On many points I agree with Josh's specs vs reality article.

That said, as an enthusiast, my biggest contention is that regardless of whether everyone can hear differences between DD+ and lossless sound, we should all demand it as we do 1080P24. A copy of the master tape in our own theaters represents the pinnacle of sound. As 1080P24 is an ideal video resolution, and though few can input that res into their current display, many demand it as well regardless. But like lossless, it is the ideal and as this is a hobby for many, I see no valid reason to segregate the demands for 1080P24 video and lossless sound. Sure, on some DD+ tracks (or even many DD+ tracks) it may be indistinguishable from lossless but but on others, the improvement is there and rewarding. A simple fact is the lossy can be as good as lossless but lossy can NEVER be better than lossless. I feel that since HD DVD is either incapable of or won't provide lossless tracks to 90% of their releases, some HD DVD fanatical supporters see this as a flimsy support to argue that "We can't all hear it, so who needs it" rather than what they should be arguing, "We need to pressure HD DVD to give us the best possible soundtracks it can - and not on just 10% of the releases". Hopefully their tune changes when more disc space comes in the 51 gb discs - that appears to be the real reason many are happy to embrace lossy here as lossless appears not to be viable on the 30 gb discs. Nothing else makes sense..

Frankly, I am surprised many here are so willing to accept mediocrity when excellence is available. Do you guys recall what the responses were on the HD DVD forum when TRUE HD was enabled on the HD A1 / XA1?...And zillions of folks here clamoured around the fact that it was soo fantastic and better than DD+ an DD...Well, it appears that since HD DVD has only allowed 10% of its movie tracks to have lossless sound and disc capacity is a factor, most have changed their tune and found DD+ good enough so as to find away to continue to support their favorite format..

I wonder what the state of this hobby is. I have heard no valid reason why we should embrace DD+ over TRUE HD or Uncompressed PCM. Good enough or some mixers math and experience doesn't cut it with me at all. Fact is if the master tape is available, why dis it!?We know it can be done..We've seen it on discs. I don't know why HD DVD is avoiding it. I don't know why BD is only at 50%? Both formats can improve but if we, as enthusiasts, eagerly accept 2nd best, we'll unfortunately get what we're asking for.

Anyone with a competent system and set up will benefit from the best soundtracks...Even more so with good equipment choices, a dedicated room, attention to acoustical treatments and principles, and equalization. All these 'little' things we as enthusiasts obsess on all add up in the end (synergistically) as a nirvana audio response that is particularly embellished with a reference source (e.g. a lossless or uncompressed track). This is the pay off for toiling in your room, upgrading equipment and paying attention to your room's response, etc. Bottom line, I want it even if I can't hear improvements all the time (or even most of the time or even 95% of the time). Better is better. It seems many here are so wrapped up in one side winning (for whatever reason), they forget that perfection in audio may lose out.

I'm smiply an enthusiast that want's the best from the blossoming formats. I'll buy whichever delivers the good best relative to the true enthusiast, not Joe6pack. All this gobblily gook about 'good enough' doesn't wash with me at all...and many others here.

Well if they want to include lossless 24bit, thats fine with me. But I wouldnt hesitate for a minute to buy a movie with only 1,5mbs DD+.

It still sound better then the avarage theater with volym overcranked. And I doubt that I can here the difference, and if i can hear the difference I wouldnt be able to tell wich one is wich.

What I do want on the other hand i state of the art transfers. 3D Pop is what really makes my experience worth it.

Where's the I don't care option? The DD+ track on Transfomers to me sounds EXACTLY as it did when I saw it in the theater.

And FYI: Disc capacity has NOTHING to do with why lossless was not included for this particular release.

Where's the I don't care option? The DD+ track on Transfomers to me sounds EXACTLY as it did when I saw it in the theater.

And FYI: Disc capacity has NOTHING to do with why lossless was not included for this particular release.

It was probably peak bandwidth issues which prevented them from putting lossless on "Transformers".

Bland,
What about 2 more options:

3-no, because i dont have an audio set up good enough to hear a difference
4-yes, because i plan on purchasing an audio set up so I can hear the difference

and 5,
5-I want every track available lossless and otherwise.

I choose 3 .

Spec whores are the "ricers of the HDM arena".

Slap a "lossless" sticker on the disc and listen to the magical improvement !!

Option for wouldn't mind lossless but won't turn my nose up at a nice DD+ track; would have been nice as well :) Poll's narrow scope speaks volumes.

I voted I want it. Even if the perceptible difference is negligible, IMO it is a slippery slope to send studios the message that they don't need to aspire to put the absolute best they can onto a disc.

As I've said before, if TrueHD or PCM is unnecessary, why do any studios use it at all? Why did Paramount use it on Next but not Transformers? Seriously, was there something in the audio for Next that needed lossless more than Transformers? I highly doubt it.

Regardless of how transparent the Transformers DD+ track is to the master (and I'm not disputing that it is), one has to logically assume that if space permitted, Paramount would have used TrueHD, since they used it for a movie that had less extras and a shorter runtime.

Option for wouldn't mind lossless but won't turn my nose up at a nice DD+ track; would have been nice as well :) Poll's narrow scope speaks volumes.


Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.

Lossless Audio is like 24P. How many people can take advantage of it and what is the cost to get it?

IMO - for the AV Geek . . . but not for the masses who most don't even have a DD5.1 setup.

As I've said before, if TrueHD or PCM is unnecessary, why do any studios use it at all? Why did Paramount use it on Next but not Transformers? Seriously, was there something in the audio for Next that needed lossless more than Transformers? I highly doubt it.


Well its good marketing. And if it has any real world difference is secondary.

Studios aint giving us HDM because they like charity, they do it because they can make more even more money on it (eventually)

Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.

Immaterial to who? I'll answer whatever question I damn well please, take your black and white polls and shove em :)

Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.

You mean for the 300 on this site ;)

Well its good marketing. And if it has any real world difference is secondary.

Studios aint giving us HDM because they like charity, they do it because they can make more even more money on it (eventually)

I don't disagree. I think TrueHD is largely a "checkbox". But again, and I know this sounds crazy, if the ability to select TrueHD makes some "feel" like they are hearing better audio than DD+, even if they're not, is that not still a good reason to include it?

I'm reminded of the recent news article where people said the food wrapped in McDonald's wrappers tasted better than other food, even though it was identical.

Also, even if TrueHD can't be appreciated by the masses right now, what about in 5 years?

There are many DVD's out right now that have not had a new edition released since the early days of DVD. In 2007 we are forced to deal with the state of the art in 1998 or 1999. My point is why not future-proof these discs by having the best audio possible now? I think we know why not: double-dip.

Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.

Your polls as always, are unfair and BD slanted. And this one is merely an innuendo against the Transformers DD+ track.:p

If not, the second option would have read: "So long as DD+ sounds as good as Lossless, I won't care."

Lossless matters, but only if it is better than a DD+ track!:p

I don't disagree. I think TrueHD is largely a "checkbox". But again, and I know this sounds crazy, but if the ability to select TrueHD makes some "feel" like they are hearing better audio than DD+, even if they're not, is that not still a good reason to include it?

You know I have zero problem with placebo effects, what I find funny however are people that haven't actually sat down to try and discern whether they can hear the difference or not, yet some of those same people go into the high-end audio threads and thread crap...

Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.


Would you stop...this is a Flame thread and you know it. If it wasn't why the no, dd+ is good enough for me. It is funny though but come on bland...if it was an honest question just change it to yes or no and stop all the "Good Enough" stuff. FYI the DD+ track on Transformers wasn't good enough it was perfect just read the reviews.:p

Actually, not even DD+ can be enjoyed by the masses.

For me I have a completly different audio problem then the rest. I live in an apartment, I cant crank volym without getting homeless the next day. So for me dynamic compression actually sound better then many other (better) options.

So for me TrueHD and DD+ actually gives me a better audioexperience then a PCM track would. Of course I could use headphones, but that doesnt give me the cinema experience I have waited for the past 13 years.

Spec whores are the "ricers of the HDM arena".

Slap a "lossless" sticker on the disc and listen to the magical improvement !!

I wouldn't be at all surprised at the vast improvement people would hear with that "lossless" sticker plastered on the front of the box. Personally, I think it is far more important as to how good the original soundtrack was in the first place.

It's interesting that I find HD movies from Sony, Fox, and Disney seem to have soundtracks which are consistently better clarity, separation and dynamic peaks than soundtracks from HD movies produced by Warner and Universal. I wonder why that might be ? Is it consistently better sound production values with those studios or could it be (gasp !) the consistent use of lossless audio tracks ? Take your pick.

Similar question applies to PQ BTW.

How soon before this turns into BD vs. HD DVD? ;)

I have never heard DD+ so I can't speak about it, but I have heard the exact same soundtrack with PCM vs DD and the difference was very noticable. The DD track sounded like there was a blanket over my speakers compared to the PCM track.

My experiment was with Deja Vu using the scene at the beginning when the ferry is about to leave and it blasts its horns. Listening to the same track with PCM then DD it was EASY to distinguish which was which. My wife even looked at me and said WOW.

I bought into this hobby to experience the best audio and video that is possible, give me lossless over DD anyday of the week.

Why do these polls almost always have an underlying BRD vs HD-DVD tone? if they put lossless sound on every disc then no one would complain.

It's interesting that I find HD movies from Sony, Fox, and Disney seem to have soundtracks which are consistently better clarity, separation and dynamic peaks than soundtracks from HD movies produced by Warner and Universal. I wonder why that might be ? Is it consistently better sound production values with those studios or could it be (gasp !) the consistent use of lossless audio tracks ? Take your pick.

Similar question applies to PQ BTW.


Well they make a larger portion of popcorn flicks.

But if HD DVD can pull of top PQ AQ title over and over again, it seems that it isnt the HD DVD spec the problem is.

The master have always the biggest impact.

I wouldn't be at all surprised at the vast improvement people would hear with that "lossless" sticker plastered on the front of the box. Personally, I think it is far more important as to how good the original soundtrack was in the first place.

That is the point I tried to argue with several people. Some compare soundtrack from one movie and compare it to a soundtrack on a different film, and try to pass judgement on the superiority of one or the other. No consideration is given to the nature of the composition.

I'd prefer lossless audio tracks to be included on all discs but I'm not going to cry about it when they're not.

Why do these polls almost always have an underlying BRD vs HD-DVD tone? if they put lossless sound on every disc then no one would complain.

Well if they maked "downconverted" lossless tracks people will still complain. But in the end why should the studios even care.

Lossy or lossless doesnt effect the salesnumber in any big way.

Why do these polls almost always have an underlying BRD vs HD-DVD tone? if they put lossless sound on every disc then no one would complain.

Because HD DVD cannot put lossless audio on every movie release for various (probable format-related) reasons. I'll bit*h-slap the studios every chance I get if they fail to put a lossless audio track on any of the HD movies. Paramount's latest high-profile release deserved a serious bit*h-slap.

I'm abstaining in protest of the choices.

Because HD DVD cannot put lossless audio on every movie release for various (probable format-related) reasons. I'll bit*h-slap the studios every chance I get if they fail to put a lossless audio track on any of the HD movies. Paramount's latest high-profile release deserved a serious bit*h-slap.

Well actually its a studio call. Just encode audio first and give the rest to Video. It not illegal in any way.

Like Flags of our fathers.

Paramount BD = DD640
Paramount HD = DD+ 1,5
Warner HD = TrueHD
Warner BD = PCM

thebland

You are missing an option. A very important one which should be:

"If the human ear can not dectect a difference with a DD+ track and Lossless track do you care?"

Josh's artice pointed out that in many cases you can not tell the difference. If lossless makes a difference then I want it...if it doesnt I dont. In your 1st choice its worded like Lossless makes a little "subtle difference" every time when in reality sometimes it does not.


dont you think this quote has merrit?

"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"

...

I'm smiply an enthusiast that want's the best from the blossoming formats. I'll buy whichever delivers the good best relative to the true enthusiast, not Joe6pack. All this gobblily gook about 'good enough' doesn't wash with me at all...and many others here.

i don't think you understand what people like myself who are engineers really mean by "good enough". i think you attribute that to settling for some lesser standard.

what i mean by "good enough" is that i can't really point out a flaw that makes any difference to me. and more broadly, i don't believe that just about anybody else can either. imo you are simply spec shopping and buying into marketing terminology ... like a woman that buys a "thigh master" because she believes all the bs about how it will make her ass smaller.

you like to categorize codecs based on marketing labels and specs.

as an engineer, i know how this stuff all works. lossless doesn't really exist as anything more then a product marketing term. all forms of digital representation involve loss.

even more important... what is any soundtrack supposed to sound like? there is no point of reference. what does a 25 ft. gorilla really sound like? how about a giant alien robot or a gang of mutants?

looking at classic films or silent films. what is that supposed to sound like? should they reproduce what is on the master or restore it? that is, what does transparency mean or accomplish in that case?

the minuscule differences between different types of encoding are also buried in variations in the playback environment. if there were no such variations then people would not have to shop for speakers that sound "good enough" for them. there is no such thing as a lossless listening environment.

the reason this debate never ends is because people want to believe the marketing bs since it makes sense to them. ... of course it makes sense to you. you are specifically being targeted for the marketing bs just like the woman who buys the thigh master.

for you av thigh master purchasers, you will spend any amount of money for some widget or gizmo if there is a good story from the marketing department.

i sit back and am just highly amused at the bs people believe here. some of you guys will buy anything. it totally explains the success of monster cable in selling $5 cables for $100. i think you will buy anything with a high price and a good story.

i don't give a rats rear end about what codec is used as long as it sounds and looks good. knowing what i know about these technologies, if i bought things based on specs, nothing would ever be good enough. there is always something wrong somewhere and i see the issues everywhere i look.

i care a lot about getting j6p involved because i am an ht enthusiast that wants a lot more content to feed my 120" screen.

people that are hdm enthusiasts make up a small part of the population. without j6p there isn't enough money on the table to fund the process of creating the hdm content.

All things equal, I'd love to have at least the option of lossless. I don't have the capability to process lossless audio at the moment, but of course I'd prefer it to be there rather than not (although I really wish on BR titles with uncompressed PCM they would include a higher quality alternative than a 640k DD track).

That said, it falls far below on the pecking order for me, obviously. Given a choice of having to choose between extras and lossless audio, I'll pick extras every time. I doubt I'd notice a difference anyway even if I did have a lossless-ready receiver, especially between a 1.5mbps track and a lossless track, but the peace of mind would still be there.

Unless someone can show out that DD+ is always inferior, or they can show it is inferior with some program material, then DD+ is always an equal alternative to lossless.

I don't know anything about DD+ encoders, but they don't require tweeking do they? If so, every DD+ encode should be as good as any other.

Similarly couldn't any given lossless decoder introduce more errors than a DD+ decoder?

I don't think there's enough info to vote on this.

Unless someone can show out that DD+ is always inferior, or they can show it is inferior with some program material, then DD+ is always an equal alternative to lossless...

I can't show you the earth is not flat.:D Do you simerly dismiss all statistics and pictures just because it fits your model?

Of course it would be better to have lossless audio on every release and nobody can argue that.

If it wasn't for the format war nobody would even dare to ask a question like that and this is why the results are meaningless. Sometimes I feel people use their emotions instead of their common sense when it comes to their favorite format. Both formats have issues and if you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.

I don't remember anyone saying "I don't want any 5.1 tracks on my dvds because I don't have a 5.1 surround system" or "I don't want stereo sound on my CDs because I use a mono receiver".

It's not too much to expect for HDM media to use the top audio possible if those formats are supposed to exist for a decade or so. Both formats are often lacking and it is a no sense for the "next" generation of entertainment.

In the end nobody know which format will ultimately win. If someone knew you can be sure the loser (be it Sony or Toshiba) would just give up instead of spending millions.

The only thing I know is HDM should be as close to perfect as it can get.

I can't show you the earth is not flat.:D Do you simerly dismiss all statistics and pictures just because it fits your model?
Well, there is a pro who gives a real world picture. The rest of you fall back on "ideally"

This seems to be a BIG dividing point for the fanboys. No doubt BD does have the advantage in audio since it reserves 9Mbps for audio only and still leaves 40Mbps for video. So NOT including lossless on BD is a waist of bandwidth.

However HD DVD still can have a 24 bit TrueHD with little or no compromise on video. Even with the 24 bit TrueHD track and a couple of 640Kbps DD+ tracks you would still have a peak of less than 8Mbps (average of about 4 or 5Mbps). This still leaves a peak bandwidth over 20Mbps for video.

So just because some can't/don't hear the deference why deny people who want a lossless track when it cost you noting?

I want lossless even though I have no idea if it is better than DD+. I would love to see real world scientific tests so that we can determine once and for all about the sound.

So just because some can't/don't hear the deference why deny people who want a lossless track when it cost you noting?
Usung the same rationale, there's no reason to deny a DD+ track in lieu, either.

I want lossless even though I have no idea if it is better than DD+. I would love to see real world scientific tests so that we can determine once and for all about the sound.

this is getting pretty close...no?

"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"

Usung the same rationale, there's no reason to deny a DD+ track in lieu, either.

If you had quoted more of my post (or even read) you would have saw "Even with the 24 bit TrueHD track and a couple of 640Kbps DD+ tracks". I'm not interested in denying you a MP3 track. I just want to hear the CD.;)

I want lossless even though I have no idea if it is better than DD+. I would love to see real world scientific tests so that we can determine once and for all about the sound.

It certainly would be easy enough to do.


Get one of the lossy digital encoded lossless is always better nutters and have them install a high quality mike at their sitting location.

Record the different encodes through the speakers from their "my theater is better then yours" home theaters.

Show the graphs

What we will find in my opinion is the difference will be so slight that the high quality mike will not be able to show the difference. And if there is a difference one will not be able to tell which is closer to the source.

But my bet is much like Bose will not publish their frequency response curves or high end speaker wire manufacturers never show an actual difference in real world output to the public. Neither will the I forgot to mention all digital is lossy lossless sounds better through my pencil eraser for dac's crowd.

I voted lossless, and really there's no excuse not to give us that on every release for at least the native language track for the film.

I emailed Dolby awhile ago, asking their opinion on lossless v. lossy. One of their employees actually wrote me back and admitted that some studios/content providers do believe that a high bit rate DD+ track can be indiscernible from TrueHD. I'm still waiting on his response on the official Dolby answer, however.

His main two advantages for using TrueHD were; 1) you KNOW you're not losing any quality from the master; and 2) it's better for the max bit rates and space than PCM.

Also waiting on a response on whether HD DVD is more limited on 24/48 5.1 (or better) tracks, such that compromises on PQ are necessary.

...Also waiting on a response on whether HD DVD is more limited on 24/48 5.1 (or better) tracks, such that compromises on PQ are necessary.

You can do the math yourself.

BD 48Mbps (8Mbps reserved for audio and 40Mbps video Max)
HD DVD 30.24Mbps (29.4Mbps video Max)

LPCM 16/48 5.1 - 4.6Mbps
TrueHD 16/48 5.1 - 3Mbps peak 1.4Mbps average
LPCM 24/48 5.1 - 7Mbps
TrueHD 24/48 5.1 - 5Mbps peak 3.4Mbps average
DD+ (HD DVD) 640Kbps or 1.5Mbps (up to 3Mbps supported)

Yes, no himming and hawwing immaterial choices.

I simply want to know if lossless tracks are important to folks or not.... Not much to read into on that. Just answer the question.

So the answer is yes, I want lossless audio, yes there is in most cases subtile to huge difference's in sound. I will always wonder what Transformers could have sounded like with a Truehd sound track, major mistake on Paramounts part in my opinion.

I want full bit depth lossless to be the norm for all releases. Has there been a single full bit depth TrueHD track on HD-DVD yet?

I want full bit depth lossless to be the norm for all releases. Has there been a single full bit depth TrueHD track on HD-DVD yet?
Probably because despite much misconception many if not most films are mastered in 16/48 5.1. ;)

thebland

You are missing an option. A very important one which should be:

"If the human ear can not dectect a difference with a DD+ track and Lossless track do you care?"

Josh's artice pointed out that in many cases you can not tell the difference. If lossless makes a difference then I want it...if it doesnt I dont. In your 1st choice its worded like Lossless makes a little "subtle difference" every time when in reality sometimes it does not.


dont you think this quote has merrit?

"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"

Hmm. Apparently, this audio professional prefers to wallow in "mediocrity." But seriously, if no difference can be discerned, it's irrelevant. There are plenty of other valid AV issues to obsess over, and I don't waste any effort worrying about the alleged benifits of lossless over DD at 1.5 Mbps.

Spec whores are the "ricers of the HDM arena".

Slap a "lossless" sticker on the disc and listen to the magical improvement !!

Game set match. Perfect description.

Lossless or uncompressed, anything else is not considered HD at all.

Lossless or uncompressed, anything else is not considered HD at all.

So that is the same thing about video? If in aint lossless it aint HD?

Amir has posted that he can quite easily tell the differnece between lossless and lossy. He said it took some time to do so. SO the differences are there to hear the artifacts but it takes some training or innate ability. So, the differences are there.

Even if I couldn't reliably pick out one over the other, all things being equal, I'd rather be listening to the artifact free recording.

Amir has posted that he can quite easily tell the differnece between lossless and lossy. He said it took some time to do so. SO the differences are there to hear the artifacts but it takes some training or innate ability. So, the differences are there.

Even if I couldn't reliably pick out one over the other, all things being equal, I'd rather be listening to the artifact free recording.

Did he mention what the lossy encoding were?

There is a very "big" difference between DD448 and DD+ 1,5 both are lossy.

I remember when the launch HD DVD players got a firmware update to enable TrueHD 5.1 and all the fangirls praised it as the second coming of Christ. I don't blame them, lossless was awesome then and it still is now.

Only a fangirl would argue to get less.

"Boo hoo, I can't hear a difference maybe. Boo hoo." :rolleyes:
(Ok ok, just trying to ruffle your feathers)
There is no reason to pursue mediocrity. We might as well be arguing that upconverted DVDs are good enough unless you own a 130". ;)

We all bought expensive next gen equipment, we deserve the best PQ and AQ that studios can provide.

I'll add another data point. I want high def music videos with lossless audio soundtracks from 24/96 (or higher) audio masters. Anyone want to suggest a DD+ track is going to be indiscernible from a 24/96 lossless track ?

Personally, I think it's completely unacceptable for anything to be sold without a full 4400p24 encode and an analog 10.2 soundtrack. Anything else isn't really HD.

:rolleyes:

Sure, I'd prefer lossless tracks on all releases, but whether they're not present due to technical specifications or because one studio is locked into only releasing lossless in a format that less than 1% of the population can actually use in their setup, I'm not going to freak out. DD+ sounds pretty damn good in most instance-just like 720p looks pretty damn good in most instances, particularly when compared to 480i and regular DD or DTS.

Anyone want to suggest a DD+ track is going to be indiscernible from a 24/96 lossless track ?

Depends on the bitrate. 3mbit DD+ should be capable of that no problem.

Amir has posted that he can quite easily tell the differnece between lossless and lossy. He said it took some time to do so. SO the differences are there to hear the artifacts but it takes some training or innate ability. So, the differences are there.

Even if I couldn't reliably pick out one over the other, all things being equal, I'd rather be listening to the artifact free recording.

Amir did correctly identify the tracks in that test... Filmmixer did not.

A serious question to the "good enough" crowd...

If there is no difference between DD Tru and DD +, than why is there a difference between DD + and standard DD??????

Well, according to some here, dvd audio and sacd should be dominating the music world.

i don't think you understand what people like myself who are engineers really mean by "good enough". i think you attribute that to settling for some lesser standard.

what i mean by "good enough" is that i can't really point out a flaw that makes any difference to me. and more broadly, i don't believe that just about anybody else can either. imo you are simply spec shopping and buying into marketing terminology ... like a woman that buys a "thigh master" because she believes all the bs about how it will make her ass smaller.

you like to categorize codecs based on marketing labels and specs.

as an engineer, i know how this stuff all works. lossless doesn't really exist as anything more then a product marketing term. all forms of digital representation involve loss.

even more important... what is any soundtrack supposed to sound like? there is no point of reference. what does a 25 ft. gorilla really sound like? how about a giant alien robot or a gang of mutants?

looking at classic films or silent films. what is that supposed to sound like? should they reproduce what is on the master or restore it? that is, what does transparency mean or accomplish in that case?

the minuscule differences between different types of encoding are also buried in variations in the playback environment. if there were no such variations then people would not have to shop for speakers that sound "good enough" for them. there is no such thing as a lossless listening environment.

the reason this debate never ends is because people want to believe the marketing bs since it makes sense to them. ... of course it makes sense to you. you are specifically being targeted for the marketing bs just like the woman who buys the thigh master.

for you av thigh master purchasers, you will spend any amount of money for some widget or gizmo if there is a good story from the marketing department.

i sit back and am just highly amused at the bs people believe here. some of you guys will buy anything. it totally explains the success of monster cable in selling $5 cables for $100. i think you will buy anything with a high price and a good story.

i don't give a rats rear end about what codec is used as long as it sounds and looks good. knowing what i know about these technologies, if i bought things based on specs, nothing would ever be good enough. there is always something wrong somewhere and i see the issues everywhere i look.

i care a lot about getting j6p involved because i am an ht enthusiast that wants a lot more content to feed my 120" screen.

people that are hdm enthusiasts make up a small part of the population. without j6p there isn't enough money on the table to fund the process of creating the hdm content.

a post that makes sense!!
im a singer and have done lots of recording and the bottom line is all i care about is does it sound good.
the recording artist is a product and in this case the product must sound as good as possible,so the product will sell.so the poster right its not about specs.specs are as he or she said is pr bs to sell there products.
i agree with everything this poster said ,what he says makes sense cause ive been there.
many people wont agree because your egos wont allow it.
besides what it costs for mixers they use,and speakers they use,you will never equal the sound they get with the stuff these studios have.
so be happy with what you got,because even if you spent a million dollers on sound...you still wounldnt be happy.

A serious question to the "good enough" crowd...

If there is no difference between DD Tru and DD +, than why is there a difference between DD + and standard DD??????

nice try. as is common in these discussions, a preface of "a serious question..." is followed by a reductio ad absurdum statement... :rolleyes:

that statement that certain lossy codecs are transparent does not imply in any way that ALL lossy codecs are transparent...

Where is the "My audio setup does not support lossless anyway, so screw it" option?

And no, I have no plans to update my surround since my PQ to AQ preference is about 80-20.

I prefer lossless and lossy options for the same reason I preferred DD and DTS. Because I want to be able to listen and choose which one sounds better. I don't like the idea that I'm given a great sounding track and it sounds very good, so good in fact that many argue that we don't need anything else without my being given the option to listen for myself and determine on my own that it is in fact the best that the audio will ever be.

I especially don't like the idea that web widgets and other assorted features that I will never use on the disc are the reason why I have to miss out on the chance to hear what that audio will sound like in lossless format versus the lossy format I was given.

I don't care that "experts" tell me that this lossy should sound no different from the lossless, especially when we get more experts that come along and tell us they don't care about the specs or the codecs as long as it "sounds good." I'm glad you think it sounds good, but I can't help wondering why you're arguing against the choice to have them both.

Because that's what this comes down to. I want lossless because it's here, it's available, and there's nothing holding it back except one format's disc space and a movie maker's insistence to include disc features that most people here don't want. Do you care for a widget that gives you GPS coordinates on where each scene takes place hypothetically?

I know I don't. I want to watch the movie and I want the best audio I can get. No one has said anything that refutes the fact that as good as lossy can get, it will never be better than lossless. So lossless is the top-end. All lossy can do is hope to match that.

So just cut to the chase. Give me lossless. Cut the fat off the HD DVD's extras if you can't fit it on otherwise.

So I want to know something . . .

How come we make such a big deal about Lossless Audio and we are not bickering and arguing or starting threads about 24P?

This is the comparible "HD Upgrade" for PQ as lossless is for AQ.

Why is that? Maybe because it takes many more dollars to get a display that will really deal with 24P, as it is supposed to?

I mean I can EASILY see Frame Judder and the only way to get rid of it is to have a 24P Display.

Come on . . . . this is HUGE!

What? Some problems with justification? Or maybe cost?

I prefer lossless and lossy options for the same reason I preferred DD and DTS. Because I want to be able to listen and choose which one sounds better. I don't like the idea that I'm given a great sounding track and it sounds very good, so good in fact that many argue that we don't need anything else without my being given the option to listen for myself and determine on my own that it is in fact the best that the audio will ever be.

I especially don't like the idea that web widgets and other assorted features that I will never use on the disc are the reason why I have to miss out on the chance to hear what that audio will sound like in lossless format versus the lossy format I was given.

I don't care that "experts" tell me that this lossy should sound no different from the lossless, especially when we get more experts that come along and tell us they don't care about the specs or the codecs as long as it "sounds good." I'm glad you think it sounds good, but I can't help wondering why you're arguing against the choice to have them both.

Because that's what this comes down to. I want lossless because it's here, it's available, and there's nothing holding it back except one format's disc space and a movie maker's insistence to include disc features that most people here don't want. Do you care for a widget that gives you GPS coordinates on where each scene takes place hypothetically?

I know I don't. I want to watch the movie and I want the best audio I can get. No one has said anything that refutes the fact that as good as lossy can get, it will never be better than lossless. So lossless is the top-end. All lossy can do is hope to match that.

So just cut to the chase. Give me lossless. Cut the fat off the HD DVD's extras if you can't fit it on otherwise.


Well said....

It looks like lossless is preferred 2:1....For a minute there I thought there was no hope for this forum.

My favorite excuses for wanting lossless:

1. ego
2. an expensive system

Hilarious...... So Amir picked the lossless tracks but Filmmixer did not. And Amir himslef says he can easily tell them apart......hmmmm:D

LOL, who would choose a lossy format over lossless. There are some stubborn people out there. Hmm, lossless audio or lossy audio, for the same price.....Hmmm....People amaze me.

So I want to know something . . .

How come we make such a big deal about Lossless Audio and we are not bickering and arguing or starting threads about 24P?

This is the comparible "HD Upgrade" for PQ as lossless is for AQ.

Why is that? Maybe because it takes many more dollars to get a display that will really deal with 24P, as it is supposed to?

I mean I can EASILY see Frame Judder and the only way to get rid of it is to have a 24P Display.

Come on . . . . this is HUGE!

What? Some problems with justification? Or maybe cost?

I think you'll find people are more willing to debate lossless vs. lossy over 24P because, quite frankly, there's a good chance the capacity limit of one of the HD formats kept lossless audio off a high profile release.

That's the only reason I can think of that explains Paramount putting a lossless track on Next but not on Transformers.

The poll only asks if you want lossless or not. Why would anyone refuse something that is better, at no cost even if they can't use it? Its like my cell phone provider asking me if I want an extra 500 min free per month and me saying no because my plan is only for 1000 minutes which I don't use all anyways.

Truly a lot of stubborn people here.

So I want to know something . . .

How come we make such a big deal about Lossless Audio and we are not bickering and arguing or starting threads about 24P?...
Judder is not a problem for my since all film based HD DVD 's and BD's are 24fps and my projector does 48Hz. So there is noting for me to debate.;)

Judder is not a problem for my since all film based HD DVD 's and BD's are 24fps and my projector does 48Hz. So there is noting for me to debate.;)

Great! 1 out of 40,000 . . . next!:rolleyes:

I think you'll find people are more willing to debate lossless vs. lossy over 24P because, quite frankly, there's a good chance the capacity limit of one of the HD formats kept lossless audio off a high profile release.

That's the only reason I can think of that explains Paramount putting a lossless track on Next but not on Transformers.

Oh . . I see . . .

What is important is really a masquarade for a pissing contest . . is that right?

This is a HD DVD versus BD pissing contest thread.

Dam. . . I thought it was going to be something else.:rolleyes:

Hobbyist . . . Lobbyist. . . I seem to remember hearing or seeing those words mentioned together . . . just can't remember where or when.:rolleyes:

I think you'll find people are more willing to debate lossless vs. lossy over 24P because, quite frankly, there's a good chance the capacity limit of one of the HD formats kept lossless audio off a high profile release.

That's the only reason I can think of that explains Paramount putting a lossless track on Next but not on Transformers.

Had one of these formats NOT had the capabilities of that feature, I can assure you, people would be defending it!

The poll only asks if you want lossless or not. Why would anyone refuse something that is better, at no cost even if they can't use it? Its like my cell phone provider asking me if I want an extra 500 min free per month and me saying no because my plan is only for 1000 minutes which I don't use all anyways.

Truly a lot of stubborn people here.

Because you're assuming that lossless is "better" vs. just different. For my part <heresy>I'd be surprised if lossless actually mattered to AQ, no matter the cost of the system used to listen to it</heresy>. There is a small chance it will sound different, but "better"? Not likely. Not when there are 100 other factors that will have a greater influence on the sound, such as the DAC, amp, speakers, or just room dynamics. Given that, why should I spend a minute worrying about this? oliverjg's reasoning makes a ton of sense here.

Well said....

It looks like lossless is preferred 2:1....For a minute there I thought there was no hope for this forum.

My favorite excuses for wanting lossless:

1. ego
2. an expensive system

Hilarious...... So Amir picked the lossless tracks but Filmmixer did not. And Amir himslef says he can easily tell them apart......hmmmm:D

And weren't you allowed to take the test but refused to do so? I don't remeber the exact post but it was either Amir or Filmixer who said you had the opportunity. Or did I get it wrong?

I chose not to until the design is better...Amir passed, Filmmixer didn't. What is the conclusion regarding those two? IS one an idiot who does not know his business or was the test flawed?

What a moronic poll... Oh! Look who started it! What a surprise.

Great! 1 out of 40,000 . . . next!:rolleyes:

Hey Mr. rolleyes you did ask.:eek::D

I'd prefer lossless audio tracks to be included on all discs but I'm not going to cry about it when they're not.

+1

If there is room left without hurting something else, go for it. Might come in handy a few years down the road. Of course, by then, we'll have a whole new format. :)

On the other hand, if it means I am going to have to spend double and then some on a player (198$ vs $499) then it provides zero value for me given I don't have the equipment to take advantage of it.

It would be like turning my nose up at a sports car that does 175mph for one over twice the cost that does 185mph. (I'm never going to go that fast anyways)

What a moronic poll... Oh! Look who started it! What a surprise.

Nice personal attack, now why don't you kick him right in the groin.

What a moronic poll... Oh! Look who started it! What a surprise.

Simple question as to whether folks prefer lossless or not.... It's a tough question, but c'mon, put on that thinking cap. But don't try thinking too hard, you may soil your pants (again).:D

Is your life so bad that if one asks a question here you have to resort to a personal attack? Sorta feel sorry for you.

I chose not to until the design is better...Amir passed, Filmmixer didn't. What is the conclusion regarding those two? IS one an idiot who does not know his business or was the test flawed?
What difference dose it make if Jeff, Filmmixer, Amir, and JC himself could or couldn't hear the deference. This is about what can be delivered without cost and what I want. Why oppose it if you don't have to pay any price?

How about having option 3.

Yes, I would like lossless knowing that I'm sacrificing the video bit rate to achieve this.

Daniel.

Nice personal attack, now why don't you kick him right in the groin.

It's not a personal attack, William. I criticized the poll--and then I feigned surprise that The Bland started it.

Option for wouldn't mind lossless but won't turn my nose up at a nice DD+ track; would have been nice as well :) Poll's narrow scope speaks volumes.

+1

Only on a 30 gb disc will you have to sacrifice any video rate.

Lossy can be as good as lossless, but a never better. Lossless can be better than lossy but no worse than its equal. This is a hard fact.

Simple question as to whether folks prefer lossless or not.... It's a tough question, but c'mon, put on that thinking cap. But don't try thinking too hard, you may soil your pants (again).:D

Is your life so bad that if one asks a question here you have to resort to a personal attack? Sorta feel sorry for you.

No thanks Jeff. You can keep your sympathy and your empathy.

Simple question as to whether folks prefer lossless or not.... It's a tough question, but c'mon, put on that thinking cap. But don't try thinking too hard, you may soil your pants (again).:D

Is your life so bad that if one asks a question here you have to resort to a personal attack? Sorta feel sorry for you.

See? Now that's a personal attack.

The way you phrased the poll is the problem. You begin with a statement rather than a question. You say, lossless is "better". In what way? Does it always sound better? What if people can't tell the difference. Does it take up less space? No. So how is it better? You could have said, "Do you care that a title isn't lossless if you can't hear the difference?"

What difference dose it make if Jeff, Filmmixer, Amir, and JC himself could or couldn't hear the deference. This is about what can be delivered without cost and what I want. Why oppose it if you don't have to pay any price?

The way the poll is worded suggests a strong preference. Indifference is different than opposition. Mild preference is different from "lossless, period".

I certainly don't oppose it, but "don't turn up my nose at a nice DD+ track either" (thanks b.greenway). The brouhaha about Transformers having lossless was something I couldn't get the tiniest bit excited about.

Only on a 30 gb disc will you have to sacrifice any video rate...

I believe that bandwidth is more important than over all storage. Of course it could be said that BD with LPCM and HD DVD with no audio will still have to sacrifice video rate. However with a lossless TrueHD you can still get well over 20Mbps video on HD DVD which is a very respectable number with ACV or VC-1 encoding.

Oh . . I see . . .

What is important is really a masquarade for a pissing contest . . is that right?

This is a HD DVD versus BD pissing contest thread.

Dam. . . I thought it was going to be something else.:rolleyes:

Hobbyist . . . Lobbyist. . . I seem to remember hearing or seeing those words mentioned together . . . just can't remember where or when.:rolleyes:

I was just offering a likely explanation for all the interest in lossy vs. lossless.

Don't most of these threads these days boil down to format choice anyway?

No need to climb up on a cross about it.

BTW, do you have an opinion on why Paramount would use lossless on Next but not Transformers?

I chose not to until the design is better...Amir passed, Filmmixer didn't. What is the conclusion regarding those two? IS one an idiot who does not know his business or was the test flawed?

You really like taking stuff out of context. Amir said he trained for 6 months before he could pick out the artifacts. That's a lot of training. And not knowing the specfics of the test I can't comment on why this came to pass. What I do think is you refused to take the test because you are afraid of having your belief in being able to discern lossless vs lossy challenged. If you had taken the test and passed I'd have a lot more respect for your opinion. Heck, even if you had failed I still have more respect. At least it would demonstrated that you have a somewhat open mind and you would then be in a position to challenge the validity of the test.

I was just offering a likely explanation for all the interest in lossy vs. lossless.

Don't most of these threads these days boil down to format choice anyway?

No need to climb up on a cross about it.

BTW, do you have an opinion on why Paramount would use lossless on Next but not Transformers?

No - as a matter of fact I do not have an opinion about that. Has there been an official PR from Paramount about why it was left off? If so I would appreciate a link to see what the company said.

PS: The view is great up here. I can see over all the FUD and BS . . . I see the light of day.:p

Lossless IS better as it lacks the artifacts of a lossy soundtrack.

It is most perfect to matching the master.

The poll is worded as simply as I could do it. This sounds like the whole, "it depends on how you define is" argument....

1. Do you want lossless or is Lossy good enough...... Wht do you not understand?

It seems that there is greater than a 2:1 preference for lossless. Frankly, I am surprised it is not a greater ratio.

The only reason I could see anyone here NOT wanting lossless or preferring Lossy over Lossless is if they are a HD DVD fanatic and they understand that big hits like Transformers, with all the disc extras, cannot have a lossless track. Which is frankly an idiotic reason to wish for lossy. If this 51 gb disc ever comes to be, I would hope more lossless tracks will appear on HD DVD. These same folks here that are telling us how great lossy is were the asme folks that gushed in a 1000 post thread on how awesome lossless was compared to DD+ when Toshiba enabled TRUE HD. Now they sing a different tune because HD DVD is barely even using lossless. Complete hypocrasy. THey have a 10% lossless rate now which is 1/4 of BD and is frankly pathetic. THey are hampered by disc size plain and simple and many HD DVD fanatics here have decided to root for lossy or give it lossless status so as to not miss a beat in mindlessly supporting their format of choice.

You really like taking stuff out of context. Amir said he trained for 6 months before he could pick out the artifacts. That's a lot of training. And not knowing the specfics of the test I can't comment on why this came to pass. What I do think is you refused to take the test because you are afraid of having your belief in being able to discern lossless vs lossy challenged. If you had taken the test and passed I'd have a lot more respect for your opinion. Heck, even if you had failed I still have more respect. At least it would demonstrated that you have a somewhat open mind and you would then be in a position to challenge the validity of the test.

If Filmixer can't pass it (when he has said he can hear differences) what does that tell you about the design. Those two should've been two ideal positive control subjects, except one, who listens and works with lossless and lossy for a living, didn't pass. I say it is because of the design rather than Filmmixers 'lack' of abilities to discern such. I am sure he can.

But the bottom line is, why not want lossless if it is here and costs nothing extra to have. Why not want the master audio recording in your own theater? Is it because HD DVD can't deliver it on all discs due to limited space / bandwidth?

This poll makes no sense.

Given the question "Are lossless tracks better than lossy?" I would think the answers would be "yes" or "no" or "no opinion" The given answers make no sense to the question asked.

Did you mean to ask "Do you want lossless?" If that is the case, then both answers are loaded, which I guess is to be expected from OP. Way to not be biased.

Anyways, I would vote for "I will take lossless if it's available, but it's not a dealbreaker if it's missing"

Lossless IS better as it lacks the artifacts of a lossy soundtrack.

It is most perfect to matching the master.

The poll is worded as simply as I could do it. This sounds like the whole, "it depends on how you define is" argument....

1. Do you want lossless or is Lossy good enough...... Wht do you not understand?

It seems that there is greater than a 2:1 preference for lossless. Frankly, I am surprised it is not a greater ratio.

The only reason I could see anyone here NOT wanting lossless or preferring Lossy over Lossless is if they are a HD DVD fanatic and they understand that big hits like Transformers, with all the disc extras, cannot have a lossless track. Which is frankly an idiotic reason to wish for lossy. If this 51 gb disc ever comes to be, I would hope more lossless tracks will appear on HD DVD. These same folks here that are telling us how great lossy is were the asme folks that gushed in a 1000 post thread on how awesome lossless was compared to DD+ when Toshiba enabled TRUE HD. Now they sing a different tune because HD DVD is barely even using lossless. Complete hypocrasy. THey have a 10% lossless rate now which is 1/4 of BD and is frankly pathetic. THey are hampered by disc size plain and simple and many HD DVD fanatics here have decided to root for lossy or give it lossless status so as to not miss a beat in mindlessly supporting their format of choice.


Jeff - until you reached the big paragraph - you had my attention . . .

Then it turned into ANOTHER HD DVD bashing post. Maybe you could edit your post and remove the big paragraph;)

Lossless IS better as it lacks the artifacts of a lossy soundtrack.

It is most perfect to matching the master.

The poll is worded as simply as I could do it. This sounds like the whole, "it depends on how you define is" argument....

1. Do you want lossless or is Lossy good enough...... Wht do you not understand?

It seems that there is greater than a 2:1 preference for lossless. Frankly, I am surprised it is not a greater ratio.

The only reason I could see anyone here NOT wanting lossless or preferring Lossy over Lossless is if they are a HD DVD fanatic and they understand that big hits like Transformers, with all the disc extras, cannot have a lossless track. Which is frankly an idiotic reason to wish for lossy. If this 51 gb disc ever comes to be, I would hope more lossless tracks will appear on HD DVD. These same folks here that are telling us how great lossy is were the asme folks that gushed in a 1000 post thread on how awesome lossless was compared to DD+ when Toshiba enabled TRUE HD. Now they sing a different tune because HD DVD is barely even using lossless. Complete hypocrasy. THey have a 10% lossless rate now which is 1/4 of BD and is frankly pathetic. THey are hampered by disc size plain and simple and many HD DVD fanatics here have decided to root for lossy or give it lossless status so as to not miss a beat in mindlessly supporting their format of choice.

Of course you don't understand. You've already decided that it matters--so why would you understand that others don't think it does? You're spending tens of thousands of dollars under the unshakable belief that it really and truly matters. Nobody wants to be told they're throwing their money away--no matter how much of it they have accumulated. Ultimately, most people can't tell the difference--so we don't care. It just doesn't matter. What does matter more to a lot of people are extras--and Transformers has some amazing extras. Trust me--that's a difference anyone can see and hear.

This poll makes no sense.

Given the question "Are lossless tracks better than lossy?" I would think the answers would be "yes" or "no" or "no opinion" The given answers make no sense to the question asked.

Did you mean to ask "Do you want lossless?" If that is the case, then both answers are loaded, which I guess is to be expected from OP. Way to not be biased.

Anyways, I would vote for "I will take lossless if it's available, but it's not a dealbreaker if it's missing"

Thats how Jeff rolls, if you call him on something he flashes the big cheesy grin and shrugs his shoulders, if it goes unchallenged he points toward it as a shining example of his omnipotence.

The only reason I could see anyone here NOT wanting lossless or preferring Lossy over Lossless is if they are a HD DVD fanatic and they understand that big hits like Transformers, with all the disc extras, cannot have a lossless track.

Except that's clearly not true, given that TrueHD 16/48 takes less space than DD+ 1.5mbit.

But the bottom line is, why not want lossless if it is here and costs nothing extra to have. Why not want the master audio recording in your own theater? Is it because HD DVD can't deliver it on all discs due to limited space / bandwidth?

That really is the crux of the whole thing. It does cost something for lossless on HD DVD. Sometimes, like with Transformers, the cost is too high. So why pay the price when we have a perfectly good alternative? Or perhaps HD DVD just needs to die. You decide. For me, I like the fact that my A1 is still in my rack and is still able to deliver all of the features of HD DVD that I can use and play all of the new releases.

I don't have an HDMI reciever, using analog outs. Can only get 1080i over HDMI. No 24fps for me. And when I bought it, cheapest HDM player on the market.

Except that's clearly not true, given that TrueHD 16/48 takes less space than DD+ 1.5mbit.

Quick correction. Transformers was release with a 24/48 soundtrack. And a 16/48 DD+ track would be encoded a 640kbps. 1.5 is reserved for 24/48.

the second option would have read: "So long as DD+ sounds as good as Lossless, I won't care."

Oh. That's how I voted. Isn't that what it meant?

Goodness! The next poll will ask: "When did you stop beating your wife?"

I chose not to until the design is better...Amir passed, Filmmixer didn't. What is the conclusion regarding those two? IS one an idiot who does not know his business or was the test flawed?

It would only be idiotic, if you really believed those are the only two valid conclusions which can be drawn from the results. I thought you knew better than that.

Don't most of these threads these days boil down to format choice anyway?


Not necessarily. I am HD-DVD exclusive, and dislike Sony with a passion. But yet I voted lossless.

...If this 51 gb disc ever comes to be, I would hope more lossless tracks will appear on HD DVD...

Again I say bandwidth is the issue to be addressed. Having a bigger bucket only holds a longer film but the pipe still stays the same size.;)

...and in the spirit of this thread I was going to watch The Bourne Supremacy but have decided to go with watching Immortal Beloved (hurry up Warner with Amadeus with a newly remastered lossless track) for the lossless (and B&W) effect.:D

LOL can we move this to the BD software thread as this is where this dumb poll belongs...

Quick correction. Transformers was release with a 24/48 soundtrack. And a 16/48 DD+ track would be encoded a 640kbps. 1.5 is reserved for 24/48.

Fair point. Still, had they wished, they could have downsampled to 16bit TrueHD. Anybody remember that conference experiment that showed 24>16 bit downsampled couldn't be discerned from 24bit original?

A serious question to the "good enough" crowd...

If there is no difference between DD Tru and DD +, than why is there a difference between DD + and standard DD??????

a scientist and an engineer are in a room with a beautiful girl (or handsome guy for the ladies) at the opposite wall.

a moderator asks the question...

"if you travel towards that girl in steps and with each move you cut the remaining distance in half will you reach her?"

the scientist says...

"no. i will never reach her. no matter how many times i cut the remaining distance in half, there is still a fraction of the distance left."

the engineer says...

"i will get close enough." :D

It would only be idiotic, if you really believed those are the only two valid conclusions which can be drawn from the results. I thought you knew better than that.

LOL.

Hey Bland,

Since you didn't like the test how about trying out a real world title. I have the movie Harsh Times on HD DVD. It sports a TrueHD and DD+ track both at 24/48. Spend a few bucks and then do an A/B test. Make sure you let the player do the decoding, no cheating by using off player decoders. You may not use headphones.

I'd really like to know if you hear a difference, what the difference is, and where it's at. I've tried, and I can't find a difference.

a scientist and an engineer are in a room with a beautiful girl (or guy for the ladies) at the opposite wall.

a moderator asks the question...

"if you travel towards that girl in steps and with each move you cut the remaining distance in half will you reach her?"

the scientist says...

"no. i will never reach her. no matter how many times i cut the remaining distance in half, there is still a fraction of the distance left."

the engineer says...

"i will get close enough." :D

ROFLMAO
I'm saving this post. Love it.

LOL.

Hey Bland,

Since you didn't like the test how about trying out a real world title. I have the movie Harsh Times on HD DVD. It sports a TrueHD and DD+ track both at 24/48. Spend a few bucks and then do an A/B test. Make sure you let the player do the decoding, no cheating by using off player decoders. You may not use headphones.

I'd really like to know if you hear a difference, what the difference is, and where it's at. I've tried, and I can't find a difference.

Oh, I guarantee Bland would be able to tell a difference.

Oh wait, I mean, I guarantee he'd come here and swear up and down that he can hear a difference and the lossless is 100000% better than the other one.

Need to have a witness and perform in a blind test to see if he can tell the difference.

Since you didn't like the test how about trying out a real world title. I have the movie Harsh Times on HD DVD. It sports a TrueHD and DD+ track both at 24/48. .... I'd really like to know if you hear a difference, what the difference is, and where it's at. I've tried, and I can't find a difference.
As an engineer, I tend toward the "good enough" camp.
The only test that seems sensible to me is listening to the SAME content encoded in different ways.
A list of all titles which offer this option would be great!

Maybe the "lossless" proponents could commission a comparison disc....

No - as a matter of fact I do not have an opinion about that. Has there been an official PR from Paramount about why it was left off? If so I would appreciate a link to see what the company said.

PS: The view is great up here. I can see over all the FUD and BS . . . I see the light of day.:p

Are you saying you need Paramount's input before you have an opinion?

You're going to deflect a question by asking for a link you know doesn't exist?

What are they going to say? That there were sonic elements in Next that required higher fidelity than Transformers? That's ridiculous.

Are you waiting for Paramount to put out a press release stating "we couldn't fit lossless on our format of choice due to the extras?"

What else would explain the omission of TrueHD from Transformers, while releases like the Jack Ryan discs all have them? Hunt For Red October is a 20 year old film. It needed lossless more than Transformers? That's silly.

As an engineer, I tend toward the "good enough" camp.
The only test that seems sensible to me is listening to the SAME content encoded in different ways.
A list of all titles which offer this option would be great!

Maybe the "lossless" proponents could commission a comparison disc....

Yeah, I am electrical engineer. That's perhaps why I'm in the good enough camp. There are tradeoffs that have to made in any design. The real question is, when making the tradeoffs for DD+ was this done right. I believe it was.

There aren't many titles in HD DVD that offer TrueHD and DD+ at 24/48. There are more titles at 16/48 (Happy Feet is one I've tested and again found no difference). There is a sticky in the HD DVD software forum where the specs for HD DVD titles are listed.

That said, I still chose the TrueHD track when available over DD+. I guess I'm just a whore to all the lossless marketing hype. :)

BTW: If I remember right, I believe Richard Casey at R&B films did say that he is working on a title that will have comparisons atd different video encode rates and audio rates and explantions as to what to look for and listen to.

Spec whores are the "ricers of the HDM arena".

Slap a "lossless" sticker on the disc and listen to the magical improvement !!

quoted for coining the term "spec whores," and referencing "ricers" in one sentence

:beer; to you, sir.

not only that, but I do agree with you.

Simple question as to whether folks prefer lossless or not.... It's a tough question, but c'mon, put on that thinking cap. But don't try thinking too hard, you may soil your pants (again).:D

Is your life so bad that if one asks a question here you have to resort to a personal attack? Sorta feel sorry for you.


You have to admit it's not much of a "poll", more like a spoiled rich kid stomping his feet.

What would you rather have:

1. A nice juicy T-Bone Steak

2. Dog Food

That's how it reads to me, maybe I'm just a cynic:)

You have to admit it's not much of a "poll", more like a spoiled rich kid stomping his feet.

What would you rather have:

1. A nice juicy T-Bone Steak

2. Dog Food

That's how it reads to me, maybe I'm just a cynic:)


You read correctly..... Boy, I wish I was a rich, spoiled kid:D!!

Oh well....beat me up all you want but it appears the vast majority of pollsters agree with me 2:1!!!

Considering that 9 out of 10 lossless tracks sound noticeably better than lossy tracks, it is safe to say that lossless is better. And since it is better, it should be the goal. A great engineer can make lossy sound just as good, but if this is the exception rather than the rule, go with the fool-proof guaranteed option.

As an engineer, I tend toward the "good enough" camp.
....

Yeah, I am electrical engineer. That's perhaps why I'm in the good enough camp....

engineers live in a world where "good enough" is the only thing you can achieve.

if engineers were not able to achieve the balance of conflicting design goals with "good enough" then no product would ever ship.

i don't think non-engineers really understand the concept. the bd fans and lossless fans act as if we are somehow settling for inferior quality.

that is not the case. we are looking at the entire audio video system as a whole and making a judgment call that there is no real benefit to increasing accuracy/precision in one area in disproportion to the capabilities of the rest of the system. that i what we do every day on the job.

the objective is to achieve the highest overall quality by focusing on the areas where there is the highest probability of quality issues. i would bet that most of the engineers here spend a lot of money on the display and speakers and don't worry so much on the source.

You read correctly..... Boy, I wish I was a rich, spoiled kid:D!!

Oh well....beat me up all you want but it appears the vast majority of pollsters agree with me 2:1!!!

And the "news" includes prurient details of a recently divorced, unfortunately immature pop singer on a daily basis........So much for strength in numbers. :confused:

Interesting read.

Originally Posted by amirm
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 .

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.

You read correctly..... Boy, I wish I was a rich, spoiled kid:D!!

Oh well....beat me up all you want but it appears the vast majority of pollsters agree with me 2:1!!!

I wouldn't make too much of it. I think a lot of people aren't voting because they feel your poll is useless and biased. I certainly didn't bother.

Interesting indeed....Amir found the differences between lossy and lossless easy to discern... So I see many of us looking forward to artifact free soundtracks...

I wouldn't make too much of it. I think a lot of people aren't voting because they feel your poll is useless and biased. I certainly didn't bother.

Well...it is a thought provoking question...

I wouldn't make too much of it. I think a lot of people aren't voting because they feel your poll is useless and biased. I certainly didn't bother.

+1

Considering that 9 out of 10 lossless tracks sound noticeably better than lossy tracks, it is safe to say that lossless is better. And since it is better, it should be the goal. A great engineer can make lossy sound just as good, but if this is the exception rather than the rule, go with the fool-proof guaranteed option.

Fact.

bunkaroo,

Regardless of how transparent the Transformers DD+ track is to the master (and I'm not disputing that it is), one has to logically assume that if space permitted, Paramount would have used TrueHD, since they used it for a movie that had less extras and a shorter runtime.

then you need to explain why a substantial percentage of BD titles dont have a lossless track. Is it because there isnt enough space?

30xs,

Considering that 9 out of 10 lossless tracks sound noticeably better than lossy tracks

show me a study showing that people can pick a lossless track over a 1.5 mb track under double blind conditions. The fact is, the reviewers knew they were listening to a lossless track and their biases could have easily influenced their decision.

4X more lossless BD tracks than HD DVD. almost 50% of their media compared to 10% of HD DVD. THey are far ahead of the curve in terms of providing the highest quality.

The poll only asks if you want lossless or not. Why would anyone refuse something that is better, at no cost even if they can't use it? Its like my cell phone provider asking me if I want an extra 500 min free per month and me saying no because my plan is only for 1000 minutes which I don't use all anyways.

Truly a lot of stubborn people here.The question is asked that way to get the result thebland wants. Not to address the real issue that 99% here couldnt tell the difference if the studios gave you DD+ but called it TrueHD. We would have droves of members raving about how good it sounded and how perfect the movie is.

Worthless poll!

It starts off with the assumption lossless is necessarily the better choice, but for what reason?

Because it always sounds better, or because it's lossless?

My position is that I would prefer lossless anytime it would audibly improve my viewing experience. Why doesn't the poll include that 100% rational veiwpoint? I presume because rationality is not what is being looked for, only the irrationality of the targeted response to the irrationality of the original question!

The answer is obvious -- lossless is better because it's lossless! Way to go Bland -- the drivel never quits!

Interesting indeed....Amir found the differences between lossy and lossless easy to discern... So I see many of us looking forward to artifact free soundtracks...

Spin it anyway you want. It doesn't negate Amir's last sentence. And I quote:
<<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>>.

And if you think lossless is artifact free, try again. It isn't. And what sampling rate is optimal for you? 48khz, 96khz, higher? Each of these sampling rates have their own digital artifacts. Bit depth? 16, 20, 24, 48? What would you choose for lossless sampling rate and bit depth?

And finally, buy the movie Harsh Times and let's compare. I'd really like to know what I am missing. Till then, bye.

... we are looking at the entire audio video system as a whole and making a judgment call that there is no real benefit to increasing quality in one area in disproportion to the capabilities of the rest of the system. that i[s] what we do every day on the job. ..the objective is to achieve the highest overall quality by focusing on the areas where there is the highest probability of quality issues.

i would bet that most of the engineers here spend a lot of money on the display and speakers and don't worry so much on the source.

I think that optimizing the overall system is (or should be) the goal of the design.

I think (as an engineer) that "diminishing returns" are found rather quickly on displays these days, and I've made purchase decisions accordingly. (I'm a lapsed audiophile.)

I think that content is, by far, the MOST important thing. When choosing films for my Netflix queue, naturally I'll get the HD DVD version if available. Though it might be hard to believe, I can still enjoy a regular DVD if it's a Blu-ray exclusive. [I don't have a BD player (yet).] The story, direction, acting, cinematography and (overall) soundtrack are MUCH more important to my enjoyment of a movie that a subtle difference between a high bit rate lossy encode and a lossless track.

I think that optimizing the overall system is (or should be) the goal of the design.

I think (as an engineer) that "diminishing returns" are found rather quickly on displays these days, and I've made purchase decisions accordingly. (I'm a lapsed audiophile.)

I think that content is, by far, the MOST important thing. When choosing films for my Netflix queue, naturally I'll get the HD DVD version if available. Though it might be hard to believe, I can still enjoy a regular DVD if it's a Blu-ray exclusive. [I don't have a BD player (yet).] The story, direction, acting, cinematography and (overall) soundtrack are MUCH more important to my enjoyment of a movie that a subtle difference between a high bit rate lossy encode and a lossless track.

agreed. mostly.

for front projectors there is a lot going on.

i was once much more into audio. i have settled on 3 belle klipsch for my front speakers and a pair of heresy II for the surrounds.

i also think content (just as you have defined it) is by far the most important thing. some imperceptible variation in audio has zero effect on my enjoyment of a good movie.

... for front projectors there is a lot going on.

i was once much more into audio. i have settled on 3 belle klipsch for my front speakers and a pair of heresy II for the surrounds.

I saw a movie last weekend at a month-old theater using the Sony 4K SXRD projectors.
I am not at all unhappy when watching an HD DVD title on my lowly Mitsubishi HD1000.

I used to have Quad ESL-57s, but I sold them to my buddy so he can have a quad-Quad setup. Now I'm just using a nice pair of PSB bookshelf speakers. But I go the Chicago Symphony at least 30 times a year and the Lyric Opera at least 8 times a year. No need for perfection at home...

...take your black and white polls and shove em :)

that's what she said...

I used to have Quad ESL-57s, but I sold them to my buddy so he can have a quad-Quad setup.

*whistles, in appreciation*

So he needs just 1.1 more speakers to enjoy full DD 5.1 sound? :eek:

I have a pair of Accustats -- the upright 2x4s, 18" wide by 6' tall -- imagine if I could get a couple of these puppies for the rear channels ....

i don't think you understand what people like myself who are engineers really mean by "good enough". i think you attribute that to settling for some lesser standard.

what i mean by "good enough" is that i can't really point out a flaw that makes any difference to me. and more broadly, i don't believe that just about anybody else can either. imo you are simply spec shopping and buying into marketing terminology ... like a woman that buys a "thigh master" because she believes all the bs about how it will make her ass smaller.

you like to categorize codecs based on marketing labels and specs.

as an engineer, i know how this stuff all works. lossless doesn't really exist as anything more then a product marketing term. all forms of digital representation involve loss.

even more important... what is any soundtrack supposed to sound like? there is no point of reference. what does a 25 ft. gorilla really sound like? how about a giant alien robot or a gang of mutants?

looking at classic films or silent films. what is that supposed to sound like? should they reproduce what is on the master or restore it? that is, what does transparency mean or accomplish in that case?

the minuscule differences between different types of encoding are also buried in variations in the playback environment. if there were no such variations then people would not have to shop for speakers that sound "good enough" for them. there is no such thing as a lossless listening environment.

the reason this debate never ends is because people want to believe the marketing bs since it makes sense to them. ... of course it makes sense to you. you are specifically being targeted for the marketing bs just like the woman who buys the thigh master.

for you av thigh master purchasers, you will spend any amount of money for some widget or gizmo if there is a good story from the marketing department.

i sit back and am just highly amused at the bs people believe here. some of you guys will buy anything. it totally explains the success of monster cable in selling $5 cables for $100. i think you will buy anything with a high price and a good story.

i don't give a rats rear end about what codec is used as long as it sounds and looks good. knowing what i know about these technologies, if i bought things based on specs, nothing would ever be good enough. there is always something wrong somewhere and i see the issues everywhere i look.

i care a lot about getting j6p involved because i am an ht enthusiast that wants a lot more content to feed my 120" screen.

people that are hdm enthusiasts make up a small part of the population. without j6p there isn't enough money on the table to fund the process of creating the hdm content.

+3,000,000

The question is asked that way to get the result thebland wants. Not to address the real issue that 99% here couldnt tell the difference if the studios gave you DD+ but called it TrueHD...
Speaking of getting the result that you want: How did you arrive at this number (99%)? I guess when one doesnt exist just make one up that sounds and fits best to your point of view.

Interesting read.

Originally Posted by amirm
...We have put countless audiophiles through testing at Microsoft and nearly all of them flunk double blind tests...

The key here is some COULD tell the deference so why discriminate for NO good reason, other than it feels good to deny someone who can because you can't?

I really wish this poll allowed a any other choice besides one or the other which corners you into saying DD + is always inferior to lossless.

You might as wall had this poll with one option only


Thats the reason I am not voting.

I really wish this poll allowed a any other choice besides one or the other which corners you into saying DD + is always inferior to lossless.

You might as wall had this poll with one option only


Thats the reason I am not voting.
But the simple fact (not opinion or belief) is that Lossy is always inferior to lossless, at least technically. Just examine the data and you will see that it is a fact that lossy is missing a significant amount of info and detail. Can you hear it may be subjective and unclear (pun intended to those MP3 generation that can't) but you can't argue with statistical facts.

The question is asked that way to get the result thebland wants. Not to address the real issue that 99% here couldnt tell the difference if the studios gave you DD+ but called it TrueHD. We would have droves of members raving about how good it sounded and how perfect the movie is.

Its as straightforward as can be. Yes or no. You want it or you don't. You don't have to be able to use a feature in order to want it.

The vast majority of TVs out there are 720p right? So should we not have 1080p encodes since the vast majority of people will not be able to see the difference between 720p and 1080p?

And how do you know for a fact that 99% here cannot tell the difference?

I am still surprised that at an enthusiasts site, and all things being equal, 1/3 still would prefer lossy.

Is supporting your format so important that you'd sacrifice a master audio recording? And this hanging on to the fact that a few mixers say it is indistinguishable to the average audiophile (but not to them) reminds me of the old adage, "if one ******* jumped off a bridge, would you follow"??

Lotta folks jumping off the bridge here for no good reason...

The people who voted to pick the lossy track would probably pick a single core CPU over a quadcore even if they were the same price because they both run word at the same speed.

But the simple fact (not opinion or belief) is that Lossy is always inferior to lossless, at least technically. Just examine the data and you will see that it is a fact that lossy is missing a significant amount of info and detail. Can you hear it may be subjective and unclear (pun intended to those MP3 generation that can't) but you can't argue with statistical facts.

Jus so I understand you correctly...are you using the MP3 to CD comparision as an analogy to the DD+ to lossless comparision?

If so i just have t dissagree. Fact of the matter is DD+ can sound as good as lossless. On paper DD+ will never look as good as Lossless, but I have learned over the last year that whats on paper does not garuantee a detectable difference.

I know people post like they can tell the difference between DD+ and lossless blind folded 10 out of 10 times (thebland? :) ), and now you even give an analog of MP3 to CDs. Fact of the matter thats as pure as BS comes.

Considering that 9 out of 10 lossless tracks sound noticeably better than lossy tracks, it is safe to say that lossless is better. And since it is better, it should be the goal. A great engineer can make lossy sound just as good, but if this is the exception rather than the rule, go with the fool-proof guaranteed option.

And you know this because something on a box told you?:rolleyes:

This poll should be on the HD-DVD Software forum, not on the general forum, because it is only relevant for HD-DVD people:

On Blu-Ray lossless is free. So please add the lossless audio. Do not degrade the signal for no reason!

On HD DVD, it is a case of diminishing returns. You may in rare instances have to weigh TrueHD vs Extras. If 99% people wont notice the lossy audio, but 50% will notice the missing Extras, it makes sense to go with the extras and drop TrueHD.

Also, this idea of my poll question being loaded speaks to the agenda of many boycotting an answer. It's obviously a conspiracy :rolleyes:.. It is simple yes or no to lossless and whether you feel DD+ is good enough.. What is so hard about that? THe fact that many are bothered by my wording of the question speaks volumes to the fact that they cannot manipulate their own answer.

I wouldn't make too much of it. I think a lot of people aren't voting because they feel your poll is useless and biased. I certainly didn't bother.

That and there is only one answer no matter how you vote...no reason to vote just another trolling thread....so stupid it is funny....
:)

Lossless IS better as it lacks the artifacts of a lossy soundtrack.

but the question that matters is: "Does it always sound better?"

This sounds like the whole, "it depends on how you define is" argument....

can you please stop using this joke? or at least use it less often?

These same folks here that are telling us how great lossy is were the same folks that gushed in a 1000 post thread on how awesome lossless was compared to DD+ when Toshiba enabled True HD. Now they sing a different tune because HD DVD is barely even using lossless. Complete hypocrisy.

who are you speaking about specifically? can you link to that thread you mentioned?

Most are not even voting here because of what the bland is trying to do.Enjoy the movies

There is a placebo effect when comparing lossless vs lossy. Even if both tracks are the same, the placebo effect will make lossless better.

And if this effect makes us enjoy the movie more, who are we to say it's wrong? We can only see reality through our perceptions.

Go to the original HD A1 / ZA1 threads on the day TRUE HD was enabled... THe posts weren't, "...ahh TRUE HD....it's barely better than DD+".... They were more like, "audio nirvana"...!

But now that the big titles and limitations of the format do not allow for such, many HD DVD supporters are singing a different tune. Only 10% of HD DVD is lossless.... THey need that 51 gb disc and fast!

Where is the poll option "I'd love to have lossless but I'm also happy with a kick ass DD+ soundtrack"?

There is a placebo effect when comparing lossless vs lossy. Even if both tracks are the same, the placebo effect will make lossless better.

And if this effect is changing our perception on a movie, who am we to say it's wrong? We can only see reality through our perceptions.

Quoting the placebo effect is convenient when you would prefer to invest in an average or less than average set up to make your self feel better. Many here who invest thier time and efforts into their room, equipment choices, EQ, and other HT related areas will beg to differ. Look at the DEDICATED T HEATER are at AVS. You'll see hundreds investing serious time and efforts into getting the ideal acoustical environment for their theater. It is an important part of the hobby that few seem to get. It is easy (and lame) to sit back and call it crap when you simply have a plasma on the wall, receiver and 5.1 speakers and no other 'science' into your set up.

Where is the poll option "I'd love to have lossless but I'm also happy with a kick ass DD+ soundtrack"?

It is not there as the studios can easily give you both (unless, eg Transformers, they run out of space/bandwidth).

I am simply asking all things being equal, which would you rather have: lossless or DD+.

It is not there as the studios can easily give you both (unless, eg Transformers, they run out of space/bandwidth).

I am simply asking all things being equal, which would you rather have: lossless or DD+.
Is it 16-bit lossless vs 24-bit DD+? Personally, I believe that giving both is redundant. I think I would prefer 24-bit DD+ over 16-bit lossless (not that I'd hear any difference anyway) but at the end of the day they're all going to sound great. I'd love to have lossless but DD+ often sounds incredible as well. I've heard lackluster lossless tracks on some titles and mind-blowing DD+ tracks on others, and vice versa. Bottom line, I want what will knock my socks off and the audio on Transformers knocked my socks off.

Also, this idea of my poll question being loaded speaks to the agenda of many boycotting an answer. It's obviously a conspiracy :rolleyes:.. It is simple yes or no to lossless and whether you feel DD+ is good enough.. What is so hard about that? THe fact that many are bothered by my wording of the question speaks volumes to the fact that they cannot manipulate their own answer.

I wish you would eat the stuff you are shoveling.

Again this is another dd+ hating thread designed to up your post count. I am ok with the question but what about yes or no and let us offer our own explanation?

Your question is loaded and it speaks to YOUR agenda not ours.:rolleyes:

It is simple yes or no to lossless and whether you feel DD+ is good enough..
Is lossy video good enough?

A serious question to the "good enough" crowd...

If there is no difference between DD Tru and DD +, than why is there a difference between DD + and standard DD??????

Because of the final bandwidth. Think of them as MP3s. Standard DD is like a 96 kbps or 128 kpbs file. Almost eveyone can here it. DD at 1.5 mbps is better than a 256 kpbs mp3 and 3 mbps is well over 500 kbps. By the time music mp3s get to 256 they are damn near indistinguishable from a CD track and at 320 you can forget it. It's easy to demonstrate. Rip a track from a CD as a wav file. Then rip it as 256 and 320 kbps files. Take those file and burn them to an audio CD (turning them into wav files again). Then put the player on shuffle.
A lot of this comes from a serious lack of understanding as to how this stuff works.

Is lossy video good enough?
Not for me. I'm waiting for a format that gives me 100% of the movie.

Quoting the placebo effect is convenient when you would prefer to invest in an average or less than average set up to make your self feel better. Many here who invest thier time and efforts into their room, equipment choices, EQ, and other HT related areas will beg to differ. Look at the DEDICATED T HEATER are at AVS. You'll see hundreds investing serious time and efforts into getting the ideal acoustical environment for their theater. It is an important part of the hobby that few seem to get. It is easy (and lame) to sit back and call it crap when you simply have a plasma on the wall, receiver and 5.1 speakers and no other 'science' into your set up.

i think you misunderstand. placebo is when you buy the best to make yourself feel better, not by buying average to make yourself feel better.

its complementary not exclusive to the argument, anyway. it's at the end of the line when you reach the limits of your knowledge and your emotions creep in. the brain is very complex, you know, and even when we cant articulate differences in what we are hearing, there can always be sub-concious parts of our brain that do appreciate the difference.

Not for me. I'm waiting for a format that gives me 100% of the movie.
:D

Lossless sound becomes irrelevant at 1.5 Mbps DD+ with 24 bit depth. (Twenty bits would work as well as would properly dithered 16 bit words in most cases.) It's all about the movie's mix, sound effects and musical score. Movies are what it should be all about, not irrelevant techno babel.

Most folks here do NOT have the hearing acuity (especailly over age 30), the room treatments, ambient noise control and the sound system to hear the difference between lossless and well done DD+.

Maybe really high-end cables make all the difference with lossless.

Bill

Interesting indeed....Amir found the differences between lossy and lossless easy to discern... So I see many of us looking forward to artifact free soundtracks...
I didn't find them easy to discern. And the test was using 96kpbs/ch and using an audio codec, WMA which we invented!

It would be hell trying to find differences in 300 kbps/ch DD+ (1.5 mbit/sec for 5.1) on movie soundtracks. Trust me. It will not be easy whatsoever.

For your sake, and the reputation of the rest of us :), let's pray Steve doesn't come up with a movie double blind test because there will be so many people flunking that it won't even be funny....

Order of importance for me (aside from wanting a great movie, not just candy)...

PQ>AQ>EXTRAS.

Basically, I'v never cared about extras and to be honest, much of the time I only use the TV's audio - half the movies I watch are comedies, stuff that doesn't really need the system on and cranking anyway. =)

I would prefer they all have lossless but I will still buy the film if it doesn't and enjoy it if it's a movie I really want and not just so damn demo disk. I still watch LD from time to time and enjoy very much. I must be insane, right.

This poll is pretty pointless, which is why I didn't vote.

Order of importance for me (aside from wanting a great movie, not just candy)...PQ>AQ>EXTRAS. =)
Then in that case, let's all stand up and demand lossless video!! :) :cool:

Amir's quote of TheBland and his comment made me think of Marshall McLuhan and Annie Hall :D

I would prefer they all have lossless but I will still buy the film if it doesn't and enjoy it if it's a movie I really want and not just so damn demo disk. I still watch LD from time to time and enjoy very much. I must be insane, right.

This poll is pretty pointless, which is why I didn't vote.
Very pointless indeed. For it to carry any weight it shouldn't be only a simple Yes or No answer because it is not a simple Yes or No question. To me it's like asking is Green better than Orange, Yes or No.

I didn't find them easy to discern. And the test was using 96kpbs/ch and using an audio codec, WMA which we invented!

It would be hell trying to find differences in 300 kbps/ch DD+ (1.5 mbit/sec for 5.1) on movie soundtracks. Trust me. It will not be easy whatsoever.


Ouch.

This would be the point where any non-deluded OP would cease posting. I get the sense thebland won't fall into this category though.

Ouch.

This would be the point where any non-deluded OP would cease posting. I get the sense thebland won't fall into this category though.
I'm willing to bet that if someone took a DD+ track and called it "DD+" and then took that same track, raised the db a few notches and then called it "TrueHD" that many would swear the "TrueHD" sounded better than the DD+.

Ouch.

This would be the point where any non-deluded OP would cease posting. I get the sense thebland won't fall into this category though.

amir is very knowledgable but he works for Microsoft so its not that simple.

I didn't find them easy to discern. And the test was using 96kpbs/ch and using an audio codec, WMA which we invented!

It would be hell trying to find differences in 300 kbps/ch DD+ (1.5 mbit/sec for 5.1) on movie soundtracks. Trust me. It will not be easy whatsoever.

For your sake, and the reputation of the rest of us :), let's pray Steve doesn't come up with a movie double blind test because there will be so many people flunking that it won't even be funny....

Game, Set, Match. Thanks Amir. You've taught me a lot. There is so much more that you have posted that has caused me to think and rethink my understanding of this stuff. i.e. 24 bits is overkill because we're into the noise floor with the last 4 bits (the MLP article was very enlightening). But that's for another day. It's one of the reasons I asked Jeff some pointed questions that he conveniently choses to ignore.

amir is very knowledgable but he works for Microsoft so its not that simple.

I'd be careful here. There are a lot of industry insiders who post knowlegable, informative, and unbiased as to format posts. Amir is one of them.

I'd be careful here. There are a lot of industry insiders who post knowlegable, informative, and unbiased as to format posts. Amir is one of them.

The first rule of business is to build your product, not talk down about it. Maybe its just me and I'm just jaded, but this particular thread is implicitly Sony vs Microsoft.

From my understanding it doesn't matter, I want it to sound great, but the method to get me that sound...meh.

bunkaroo,



then you need to explain why a substantial percentage of BD titles dont have a lossless track. Is it because there isnt enough space?



You're taking my point out of context. This is not about why WB seems to be fine with using 640 DD tracks.

Again, the question relates specifically to Paramount and their decision making with regards to what titles get lossless and what titles do not.

If they saw fit to put TrueHD on a film like Next, then why wouldn't they use it on Transformers? Are we to believe Next benefits from lossless more than Transformers could?

Next had a runtime of 96 minutes, and has five HD extras on the disc.

Transformers has a runtime of 143 minutes, and has the HD Connect and HUD on Disc 1. So it has nearly 50% more feature runtime than Next, and likely was harder to compress visually. That right there tells me capacity would likely become an issue. So they gave it the best DD+ they could, which did turn out great.

My concern here is consistency, and even more importantly, not making ANY sacrifices in PQ/AQ because of interactivity layers and extras in general.

And yes, I am well aware of other titles that have lossless audio and interactivity. Maybe that goes to show Paramount is not as good at managing content storage on HDM as other studios.

Also, this idea of my poll question being loaded speaks to the agenda of many boycotting an answer. It's obviously a conspiracy :rolleyes:.. It is simple yes or no to lossless and whether you feel DD+ is good enough.. What is so hard about that? THe fact that many are bothered by my wording of the question speaks volumes to the fact that they cannot manipulate their own answer.

You have to be refering to me in this post. I wont choose an option in your poll becuase of the following.

Option 1:

"I want lossless regardless how subtle the improvements are. Period"

- This option implies lossless gives subtle improvements every time to DD+ when in fact that is not a fact.

Option 2:

"No. And DD+ is plenty good for me."

- This option reads like DD+ can not be as good as lossless hance its just "plenty good" and not the best available.

Where is the alternative?

How about option 3?

"I want the best possible sounding option. Sometimes that may be DD+ and sometimes that may be lossless. I admit it could be either and one is not automatically better then the other. I am not a spec whore."


thebland if you were in my city I would invite you over for a blind test and if you could tell the difference every time between a good DD+ and lossless I would bet a bottle of 1945 Château Mouton-Rothschild. You would fail :) and i would drink a great bottle of wine.


If you feel VERY strong about the fact you can tell there difference we can bet a 1947 Cheval Blanc.

I didn't find them easy to discern. And the test was using 96kpbs/ch and using an audio codec, WMA which we invented!

It would be hell trying to find differences in 300 kbps/ch DD+ (1.5 mbit/sec for 5.1) on movie soundtracks. Trust me. It will not be easy whatsoever.

For your sake, and the reputation of the rest of us :), let's pray Steve doesn't come up with a movie double blind test because there will be so many people flunking that it won't even be funny....

That's fine. But the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why use lossless at all on a movie soundtrack?

Why do so many HD DVD's still use it if it is not necessary? I mean, if it's marketing, then fine - that's understandable. Obviously music-based titles will benefit more from lossless.

But with non-musical films, it sounds to me like every HD DVD with TrueHD is wasting space and bandwidth that could have went to PQ since DD+ would have been fine.

Why do so many HD DVD's still use it if it is not necessary? I mean, if it's marketing, then fine - that's understandable.

Bingo.

Mind you as long as some can use it as a point to argue they will never admit this. Ever.

Boy, is AVS and the HDM war ever becoming predictable.

I am still surprised that at an enthusiasts site, and all things being equal, 1/3 still would prefer lossy.

Is supporting your format so important that you'd sacrifice a master audio recording? And this hanging on to the fact that a few mixers say it is indistinguishable to the average audiophile (but not to them) reminds me of the old adage, "if one ******* jumped off a bridge, would you follow"??

Lotta folks jumping off the bridge here for no good reason...

They probably just voted that they prefer lossy because the poll is stupid. This is an enthusiast site. Some enthusiasts prefer extra content they can see and hear to content they can't.

HD-DVD... The look and sound of compromise!

HD-DVD... The look and sound of compromise!

or "HD DVD the look and sound of something which is as good as you can possibly hear and see."

Bingo.

Mind you as long as some can use it as a point to argue they will never admit this. Ever.

Boy, is AVS and the HDM war ever becoming predictable.

As if the vast majority of annually announced "new and improved features!" really convey meaningful benefit, or even see that much use after purchase. Spend a few minutes reading the blathering of high-end cable devotees up in the 20K forum, if you have any doubts about a fool and his money.

If consumers want a feature, why deny them? How does including a lossless track hurt anything? Its like extras on a DVD. Most people probably dont watch them. But given a choice between a movie with extras and one without, the people will overwhelmingly choose the discs with extras.

If consumers want a feature, why deny them? How does including a lossless track hurt anything? Its like extras on a DVD. Most people probably dont watch them. But given a choice between a movie with extras and one without, the people will overwhelmingly choose the discs with extras.

I certainly haven't heard a great hue and cry from the vast majority of consumers who don't participate on these forums, for lossless inclusion. I have, however, noted the persistent inclusion of more elaborate extras on HDM releases, which suggests that studio marketing research has indicated consumer interest.

Maybe its just me and I'm just jaded, but this particular thread is implicitly Sony vs Microsoft.

I think you lost me on this one.

or "HD DVD the look and sound of something which is as good as you can possibly hear and see."
More like "The look and sound of good enough for Joe 6 Pack to buy, thus the look and sound of good enough for me to also buy". Long-winded, but to the point.

I know it's better to have a movie with DD+ than to not have a movie at all, but I've seen complaints here actually make changes at studios, so why not demand lossless when there is sufficient bitrate & space? We've all heard about the amazing picture quality Troy is at 4 hours long and TrueHD audio, just demand all others be the same way then you'll never have to play the guessing game of whether something is good enough or could be better. Who cares if Joe 6 Pack can take advantage of lossless? And especially, who cares if Amir believes DD+ is good enough? He's a salesman more than he is a fellow enthusiast.

The undercurrent of the favoring of lossless over DD+ is nothing more than an attempt by Blu-ray supporters to justify the need for 50GB disks that Blu-ray provides, regardless of whether or not the difference between the two can only be perceptible by a well-bred dalmation.

if the lossless argument gains no ground, then Blu-ray supporters can always fall back on the bitrate argument, by which a bitrate meter can determine the quality of the video or audio of a film without any regard for aesthetics or actual real world human perception.

You cannot win an argument against these people, no matter how hard you try. I swear, if statistics show that the average family has a mom and a dad and 2 1/2 kids, Blu-ray supporters will try to tell you there is such a thing as half a kid.

That's fine. But the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why use lossless at all on a movie soundtrack?


It's an additional feature mainly for the benefit of marketing. Look at the number of people who buy Monster, even on $100/foot HDMI cables. There's a market for anything, and people will persuade themselves they can see/hear non-existent differences. Blindtests have shown for ages this to be true.

Our video is compressed down from 1194mbit to 20ish mbit (60:1!), yet people are seriously suggesting it's worth spending additional bits on audio compressed at 4.6:1? Please.

I didn't find them easy to discern. And the test was using 96kpbs/ch and using an audio codec, WMA which we invented!

It would be hell trying to find differences in 300 kbps/ch DD+ (1.5 mbit/sec for 5.1) on movie soundtracks. Trust me. It will not be easy whatsoever.

For your sake, and the reputation of the rest of us :), let's pray Steve doesn't come up with a movie double blind test because there will be so many people flunking that it won't even be funny....


Here is where I got the 'easy to tell' comment from you....



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+?

It took me 6 months of non-stop training until I became good at it. Yes, this is real training. .................. 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!

.

Well, I said Amir became good at it. I called it easy for him... More semantics than anything else.. Bottom line, when you're good at something, the task is easy....Poetic license on my part. But no dishonesty:D

Of interest in his response, however, is that he used his $16K headphones for the test that fw passed.... I agree. Great gear is the key for discerning differences. 6 mos to become good at it? I can take him at his word that time would help to be able to put a finger reliablely on it. Perhaps to know exactly what to listen for but many audiophiles may not be able to specifically be able to nail it every time but be able to detect artifacts during certain portions of soundtracks....(e.g. snippets with a lot going on (or not). Bottom line, if differences are able to be perceived, I'd rather have the artifact free soundtrack whether I could tell a difference or not. If both are available, who wouldn't??? (*Well, Toshiba as they are only putting them on 10% of releases).

I think even Amir would agree (at the risk of putting words - again - in his mouth, that all things being equal lossless would be the preferred track if available).

He is specualting that we wouldn't be able to do so on multichannel tracks. I simply disagree. It may only be noticeable at certain point in complex portions of some tracks but even that small advantage is important to me... But then again, dynamics, dialog intelligibility, etc are very important to me.

thebland if you were in my city I would invite you over for a blind test and if you could tell the difference every time between a good DD+ and lossless I would bet a bottle of 1945 Château Mouton-Rothschild. You would fail :) and i would drink a great bottle of wine.


If you feel VERY strong about the fact you can tell there difference we can bet a 1947 Cheval Blanc.

Be careful what you wish for...and set up that test!

I have a seminar in BC next April. So, I'll be in town for a long weekend.

1945 Château Mouton-Rothschild, 1947 Cheval Blanc?? If you have these at home, I'll be certain to come on over:D. Actually, I have not been able to have many older classic vintages. My wine collection is just beginning, mostly cabs, some French Bordeauxs... But we did have a bottle of 2002 Silver Oak Napa last night....and boy was it nice....Not as nice as the bottles above but still smooth as silk.

For the life of me I can't understand why supposed enthusiast are so militantly against lossess audio to the point of almost hating it. I understand that many of you can't hear, won't hear, don't believe anyone can hear, don't have the equipment,.... but why are you dead set against it being included when it has NO effect on you or your life?

With a lossless and a lossy DD+ track you can:
1) Watch the same film in the same High Def.
2) Listen to your beloved lossy track.
3) Still have popcorn with your movie.
4) Still go out and play Bingo or Bungee jump.
5) Most importantly: It DOSN'T effect the price of tea in China.

So why oppose it when there is no reson to?:confused:

The difference I hear between lossy and lossless tracks is that lossy tracks have a slight harshness to them. They also sound a little weaker with not quite as much "punch." They still sound very good, but full lossless is smoother, fuller, more natural and easier on the ears. It's not a huge difference, but it is well worth it for me. This is coming from someone who does not have a great sound system and speakers. I can only imagine the difference would be even greater with a really nice set up.

For the life of me I can't understand why supposed enthusiast are so militantly against lossess audio to the point of almost hating it. I understand that many of you can't hear, won't hear, don't believe anyone can hear, don't have the equipment,.... but why are you dead set against it being included when it has NO effect on you or your life?

With a lossless and a lossy DD+ track you can:
1) Watch the same film in the same High Def.
2) Listen to your beloved lossy track.
3) Still have popcorn with your movie.
4) Still go out and play Bingo or Bungee jump.
5) Most importantly: It DOSN'T effect the price of tea in China.

So why oppose it when there is no reson to?:confused:

I am baffled by this as well....especially considering this site.

My only thoughts are since HD DVD is space and bandwidth limited, this makes having lossless very difficult. S, if you are a n ardent HD DVD supporter, this is a problem. So....write off lossless as an unnecessary 'nice to have' but not mandatory. If I were a HD DVD supporter, this would be a major problem for me and would tilt me towards Blu Ray as capacity and bandwidth are so much greater. It is a format for enthusiasts. I guess, folks want ot protect their intial HD DVD investments at all cost (even quality)!!??

I chose not to until the design is better...Amir passed, Filmmixer didn't. What is the conclusion regarding those two? IS one an idiot who does not know his business or was the test flawed?

So, you are using a "flawed" test as your proof? Not very scientific of you.

How do explain that the expert, FILMMIXER, failed it? Flawed test or FILMMIXER'S abilities??? I say the former..

I am baffled by this as well....especially considering this site.

My only thoughts are since HD DVD is space and bandwidth limited, this makes having lossless very difficult. S, if you are a n ardent HD DVD supporter, this is a problem. So....write off lossless as an unnecessary 'nice to have' but not mandatory. If I were a HD DVD supporter, this would be a major problem for me and would tilt me towards Blu Ray as capacity and bandwidth are so much greater. It is a format for enthusiasts. I guess, folks want ot protect their intial HD DVD investments at all cost (even quality)!!??

Bingo - I think you've nailed it. If full lossless is beneficial, then HD-DVD's specs won't quite cut it for some longer movies.

Well, I said Amir became good at it. I called it easy for him... More semantics than anything else.. Bottom line, when you're good at something, the task is easy....Poetic license on my part. But no dishonesty:D

ummm... no... being "good" at something in no way implies that it becomes "easy"....

this type of "semantics" :rolleyes: is how some can blithely make leaps of logic in these discussions...

Ridiculous.

Your polls as always, are unfair and BD slanted. And this one is merely an innuendo against the Transformers DD+ track.:p

If not, the second option would have read: "So long as DD+ sounds as good as Lossless, I won't care."

Lossless matters, but only if it is better than a DD+ track!:p

ooo nice, let me know how the lossless track on Transformers sounds compared to the DD+ track please.

Can't wait!

I am baffled by this as well....especially considering this site.

My only thoughts are since HD DVD is space and bandwidth limited, this makes having lossless very difficult....

Run for your health! Detroit Marathon Oct 21 2007. Goal time: 3:50:00. If you look down from your keyboard and see your gut and not your belt buckle, time to get out there!!
Acording to my amature calcualtions HD DVD's bandwidth and space should accomadate a TrueHD without compromising vidio qulity.

OT: Were you able to clip of 26.22 - 8:46 miles?

Have my Nano loaded (iPhone and iPod too) with all lossless audio (because I can tell the deference) and will do 10 miles today in less than 1:20.

Well, I said Amir became good at it. I called it easy for him... More semantics than anything else.. Bottom line, when you're good at something, the task is easy....Poetic license on my part. But no dishonesty:D


OK, Now about the part where that test was at 96kbit/channel, and DD+ is at 300kbit? You'd expect trained airs to hear something at the former, but only just. The latter is way above the point where lossless becomes discernable - just look at mp3s, nobody encodes at 600kbit (the equivalent). On top of that, this is multichannel rather than plain stereo so it's even harder, and you've got dynamic bit allocation between the channels as well.

OK, Now about the part where that test was at 96kbit/channel, and DD+ is at 300kbit? You'd expect trained airs to hear something at the former, but only just. The latter is way above the point where lossless becomes discernable - just look at mp3s, nobody encodes at 600kbit (the equivalent). On top of that, this is multichannel rather than plain stereo so it's even harder, and you've got dynamic bit allocation between the channels as well.
I couldn't care less, just give me lossless audio since it takes no chicken out of your pot.

Amir did correctly identify the tracks in that test... Filmmixer did not.

Amir cheated in order to confirm :)

With 4 choices, it aint that hard to rank them as there are a finite number of ways to give a response. Therefore there should always be someone who is correct, that doesn't mean they have the best ears.

You'd need to perform the test a number of times with different material each time and for each person to receive a randomised ordering.

In other words, you'd need a series of DBT's to know for sure.

Bingo - I think you've nailed it. If full lossless is beneficial, then HD-DVD's specs won't quite cut it for some longer movies.

Length of movie doesn't seem to be a major factor. At 24/48 TrueHD is only an extra 855Mbytes/hour over DD+ (or at 16/48, +342Mbytes/hr). Given that just about every HDDVD doesn't even fill the disc, this isn't a problem.

Peak bitrate is another issue entirely: at 16/48 this is an extra 2.4mbit over DD+ (or +3mbit if you include the spare DD track all the studios seem to add with THD). At 24/48 it's +3.5mbit of the peak, or 4.1mbit with the spare. The latter leaves around 25mbit for peaks - by comparison Hot Fuzz uses something like 27mbit video peaks off 18mbit abr with DD+ 1.5mbit, while Matrix 2/3 use 23-24mbit (not sure if IME cbr or vbr, anyone?) on 15mbit abr, with lossless, DD+ secondary, and IME. Somewhere inbetween these video peaks seems to be about normal now.

i am happy with either high data rate dd+ or trueHD on the discs i have.

this pole wants me to choose between a hard line of saying studios cannot use lossy codecs and a blanket dd+ option that does not separate low data rate from high data rate dd+.

neither option seems reasonable to me.

Ridiculous.

hardly...

Considering that 9 out of 10 lossless tracks sound noticeably better than lossy tracks, it is safe to say that lossless is better. And since it is better, it should be the goal. A great engineer can make lossy sound just as good, but if this is the exception rather than the rule, go with the fool-proof guaranteed option.

6 out of every 4 statistics are made up :D

I'd choose lossless over lossy all else equal. But rarely are things always this simple.

If two tracks are available, a lossy and a lossless both the same bitdepth etc. then yeah why not Lossless.

If two tracks are available, a high bitrate/bitdepth/sampling rate lossy and a standard lossless, then it becomes tricky. Amir has mentioned that most DACs perform worse at higher sampling rates for example... whether that difference is noticeable is another story... but nevertheless it highlights that not everything is straightforward and easy to conclude... do you then experience better sound from the lower sampling rate being kinder to your DACs or due to the lossless nature?

Anywho none of this matters as ultimately the only thing we can do is vote with our wallets. Again this becomes tricky.

Imagine 2 movies... one that has a lot of potential buyers (greater appeal, blockbuster or whatever), and another one which has limited appeal (older catalog title for example). The one with more appeal contains a lossy track and the other one a lossless track. So we go and vote with our wallets and not many people end up buying either because, even though the less appealing title has a lossless track, it is afterall... less appealing. The more appealing title lost sales as we boycotted it for not including lossless... the studios then interpret this as no consumer demand and then we all lose out :(

IMO, this poll isn't worthless, it just isn't very useful due to poor wording. Given that we want to send the right message to the studios, it's better to voice our opinions intelligently as voting with our wallets might backfire... so if the choices were different and not laced with format war undertones... I'm confident that 100% of AVS would ask for lossless if it were an option.

Here's hoping dynamux saves the day.

How do explain that the expert, FILMMIXER, failed it? Flawed test or FILMMIXER'S abilities??? I say the former..

If you agree why are you using the flawed test as proof?

Imagine 2 movies... one that has a lot of potential buyers (greater appeal, blockbuster or whatever), and another one which has limited appeal (older catalog title for example). The one with more appeal contains a lossy track and the other one a lossless track. So we go and vote with our wallets and not many people end up buying either because, even though the less appealing title has a lossless track, it is afterall... less appealing. The more appealing title lost sales as we boycotted it for not including lossless... the studios then interpret this as no consumer demand and then we all lose out :(


What ultimately matters isn't how many copies, but whether it sold more or less than the studio's projections. Voting with my wallet sends a message that the studios understand. For example, except for 3 Warner titles that I cannot live without, I boycott all Warner HD-DVDs that do not have lossless, because all I am left with is 640k DD+.

BTW I wish more people would do that in general. For example, I boycott all products Sony (anti-consumer stance), I boycott the retailer ******* (support for a certain political party), etc. As a consumer, this is one of your most powerful tools you have at your disposal to affect change.

Truth be told for movies I think 1.5 meg is plenty. Even music can sound pretty amazing at that bitrate so for me lossless is like icing on the cake. Most of the time I'd rather they concentrate a little more on the pq.

And you know this because something on a box told you?:rolleyes:

The statement I made is just about as much opinion as if I were to say VC-1 is a more efficient codec than MPEG-2: only the fanboys are irrational enough to argue otherwise. I don't even know what box you are referring to.

Lossless Audio is like 24P. How many people can take advantage of it and what is the cost to get it?

IMO - for the AV Geek . . . but not for the masses who most don't even have a DD5.1 setup.

Think to the future when all receivers will have HDMI and most will have one of those receivers.

Home Theater is growing, so more and more will be able to take advantage. I purchased a new receiver about 2 hours after buying my PS3. I had not planned it that way but I did not want to deprive myself. :D

this is getting pretty close...no?

"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"


Science would require validation by another and less use of qualifiers like "can" and "well mastered".

Wow, arguing over tiny Nits!

two displays from the same company will not look the same.
they can be calibrated very close but not exactly the same.

the same is true of speakers in a room, to say nothing of the same speakers in different rooms.

so:
the director sees and hears his vison of his film.
the sound enegineer on the film hears his thing
the sound enegineer on the disk hears his thing.
and we hear and see our thing on our setups.

what is added and what is lost?
Myself, I just enjoy the Damn movie.

I coundn't care less, my system destroys any mid range lossless setup even with lossy material.

Couple observations...

Its pretty clear to me that HD-DVD, in some cases, can not have the best of both worlds in regards to PQ/AQ.(R&B films will confirm this when their next title will consist of a lossless track on both formats).

Some have complained that Blu titles only consist of 50% lossless. Correct me if Im wrong, but I believe those titles, for the most part, are neutral(Warner) or formal neutral(paramount) studios. Whats that say?

The Bland is right... The only ones pro lossy are HD-DVD owners who refuse to admit that their chosen format may be inferior in some ways and will defend their investment to the very end. The good news is, that despite AVS members being 2:1 pro HD-DVD, the poll shows 2:1 in favor of lossless.(although thats still sad that 1/3 of our members have actually gone on record stating "lossy is good enough for me":o)

What I really don't understand is how many people have taken a stand for lossless and will not even re-examine that position. Is this not a learning process or do you all already know it all?

I don't. I'm willing to listen and learn. Some examples:

1a) 50% pf BD titles do not have a lossless track (gathered from blueraystats)

They lie. It's not fair to include the Paramount and Warner titles. Warner is not friend to BD and Paramount is no longer in their camp. Exclude these studios and the ratio goes way up.

1) Lossless is better than DD+. I once believed this.

Lot's of evidence that this is not so, so I even tried it myself. I was wrong much to my chagrin.

2) 24/48 lossy is better than 16/48 lossless.

Could be, but it was based on the assupmption that 24 bit depth is important. Turns out it's not. At least 4 bits of that is in the noise floor so really all you can get at best is 20 bits of a signal. The rest is noise. A 24/48 soundtrack properly dithered to 16/48 may indeed be transparent to the original.

3) 96khz sampling rate is better than 48khz sampling rate.

Not necessarily true. Many things can upset the delivery chain such as increased jitter, greater harmonic distortion, filters poorly designed for the higher frequencies,where the rolloff of the high frequencies was chosen, etc.

This last one is my latest correction
4) HD DVD may not have the bitrate to deliver lossless TrueHD and extras on certain titles. A 1.5x spin rate will be required to fix the problem.

This may not be true. The SL17 and DL34 at 1X may all we need to end the stupid lossless vs lossy debate. The exclusion of TrueHD due to bitrate alone is a difficult call. It's nearly good enough as evidenced that some titles are using TrueHD with no impact on AQ. These titles tend to lack extras, but my current theory the lack of TrueHD is due in large part to a lack of adequate bitrate.

What I failed to recognize is that by default a DL34 will have a ~14 increase in bitrate even at 1x due to the denser bit packing. The gives us more disk space and more than an extra 3mps to play with. If this disk is feasible (cost, yields, playable in all players) etc. the studio smay then have that extra oomph to allow TrueHD at not cost. At that point I would vote for a lossless track if only becasue it would end these silly threads.

I think the true enthusiasts here are excited to get a bit for bit copy of the master audio track. That is it in a nutshell for me. I'd rather have the master tape than a modified version of it.

A really good post, if you ask me.

I consider myself in the "why not add it for marketing reasons alone" camp when it comes to lossless. But I also believe that there's a decent chance I couldn't tell the difference.

1) I would say that lossless has the potential to be better than DD+. Most times, people can't tell. Sometimes, people may be imagining the differences. But sometimes, especially when studios might include a lower than 1.5 megabits DD+ and TrueHD track, people hear a difference. Even James admits to hearing a difference on some movies.

2) This one's bothered me for awhile -- and I'm really happy to see a very reasonable answer on this 24 bit v. 16 bit question. It always seemed to be the refuge of the anti-lossless crowd that would say "lossless doesn't matter because no one can tell the difference" but then say "24 bit lossy is better than 16 bit lossless" without ever having heard a movie with those specs. So, like I said, a very good post in this respect.

3) Yes, just include the damn thing to end these silly debates. And as someone who was sitting on the HD hence for awhile, the fact that HD DVD may have hit a technical wall before Blu-ray concerned me. I understand there are a host of reasons why someone one choose one format over the over. For me, technical longevity is more important than PiP.

But it's comforting to know that HD DVD may not be as technically limited as some think. I'm waiting for Dolby to get back to me on this question too.

What I really don't understand is how many people have taken a stand for lossless and will not even re-examine that position. Is this not a learning process or do you all already know it all?

I don't. I'm willing to listen and learn. Some examples:

1a) 50% pf BD titles do not have a lossless track (gathered from blueraystats)

They lie. It's not fair to include the Paramount and Warner titles. Warner is not friend to BD and Paramount is no longer in their camp. Exclude these studios and the ratio goes way up.

1) Lossless is better than DD+. I once believed this.

Lot's of evidence that this is not so, so I even tried it myself. I was wrong much to my chagrin.

2) 24/48 lossy is better than 16/48 lossless.

Could be, but it was based on the assupmption that 24 bit depth is important. Turns out it's not. At least 4 bits of that is in the noise floor so really all you can get at best is 20 bits of a signal. The rest is noise. A 24/48 soundtrack properly dithered to 16/48 may indeed be transparent to the original.

3) 96khz sampling rate is better than 48khz sampling rate.

Not necessarily true. Many things can upset the delivery chain such as increased jitter, greater harmonic distortion, filters poorly designed for the higher frequencies,where the rolloff of the high frequencies was chosen, etc.

This last one is my latest correction
4) HD DVD may not have the bitrate to deliver lossless TrueHD and extras on certain titles. A 1.5x spin rate will be required to fix the problem.

This may not be true. The SL17 and DL34 at 1X may all we need to end the stupid lossless vs lossy debate. The exclusion of TrueHD due to bitrate alone is a difficult call. It's nearly good enough as evidenced that some titles are using TrueHD with no impact on AQ. These titles tend to lack extras, but my current theory the lack of TrueHD is due in large part to a lack of adequate bitrate.

What I failed to recognize is that by default a DL34 will have a ~14 increase in bitrate even at 1x due to the denser bit packing. The gives us more disk space and more than an extra 3mps to play with. If this disk is feasible (cost, yields, playable in all players) etc. the studio smay then have that extra oomph to allow TrueHD at not cost. At that point I would vote for a lossless track if only becasue it would end these silly threads.

Most people can't tell the difference and believe louder means better.......calibrate your equipment and you will find no differences most of the time ( I have done this with many dts tracks on the DVD format which incidentally are usually louder because the people behind dts realised long ago that if they make the volume slightly louder people can be fooled into believing it's better and that includes mixing the surround tracks louder not just the front or bass channels )

All things being equal though i do think the high definition formats should provide lossless because it can be done and is expected ( both formats are more than capable as the figures clearly have shown time and again but still some "fanboys" insist HD DVD isn't capable of lossless....what nonsense that is )

I think your equipment and how it has been set up and the actual quality of the soundtrack and it's mix has more of an impact on what you hear than whether it's lossless or lossy.....especially when you are talking 1.5mbp/s 24 bit lossy......

I agree with the person who talked about the placebo effect......most people see the word lossless and think it's audio nirvana but the truth is that the original sound elements and how they were mixed is the important part and i don't think anyone here could tell the difference between a well recorded lossy track and a lossless track in blind listening tests.

Now i'm going to contradict myself and say once again that lossless should be provided on all discs.

66:33 kinda looks like the Neilson #'s ;)

http://forums.maxima.org/images/smilies/tribe.gif

I think the true enthusiasts here are excited to get a bit for bit copy of the master audio track. That is it in a nutshell for me. I'd rather have the master tape than a modified version of it.

if it were possible at this time i'd like to not only have a bit for bit copy of the master audio, but a pixel for pixel copy of the film.

if it were possible at this time i'd like to not only have a bit for bit copy of the master audio, but a pixel for pixel copy of the film.

But you already can. Just go to your nearest D Cinema. Or better yet, open one yourself! :D

I actually really like the last idea best. I'd put in specially seating just for me, my wife, and my one friend (let the masses suffer on folding chairs). I'd make sure to get a food and acohol license. pee breaks would be determined by me. Repeating a scene would be determined by me. Sounds like shangra la to me!

I think the true enthusiasts here are excited to get a bit for bit copy of the master audio track. That is it in a nutshell for me. I'd rather have the master tape than a modified version of it.
Boy it must suck that you can't get lossless video, too. :rolleyes:

I think James was one of the first posters to seriously suggest and back up his claim that HD DVD was more limited in terms of lossless tracks and asked several insiders to confirm his theory.

So, HD DVD may be slightly more technically limited than Blu-ray. Ok, for many people, that technical limitation won't matter one bit.

Although, I've always wondered, if there were no technical limitations, why does HD DVD only have lossless on 17% of its movies?

Most people can't tell the difference and believe louder means better.......calibrate your equipment and you will find no differences most of the time ( I have done this with many dts tracks on the DVD format which incidentally are usually louder because the people behind dts realised long ago that if they make the volume slightly louder people can be fooled into believing it's better and that includes mixing the surround tracks louder not just the front or bass channels )

All things being equal though i do think the high definition formats should provide lossless because it can be done and is expected ( both formats are more than capable as the figures clearly have shown time and again but still some "fanboys" insist HD DVD isn't capable of lossless....what nonsense that is )

I think your equipment and how it has been set up and the actual quality of the soundtrack and it's mix has more of an impact on what you hear than whether it's lossless or lossy.....especially when you are talking 1.5mbp/s 24 bit lossy......

I agree with the person who talked about the placebo effect......most people see the word lossless and think it's audio nirvana but the truth is that the original sound elements and how they were mixed is the important part and i don't think anyone here could tell the difference between a well recorded lossy track and a lossless track in blind listening tests.

Now i'm going to contradict myself and say once again that lossless should be provided on all discs.

Boy it must suck that you can't get lossless video, too. :rolleyes:


I'm working on that at the moment.


Are you really upset that a 2:1 ratio of memb ers here want lossless regardless of how subtle the improvements (even if the improvements are only apparent 1% of the time)?? Or are you bummed that HD DVD simply has run out of space to do so...?:o

I think the true enthusiasts here are excited to get a bit for bit copy of the master audio track. That is it in a nutshell for me. I'd rather have the master tape than a modified version of it.

No guarantee you're getting that either.

BTW, Thanks archangel37. :D

BTW, Thanks archangel37. :D

As always, thank you! You're a constant reminder that not everyone on AVS is a rabid fanboy. It's welcome! :)

96kHz/24-bit doubters... Have you heard the Dave Mathews concert?

Have there been any level matched tests to determine if one can tell the difference ?

I've heard folks say that they suffered PE as soon as a PCM track was played.

Art

4) HD DVD may not have the bitrate to deliver lossless TrueHD and extras on certain titles. A 1.5x spin rate will be required to fix the problem.


Depends what you mean by "certain titles" :-) On most it's not going to be a problem for 16/48 with IME, or 24/48 without. Doing 24/48 with IME only leaves you with 21-22mbit for video peaks though, which is pushing it too far if current discs are any guide. Might be possible in future though.

If DL34 does give even a 3mbit bitrate increase, 24/48 with IME should be no problem.

I coundn't care less, my system destroys any mid range lossless setup even with lossy material.

So how will lossless sound on it then? :rolleyes:

Think to the future when all receivers will have HDMI and most will have one of those receivers.

Home Theater is growing, so more and more will be able to take advantage. I purchased a new receiver about 2 hours after buying my PS3. I had not planned it that way but I did not want to deprive myself. :D

People here don't like to think of the future when more people get the ability to enjoy lossless, or get 1080p/24 TV's, or get better at taking advantage of the inherent technical advantage of 1 format over the other.

You are banging your head against a wall.

Depends what you mean by "certain titles" :-) On most it's not going to be a problem for 16/48 with IME, or 24/48 without. Doing 24/48 with IME only leaves you with 21-22mbit for video peaks though, which is pushing it too far if current discs are any guide. Might be possible in future though.

If DL34 does give even a 3mbit bitrate increase, 24/48 with IME should be no problem.
Absolultely right on!!! Don't know why I didn't see this earlier. Came to me last night. Oh well, guess I'm not perfect like some others in this thread. :rolleyes:

if it were possible at this time i'd like to not only have a bit for bit copy of the master audio, but a pixel for pixel copy of the film.

Easy enough to do, there are plenty codecs out there. You'd need 400-500mbit though, so it'd have to be a hard disk as the distribution medium though :-)

Good grief what a thread.

I could care less about lossy vs. lossless -- as my benchmark is obtaining the best reproduction of the original possible within the bounds of delivery.

It is very relevant what part of the data is "lost": if it can't be resolved by most listeners, then it's the story of diminishing returns.

This applies equally to video and audio although this discussion is focussed on audio.

I'd also like to put a stake in the ground for "lossy" which improves the original, filling in bits that weren't actually in the original to create a "better" image or sound.

Yes, I want truest fidelity to the original. But I also want the opportunity to improve the original -- something we do with older video and audio all the time. And if we're already "improving" the original, what's wrong with efficiently delivering it in a "lossy" package?

Creating the straw man of Lossless vs. Lossy is based on the premise that whatever the original source available was was the best it could ever be. That's simply, patently, obviously, not true.

Do you want the version of Citizen Kane as it resides in the vaults? Or the one that is taken from the very best elements and improved? I want the latter.

Good grief what a thread.

I could care less about lossy vs. lossless -- as my benchmark is obtaining the best reproduction of the original possible within the bounds of delivery.

It is very relevant what part of the data is "lost": if it can't be resolved by most listeners, then it's the story of diminishing returns.

This applies equally to video and audio although this discussion is focussed on audio.

I'd also like to put a stake in the ground for "lossy" which improves the original, filling in bits that weren't actually in the original to create a "better" image or sound.

Yes, I want truest fidelity to the original. But I also want the opportunity to improve the original -- something we do with older video and audio all the time. And if we're already "improving" the original, what's wrong with efficiently delivering it in a "lossy" package?

Creating the straw man of Lossless vs. Lossy is based on the premise that whatever the original source available was was the best it could ever be. That's simply, patently, obviously, not true.

Do you want the version of Citizen Kane as it resides in the vaults? Or the one that is taken from the very best elements and improved? I want the latter.
Most of this comes from a huge lack of knowledge about how this stuff works.

Most of this comes from a huge lack of knowledge about how this stuff works.

Is that a comment on my post, or the thread?

"Lossless sound is better ... but do you want it?" is the thread.

Or do you object to the notion that once we go down the road of "improving" an original source, that the resulting manipulated data is fouled by any "lossy" delivery of the already "improved" source?

Is that a comment on my post, or the thread?

"Lossless sound is better ... but do you want it?" is the thread.

Or do you object to the notion that once we go down the road of "improving" an original source, that the resulting manipulated data is fouled by any "lossy" delivery of the already "improved" source?

Didn't I quote your post?
Well, I guess Bland needs to tell us which master he is trying so hard to protect. There are a ton of people that would claim that once a recording/master has been "improved" that it has been fouled.

Yes, I want it. DD+ is so dull. And what's with not having a DTS-HD??? DTS (Even is not lossless or core only) sounds way better than DD anyways.

Didn't I quote your post?
Well, I guess Bland needs to tell us which master he is trying so hard to protect. There are a ton of people that would claim that once a recording/master has been "improved" that it has been fouled.

When I first read your previous post I wasn't sure what you meant. However, based on your past posts I believe you were actually paying PopcornReady a compliment on his post which is deserved.

Normally DTS is just louder with the LFE bumped up a bit. I can calibrate that out for you if you want. :)

Like every other poll on this subject, and there have been more than a few here, the majority have spoken once again.

Yes.....we want it.:)

Normally DTS is just louder with the LFE bumped up a bit. I can calibrate that out for you if you want. :)


I can do that myself, I'm just too lazy to configure each speakers and put them on a memory. It's just pain in the ass to keep switching sound configuration each time I play a non-DTS soundtrack.

Besides, my PS3 produces sound quite differently than my A35.