Yes, another poll!

As an HD DVD owner myself, I started thinking about the precedent that has been set with Transformers.

In this case 1.5 Mbps DD+ has shown that it can rival many of the TrueHD tracks on the format.

So the question is, assuming WB, Universal and Paramount would commit to always using 1.5Mbps DD+ and not 640 or any other resolution, would you be in favor of dumping TrueHD in order to give more space and bandwidth back to PQ and extras?

I think this is a fair question, especially since many now feel TrueHD is overkill.

Public poll - please, HD DVD owners only.

The answer is obvious.

Studios should evaluate whether lossless provides any advantage with each title. That advantage could be in sound quality, or marketing purposes.

The answer is obvious.

Studios should evaluate whether lossless provides any advantage with each title. That advantage could be in sound quality, or marketing purposes.

I concur

LOL what a great poll!!!

Best poll I have seen in weeks.

LOL what a great poll!!!

Yeah...

BD fans love polls like this, as they pump false bandwidth issues

I'd like a lossless track simply for the fact I spent the money on the equipment to hear it. In the real world 99.9% of people including myself don't really hear a difference and it's not a dealbreaker that's for sure, but I'll take it.

Now, if I owned neither format (but knew what was lossless was) and saw one format with 100% of titles having lossless and one with no lossless titles, I'd be inclined to buy the lossless format.

If TrueHD can be included without compromising PQ, great. If not, only include DD+ 1.5. One thing I do not want to happen, though, is for those snazzy Pip, U-control features to be discarded to make room for TrueHD.

If TrueHD can be included without compromising PQ, great. If not, only include DD+ 1.5. One thing I do not want to happen, though, is for those snazzy Pip, U-control features to be discarded to make room for TrueHD.


That is EXACTLY what I would like to happen.

My opinion: Either use 1.5Mbps DD+ or use 20bit TrueHD. I'd prefer 20bit TrueHD if space permits. But please don't use 16bit TrueHD. That's not really a good idea (unless the master is only 16bit, of course!).

I would have no issue with 1.5mbps or better DD+ for movie delivery.

Lossless only. There is no need for lossy anymore when we have lossless. I guess there will always be those out there arguing for why 1080p is overkill and all we need is 720p, though, right? So why not have those arguing for a lossy codec in this time when lossless has finally penetrated the marketplace...

Lossless only. There is no need for lossy anymore when we have lossless. I guess there will always be those out there arguing for why 1080p is overkill and all we need is 720p, though, right? So why not have those arguing for a lossy codec in this time when lossless has finally penetrated the marketplace...We can pick up the lossless mantra when we get lossless 12 bit or better video. ATM DD+ i@ 1.5 is the equivalent audio for our video.

For me, it's True HD/DTS MA or bust. When these formats were starting out, we were promised lossless audio. Not DD+. It's about delivering the "feature" at its best possible. I don't care if there's not perceived difference. If need be, make some of the extras downloadable.

Those of you who are shouting for TrueHD - are you aware that almost all TrueHD tracks on HD DVD are only 16bit, while most newer movie studio masters are 24bit? Think twice about what you're asking for! If we're crying for lossless, we should also demand 20bit and not be satisfied with only 16bit.

(According to insiders, more than 20bit doesn't help audio quality, anymore. So there's no use in wasting space with 24bit. There's even some debate whether 20bit really sounds better than 16bit. But my impression is that the more neutral insiders tend to vote for 20bit being better than 16bit.)

I would rather have DTS 96/24 than DD+ 1.5

Those of you who are shouting for TrueHD - are you aware that almost all TrueHD tracks on HD DVD are only 16bit, while most newer movie studio masters are 24bit? Think twice about what you're asking for! If we're crying for lossless, we should also demand 20bit and not be satisfied with only 16bit.

(According to insiders, more than 20bit doesn't help audio quality, anymore. So there's no use in wasting space with 24bit. There's even some debate whether 20bit really sounds better than 16bit. But my impression is that the more neutral insiders tend to vote for 20bit being better than 16bit.)

They also say that properly dithered 16 bit is equal to 24 bit. Do you believe them or not?

The problem with THD is that studios, for whatever reason, have decided to always have a DD+ secondary of equivalent quality (even though THD should be decoded by every player). Thus discs like Clerks II have 3.5mbit of 24/48 THD and a further 1.5 of DD+, so a total of 5mbit audio abr peaking to 6.5mbit. Ruling out IME, that leaves 24mbit for video peaks - ouch. If they insist on doing this, then it really is either 24/48 DD+, or 16/48 THD.

However, there's a nice development on the last starfighter HDDVD: it's 20/48 TrueHD, and only uses 448k for the secondary, so much less wasteful all round, while still using the (apparent) maximum audible 20bits. This gives a total audio abr of 3mbit, and leaves perhaps around 26mbit on the disc for video peaks. If lossless is to become the norm (and imo it's a waste), then 20/48 THD + 448k secondary seems a much more sensible setup.

If HD DVD had BD's specs, there would be no such need for this poll....but it looks like studios will have to choose which goodies go on each disc as they all can't fit. For transformers, it was losssless sound.

Wasteful?? This is the next gen technology...Toshiba wanted to be more backwards compatible than BD and it has bitten them (and us) in the ass with compromises already and only 2 years into the format... I would've hoped this would have spurred many enthusiasts to prefer BD as there are no limits for films like Transformers and the likes.

And if BD had HD DVD's pricing, we'd all be watching Blu-ray, now wouldn't we Jeff. Give it a rest.

To the OP, you left out a selection so I did not vote. I'm for letting the studios do what they feel is the most efficient way to get their desired result. If a DD+ track is transparent sounding to a lossless track, then they can decide to use the DD+ track. If they want to put lossless on a movie, let them do it.

The poll is flawed in the sense that I would think most rational people aren't asking the studios to pick one or the other.

I like having a TrueHD track there as an option. I don't know why they include any alternate track at all other than the TrueHD track, since the player decodes it and spits it out as a 1.5mbps DTS stream anyway for those (like me) who are stuck with optical for the time being.

Now, if it means that IME or PiP or whatever can't be included because of it, then I say go for the DD+ instead. In the case of Transformers, I'm perfectly fine that it came only with DD+; I thought it looked and sounded absolutely fantastic. Plus, I like extras.

I would rather have DTS 96/24 than DD+ 1.5

+10

I suppose than HD DVD folks could care less about DTS MA? Could this be true?

I suppose than HD DVD folks could care less about DTS MA? Could this be true?

Actually I think DTS MA is a great idea in principal. 1 audio track that supports 3 different formats. Covers all your bases with one file, problem is, nothing will play them.

I still think DTS 96/24 is the way to go. A compressed lossy 96khz 24bit audio codec that passes over SPDIF and many modern receivers already support. If the receiver doesn't support it, it will receive a 768kbps standard DTS track. Everybody wins.

Actually another realistic choice maybe to dump DD+ and only include lossless.

Wasteful?? This is the next gen technology...Toshiba wanted to be more backwards compatible than BD and it has bitten them (and us) in the ass with compromises already and only 2 years into the format... I would've hoped this would have spurred many enthusiasts to prefer BD as there are no limits for films like Transformers and the likes.

Please explain then why only 59% of the BR disks have lossless? Why isn't it 100% if space is not the issue?

Not only that but they only use dd if lossless is there or not. Seems to contradict what your saying. Gee, imagine that.

Actually another realistic choice maybe to dump DD+ and only include lossless.
It will never happen. Neither side is willing to give up the efficiency of lossy codecs. Still most of this is caused by a misunderstanding of the codecs involved. Some people are dead against MP3s, but MP3s over 256 (maybe 192 are barely different than CDs and after 320 they are pretty much the same.

Please explain then why only 59% of the BR disks have lossless? Why isn't it 100% if space is not the issue?

Not only that but they only use dd if lossless is there or not. Seems to contradict what your saying. Gee, imagine that.

I am guessing it's because of Warner, who is lazy and encodes for the lowest denominator. Take them out, and I wonder what the percentage becomes (90%?).

I am guessing it's because of Warner, who is lazy and encodes for the lowest denominator. Take them out, and I wonder what the percentage becomes (90%?).

I cant think of any Fox, Disney Sony, Lionsgate or Starz that does not contain a lossless or PCM track. Some even have more than 1!!!

I didn't vote since I don't really care what audio is used on HD DVDs, though I think it is sad that you have to choose.

I guess I'm just an overly enthusiastic passionate person in pursuit of the next level at whatever I do. I obsesivly hit the gym 5 or more times a week. I run 25 to 40 miles a week and keep an Excel file of my calories, heart rate, and time. I love cars (have a roadster) and even obsess over numismatics. Many of my friends say I have semi compulsive behavior. However nothing has stirred my passions as long as audio has (I was too young to know about sex). When I was about 5 or 6 years old my parents had a console stereo. I distinctly remember playing Jan and Den (I know but...) and sitting between the two speakers and being mesmerized and inspired by the stereo sound.

When I hear the amount of complacency and willingness to except mediocratie just because it's good enough, it makes me ill. Why are you here if you don't have the passion to want an improvement however small it may be. It also seems so may have been raised on MP3's that they would actually pick and prefer a "hot" lossy track over the uncompressed original.

User William will not accept mediocrity :)

I personally do not mind either way. DD+ sounds very good to me - the dynamic range is quite good, but if TrueHD is more dynamic, in the filmmaker's eyes or studio's eyes, then go for it.

I am guessing it's because of Warner, who is lazy and encodes for the lowest denominator. Take them out, and I wonder what the percentage becomes (90%?).

Try taking the Paramount titles as well. At least Warner is trying now on their latest releases like 300/Blood Diamond.

User William will not accept mediocrity :)

I personally do not mind either way. DD+ sounds very good to me - the dynamic range is quite good, but if TrueHD is more dynamic, in the filmmaker's eyes or studio's eyes, then go for it.

It think it has alot to do with the setup. Quite frankly if you only use a HTIB or crappy bose speakers, it won't matter much. However for someone who spends the $$$ and gets a decent setup the difference will be quite large.

I enjoy movies, not codecs. If it looks great and sounds great thats all that matters to me. HDM's look and sound better than SD DVD's hands down, being nitpicky about minimal differences is a waste of time. At least for the non-elitist.

Even at 90% apparently thats not good enough.

Don't get wrong, I would prefer they all have lossless for the reason given by many, HDM should have lossless. But, if they don't then DD+ is no slouch as a replacement. It is HD sound, just not lossless.

I'm one of the ones that honestly can't hear a difference even on very good equipment. But, I still appreciate great sound and to me, DD+ is great sound when done correctly.

Lossless doesn't guarentee great sound. The mixer and the quality of the master are more important to the sound we hear, obviously.

If every DD+ track sounds like transformers does, I could live with DD+.

DTS Master Audio should replace everything, since you can always fall back on the 1.5mbps core.

The dynamic range of most DTS-MA tracks also kill anything on Dolby. Perhaps it's just a particular movie's sound mix, but one thing I am close to certain of is that 1.5mbps doesn't cut it for dynamic range.

DTS Master Audio should replace everything, since you can always fall back on the 1.5mbps core.

The dynamic range of most DTS-MA tracks also kill anything on Dolby. Perhaps it's just a particular movie's sound mix, but one thing I am close to certain of is that 1.5mbps doesn't cut it for dynamic range.

DTS MA also has lower peaks = less use of bandwidth and space. No wonder Fox has been able to put 24bit DTS MA tracks on 25gb discs, while still using Mpeg-2 (ugh).

I find it funny that the very same people who were bashing Blu-ray's use of Mpeg-2 on 50gb discs are the ones defending DD+ on HD DVD. There is no reason for DD+ to exist, other than to point out HD DVD's deficiencies. All HD DVDs should have a True HD + 640K DD track, or DTS MA.

I cant think of any Fox, Disney Sony, Lionsgate or Starz that does not contain a lossless or PCM track. Some even have more than 1!!!

The difference is... in those cases... the studio chose not to include the lossless track. The Hardwares Bandwidth/Space limitations did not cause those studios to make compromises.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymzIkSpBxEI

And if BD had HD DVD's pricing, we'd all be watching Blu-ray, now wouldn't we Jeff. Give it a rest.

To the OP, you left out a selection so I did not vote. I'm for letting the studios do what they feel is the most efficient way to get their desired result. If a DD+ track is transparent sounding to a lossless track, then they can decide to use the DD+ track. If they want to put lossless on a movie, let them do it.

The poll is flawed in the sense that I would think most rational people aren't asking the studios to pick one or the other.

The problem is Paramount used TrueHD for Next but not Transformers. There's absolutely no good reason to do that except for trying to sell more copies of Next by pimping lossless. No one is going to convince me Next needed lossless more than Transformers.

Please explain then why only 59% of the BR disks have lossless? Why isn't it 100% if space is not the issue?

Not only that but they only use dd if lossless is there or not. Seems to contradict what your saying. Gee, imagine that.

Well, nearly all of my disks that don't have lossless are Paramount movies. Clearly, they didn't care much about BD:)

I have a couple Warner movies that don't have lossless also, Superman Returns being one of them. Too bad, that rocket/airplane save scene would be even more epic with top end sound.

I wish 100% of BD's had lossless, as consumers we should demand it. This is the *next gen* format from DVD we are talking about here, both HD-DVD and BD. IMO we aren't getting our money's worth if we aren't getting the best available.

A.VOID, abr27440, Arpeggi, AV Doogie, boo, BuGsArEtAsTy, ChristopherB, cuco33, Dart23, davidcw8, Digital Man5, dkwhite, greg_mitch, Gunnerxxx, habscolts, HD Cam, Hmerly, Hockeytown Fan, iceperson, jameskollar, jared1010, jaybird04, Joe Bloggs, Kable, kamspy, karlw2000, Kitok, loganhunter2002, LT1FUN, mcgarnagle, megaisomot, NTW81, paku, pdusk88, Q of BanditZ, RacingFan, RaymondBlue, Rocket 57, Saitou, schroedk, snaggs, spa, vrverceles, YONEXSP


Are you guys admitting bandwidth deficiency or happy w/o lossless?

If HD DVD had BD's specs, there would be no such need for this poll....but it looks like studios will have to choose which goodies go on each disc as they all can't fit. For transformers, it was losssless sound.

If BR had Transformers with a PCM sound track you would not be able to tell the difference. There are maybe 5 people on this entire forum that would be able to hear the difference. DD+ is the future of high fidelity audio in the same fashion that DD and DTS was 15 years ago. Fanboys on both sides need to understand this.
Dolby True-HD and DTS-HDMA and PCM will remain for HDM but everything else in the world is going DD+. Digital movie theaters are not going to be using DTHD. It is going to be 24 bit DD+. Broadcasters are already being trained to use DD+ for the next gen of audio for broadcasting.

don't accept mediocrity!

DTS MA also has lower peaks = less use of bandwidth and space. No wonder Fox has been able to put 24bit DTS MA tracks on 25gb discs, while still using Mpeg-2 (ugh).

I find it funny that the very same people who were bashing Blu-ray's use of Mpeg-2 on 50gb discs are the ones defending DD+ on HD DVD. There is no reason for DD+ to exist, other than to point out HD DVD's deficiencies. All HD DVDs should have a True HD + 640K DD track, or DTS MA.

DD+ is what is going to be used in all Digital movie theaters and Broadcast HD from now on.
It is actually an extension of DTHD not the other way around. That is why there are very few DD+ receivers in existence.
It is more efficient and a complete bitch to encode in and does have the backward compatibility that DTHD does not. It already has a DD core built in.

DTS-HDMA is also a killer codec but like AVC for video, it takes much more horsepower to decode.
For anyone to suggest that a movie's sound track is garbage because of bit rate or specs is high on drugs. There are many films on DVD with DD soundtracks that crush the DTS version and vice versa.

The same can be said of DTHD versus PCM. Just because it is PCM does not mean it is automatically going to sound better. Your MPEG2 analogy is void of intelligence. Why would anyone fill up a disk just to fill it up? I will actually take it a step further and suggest the same argument against using AVC over VC-1. Studios should never use AVC and should always use VC-1. It is more efficient, decodes easier, encodes easier, has better color support and uses 50% less space.

I'd much rather the studios used higher bit sizes for PQ. Sound is already more a function of the quality of the original mix than the choice of lossless/lossy audio codec. I hate watching stairstepping in the picture. Think the banding in the foggy scenes in "Master and Commander."

If TrueHD can be included without compromising PQ, great. If not, only include DD+ 1.5. One thing I do not want to happen, though, is for those snazzy Pip, U-control features to be discarded to make room for TrueHD.

Perfectly stated. I agree wholeheartedly.

If HD DVD had BD's specs, there would be no such need for this poll....but it looks like studios will have to choose which goodies go on each disc as they all can't fit. For transformers, it was losssless sound.

If HD-DVD had BD's specs then there would be a need to purchase the new BD players post October 31, 2007 to take advantage of ALL the features that BD profile 1.1 offers.

Then, there would be a need to purchase BD players again in May 2008 to finally purchase profile 2.0 players for the (fingers crossed) final specification of BD.


We all shouldn't accept anything less when there is allegedly something better available right? So, line up and start sending in those pre-orders for Profile 1.1 players hitting the market soon. :D

I'd like a lossless track simply for the fact I spent the money on the equipment to hear it. In the real world 99.9% of people including myself don't really hear a difference and it's not a dealbreaker that's for sure, but I'll take it.
My understanding is that most of us do not have the equipment or are capable of spending the kind of money on equipment that will allow us to hear the differences between TrueHD and DD+

Now, if I owned neither format (but knew what was lossless was) and saw one format with 100% of titles having lossless and one with no lossless titles, I'd be inclined to buy the lossless format.
The problem is the general public will buy into the marketing hype of loseless and just think it is better without realizing that they could not hear the difference anyway.

Just my 2 cents...

No.

don't accept mediocrity!

The flip side of the coin is that Warner chose not to release Batman Begins and the Matrix Trilogy on BD at the same time as HD-DVD because it lacked something which HD-DVD has.


I presume you have the $63,000 Esoteric CD transport because it is the King of the Hill sending the signal to a pair or $165,000 Rockport Technologies Arrakis powered by the $130,000 Lamm Industries gem . Obviously, we shouldn't accept mediocrity when the best is available. Correct me if I am wrong?

i couldnt care either way. i get lossless through my receiver, but its not a big deal to me. they can go back to dd for all i care. as long as the movie is entertaining and the pq is crystal clear, im happy

Being that i just upgraded my receiver to the Onkyo 605 for the high def sound formats. I guess its easy to see that i would indeed love to see TrueHD still supported. Transformers did sound awesome but there is always that wonderment of IF they just. . .

If BR had Transformers with a PCM sound track you would not be able to tell the difference. DD+ is the future of high fidelity audio in the same fashion that DD and DTS was 15 years ago.

I would beg to differ with you there . . . while some 1.5mbps soundtracks sound quite good, they still lack in some areas compared to PCM. They don't envelop you quite as much, and you don't get the same feeling from the sound. If you can't hear the difference, sorry for you, but it's not as hard as you make it out to be, and it doesn't require the best equipment in the world, either.

If DD+ is the future, why are there 3 audio formats that outperform it in the present?

Most of the high-end companies have not introduced HDMI 1.3 connections due to complains of audio jitter in the connection. HDMI is not the best connection around when it comes to pure quality but it is the most common for HDM.

HD-SDI is not the most used connection but it is clean.

Everybody accepts HDMI because we have to. However, it is not the most ideal connection. It has been thrust on the consumer for security purpose more than quality. The irony is that many homes do not even have a complete HDMI component chain as yet and we are on version 1.3a already with more versions in the works! Do they expect the consumer to keep changing harware to be on par with HDMI ver. 1.x? Ridiculous! HDMI offers convenience of a one wire solution but it is convenience at the cost of quality. Is everbody planning on changing projectors to take the benefit of DEEP COLOUR due to the wonders of HDMI 1.3?

Why isn't there a big hoopla created for the usage of HDMI? Why isn't there such a big issue of not having anamorphic HD-DVD / Blu-Ray discs for CIH presentations? There's a petition but nothing much has happened as yet although the subtitles of some newer movies are coming up on the movie rather than the black bars.

Most people will not be able to tell the difference between high bit rate DD+ and TrueHD. That is a reality. Those who can tell the difference and really do support HD-DVD have a valid complaint that TrueHD should be implemented. Others who can't pick the difference and really don't give two hoots about HD-DVD are just hitting on the format as a regular chore.

I suppose than HD DVD folks could care less about DTS MA? Could this be true?

Actually, considering a lot of import HD DVD titles feature DTS-HD MA....

But no, HD DVD folks don't really care about audio! Everyone knows this! Like how BD folks don't actually care about video (MPEG2)....

:D

One thing that may have been overlooked: DTS-HD MA provides us with perhaps the best rationalization for upgrading our receivers. (I'm being totally serious here.)

Then there's that TrueHD peak issue that DTS-HD MA doesn't have. :mad: Dolby seems to be in dire need of a swift kick in the ass right about now, IMNSHO.

I find it funny that the very same people who were bashing Blu-ray's use of Mpeg-2 on 50gb discs are the ones defending DD+ on HD DVD.

Indeed. But don't you think you're being a little unreasonable in asking people to be consistent? :cool:

Brandon

oh Bugger, i accidentally hit yes and meant to hit no... if my vote causes the loss of TrueHD for all mankind... I'm am very sorry :-(

They also say that properly dithered 16 bit is equal to 24 bit. Do you believe them or not?
No, "they" don't say that. Some insiders say that, others don't agree. I'm not sure whom to believe there. Anyway, what is your point? Not sure about that... Are you satisfied with getting only 16 bit TrueHD if the master has more than 16 bit?

I am guessing it's because of Warner, who is lazy and encodes for the lowest denominator. Take them out, and I wonder what the percentage becomes (90%?).

There are several Warner titles (The Matrix Trilogy being the most prominent) that feature TrueHD sound, along with many extras like IME, while still providing 5-star picture quality. Ironically, many of those films are not available on Blu-ray at all due to OTHER limitations of that format.

Blu-ray fans don't want to admit it, but most often the reasons studios have for not including lossless audio ARE NOT related to the format they're working with. Paramount is a great example - they have hardly any lossless titles out on either format. That's just their mode of operation. It's got nothing to do with HD DVD.

Needs a "only where applicable" option.

I would beg to differ with you there . . . while some 1.5mbps soundtracks sound quite good, they still lack in some areas compared to PCM. They don't envelop you quite as much, and you don't get the same feeling from the sound. If you can't hear the difference, sorry for you, but it's not as hard as you make it out to be, and it doesn't require the best equipment in the world, either.

If DD+ is the future, why are there 3 audio formats that outperform it in the present?

Outperform in terms of specs, that we can agree on.:) In terms of quality, that is in the ear of the beholder. DD+ can go to 6 mbps max. With HD-DVD it goes to 3mbps peak and 1.7mbps for BR. I would like to take the Transformers stk @ 6mbps PCM and compare it to the current DD+. I will bet $1000.00 US that you will not tell the difference in a blind test. :eek:

As long as they only offer TrueHd 16 bit then I will take DD+ 24 bit at 1.5mbs any day over TrueHD. It sounds better.

Now if the TrueHD is 20bit or 24bit, that is a different story. But realistically 99% of the people will be perfectly happy with 24bit 1.5mbs DD+. If you did a double blind test I would bet that at least 95% of the people would not be able to hear a difference.

no they should not get rid of it...
but not all movies need to use it.

As long as they only offer TrueHd 16 bit then I will take DD+ 24 bit at 1.5mbs any day over TrueHD. It sounds better.

Now if the TrueHD is 20bit or 24bit, that is a different story.
That's the key point that almost everybody in this thread seems to miss.

considering that all players can decode truehd, yes I think having a DD+ with truehd is kind of redundant and only takes up space.

Don't care as much lossless for movie sound as I do about music (DVD-A, SACD). If I'm paying that much attention to it, movie's gotta suck.
I have more of an issue that the discs are not anamorphic, that losing 1/3 of the potential resolution for scope fare was seen as "good enough" for the mass-market and their 16:9 screens.

That's the key point that almost everybody in this thread seems to miss.
Few bother to think past buzzwords like "lossless".

That's the key point that almost everybody in this thread seems to miss.
Few bother to think past buzzwords like "lossless".

Just because someone disagrees does not mean they misunderstand the opposing points being made. Nor does it mean they are ignorant or do not "bother to think". I have reasons that I can articulate, that are well thought out, and that some probably disagree with as to why I want TrueHD to remain an option for the studios.

1. TrueHD sounds different than DD+. Why it sounds different does not matter; if it is different let the users choose which they prefer.
2. Some disks (perhaps many) do not use the maximum bandwidth for the picture. Why not use the extra bandwidth for TrueHD?
3. Eliminating TrueHD will not make pictures or audio tracks better. (IMO) The studios will continue to do as they have; if there is space they might put TrueHD on the disk. There are HDDVDs with plenty of room and bandwidth for TrueHD but still do not have it.
4. 51GB disks are going to be released. Space for TrueHD will not be an issue.
5. There are plenty of people who have never seen a tornado. Just because you can not tell a difference between TrueHD and DD+ does not mean there is no difference.

As long as they only offer TrueHd 16 bit then I will take DD+ 24 bit at 1.5mbs any day over TrueHD. It sounds better.

Now if the TrueHD is 20bit or 24bit, that is a different story. But realistically 99% of the people will be perfectly happy with 24bit 1.5mbs DD+. If you did a double blind test I would bet that at least 95% of the people would not be able to hear a difference.

That is entirely possible. But for me to know if I fall into the 5% category, or even if the 95/5 ratio is correct, I would need to have otherwise identical 24bit 1.5mbs DD+ and 24bit TrueHD audio tracks. Without both, all of us are only guessing. Having an outstanding DD+ track does not prevent a TrueHD version of that track from being better. Could I hear a difference? Give me the two tracks first.

Yes, another poll!

As an HD DVD owner myself, I started thinking about the precedent that has been set with Transformers.

In this case 1.5 Mbps DD+ has shown that it can rival many of the TrueHD tracks on the format.

So the question is, assuming WB, Universal and Paramount would commit to always using 1.5Mbps DD+ and not 640 or any other resolution, would you be in favor of dumping TrueHD in order to give more space and bandwidth back to PQ and extras?

I think this is a fair question, especially since many now feel TrueHD is overkill.

Public poll - please, HD DVD owners only.

Very slick thread sir!:rolleyes:

However it is easy for me to see through your guile.

This is merely a veiled flamebait poll. The end is to trick HD DVD owners into agreeing with the OP's agenda: that HD DVD 30G is too small to include both extras and Lossless sound!

All I want is for it to sound good the codec doesn't matter. If anyone else says it does they are just trying to turn this thread and others into a bd/hd dvd is better than bd/hd dvd argument.

All I want is for it to sound good the codec doesn't matter. If anyone else says it does they are just trying to turn this thread and others into a bd/hd dvd is better than bd/hd dvd argument.

I don't want it to just sound good, I want it to sound the best that it can. And with DD+ only titles, I will always wonder if it could have been more.

Just because someone disagrees does not mean they misunderstand the opposing points being made. Nor does it mean they are ignorant or do not "bother to think". I have reasons that I can articulate, that are well thought out, and that some probably disagree with as to why I want TrueHD to remain an option for the studios.



Cool. Still, few bother to think past buzzwords like "lossless".

People keep coming up with distorted polls -- if you're going to prepare a poll, at least go to the trouble of creating a set of good options that cover the real possibilities, not just a slanted view of them!

There is at least one other rational possibility -- only use lossless audio when it genuinely benefits the movie presentation!

I've no interest in giving up audible sound quality when viewing a movie, however, I've also no interest in having lossless purely for the sake of having lossless. Your poll completely ignores that entire issue!

Without having access to the master, I personally can't make that evaluation, but I certainly hope the studio is taking that into account when making its CODEC selections. In the case of "Transformers", I'm trusting Paramount to have concluded there was little to no difference viewing with DTHD Vs high-bitrate DD+.

The only reason I can come up with for "requiring" studios to include a lossless track would be for the purpose of hemming them in because we don't trust their evaluation. Well, that's ultimately a little ridiculous since we are simply unable to "require" ANYTHING of the studios. All we can do is request reasonable things and hope they go along with us. Hence, my posiiton is as stated above.

In any case -- it's impossible for me to choose between the provided poll selections -- I consider both wrong.

Without having access to the master, I personally can't make that evaluation, but I certainly hope the studio is taking that into account when making its CODEC selections.

The role of the studio is to give us the worst picture and audio quality and the least amount of extras that they can get away with.

Thank goodness that despite the "it can sound, you probably can't tell" posts of the mediocrity lovers the poll results speak loud, clear and lossless.;)

Very slick thread sir!:rolleyes:

However it is easy for me to see through your guile.

This is merely a veiled flamebait poll. The end is to trick HD DVD owners into agreeing with the OP's agenda: that HD DVD 30G is too small to include both extras and Lossless sound!

Um, it's a fair question.

BTW, I have supported the HD DVD format with well over $3K. How much have you put into the format? ;)

Outperform in terms of specs, that we can agree on.:) In terms of quality, that is in the ear of the beholder. DD+ can go to 6 mbps max. With HD-DVD it goes to 3mbps peak and 1.7mbps for BR. I would like to take the Transformers stk @ 6mbps PCM and compare it to the current DD+. I will bet $1000.00 US that you will not tell the difference in a blind test. :eek:

I'd take that bet, if it were possible, in a heartbeat. You're right, some people can tell the difference, some can't. Buy why solely cater to those who can't? Some people can't tell the difference between DTS and DD on DVD's . . . but I can, so it's worth it to me (and many others).

Can you tell the difference between an MP3 at 256 & 320? Just for my reference, not to degrade your abilities.

I really hope nobody's taking my comments as format war driven, as I certainly don't intend them to be. Even though I don't support HD-DVD, I think the basis of the conversation is the same, and that is "why settle for A when B is better and available at the same time/price?"

Would it not have been better just to have included uncompressed PCM on all HD DVD And Blu-Ray Discs? Then no need for any of the confusion....

Please no "but it takes up too much space"

Please...

Would it not have been better just to have included uncompressed PCM on all HD DVD And Blu-Ray Discs? Then no need for any of the confusion....

Please no "but it takes up too much space"

Please...

Actually LPCM takes up too much bandwidth for HD DVD. 24/48 5.1 LPCM is about 8Mbps and add a couple of other DD+ and you have used up a full 1/3 of HD DVD's available bandwidth. TrueHD takes a little over 1/2 the bandwidth of LPCM so is a much better choice for HD DVD.

BD has 9Mbps reserved for audio and would still have 40Mbps left over for video so it is no problem to use LPCM and if fact is almost a waist not to.

Lossless for me.
Extras don't do anything for me at all.

I guess I'm in the minority, but I personaly dont care what my movies sound like. And concerts on disk sound fine in DD to me. With my equipment, I would never be able to tell the difference anyway. If I had all Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers, then yes.
All that matters to me in my video system is PQ, PQ and nothing but PQ! :D

I guess I'm in the minority, but I personaly dont care what my movies sound like. And concerts on disk sound fine in DD to me. With my equipment, I would never be able to tell the difference anyway. If I had all Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers, then yes.
All that matters to me in my video system is PQ, PQ and nothing but PQ! :D

One day you may own Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers. You will still have the same HD DVD's you are buying today and tomorrow. Then you will regret not speaking up and demanding lossless in the past (present). ;)

One day you may own Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers. You will still have the same HD DVD's you are buying today and tomorrow. Then you will regret not speaking up and demanding lossless in the past (present). ;)

Ya think? :D

One day you may own Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers. You will still have the same HD DVD's you are buying today and tomorrow. Then you will regret not speaking up and demanding lossless in the past (present). ;)
Or maybe you will regret that you did speak up and that your 24bit DD+ tracks got replaced with 16bit TrueHD tracks? It's no doubt that 20bit TrueHD is better than 24bit DD+. But jury is still out on whether 24bit DD+ or 16bit TrueHD is better.

Very slick thread sir!:rolleyes:

However it is easy for me to see through your guile.

This is merely a veiled flamebait poll. The end is to trick HD DVD owners into agreeing with the OP's agenda: that HD DVD 30G is too small to include both extras and Lossless sound!

I disagree.

This thread is not anti-HD DVD, it is pro-DTS!

J'accuse!

:D

Or maybe you will regret that you did speak up and that your 24bit DD+ tracks got replaced with 16bit TrueHD tracks? It's no doubt that 20bit TrueHD is better than 24bit DD+. But jury is still out on whether 24bit DD+ or 16bit TrueHD is better.

If we set our standards low then that is all the studios will give us. I want lossless at the same sampling rate and bit-depth as the master, whether that is 48/16, 48/24, 96/24, or whatever.

I have 23 hd dvds and am more than happy with dolby digital plus core 1.5mbps track and the 2 channel pcm which is uncompressed. Dolby true hd might be better but it is not needed for every film. If hd dvd keeps putting dolby digital plus and dolby true hd soundtracks on there discs then it will become more confusing like the blu ray discs have become. Don't forget that both of these formats have to get the support of the general public otherwise they will go the way of the dvd audio formats. If you played a dolby digital plus track and then played a dolby true hd track most of the general public could not tell the difference. Hd dvd has to remain simple if the public are going to support it. The sound on the hd dvd of transformers was exellent.

I have 23 hd dvds and am more than happy with dolby digital plus core 1.5mbps track and the 2 channel pcm which is uncompressed. Dolby true hd might be better but it is not needed for every film. If hd dvd keeps putting dolby digital plus and dolby true hd soundtracks on there discs then it will become more confusing like the blu ray discs have become. Don't forget that both of these formats have to get the support of the general public otherwise they will go the way of the dvd audio formats. If you played a dolby digital plus track and then played a dolby true hd track most of the general public could not tell the difference. Hd dvd has to remain simple if the public are going to support it. The sound on the hd dvd of transformers was exellent.

You gather 10 people and ask them which they'd like on their movies: "Dolby True HD or Dolby Digital Plus" I'll bet that at least 8 of them will choose True HD simply because of the name. So in terms of marketing, which is better?

If it's about catering to the general people only then HD DVD should've then went 720p as most can't tell the difference anyways. It's about getting the best out of the technology available.

Supposedly, there's an issue with the peak bandwidth for True HD that HD DVD group needs to adress to Dolby.

One day you may own Krell electronics, and Martin Logan speakers. You will still have the same HD DVD's you are buying today and tomorrow. Then you will regret not speaking up and demanding lossless in the past (present).
He might also one day have a 2.35:1 screen on which to present "Scope" films properly, yet 1/3 of the resolution of such discs has been ceded to black bars with nary a whimper from the "I don't accept mediocrity" crowd. With the increasing prevalence of 1080p projectors, such additional resolution might have been of more benefit than the subtle improvement wrought by lossless audio in a movie soundtrack.

He might also one day have a 2.35:1 screen on which to present "Scope" films properly, yet 1/3 of the resolution of such discs has been ceded to black bars with nary a whimper from the "I don't accept mediocrity" crowd. With the increasing prevalence of 1080p projectors, such additional resolution might have been of more benefit than the subtle improvement wrought by lossless audio in a movie soundtrack.

Okay here is my whimper.

Both Sony and Toshiba were considering an anamorphic 2.35 feature for their disc (I believe BD was closer but the clock was ticking) . However in their rush to try and beat the other to market (verses working together for a single unified format) it was left off both systems. One more reason this stinking WAR sucks (besides all the fanbabies) and Sony and Toshiba should be ashamed for not working together (like DVD).

How was that? :D

Okay here is my whimper.

Both Sony and Toshiba were considering an anamorphic 2.35 feature for their disc (I believe BD was closer but the clock was ticking) . However in their rush to try and beat the other to market (verses working together for a single unified format) it was left off both systems. One more reason this stinking WAR sucks (besides all the fanbabies) and Sony and Toshiba should be ashamed for not working together (like DVD).

How was that? :D
Better than nothing. :) Coulda been so cool...

Even though I voted to keep TrueHD, I don't care for the way the choices are worded. I don't think TrueHD should be "dumped" altogether. TrueHD is nice to have when it can be used, but, if a disc doesn't have TrueHD but does have a high bit rate DD+ track at 20 or 24-bit resolution, I'm fine with that.

Um, it's a fair question.

BTW, I have supported the HD DVD format with well over $3K. How much have you put into the format? ;)

Over 3 grand, and all on ONLY HD DVD. :p

Even though I voted to keep TrueHD, I don't care for the way the choices are worded. I don't think TrueHD should be "dumped" altogether. TrueHD is nice to have when it can be used, but, if a disc doesn't have TrueHD but does have a high bit rate DD+ track at 20 or 24-bit resolution, I'm fine with that.

Robert,

I worded it that way because it's obvious many think 24-bit DD+ has proven more than adequate based on Transformers (and it is a great track, LFE issues not withstanding). But the question stands - why keep TrueHD at all for films after seeing what can be accomplished with DD+?

And it also goes back to the question I have posed more than once: Why did Next warrant TrueHD use but not Transformers?

And finally, I did not intend the Yes option to appear as though HD DVD needs extra space for better PQ. The PQ is already great. I was merely saying that since many don't think the space TrueHD uses is justified, why not give it to something else and use DD+?

Over 3 grand, and all on ONLY HD DVD. :p

Let's see your list. ;)

Let's see your list. ;)

Spoken like a true BD supporter. Anybody can list a bunch of titles on the internet and say it is theirs.:rolleyes:
PHOTOS pal.:D

I don't have to prove a thing to you. I am too old for that sh%#t.;)

But the question stands - why keep TrueHD at all for films after seeing what can be accomplished with DD+?

I think that this question is at the root of the disagreement. Supporters of TrueHD being an option for audio are always looking for something better. No matter how good DD+ can be, it is not possible for a lossy audio format to be as good as a lossless audio format, given that both use the same source. (bit-rate, pre-compression techniques, mixing, etc.)

If more bandwidth is needed to handle it, then add more bandwidth.
If lossless can fit, then do lossless.
If more pixels can be used, use more pixels. 4320p? Right-On! :)

I figure most TrueHD supports are quite happy with transformer's DD+ audio track (excepting LFE energy levels). But they would be more-happy with a 24-bit TrueHD track.

But 99% of the people, which doesn't include this forum, will not care about any difference between DD+ and True HD. And most people can't hear the difference or don't have the equipment to allow them to hear a difference.

I guess I'm just an overly enthusiastic passionate person in pursuit of the next level at whatever I do. I obsesivly hit the gym 5 or more times a week. I run 25 to 40 miles a week and keep an Excel file of my calories, heart rate, and time. I love cars (have a roadster) and even obsess over numismatics. Many of my friends say I have semi compulsive behavior. However nothing has stirred my passions as long as audio has (I was too young to know about sex). When I was about 5 or 6 years old my parents had a console stereo. I distinctly remember playing Jan and Den (I know but...) and sitting between the two speakers and being mesmerized and inspired by the stereo sound.

When I hear the amount of complacency and willingness to except mediocratie just because it's good enough, it makes me ill. Why are you here if you don't have the passion to want an improvement however small it may be. It also seems so may have been raised on MP3's that they would actually pick and prefer a "hot" lossy track over the uncompressed original.

Man, you pretty much summed up my thoughts entirely. I too, cannot stand mediocrity. It bugs me that these companies have the power to put out an outstanding product, yet they decide that delivering a product that is a few steps below top notch is good enough.

Look, I don't have a $50K audio setup, but I did spent a lot of time and effort to get to where I am now. I like having the option of having a High Res audio track on my Hi Def media so that in the future if I wanted to take advantage of the full capabilities of these Hi Res audio tracks, I could.

Spoken like a true BD supporter. Anybody can list a bunch of titles on the internet and say it is theirs.:rolleyes:
PHOTOS pal.:D

I don't have to prove a thing to you. I am too old for that sh%#t.;)

That's what I thought. :)

Whenever you want a pic of my collection with me holding a sign that says Dan5thMaster Rocks!, let me know. ;)

I think that this question is at the root of the disagreement. Supporters of TrueHD being an option for audio are always looking for something better. No matter how good DD+ can be, it is not possible for a lossy audio format to be as good as a lossless audio format, given that both use the same source. (bit-rate, pre-compression techniques, mixing, etc.)

If more bandwidth is needed to handle it, then add more bandwidth.
If lossless can fit, then do lossless.
If more pixels can be used, use more pixels. 4320p? Right-On! :)

I figure most TrueHD supports are quite happy with transformer's DD+ audio track (excepting LFE energy levels). But they would be more-happy with a 24-bit TrueHD track.

That's a good point.

Also, if the TrueHD track on Next is only 16-bit, then it would make more sense.

I'm not sure if there's any "art" involved with creating a TrueHD track from a master, or if it is just the TrueHD encoding tool doing its thing.

However, a DD+ track like Transformers' certainly needs a lot of skill to encode properly. And while Transformers certainly received the attention it deserved on its DD+ track, I have to wonder if other DD+ tracks for lower profile titles would get as much attention. In those cases, we may be better off with a lossless track.

Hope that made sense.

While DD+ can be as good as lossless, I find in A/Bing on discs that have both that the TrueHD usually sounds noticeably better, with more depth to the soundstage. Sometimes not (LICENSE TO WED being the most recent example where it's a waste of space) but on most it does.

Drop TrueHD, it's pointless. The video is in far greater need of those extra bits than the audio is.

How about another option. I don't bloody care as long as it looks and sounds very good. To me it isn't really as much of an issue as should I use FLAC or SHN for my audio server. In the case of a server, space is a real issue and I want the ability to transcode into another format, ie to an mp3 player, my palm, whatever. With HD-DVD, since I really can't do anything with the disk but play it, all I care about is my viewing / listening experience. If it is good, I am very happy, if not, well then I am not.

HD DVD Owners: Should studios dump TrueHD in favor of 1.5Mbps DD+?

HD-DVD owners have spoken:

Yes
100 25.06%
No, lossless audio is still important to me.
299 votes 74.94%

So by majority vote (74.94%) HD-DVD owners expect every release to have at least a TrueHD audio track. OK, Warner, Paramount, Universal make it happen. Give your customers what they want. Absolutely no excuses. :)