where the original 'Fifth Element' Blu-ray is considered acceptable. But it's equally important to understand what we're actually looking at. Many times, the "artifacts" picked apart by viewers have nothing to do with video compression or encoding whatsoever, but rather are issues found in the source, such as natural film grain, which isn't a flaw at all. Yes, a soft picture can be the result of poor compression or excessive filtering, but it can also be the result of soft focus photography. A heavily-grainy image could be overcompressed, or it could be stylistically intentional. Not every movie is photographed to look exactly the same as every other, and even within a film certain shots or scenes may look different than others. We must understand what a movie is supposed to look like before we can judge how well a video disc reproduces it. Being moderately proficient at manipulating still images in PhotoShop does not necessarily qualify someone as an expert in the art of filmmaking.

I'm not suggesting that viewers should relax their standards or accept substandard quality as "good enough" when it's really not, but the technical specs alone simply do not tell the whole story, and over-emphasizing them is a matter of misplaced priorities. We should judge these discs by the actual quality they deliver, not by misleading statistics like the bit rate or the specs listing on the packaging. Surely, that can't be too much to ask.

Wow! BD has more stuff that can't be discerned! Fantastic!

You gotta have the right equipment.....then the difference is clear!

You gotta have the right equipment.....then the difference is clear!
Of course. BTW, how much recording and mixing do you do?

Of course. BTW, how much recording and mixing do you do?


None....but I have a helluva a systme and ear..

Our friend at R&B Films does far more of that (his profession) and he's said, many times, that the differences beteeen lossy and lossless are not small. Same with many more, even Filmmixer can tell!!

Besides, the additive ratings confirm such as well. Enjoy your world of ignorance (or your HTIB), I'll enjoy lossless sound!

None....but I have a helluva a systme and ear..

Our friend at R&B Films does far more of that (his profession) and he's said, many times, that the differences beteeen lossy and lossless are not small. Same with many more, even Filmmixer can tell!!

Besides, the additive ratings confirm such as well. Enjoy your world of ignorance (or your HTIB), I'll enjoy lossless sound!

If the difference is indeed big, how much will it cost to "hear" this big difference? I have a feeling it would be a dollar amount J6P would never fork over.

If the difference is indeed big, how much will it cost to "hear" this big difference? I have a feeling it would be a dollar amount J6P would never fork over.


I agree, the improvement would be subtle.. But as a hobbyist, it is the goal to have such software at your disposal....we've come a long way from Pro Logic.

If the difference is indeed big, how much will it cost to "hear" this big difference? I have a feeling it would be a dollar amount J6P would never fork over.

Hell J6P have proved they don't want to fork over $1000 for TVs that offer them very visible different in TV broadcast little less for a $500 player.

This is why $350-$500 7.1 Home Theater systems are the biggest sellers that majority of consumers buy.

Point in question: On these not only that they will not hear the difference between lossless vs lossy they won't hear much difference between DD+ 1.5 and regular DD 5.1.

It's absolutely ridiculous to even discuss this. But hey, we can always live in dreamland where we hope that $15000 home audio system quality will be somehow packed into $500 all in one package.

None....but I have a helluva a systme and ear..

Our friend at R&B Films does far more of that (his profession) and he's said, many times, that the differences beteeen lossy and lossless are not small. Same with many more, even Filmmixer can tell!!

Besides, the additive ratings confirm such as well. Enjoy your world of ignorance (or your HTIB), I'll enjoy lossless sound!
You need to read Filmmixer's posts again. My "world of ignorance" is in a place where I record, mix and master hundreds of tracks. I'll let you continue on your "I paid a lot of money for my gear to cure my smallcox and think I'm an audio expert" way.

You need to read Filmmixer's posts again. My "world of ignorance" is in a place where I record, mix and master hundreds of tracks. I'll let you continue on your "I paid a lot of money for my gear to cure my smallcox and think I'm an audio expert" way.

LOL

Besides, the additive ratings confirm such as well.

You do realize this is the AVScience forum, right?

I threw in the Filmmixer reference as I could see you lickin your chops to throw the 'Filmmixer' trump card....predictable...

You believe what you want and I'll keep looking for lossless tracks and their improved sound.

I threw in the Filmmixer reference as I could see you lickin your chops to throw the 'Filmmixer' trump card....predictable...

You believe what you want and I'll keep looking for lossless tracks and their improved sound.
Ok! I can understand that the experience of a layman like yourself is better than Filmmixer and me. You do have to justify all that **** you own. Buh bye.

Congratulations. You are the first ever in my ignore list. I'm tired of your fan boy mis-information and flame war bait. I'm interested in real information. Not your baiting.

Yeah - posting a comparison of the reviews is flame bait?

When you can point out what part of the numbers are mis-information then we'll talk, until then you're just full of hot air and neither disproving what the reviews show nor adding anything of substance at all.

Well....I know what I hear. And lossless beats compressed...sorry to surprise nad disappoint you....but there is better...maybe its time to upgrade your studio.

Well....I know what I hear. And lossless beats compressed...sorry to surprise nad disappoint you....but there is better...maybe its time to upgrade your studio.

Now you're an expert on recording studio gear! Is there no limit to your expertise?

Not with sound. I know my theater would be the better listening environment for movie soundtracks than either of your studios..

Or how about mjaudio and JBM in the Halcro thread finding PCM better than TRUE Hd in their systems... no agenda with those guys just movie nirvana in great playback set ups. Or are they idiots, too?

You need to get out more...

Hey Dan, want to really be unbiased? Plot the age of original release date of the HD/BD reviewed versus the video score you gave it. Then, compare that graph to your HD DVD/BD graph. You will find movies from the 70s/80s/90s will look worse than movies from 00s. Blu-Ray has more from 00s and HD DVD has more from the 70s/80s/90s. Therefore BD on average has a higher score - that does not mean BD has better video quality, it simply means BD's newer movies have masters in better shape than HD DVD's older movies. This is not news, and this is not something to draw conclusion of formats on.


Wow what a complete load of misinformation. You are severely deluded.

These are from the five sites mentioned in the PQ comparison in Dan's article.

The Searchers (1956)
Blu-ray
The Searchers 4.50
The Searchers 4.50
HD DVD
The Searchers 4.50
The Searchers 4.50
The Searchers 4.75

Casablanca (1942)
HD DVD
Casablanca 5.00
Casablanca 5.00
Casablanca 4.50
Casablanca 4.50

The Cowboys (1972)
Blu-ray
The Cowboys 4.00
The Cowboys 3.50
The Cowboys 3.00
The Cowboys 4.00
HD DVD
The Cowboys 4.00
The Cowboys 3.50
The Cowboys 3.50
The Cowboys 4.00

The Getaway (1972)
Blu-ray
The Getaway 4.00
The Getaway 4.00
The Getaway 4.00
HD DVD
The Getaway 4.00
The Getaway 4.00
The Getaway 4.00
The Getaway 3.50

The Untouchables (1987)
Blu-ray
The Untouchable 4.50
The Untouchables 4.00
The Untouchables 5.00
The Untouchables 5.00
The Untouchables 4.50
HD DVD
The Untouchables 4.00
The Untouchables 4.50
The Untouchables 4.00


The Road Warrior (1982)
Blu-ray
The Road Warrior 4.00
The Road Warrior 4.00
The Road Warrior 4.00
The Road Warrior 3.50
HD DVD
The Road Warrior 4.00
The Road Warrior 3.50
The Road Warrior 4.00
The Road Warrior 4.00


Now let's look at some movies from 2000 onwards:

The Marine (2006)
Blu-ray
The Marine 3.00
The Marine 4.00
The Marine 3.50
The Marine 3.50
The Marine 3.50

The Sentinel (2006)
Blu-ray
The Sentinel 2.50
The Sentinel 4.50
The Sentinel 3.50
The Sentinel 3.50

Nacho Libre (2006)
Blu-ray
Nacho Libre 3.00
Nacho Libre 4.00
Nacho Libre 3.50
HD DVD
Nacho Libre 3.00
Nacho Libre 4.00
Nacho Libre 3.00

Assault on Precint 13 (2005)
HD DVD
Assault on Precinct 13 3.50
Assault on Precinct 13 3.50
Assault on Precinct 13 3.50

Blood Diamond (2006)
Blu-ray
Blood Diamond 3.00
Blood Diamond 3.00
Blood Diamond 3.00
Blood Diamond 3.00
HD DVD
Blood Diamond 3.00
Blood Diamond 3.00
Blood Diamond 3.50

Bruce Almighty (2003)
HD DVD
Bruce Almighty 3.00
Bruce Almighty 3.50
Bruce Almighty 3.00
Bruce Almighty 4.00
Bruce Almighty 3.50

Cinderella Man (2005)
HD DVD
Cinderella Man 3.50
Cinderella Man 3.50
Cinderella Man 3.50


Your point about the year in which a movie was released being proportional to how it's score for PQ comes out doesn't hold up too well to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Sorry.

I wasn't aware of this. Can you provide the thread's link? How much higher was the bit rate on the blu-ray? I assume they used the same codec?

Sure.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=925595

It is the maximum bitrate Bluray can do.. I believe 37mb/sec and the maximum bitrate HD-DVD can do.. I believe 26mb/sec. Both use a VC-1 encode.

Not with sound. I know my theater would be the better listening environment for movie soundtracks than either of your studios..

Or how about mjaudio and JBM in the Halcro thread finding PCM better than TRUE Hd in their systems... no agenda with those guys just movie nirvana in great playback set ups. Or are they idiots, too?

You need to get out more...
Last time I checked it was friday night and ALL of us losers are sitting on an internet discussion arguing about who's weiner is bigger. :p

Mr. TheBland. I do have a question for you. What exactly do you do that you can afford such kick ass gear and think that an $80 bottle of wine is a bargain? *takes sip from $5.99 bottle of Barefoot Cellar's Merlot... :D

Well....I know what I hear. And lossless beats compressed...sorry to surprise nad disappoint you....but there is better...maybe its time to upgrade your studio.

Um... lossless is compressed.

Now you're an expert on recording studio gear! Is there no limit to your expertise?

What is your audio set-up?

Um... lossless is compressed.

Lossless can be compressed and uncompressed actually.

Lossless can be compressed and uncompressed actually.

Lossless is short for "losslessly compressed." Uncompressed is just uncompressed. It's not that complicated. "Lossless" uncompressed is redundant - why would there be "loss" if there was no compression?

Um... lossless is compressed.

And uncompressed doesn't equal lossless.

Lossless is short for "losslessly compressed." Uncompressed is just uncompressed. It's not that complicated.

Lossless is not short for "losslessly compressed" - it means any lossless form of audio.

And uncompressed doesn't equal lossless.

It does when it is referring to a method of delivering audio.

I've never come across an uncompressed mp3.

What is your audio set-up?
I think you have the wrong guy. If you need to see whose gear is bigger you need someone like Bland. We've already established that people like him have better gear, better hearing and more experience than people that actually record, mix and master audio.

It does when it is referring to a method of delivering audio.

No, it doesn't, but feel free to continue to believe that.

I think you have the wrong guy. If you need to see whose gear is bigger you need someone like Bland. We've already established that people like him have better gear, better hearing and more experience than people that actually record, mix and master audio.

I was interested in what your set-up is on your main HT where you watch movies, not in what the bland has.

Retitle the thread to say

"BD pee pee appears to be bigger than the HDDVD pee pee"

These measuring contests are a riot.

Pass the advil!

No, it doesn't, but feel free to continue to believe that.

Please give me an example of an uncompressed audio delivery system that is lossy.

Note, I am not talking about a dithered track, I am talking about the delivery method and you can drop the condescension, it's getting really old.

I was interested in what your set-up is on your main HT where you watch movies, not in what the bland has.

I have already responded to this question. I'm not your guy.

Lossless is not short for "losslessly compressed" - it means any lossless form of audio.
:rolleyes:

"Lossless" uncompressed is redundant - why would there be "loss" if there was no compression?

You can keep trying to defend his obvious error, but no amount of spin will make his statement accurate.

Wow what a complete load of misinformation. You are severely deluded.

These are from the five sites mentioned in the PQ comparison in Dan's article.



Your point about the year in which a movie was released being proportional to how it's score for PQ comes out doesn't hold up too well to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Sorry.

Sorry Doby, but I could also selectively choose titles that prove my side.

Please give me an example of an uncompressed audio delivery system that is lossy.

Note, I am not talking about a dithered track, I am talking about the delivery method.

Any 16/48 track that is sourced from a 24/96 master. That is a lossy, uncompressed audio track and there is a difference in the way they sound.

I have already responded to this question. I'm not your guy.

You didn't answer the question - you seem to be refusing to do so.

:rolleyes:

"Lossless" uncompressed is redundant - why would there be "loss" if there was no compression?

Because information may have been removed without the use of compression.

Any 16/48 track that is sourced from a 24/96 master. That is a lossy, uncompressed audio track and there is a difference in the way they sound.

Sorry, but that 16/48 track if delivered as PCM is losslessly delivered. It does not matter that there is a 24/96 master, we're talking about the delivery method.

I did specifically mention that.

You didn't answer the question - you seem to be refusing to do so.

I did answer. You just didn't like the answer you were given. How about you tell the world how big your gear is since it seems to be an extension of your manhood.

Let me esplain it to you.

Lossy - take a .wav file, convert it to mp3 - you can't get it back.

Lossless - take a .wav file, convert it to .flac - you get the .wav file back everytime.

Lossless delivery.

Now, substitute .mp3 with DD+ and .flac with DTS-MA and you'll get the idea.

Sorry, but that 16/48 track if delivered as PCM is losslessly delivered. It does not matter that there is a 24/96 master, we're talking about the delivery method.

I did specifically mention that.
You're specifically bending terms to meet your bias. If a 16/48 comes from a 24/96 source it is lossy no matter mow it is delivered. Maybe you need to really stand for what you say you stand for and only buy movies that have the actual audio track on them. That would be about, say, 2.

My dad can beat up your dad.

Because information may have been removed without the use of compression.

Since when has that been taken into account when declaring a track "lossless?" It means "lossless" in comparison to the master it came from. I have never seen a single studio or CE use the word "lossless" to describe an uncompressed track. "Lossless" has always been used in reference to a "losslessly compressed" track.

I did answer. You just didn't like the answer you were given. How about you tell the world how big your gear is since it seems to be an extension of your manhood.

Everyone knows my gear because I post in the audio section of this forum.

Fronts - Monitor 11v5
Centre - CC590v4
Rears - Monitor 11v4
Sub - Servo 15v2

All Paradigm.

I know it's not high end, but it is very pleasing aurally to me.
I was genuinely interested to hear what you have. My gear is not such that I can get into a "yours sucks mine is teh shznt" game.

Since when has that been taken into account when declaring a track "lossless?" It means "lossless" in comparison to the master it came from. I have never seen a single studio or CE use the word "lossless" to describe an uncompressed track. "Lossless" has always been used in reference to a "losslessly compressed" track.

Nope - lossless refers to any non-lossy delivery method.

.flac
.wav
.shn
.ape

etc.

Let me esplain it to you.

Lossy - take a .wav file, convert it to mp3 - you can't get it back.

Lossless - take a .wav file, convert it to .flac - you get the .wav file back everytime.

Lossless delivery.

Now, substitute .mp3 with DD+ and .flac with DTS-MA and you'll get the idea.
Lossy=equals removing information from a file, no matter how it is done. At that point the information is gone forever.

You're specifically bending terms to meet your bias. If a 16/48 comes from a 24/96 source it is lossy no matter mow it is delivered. Maybe you need to really stand for what you say you stand for and only buy movies that have the actual audio track on them. That would be about, say, 2.

Nope, there is nothing being bent. The 16/48 track is being losslessly delivered.

Let me esplain it to you.

Lossy - take a .wav file, convert it to mp3 - you can't get it back.

Lossless - take a .wav file, convert it to .flac - you get the .wav file back everytime.

Lossless delivery.

Now, substitute .mp3 with DD+ and .flac with DTS-MA and you'll get the idea.

And in your example, the .wav files = the uncompressed PCM master.

So yes, "lossless" refers to a "losslessly compressed" track while "uncompressed" refers to an "uncompressed" track. See? It really wasn't that complicated, was it?

Lossy=equals removing information from a file, no matter how it is done. At that point the information is gone forever.

yes, you've just reiterated the post you quoted.

Everyone knows my gear because I post in the audio section of this forum.

Fronts - Monitor 11v5
Centre - CC590v4
Rears - Monitor 11v4
Sub - Servo 15v2

All Paradigm.

I know it's not high end, but it is very pleasing aurally to me.
I was genuinely interested to hear what you have. My gear is not such that I can get into a "yours sucks mine is teh shznt" game.

Well, I hope you feel better.

And in your example, the .wav files = the uncompressed PCM master.

So yes, "lossless" refers to a "losslessly compressed" track while "uncompressed" refers to an "uncompressed" track. See? It really wasn't that complicated, was it?

Sorry, but you're wrong. I do appreciate the condescending tone of your posts though, it's very constructive.

Nope, there is nothing being bent. The 16/48 track is being losslessly delivered.
How can one losslessly deliver a lossy track? One it's lossy it can't be lossless no matter what the container is. If I took a CD file and made it a 12/32 file and sent it to you as wav (PCM to laymen) will it be lossless because of the way I sent it to you?

Nope - lossless refers to any non-lossy delivery method.

.flac
.wav
.shn
.ape

etc.

Every article or definition I've seen for "lossless audio" defines it as audio that's been compressed losslessly. It's really a simple concept, I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp it.

yes, you've just reiterated the post you quoted.
So, we agree that you have no idea what you are talking about? Good.

Every article or definition I've seen for "lossless audio" defines it as audio that's been compressed losslessly. It's really a simple concept, I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp it.

I see what you are saying and you are correct. PCM/WAV is a top level codec as it were and doesn't need the "lossless" tag as it is at it's core lossless (thought the actual file may be lossy).

Its very simple.

Lossless = Delivering the source file exactly as it was created. How you get to that point is meaningless. You could zip the lossless source and then uncompress the lossless source. As long as it is a bit for bit match, you're lossless. i.e. ZIP file or TrueHD

Lossy = Delivering a new version of the source file. It does not compare bit for bit. i.e. MP3 file or DD+

It has nothing to do with being compressed or not. It's about what happens when it is uncompressed.

Its very simple.

Lossless = Delivering the source file exactly as it was created. How you get to that point is meaningless. You could zip the lossless source and then uncompress the lossless source. As long as it is a bit for bit match, you're lossless. i.e. ZIP file or TrueHD

Lossy = Delivering a new version of the source file. It does not compare bit for bit. i.e. MP3 file or DD+

It has nothing to do with being compressed or not. It's about what happens when it is uncompressed.
Semantics. Once a file has had information removed it is lossy. At that point if it is delivered as a "lossless" file it will still be lossy. It is funny to see the "same as the master" crowd arguing against it, though. It's starting to appear that you don't really care about the audio as much as you care about the delivery method.

Can't we all get a DF player and get along?

Can't we all get a DF player and get along?

I have had 2 of each.

I can't believe I just spent a good 15 minutes scanning through this thread. What a waste of time. Mods, can we just close this piece of junk thread or better yet, just delete it. This thread has no redeeming value.

I have had 2 of each.

Slim, I'm talking about the future of DF players, when they have all the BD ver1.0/1.1/2.0 ironed out, and can play TL51 HD DVDs, if they ever come out.

This is not VHS vs. Beta people.

The two formats use the same size disc and the same laser diode.

5-10 years from now there will be DF cheapies for $40 ay Wal-Mart.

IMO

As for right now, why bash either format people. BD is technically superior, but HD DVD seems to have more wrinkles ironed out as of right now. Pick up which ever format you

a. Can afford
b. Has a movie selection that you prefer

These discs which we covet so much here will not evaporate if one format stop being produced. How many DVD players out there fully support DivX, alot. Almost everyone on the shelf. This is where this battle is going. Not the way of Video cassettes.

Which one will prevail? IMO ?

I would not invest in an SA of either of them as of now.
I got into the HDM scene almost on accident.
Bought a PS3 for gaming, and decided to try out one of the Blu-Ray thingys, then I was hooked. I got the 360 add-on for my HD DVD viewing.

Nice dodge, Slim...Tell us what you have for some perspective...

Every article or definition I've seen for "lossless audio" defines it as audio that's been compressed losslessly. It's really a simple concept, I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp it.

Look up a synonym for lossy.


How can one losslessly deliver a lossy track? One it's lossy it can't be lossless no matter what the container is. If I took a CD file and made it a 12/32 file and sent it to you as wav (PCM to laymen) will it be lossless because of the way I sent it to you?

You're having trouble separating lossless as a term of delivering audio and lossy in terms of the mix delivered vs. the master. As the majority of motion pictures over the last three to four years have been recorded to 24/48 masters for dialogue and foley (with most scores being 24/96) there have been one or two HD DVD discs that have been lossless and about 30 Blu-ray discs by your own definition.

PCM is a lossless method of delivering a source, whether the source is 16/48, 16/44.1, 24/48, 24/88.2, 24/176.4, 24/192, 32/384, etc., makes no difference as that was not the subject.
Well, I hope you feel better.

I don't recall feeling bad.
I can't believe I just spent a good 15 minutes scanning through this thread. What a waste of time. Mods, can we just close this piece of junk thread or better yet, just delete it. This thread has no redeeming value.

Thank you oh omniscient one.
So, we agree that you have no idea what you are talking about? Good.

We do?? The only thing we've ascertained so far is that you don't want to tell everyone what your set-up is. Are you scared that people will make fun of you? That's not going to happen.
Nice dodge, Slim...Tell us what you have for some perspective...

That's pretty much the way I saw it too.
Who comes to the AVS Forum and balks when they're asked about their equipment? That's pretty sad.

Semantics. Once a file has had information removed it is lossy. At that point if it is delivered as a "lossless" file it will still be lossy. It is funny to see the "same as the master" crowd arguing against it, though. It's starting to appear that you don't really care about the audio as much as you care about the delivery method.

You gather that simply because I'm debating the definition of lossless delivery? Wow, there's a stretch.

As far as I can make out, regardless of whether you're referring to a bit-for-bit representation of the master or a lossless delivery audio method, Blu-ray still comes out WAYYYY on top and a comparison of the reviews shows this perfectly.

Now anybody who's upset or emotionally attached to HD DVD will come in and rebuke this thread in the name of Satan as being blasphemous, idiotic, a waste of time, etc., etc., because it doesn't show HD DVD in a favourable light.

But sadly, HD DVD is the inferior format and that's just a fact of life. You think all these reviewers from five different sites are all somehow misguided by the fact that they know they're listening to a lossless audio track? I don't think so, they are HEARING more clarity, more depth, more realism.

Hence the scores that after over 1,000 titles from each format show Blu-ray with a 6% better score overall in SQ.

But sadly, HD DVD is the inferior format and that's just a fact of life.

This is where your post goes south.

That is your OPINION. Yes, thats right, your OPINION.

My OPINION is that HDDVD is NOT the inferior format.

We shall agree to disagree, but stating an opinion as a fact of life makes you look all the more silly.

Since the scores that after over 1,000 titles from each format show Blu-ray with a 6% better score overall in SQ.

Now, we have something.

A 6% difference when you are talking about that many data points is absolutely meaningless.

Pure random chance can easily account for the difference. Without proper data analysis, you absolutely cannot say that the difference is significant. Period.

This is AV Science Forum - I suggest you go read up on some methods of examining large data volumes and tabulating them into meaningful results..MS Excel includes some basic data analysis. There are lots of programs out there.

Nice dodge, Slim...Tell us what you have for some perspective...

No dodge. My, um, gear is big enough I don't have to discuss your, well, gear.

But you talk a big game.....but you can't back it up.............

Now, we have something.

A 6% difference when you are talking about that many data points is absolutely meaningless.

Pure random chance can easily account for the difference. Without proper data analysis, you absolutely cannot say that the difference is significant. Period.

This is AV Science Forum - I suggest you go read up on some methods of examining large data volumes and tabulating them into meaningful results..MS Excel includes some basic data analysis. There are lots of programs out there.

:).

In the 1980s where people were interested in selling you a new computer architecture that was faster, we used a good rule of thumb to judge things similar to this:

1. You need a minimum of 20% improvement before people notice something.

2. But you need better than 100% before they pay for it!!!

Question is, are either HD DVD/BD 100% better than DVD to people? The question of 6% difference between the two is easily answered per above, assuming that measure was scientific and not subjective....

Now, we have something.

A 6% difference when you are talking about that many data points is absolutely meaningless.

Pure random chance can easily account for the difference. Without proper data analysis, you absolutely cannot say that the difference is significant. Period.

This is AV Science Forum - I suggest you go read up on some methods of examining large data volumes and tabulating them into meaningful results..MS Excel includes some basic data analysis. There are lots of programs out there.


YES! Finally someone who actually knows what they are talking about!! Thank you sir, you are a scholar and a gentleman.

But you talk a big game.....but you can't back it up.............

He claims to have a PS3 and a Panny IIRC. And I believe I've seen him in the new Denon threads, so either a 3808 or 4308. HDDVD, probably an XA2 and A2 and A1 like all the other HDDVD supporters. :o

Not with sound. I know my theater would be the better listening environment for movie soundtracks than either of your studios..

Or how about mjaudio and JBM in the Halcro thread finding PCM better than TRUE Hd in their systems... no agenda with those guys just movie nirvana in great playback set ups. Or are they idiots, too?

You need to get out more...

Jeff, can you please point me in the direction of that thread!
I did a little comparing on Spiderman 3's PCM vs Tru and felt PCM had it beat. After a little research, I was surprised when I learned PCM was 48/16 and Tru was 48/24... which should of given me opposite results.
Thanks!

BD has over 4X the lossless tracks so it has a major advantage right there. Not surprised but I imagine video wise the format's would be very close.

This is weird...I find myself agreeing with you twice today. Video is easier to sell whereas lossless pcm isn't. That being said, If I could tell the difference in AQ I would want it. If I had a higher end sound system and theater done like yours [which is very nice by the way] I probably would notice a difference. :)

Look up a synonym for lossy.
I'm sure you're capable of looking that up yourself, thanks. If you get around to actually having a point, feel free to post it.

Jeff, can you please point me in the direction of that thread!
I did a little comparing on Spiderman 3's PCM vs Tru and felt PCM had it beat. After a little research, I was surprised when I learned PCM was 48/16 and Tru was 48/24... which should of given me opposite results.
Thanks!

That is surprising. Though it could be the Dialog normalization "stuff" they do with TrueHD could make the TrueHD soundtrack no longer reflect the master audio. I would have preferred the 24/48 PCM track or whatever resolution was on the master track.

That is surprising. Though it could be the Dialog normalization "stuff" they do with TrueHD could make the TrueHD soundtrack no longer reflect the master audio. I would have preferred the 24/48 PCM track or whatever resolution was on the master track.

True...

But you talk a big game.....but you can't back it up.............
Well then you win, don't you?

God this thread is amusing :D

Slim, anyone that comes to an enthusiasts' site, tells folks what they can and can't hear and, then, won't divulge their own gear is simply flexing their propaganda muscle (for whatever reason). Your position at work gives you no free pass on this subject..None at all. Your opinion is simply your opinion.. So, try not to make law based on fact.

It reminds me of all my smart professors that loved their power as academics. They knew the books, the studies and all else that made up their little acadmic microcosm.....but put them out in the real world to out and apply their knowledge and succeed and they fell flat on their collective faces. So, they taught and stayed in their comfort zone where they were almighty and safe from scrutiny. They knew one thing in a controlled environment while those who studied under them took that same knowledge to the real world and found out there was far more to it and that knowledge was only a starting point for what the real answers were. Many times, what we learned in school turned out to be completely false in the real world.. I think that is where you are at on this subject.. You seem close minded.....

So yes your numbers game may tell you there should be no differences in sound.......... but there is. You can count on it.....but your too close minded to hear it.... Why else come to an enthusiasts site? Does it feel good to tell everyone they aren't hearing what they say they hear? Why hide your equipment? Does acting as the authority make up for the fact you have equipment that you are frankly too embarrassed to discuss??

My point being that your job in the field makes your opinions no less scrutinized. It takes a lot of balls to come here and proclaim everyone idiots because they hear things different than your experience tells you... I say some may hear the differences, others may not.

Slim, anyone that comes to an enthusiasts' site, tells folks what they can and can't hear and, then, won't divulge their own gear is simply flexing their propaganda muscle (for whatever reason). Your position at work gives you no free pass on this subject..None at all. Your opinion is simply your opinion.. So, try not to make law based on fact.

It reminds me of all my smart professors that loved their power as academics. They knew the books, the studies and all else that made up their little acadmic microcosm.....but put them out in the real world to out and apply their knowledge and succeed and they fell flat on their collective faces. So, they taught and stayed in their comfort zone where they were almighty and safe from scrutiny. They knew one thing in a controlled environment while those who studied under them took that same knowledge to the real world and found out there was far more to it and that knowledge was only a starting point for what the real answers were. Many times, what we learned in school turned out to be completely false in the real world.. I think that is where you are at on this subject.. You seem close minded.....

So yes your numbers game may tell you there should be no differences in sound.......... but there is. You can count on it.....but your too close minded to hear it.... Why else come to an enthusiasts site? Does it feel good to tell everyone they aren't hearing what they say they hear? Why hide your equipment? Does acting as the authority make up for the fact you have equipment that you are frankly too embarrassed to discuss??

My point being that your job in the field makes your opinions no less scrutinized. It takes a lot of balls to come here and proclaim everyone idiots becuase they hear things different than your experience tells you...
Maybe, you didn't win after all.

So, these guys are idiots and out of their minds as well??

They must, you are the authority on this, right??

You may want to try a Blu-ray player with analog outs into your Six Shooter. Tru-HD sounds good but uncompressed PCM sounds a lot better from what I have tried so far. Stealth and Casino Royale are stellar sound mixes and every disc I have tried so far with a uncompressed PCM track sounds significantly better than the DD mix.

HD DVD I prefer for picture quality but Blu-ray is now winning the battle for sound in my system. The PS3 is a great machine for Blu-ray as well and I can't wait for the DTS-HD MA firmware upgrade so I can trully hear those Fox titles. Unfortunately the PS3 does not have analog outs, only HDMI.

I would definately be interested in hearing what you think about the uncompressed PCM from Blu-ray through your Six shooter.

I was told to listen to the Fifth Element remastered Blu-ray which includes both Tru-HD and uncompressed PCM and the difference could be heard there as well.

I have heard that even though Dolby calls Tru-HD lossless that there is still some compression involved. I do not know if this is true but if I want to show off the Halcro I am reaching for a uncompressed PCM Blu-ray.

JBM any other soundtracks you use to show off the MPCM upgrade?


After listening to about 20 HD and 25 Blu ray disk I think I can answer this question.

Blu ray LCPM sounds like playing a record; True HD sounds like playing a CD disk. HD-DVD have better picture quality on probably have the disk.

Vocals are better balanced in tone and presence,
Audio sounds seem to just leap out of nowhere and are not as overpowering or forceful as the can be on True HD. LPCM can be played louder with out the fatigue level kicking in.

This not to say True HD does not sound good; Its just like listening to a old record again instead of a CD.

So, these guys are idiots and out of their minds as well??

They must, you are the authority on this, right??
I guess they are geniuses. They said HD DVD has much better video quality than BD. Thanks for clearing that up. I do not envy the choice you now have to make. BD for sound. HD DVD for video. How will you ever get them to sync up? (actually those posts were so convoluted that no one, including them, knows what they meant. They seemed to have been talking about dynamic compression applied to an entire TrueHD trac, which is not the subject of our conversation, as dynamic compression (which is in your beloved PCM tracks in massive amounts) has nothing to do with file compression.) You win, though.

Maybe not geniuses butI agree that they are ahead of the curve. No agenda with those guys.. They speak the truth based on what they hear. Sounds like the PCM tracks win!

Maybe not geniuses butI agree that they are ahead of the curve. No agenda with those guys.. They speak the truth based on what they hear. Sounds like the PCM tracks win!You need to reread my post. Not one thing in that post was the subject of our little scrum.

I guess they are geniuses. They said HD DVD has much better video quality than BD. Thanks for clearing that up. I do not envy the choice you now have to make. BD for sound. HD DVD for video. How will you ever get them to sync up? (actually those posts were so convoluted that no one, including them, knows what they meant. They seemed to have been talking about dynamic compression applied to an entire TrueHD trac, which is not the subject of our conversation, as dynamic compression (which is in your beloved PCM tracks in massive amounts) has nothing to do with file compression.) You win, though.

So, everyone is an idiot except you...(the guy who is hiding is HT system)... Well, I guess we all have out own agendas....:D

I think you have the wrong guy. If you need to see whose gear is bigger you need someone like Bland. We've already established that people like him have better gear, better hearing and more experience than people that actually record, mix and master audio.

Sitting here slamming thebland because he has better equipment is not the smart thing to do.

I have seen him post on this forum for years and I know his setup is better than 99% of the people that post on this forum.

Just because you don't agree with what he is saying doesn't mean he isn't right. I tend to agree with thebland on the lossless issue. My system isn't quite up to his, but it is pretty solid. I can hear a difference between 1.5 mbps and full lossless DTS HD MA.

Don't make a statement like that if you haven't had something to compare it to.

So, everyone is an idiot except you...(the guy who is hiding is HT system)...

and the guy that can't stay on subject, stop insulting others and referencing posts that don't prove his point.

Sitting here slamming thebland because he has better equipment is not the smart thing to do.

I have seen him post on this forum for years and I know his setup is better than 99% of the people that post on this forum.

Just because you don't agree with what he is saying doesn't mean he isn't right. I tend to agree with thebland on the lossless issue. My system isn't quite up to his, but it is pretty solid. I can hear a difference between 1.5 mbps and full lossless DTS HD MA.

Don't make a statement like that if you haven't had something to compare it to.
I think Cobras are the best helicopters, though I've only seen one on TV. It was a really nice TV, though.

Sitting here slamming thebland because he has better equipment is not the smart thing to do.

I have seen him post on this forum for years and I know his setup is better than 99% of the people that post on this forum.

Just because you don't agree with what he is saying doesn't mean he isn't right. I tend to agree with thebland on the lossless issue. My system isn't quite up to his, but it is pretty solid. I can hear a difference between 1.5 mbps and full lossless DTS HD MA.

Don't make a statement like that if you haven't had something to compare it to.

What title? I know of no title that sports DTS HD MA and DD+. And 1.5 over optical, analogs, or HDMI? Or was it just DD which on BD is only 640kbps.

Have you ever tried lossless TrueHD and lossy DD+ on HD DVD? If so, what titles and what were your results. Same questions to thebland.

What title? I know of no title that sports DTS HD MA and DD+. And 1.5 over optical, analogs, or HDMI? Or was it just DD which on BD is only 640kbps.

Have you ever tried lossless TrueHD and lossy DD+ on HD DVD? If so, what titles and what were your results. Same questions to thebland.

Any DTS HD MA title can be played full bitrate lossless or 1.5 mbps lossy core. I own a 1400 and a PS3. The 1400 send out the full lossless bitstream and my PS3 will send out the 1.5 mbps lossy core.

You can play them both over hdmi.

I think Cobras are the best helicopters, though I've only seen one on TV. It was a really nice TV, though.

I can tell you a lot about cobra helicopters from documentaries on the history channel.

Of course I have never flown one, so I can't tell you how they compare to another helicopter.:D

Any DTS HD MA title can be played full bitrate lossless or 1.5 mbps lossy core. I own a 1400 and a PS3. The 1400 send out the full lossless bitstream and my PS3 will send out the 1.5 mbps lossy core.

You can play them both over hdmi.

So I assume you have your PS3 set to PCM? Correct?

You need to read Filmmixer's posts again. My "world of ignorance" is in a place where I record, mix and master hundreds of tracks. I'll let you continue on your "I paid a lot of money for my gear to cure my smallcox and think I'm an audio expert" way.

LOL

+50

I threw in the Filmmixer reference as I could see you lickin your chops to throw the 'Filmmixer' trump card....predictable...

ah, that explains a lot. You're here to play a game and "win" by... what? Arguing the hardest?

What up with that?

Yeah - posting a comparison of the reviews is flame bait?

I'm pretty sure what he was referred to as "flame bait" was, just possibly, your post that he quoted, and not your creation of this thread. That would be this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12022663#post12022663

...where you wrote: "Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious."


- max

He claims to have a PS3 and a Panny IIRC. And I believe I've seen him in the new Denon threads, so either a 3808 or 4308. HDDVD, probably an XA2 and A2 and A1 like all the other HDDVD supporters. :o

I've seen you say this a couple of times and I have no idea where you got it from. I don't believe I have ever even seen a Panasonic BD player, and there is no way in hell I'd own an A1, but you were only a couple of guesses away from hitting my HD DVD player.

theBland,

With all due respect, let me take a guess - either you never finished your dissertation, or you were denied tenure somewhere.

But you talk a big game.....but you can't back it up.............

how old are you?

These are done with AVC?. Does VC-1 do better with noisy sources, as claimed, or not?

Is some of the problems with TrueHD caused by the regular peaks in bitrate introduced by Dolby to the improve audio seeking, which causes the the video bitrate to be reduced?

Davidcw8

Yes, AVC- source is interlaced and VC1 doesn't like it.

There are peaks in audio and you can't really avoid them. 2 Dolby TrueHD tracks take a lot of the bandwidth and there is not enaugh left for the video in some scenes.

Andrew

theBland,

With all due respect, let me take a guess - either you never finished your dissertation, or you were denied tenure somewhere.

None of the above. I had no interest in an academic career. Just wanted to get out of school, get a job, raise my family......and build a stellar HT!!:D

Squirrel, old enough to have been in HT for the last 20 years... I see you're but a pup...

I see you're HD DVD only.. I wonder why so many HD DVD only folks are so convinced lossless audio offers nothing over lossy and compressed... Is it because HD DVD doesn't believe in it either (as 90% of their releases have no losseless but lossy or compressed tracks). It puzzles me that as an enthusiast's site, that folks wouldn't demand or prefer a lossless track over all else? Most BD folks see it as a huge plus.

How about we se the raw data, and let us work it ourselves? We can throw out the outriders and biased reviewers. What is the point of the 3 period moving average? What is the period? He is plotting 1/100% granularity, and doing a moving average of statistically unrelated data (independent reviewers, looking at different films at different times)? Looks like BS.

So I assume you have your PS3 set to PCM? Correct?

My PS3 is set to PCM, my 1400 is set to bitstream to my Integra 9.8.

Any DTS HD MA title can be played full bitrate lossless or 1.5 mbps lossy core. I own a 1400 and a PS3. The 1400 send out the full lossless bitstream and my PS3 will send out the 1.5 mbps lossy core.

You can play them both over hdmi.

I'm curious. Can you force the 1400 or your receiver to play the DTS core in lieu of the DTS HD MA track or are you forced to play the DTS HD MA track? Seems DTS HD MA from the 1400 is "mandatory" if you are using the PS3 for 1.5 mbps core.

Ok! Ok! Ok! You win! Blu wins! We've all converted and burned our HD DVD's. I'm gonna go get the Blu logo superimposed over a big "TRUE HD" tattooed on my ass. Now just tell me where to send your cookie and then we can end this BS . . . :p
lmfao, if only this would shut up the format trumpeters, sigh.

You need to read Filmmixer's posts again. My "world of ignorance" is in a place where I record, mix and master hundreds of tracks. I'll let you continue on your "I paid a lot of money for my gear to cure my smallcox and think I'm an audio expert" way.
lmfao, another score against the spec/audiophile extremists.

Jeff, can you please point me in the direction of that thread!
I did a little comparing on Spiderman 3's PCM vs Tru and felt PCM had it beat. After a little research, I was surprised when I learned PCM was 48/16 and Tru was 48/24... which should of given me opposite results.
Thanks!
Really, it's these type results that should create a paradigm shift in your thinking about audio, psychoacoustics and the "specs trump all" mentality shared by your peers.

What title? I know of no title that sports DTS HD MA and DD+. And 1.5 over optical, analogs, or HDMI? Or was it just DD which on BD is only 640kbps.

Have you ever tried lossless TrueHD and lossy DD+ on HD DVD? If so, what titles and what were your results. Same questions to thebland.
Good post, James...it's refreshing to see people who have seen the light (I do recollect your earlier skeptical stance about DD+) and don't allow bias (which I believe can even occur subconsciously) to spoil their quality assessments. All these subjective claims about the perceived superiority of lossless over DD+ without anything to back it up but "I have most expensive system!" are tiring to say the least. The scientific method has no room for them.

Good post, James...it's refreshing to see people who have seen the light (I do recollect your earlier skeptical stance about DD+) and don't allow bias (which I believe can even occur subconsciously) to spoil their quality assessments. All these subjective claims about the perceived superiority of lossless over DD+ without anything to back it up but "I have most expensive system!" are tiring to say the least. The scientific method has no room for them.

It's the absence of any such source material which prevents the vast majority of us from performing any kind of blind testing. In which case, some of us have taken the "default" notion lossless will always be better than "lossy". That's a perfectly reasonable stance to take given lack of evidence one way or the other IMO (hearsay, anecdotal from so-called industry heavyweights don't count in my HT room) .

James may not have realized almost every Fox movie has a DTS HD MA soundtrack which includes both the DTS HD MA (lossless) plus the 1.5 Mbs DTS core (lossy) soundtrack. Anyone with the appropriate playback hardware has a reasonable shot at putting together some meaningful objective testing.

Of course there will be the claim 1.5 Mbs DTS core is not as good as 1.5 Mbs DD+ (I think, if anything, it's the other way around). But what can you do? There isn't enough source material with both TrueHD and DD+ soundtracks.

None of the above. I had no interest in an academic career. Just wanted to get out of school, get a job, raise my family......and build a stellar HT!!:D

Squirrel, old enough to have been in HT for the last 20 years... I see you're but a pup...

I see you're HD DVD only.. I wonder why so many HD DVD only folks are so convinced lossless audio offers nothing over lossy and compressed... Is it because HD DVD doesn't believe in it either (as 90% of their releases have no losseless but lossy or compressed tracks). It puzzles me that as an enthusiast's site, that folks wouldn't demand or prefer a lossless track over all else? Most BD folks see it as a huge plus.

And all this time I thought this was the AV SCIENCE forum.

It's the absence of any such source material which prevents the vast majority of us from performing any kind of blind testing. In which case, some of us have taken the "default" notion lossless will always be better than "lossy". That's a perfectly reasonable stance to take given lack of evidence one way or the other IMO (hearsay, anecdotal from so-called industry heavyweights don't count in my HT room) .

James may not have realized almost every Fox movie has a DTS HD MA soundtrack which includes both the DTS HD MA (lossless) plus the 1.5 Mbs DTS core (lossy) soundtrack. Anyone with the appropriate playback hardware has a reasonable shot at putting together some meaningful objective testing.

Of course there will be the claim 1.5 Mbs DTS core is not as good as 1.5 Mbs DD+ (I think, if anything, it's the other way around). But what can you do? There isn't enough source material with both TrueHD and DD+ soundtracks.
I'm pretty sure that DD+ is built on a newer, improved psychoacoustic model than the DTS core...therefore, it stands that it would perform better in terms of perceptual transparency.

I have a simple question. In order to hear the benefits of "lossless audio" what would the minimum system requirements be? Thebland has already slammed anyone who dares to own a HTIB so we know that cannot be enough. What would it be then? Because if we all must own a system comparable to Thebland's then I'm not sure many will be enjoying this "huge" blu-ray benefit. It's obvious this is the only perceived advantage Blu-ray has over HD DVD anymore and it won't stick. Apparently very few have a system that can allow anyone to hear the benefit.

Stace

I have a simple question. In order to hear the benefits of "lossless audio" what would the minimum system requirements be? Thebland has already slammed anyone who dares to own a HTIB so we know that cannot be enough. What would it be then? Because if we all must own a system comparable to Thebland's then I'm not sure many will be enjoying this "huge" blu-ray benefit. It's obvious this is a reasone only perceived advantage Blu-ray has over HD DVD anymore and it won't stick. Apparently very few have a system that can allow anyone to hear the benefit.

Stace

Well, I dont have an HTIB but my gear is a loooong way from High End stuff. I have a mid-level Sony STRDG series receiver, small Polk speakers and a Sony powered subwoofer. With HDMI using my PS3, the HD audio tracks sound quite a bit better than the basic tracks. Its easy to hear the difference. My receiver does process multi-channel PCM which is what my A2 player and PS3 send to it. It works out perfectly for me.

I say just having a reasonably decent HDMI receiver, good speakers, and an HD disc player is all you need to enjoy the new audio formats or whatever you want to cal them. Im sure the owners of the $5000 separates and Paradigm reference speakers are gonna trash me, but hey.... whatever. ;)

I have a simple question. In order to hear the benefits of "lossless audio" what would the minimum system requirements be? Thebland has already slammed anyone who dares to own a HTIB so we know that cannot be enough. What would it be then? Because if we all must own a system comparable to Thebland's then I'm not sure many will be enjoying this "huge" blu-ray benefit. It's obvious this is the only perceived advantage Blu-ray has over HD DVD anymore and it won't stick. Apparently very few have a system that can allow anyone to hear the benefit.

Stace

I suspect most people with mediocre systems can hear the difference between 640k DD and TrueHd, the difference is fairly stunning. 1.5M DD+ vs. TrueHD might be a tad less "stunning" but the differences are there. I doubt I'll have trouble distinguishing between DD+ and lossless but time will tell. Until it's demonstrated I can't tell lossless from lossy, I'll continue to lobby for lossless audio tracks on all movie releases. Everyone of my lossless audio tracks have demonstrated traits which make your typical "lossy" audio tracks sound "muddy" in comparison.

Also don't confuse sound quality with Sound mix. "Transformers" had a great sound mix but I don't think it's reference quality by any means, sound quality-wise.

I'm pretty sure that DD+ is built on a newer, improved psychoacoustic model than the DTS core...therefore, it stands that it would perform better in terms of perceptual transparency.

Spoken like a Dolby Digital labs sloganeer. I suspect the DTS audio engineers would disagree. :)

I've always preferred DTS over DD ever since DVD but maybe because DD was always put at a disadvantage with lower bitrates.

Spoken like a Dolby Digital labs sloganeer. I suspect the DTS audio engineers would disagree. :)

I've always preferred DTS over DD ever since DVD but maybe because DD was always put at a disadvantage with lower bitrates.

Apples and Oranges

DD448 vs DTS768

And

DD+ 1,5 vs DTS 1,5

are two different ballgames.

Spoken like a Dolby Digital labs sloganeer. I suspect the DTS audio engineers would disagree. :)

I've always preferred DTS over DD ever since DVD but maybe because DD was always put at a disadvantage with lower bitrates.
Not a sloganeer...just an honest question as to which came later. Dolby Digital plus is relatively recent having entered the scene in 2005. I'm having trouble finding information on the last dated DTS development. And I've seen subjective opinions differ between which is better (yours is but one in a long line ;))...

And all this time I thought this was the AV SCIENCE forum.

Just remember Slim:

"Admittedly, the original data points are based on purely subjective assessments, but I’m confident that the data are representative of accurate observations rather than bias."

Don't know why you thought this forum still used science for anything. This has just become the dumping ground for fanboyism.

Just remember Slim:

"Admittedly, the original data points are based on purely subjective assessments, but I’m confident that the data are representative of accurate observations rather than bias."

Don't know why you thought this forum still used science for anything. This has just become the dumping ground for fanboyism.

THere's no room for Science with this particular forum because there is no data (e.g. different soundtracks/video encodes from same movie) from which to derive objective conclusions. All we are left with are indirect subjective conclusions based on our own personal watching/listening experiences of different movies as well as spec'ese. And of course, everyone's viewpoint is going to be skewed by how much investment they've made in either or both formats.

E.g. HD DVD's continuing rant that HD DVD low bitrate PQ/ (lossy) SQ is "good enough". :D

I have a simple question. In order to hear the benefits of "lossless audio" what would the minimum system requirements be?
It is an excellent question :). Turns out the answer to be surprising: it almost doesn't matter!

Everyone can hear compression artifacts as we go past 12:1 rate used for MP3's at 128kbps. For one thing, the codecs start to filter high frequencies so you can hear that.

Now, as we reduce the compression rate, the job becomes harder. Better equipment helps a bit. But no 5.1 speaker system is going to be all that revealing. In codec testing, we always use headphones because that way, we can hear what each channel is doing. The sound from the other channels "masks" some or all artifacts in the other channel. Point (1) for why I say for movies, lossless compression works better than for music :).


So back to your question, what do you need to hear these artifacts when we are talking about 300 kbps per channel in 5.1 encode as is the case in 1.5 mbit/sec DD+? Well, you need to be trained and specifically so in the field of audio codec testing. Being a golden ear audiophile sadly, doesn’t equip you at all for such a thing. An audiophile is used to listening for completely different set of things in evaluating sound than we are in compression circles.

It took me 6 months of non-stop training until I became good at it. Yes, this is real training. You must listen to a ton to specialized tracks designed for such training. We actually use the term “over train” when it comes to who is good at helping us test codec design. It is an expert level thing that many people cannot master. No amount of driving a car is going to turn you into a mechanic who knows how the engine is designed and can hear, pun intended, what fault the engine might have. To hear compression artifacts in difficult cases, you must become the mechanic. Owning an expensive car doesn’t’ qualify either :p.

We have put countless audiophiles through testing at Microsoft and nearly all of them flunk double blind tests. Steve’s recent test was a good example. A number of people there heard differences between identical tracks! I wasn’t so bad but at the end, I had to cheat and do a computer comparison to convince myself that the tracks were identical for sure. And Steve was using higher compression ratios, and I was listening on my expensive ($16K) headphone setup!

Note that some audiophiles can tell something may not quite be right when listening to great stereo music. These people are the exception and not the rule. But they do sense something may not be quite right. These people listen to a lot of live music, and/or have heard the real thing in a concert and as such, have a good reference point. At the risk of stating the obvious, none of these clues help out with movie soundtracks. Here, we have nothing “real” per-se to compare the track to. Who says that the sound of the explosion should be different than it is in a 1.5 mbit/sec DD+? If the thing is synthetically generated, then it could have just as easily sounded this way. In the word of the kid in Matrix, “how would one know what real chicken was supposed to taste like?”

Thebland has already slammed anyone who dares to own a HTIB so we know that cannot be enough.
From what I recall, he never participated in Steve’s test. What a shame really. He was there. He post multiple times. But never did the test. If equipment is the key here, and he has the best, then he should have been advantaged in doing the test, regardless of what faults he saw with the process. But he stayed out of it. Or maybe he didn’t stay out of it. He tried it, and had a hard time with it, and decided to give reasons to sit it out. We will never know for sure but we can guess, like he is about our motivation in this respect :).

But again, Steve’s test was actually the easy case. It was stereo music. And one that you could listen to with headphones. You could back it up and play it multiple times. In my case, I had two media players running at once and I could switch back and forth easily. With movies you don’t have any of this.

So unless thebland can prove that he has the proper hearing skills to detect audio compression in lightly compressed material (ideally movies), what he owns or claims is immaterial.

Amir you missed the great thing when another site did a review of Natures Journey and found the BD track better then the HD track. What the reviewer didnt know was that he only listen to the 1,5mbs core track for both releases. ;)

My PS3 is set to PCM, my 1400 is set to bitstream to my Integra 9.8.
I know this will sound like sour grapes, but DTS at 1.5 mbps is not up to the same quality as DD+ at 1.5mbps. But, that's not good enough for me to refute your position. Although this is what I believe based on what I've read, I haven't actually performed the test.

I've compared TrueHD to DD+ on the same title and found no difference using analog outs on a Tosh A1. I'll see if I can come up with a like experiment comparing lossless to DTS. I have tried comparing lossless lpcm on POTC against the DD track and found the DD track to be good but still lacking when compared to the lossless track so I know DD doesn't cut it.

Again another "Which has the best PQ" thread turns into a lossless vs. lossy debate. It appears the whole "Bluray has much superior PQ" argument has been squashed. I guess lossless is the new bitrate.

another,

I have said the same thing several times.

everyone's personal expeeiences and tests are irrelelvant because they aren't blund and expectancy effects get in the way.

few will believe amirm because they don't like what he says, but in the history of audiophilia testing, in proper conditions, most claims faul.

I have a great idea!

Lets scrap HD DVD and BD and welcome the new HD platform . . .

HD-LD

That's right - take a giant step backwards. Look at the real estate we would have using a 12" disc. Bring back the great Jacket Art!

We can also scrap MPEG2, VC-1 and AVC and use JPEG2000 with 150 Mbps.

Just think - no more 95% compression. Maybe 50% . . . or less

Use the second side for all the extras you could ever want.

What? . . . . no takers?:D

HDLD would've kicked some serious ass.

I'm curious. Can you force the 1400 or your receiver to play the DTS core in lieu of the DTS HD MA track or are you forced to play the DTS HD MA track? Seems DTS HD MA from the 1400 is "mandatory" if you are using the PS3 for 1.5 mbps core.

I can send the signal out pcm on the 1400. That is actually how I have compared the track. Just output the pcm signal instead of bitstream.

These discs which we covet so much here will not evaporate if one format stop being produced. How many DVD players out there fully support DivX, alot. Almost everyone on the shelf. This is where this battle is going. Not the way of Video cassettes.


DivX is completely different from DIVX

DivX is a codec based mainly on MPEG-4. DIVX was DVD's opposing format (which essentially *did* evaporate, as they were designed to stop working after a certain amount of time or viewings).

DVD players today that claim DivX compatibility are referring to movie files encoded with the DivX codec and burned onto a DVD-R. I doubt you could find a DVD player that would also play DIVX discs. I also doubt you could find any DIVX discs for sale anymore.

E.g. HD DVD's continuing rant that HD DVD low bitrate PQ/ (lossy) SQ is "good enough". :D

I appreciate you completely making my point for me Oscar. :rolleyes:

I think everyone here should take a little side trip to a hardcore audiophile board to see what, in some respects, amateurs people are on this board when it comes to dogmatic stances.

I think many would be amazed to learn that they are actually listening to crap, even the Bland, because it is not a stereo analog, tube based system. Anyone going over to such a site and posting that they had a digital source would be ripped.

I know this will sound like sour grapes, but DTS at 1.5 mbps is not up to the same quality as DD+ at 1.5mbps. But, that's not good enough for me to refute your position. Although this is what I believe based on what I've read, I haven't actually performed the test.

I've compared TrueHD to DD+ on the same title and found no difference using analog outs on a Tosh A1. I'll see if I can come up with a like experiment comparing lossless to DTS. I have tried comparing lossless lpcm on POTC against the DD track and found the DD track to be good but still lacking when compared to the lossless track so I know DD doesn't cut it.

It isn't sour grapes. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The problem I have on AVS at the moment is they go by the "experts" saying you can't tell a difference when they do not have any personal experience with both tracks. I have listened to all of them.

So far I have been more impressed with DTS HD MA than anything. PCM comes in a second and TruHD is close third place. Is it a placebo effect? Is it just a louder soundtrack?

I don't know, I don't care. I am happier with my setup than I have ever been.

It isn't sour grapes. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. The problem I have on AVS at the moment is they go by the "experts" saying you can't tell a difference when they do not have any personal experience with both tracks. I have listened to all of them.

So far I have been more impressed with DTS HD MA than anything. PCM comes in a second and TruHD is close third place. Is it a placebo effect? Is it just a louder soundtrack?

I don't know, I don't care. I am happier with my setup than I have ever been.
A well reasoned response. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. At least you've done real world comparisons and you heard what you heard.

Squirrel, old enough to have been in HT for the last 20 years... I see you're but a pup...

you see I'm "but a pup"? what were you trying to say here? (I inferred that you were attempting to insult me by implying that I am inexperienced or don't know what I'm talking about, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here)

I see you're HD DVD only.. I wonder why so many HD DVD only folks are so convinced lossless audio offers nothing over lossy and compressed... Is it because HD DVD doesn't believe in it either (as 90% of their releases have no losseless but lossy or compressed tracks). It puzzles me that as an enthusiast's site, that folks wouldn't demand or prefer a lossless track over all else? Most BD folks see it as a huge plus.

I can't speak for everyone that owns HD DVD players, but my own preference would be to have lossless on every release, if only for the psychological reassurance it provides. But honestly I don't mind having 1.5Mbps DD+ as the standard. The reason for this is that I've compared the two codecs back to back on discs that contain both, and I can't here a difference.

So frankly, on the HD DVD side of the fence, there is virtually no difference between lossy and lossless.

Of course, on Blu-ray it's quite a different story. If we're talking about lossy sound on Blu-ray, it's usually either 640kbps DD or 1.5Mbps DTS, two older codecs that can't quite provide the clarity that you get with a properly mixed 1.5Mbps DD+ track. So, of course you're going to hear a difference between lossy and lossless [or uncompressed] audio with Blu-ray. I think this must be why "Most BD folks see it as a huge plus."

A well reasoned response. I certainly wouldn't argue with it. At least you've done real world comparisons and you heard what you heard.

Thank you,

In my opinion, this Dan Ramer "article" at DVDFile means absolutely nothing.

This is not an attack or anything, but most of you already recognize that he is a Bluray-biased writer. MANY of his previous stories touting Bluray superiority and dominance have already been posted here.

What he is now writing about is the same PQ "tallies" that Dobyblue has used when comparing rating reviews.

The review scores he has used are all subjective, but he has attempted to create a "scientific" or "objective" determination of Bluray superiority, based on subjective ratings that he himself was entirely responsible for giving.

He gave the scores himself, then uses it to say "OMG! I just realized that Bluray is superior!" - when all along, the scores more likely simply reflect his own bias to the Bluray format and his propensity to give better scores to Bluray releases than to HD DVD releases.

It holds absolutely no water, IMO, and is just another in a long line of similar "revelations" by the writer.

It is an excellent question :). Turns out the answer to be surprising: it almost doesn't matter!

Everyone can hear compression artifacts as we go past 12:1 rate used for MP3's at 128kbps. For one thing, the codecs start to filter high frequencies so you can hear that.

Now, as we reduce the compression rate, the job becomes harder. Better equipment helps a bit. But no 5.1 speaker system is going to be all that revealing. In codec testing, we always use headphones because that way, we can hear what each channel is doing. The sound from the other channels "masks" some or all artifacts in the other channel. Point (1) for why I say for movies, lossless compression works better than for music :).


So back to your question, what do you need to hear these artifacts when we are talking about 300 kbps per channel in 5.1 encode as is the case in 1.5 mbit/sec DD+? Well, you need to be trained and specifically so in the field of audio codec testing. Being a golden ear audiophile sadly, doesn’t equip you at all for such a thing. An audiophile is used to listening for completely different set of things in evaluating sound than we are in compression circles.

It took me 6 months of non-stop training until I became good at it. Yes, this is real training. You must listen to a ton to specialized tracks designed for such training. We actually use the term “over train” when it comes to who is good at helping us test codec design. It is an expert level thing that many people cannot master. No amount of driving a car is going to turn you into a mechanic who knows how the engine is designed and can hear, pun intended, what fault the engine might have. To hear compression artifacts in difficult cases, you must become the mechanic. Owning an expensive car doesn’t’ qualify either :p.

We have put countless audiophiles through testing at Microsoft and nearly all of them flunk double blind tests. Steve’s recent test was a good example. A number of people there heard differences between identical tracks! I wasn’t so bad but at the end, I had to cheat and do a computer comparison to convince myself that the tracks were identical for sure. And Steve was using higher compression ratios, and I was listening on my expensive ($16K) headphone setup!

Note that some audiophiles can tell something may not quite be right when listening to great stereo music. These people are the exception and not the rule. But they do sense something may not be quite right. These people listen to a lot of live music, and/or have heard the real thing in a concert and as such, have a good reference point. At the risk of stating the obvious, none of these clues help out with movie soundtracks. Here, we have nothing “real” per-se to compare the track to. Who says that the sound of the explosion should be different than it is in a 1.5 mbit/sec DD+? If the thing is synthetically generated, then it could have just as easily sounded this way. In the word of the kid in Matrix, “how would one know what real chicken was supposed to taste like?”


From what I recall, he never participated in Steve’s test. What a shame really. He was there. He post multiple times. But never did the test. If equipment is the key here, and he has the best, then he should have been advantaged in doing the test, regardless of what faults he saw with the process. But he stayed out of it. Or maybe he didn’t stay out of it. He tried it, and had a hard time with it, and decided to give reasons to sit it out. We will never know for sure but we can guess, like he is about our motivation in this respect :).

But again, Steve’s test was actually the easy case. It was stereo music. And one that you could listen to with headphones. You could back it up and play it multiple times. In my case, I had two media players running at once and I could switch back and forth easily. With movies you don’t have any of this.

So unless thebland can prove that he has the proper hearing skills to detect audio compression in lightly compressed material (ideally movies), what he owns or claims is immaterial.


i f**king hated that kid in the matrix

other than that, nice post :)

I'm pretty sure what he was referred to as "flame bait" was, just possibly, your post that he quoted, and not your creation of this thread. That would be this post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12022663#post12022663

...where you wrote: "Blu-ray is better, that much should be obvious."


- max

THat's what the specs tell me.

THat's what the specs tell me.

I wasn't asking you to back up what you wrote, I was pointing out that you misunderstood what badwilly meant by "flame bait"

but since you brought it up I have to ask, what do your eyes and ears tell you?

man you guys argue over this stuff everyday. after all this time you'd think yall would get tired of it by now

man you guys argue over this stuff everyday. after all this time you'd think yall would get tired of it by now

Apparently thats ALL they have in their lives thats worth arguing over or fighting for. No chicks, no other hobbies, no hope whatsoever. A truly sad state of human affairs for the "bitrate" club, isnt it?

Its almost like they need to have a 2001 Space Odyssey type of experience....they need to travel through a stargate of some sort and evolve into humans that can just enjoy HD movies. maybe a starbaby sitting in front of a plasma TV listening to a DD+ track on a Home Theater in a Box could represent their final voyage???

:D :cool:

I think everyone here should take a little side trip to a hardcore audiophile board to see what, in some respects, amateurs people are on this board when it comes to dogmatic stances.

I think many would be amazed to learn that they are actually listening to crap, even the Bland, because it is not a stereo analog, tube based system. Anyone going over to such a site and posting that they had a digital source would be ripped.
Just go back to some early to mid 90s posts in rec.audio.* - you hear the SAME words coming out of different people... it will never ever change. :)