From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?sec_id=2&newsid=11663

The winner for Best Audio Quality should surprise a LOT of people on these boards (you know who you are).



High-Def Award Winners:

High Def Title of the Year: 300 (Blu-ray), Warner Home Video

Best Live-Action Blu-ray: Casino Royale, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Best Live-Action HD DVD: Hot Fuzz, Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Animated: Ratatouille (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Picture Quality: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

Best Bonus Feature: 300 (HD DVD), Bluescreen Picture-in-Picture, Warner Home Video

Most Innovative Use of New Technology: HD DVD U-Shop feature (Internet purchase ability), Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Long-Form Music Video: Dave Mathews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall (Blu-ray), Sony BMG

Best Catalog: Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

Best Collection/Multidisc Set: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

Heh. Gotta love it. :D

Nice to see both sides pick up some awards.

A bit confused on the 300 win for Blu-Ray (HD title of the year). Weren't they pretty much the same transfer but the HD DVD had more features or more interactivity? Or am I just remembering wrong (too lazy to look it up).

Just confused on what the 300 BD had that the 300 HD DVD did not that gave it the win. Can someone refresh my memory?

A bit confused on the 300 win for Blu-Ray (HD title of the year). Weren't they pretty much the same transfer but the HD DVD had more features or more interactivity? Or am I just remembering wrong (too lazy to look it up).

Just confused on what the 300 BD had that the 300 HD DVD did not that gave it the win. Can someone refresh my memory?

Well it CERTAINLY wasn't PQ:p

It was the number of discs sold.

Casino Royale - best live action picture . . . ??????????

Well it CERTAINLY wasn't PQ:p

It was the number of discs sold.

Casino Royale - best live action picture . . . ??????????

...but it's Home Media Magazine the undisputed bible of the HT industry.:confused:

Well it CERTAINLY wasn't PQ:p

It was the number of discs sold.

Casino Royale - best live action picture . . . ??????????
Or... Maybe they just thought it was the best live action movie.

While it wasn't my favourite release, Casino Royale overall was a reasonably good movie, and it got 94% over at Rotten Tomatoes so it's quite clear that the critics liked it, as did the movie-going public.

...but it's Home Media Magazine the undisputed bible of the HT industry.:confused:


No, it's not. They are just reporting the winners. Did you bother to read the link to see who voted on the awards?

No, it's not. They are just reporting the winners. Did you bother to read the link to see who voted on the awards?

Oh Oh . . .

A panel of critics and bloggers determined the best titles in 11 categories, with eligibility dating back to the inception of each high-def format — HD DVD in April 2006 and Blu-ray Disc in June 2006.

No, it's not. They are just reporting the winners. Did you bother to read the link to see who voted on the awards?

"...A panel of critics and bloggers...":D:D:D:rolleyes:

From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?sec_id=2&newsid=11663

The winner for Best Audio Quality should surprise a LOT of people on these boards (you know who you are).
I thoroughly enjoyed "Trasformers" and the sound is great!

But for those who are more experienced than I that would take issue with the film winning Best Audio, I think you are clearly vindicated...

"critics and bloggers"

:rolleyes:

Then there's "300"; a film that purportedly looks nearly as good on DVD due to the grain effect.

Thanks Rusty

7 wins for Blu Ray and 4 for HD DVD

63% Blu Ray
37% HD DVD

That is really close to inception numbers:D

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

But...but...but...

Oh well, I guess some people were right. :D

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

But...but...but...

Oh well, I guess some people were right. :D

but...but...but...it could have been better?:D

Well the winn for BD version of 300 is the most strange. Sure its a good purchase but thats really the Warner title were i bought the red over the blue because it had more.

Makes me wonder who the critics and the bloggers were.

Maybe it was a critic that also blogged ;)

but...but...but...it could have been better?:D

If you are the best, you are the best. Its hard to beat that. Who knows, maybe going lossless would have made it worse...just like all the other flix with lossless!:eek:

Seriously, my bet is they tested things on systems closer to what the average person would use. That would take away the lossless advatage.

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

But...but...but...

Oh well, I guess some people were right. :D

IMO, as good as Transformers sounded, Blackhawk Down mops the floor with it. That is one Visceral sound mix.

Then there's "300"; a film that purportedly looks nearly as good on DVD due to the grain effect.

Thanks Rusty

I happen to have the HD DVD and the DVD of this (thanks combo!) and can say that the HD version is MUCH sharper (at least to my eyes in relation to detail etc). I am not sure if the DVD version on the flip side of the combo is the same as the retail DVD of the film but I can't imagine that they actually did 2 encodes)

My guess on the BD win over the HD version of 300 is simply based on number of units sold (although they could have had a "300 in HD" as the encodes are identical

MovieSwede,

I am surprised by 300 Blu Ray being the title of the year. The picture quality, while being transparent to the master, was not what most people call demo material.

Also, CE3K winning box set surprises me also. What about the Matrix (don't own it), Spiderman, Planet Earth.

Everdog,

We don't need to drag the stupid Lossless/Transformers argument out again. Even though it did sound good, you, me and the ROTW will never know if it could have been better with lossless. For a non lossless track to win is pitiful.

IMO, as good as Transformers sounded, Blackhawk Down mops the floor with it. That is one Visceral sound mix.

To bad BHD was released 2006 then.

We don't need to drag the stupid Lossless/Transformers argument out again. Even though it did sound good, you, me and the ROTW will never know if it could have been better with lossless. For a non lossless track to win is pitiful.

Actually its nice that they dared give best sound to a title that didnt get lossless. That shows studios that they need a good source and not just lossless.

Beside even if Transformer could sound better, it still beat all thoose lossless titles with just a lossy encode.

If you winn you winn.

(Of course I do have my doubts over the jury)

To bad BHD was released 2006 then.

Kingdom of Heaven, which won for Best Catalog, was released the same time as BHD. But I suppose it doesn't explicitly say "Best Catalog of the Year."

Best Collection/Multidisc Set: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

?

Did ANY of these "critics and bloggers" even see Planet Earth?

I don't care WHICH format they would have choosen. It should have won hands down - period!

?

Did ANY of these "critics and bloggers" even see Planet Earth?

I don't care WHICH format they would have choosen. It should have won hands down - period!

Seconded...

From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?sec_id=2&newsid=11663

The winner for Best Audio Quality should surprise a LOT of people on these boards (you know who you are).



High-Def Award Winners:

High Def Title of the Year: 300 (Blu-ray), Warner Home Video

Best Live-Action Blu-ray: Casino Royale, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Best Live-Action HD DVD: Hot Fuzz, Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Animated: Ratatouille (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Picture Quality: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

Best Bonus Feature: 300 (HD DVD), Bluescreen Picture-in-Picture, Warner Home Video

Most Innovative Use of New Technology: HD DVD U-Shop feature (Internet purchase ability), Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Long-Form Music Video: Dave Mathews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall (Blu-ray), Sony BMG

Best Catalog: Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

Best Collection/Multidisc Set: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

The bold quote here just proves how many of you TF apologists "don't get it"

99% of the people who want lossless on TF would NEVER say the soundtrack sucked (which is what you ALL infer).

That same 99% just want to hear the differences (if any). But they can't.

Period

Must remember that it isnt always a demand that you have watched every movie to be allowed to vote.

So usually the one with the greatest audience has the best chance of winning.

But can you really compete in this.

How do you judge a set like planet earth with close encounters???

Like judge a hamburger against a milkshake.

All of the awards seem appropriate except for one.

Giving Transformers the award for best audio is laughable. The disk I bought didn't even have the LFE channel working properly.

The audio isn't even lossless.

Makes no sense at all. It would be like giving Superbad the Academy Award for best Drama.

All of the awards seem appropriate except for one.

Giving Transformers the award for best audio is laughable. The disk I bought didn't even have the LFE channel working properly.

The audio isn't even lossless.

Makes no sense at all. It would be like giving Superbad the Academy Award for best Drama.
Captured for amusing irony, given the content of the first post.

The bold quote here just proves how many of you TF apologists "don't get it"

99% of the people who want lossless on TF would NEVER say the soundtrack sucked (which is what you ALL infer).

That same 99% just want to hear the differences (if any). But they can't.

Period
Actually, some reviewers outright claimed a lossless track on Transformers would sound better, despite the fact they had never heard the masters, even when they themselves gave the Transformers soundtrack a perfect score. Basically, some people are just too hung up on specs like this, even in the face of actual performance.

I think they gave Transformers the award for audio because they didn't want it to feel left out. ;)

Captured for amusing irony, given the content of the first post.


Actually, some reviewers outright claimed a lossless track on Transformers would sound better, despite the fact they had never heard the masters, even when they themselves gave the Transformers soundtrack a perfect score. Basically, too many people are hung up on specs like this, while ignoring the actual content's quality.

That is why I said 99% ;)

It is wong to disregard it for these "awards" solely because it isnt lossless IMO.

But what would the BR with a PCM track sound like?
Or Dolby THD on the HD DVD?

We may, or may not ever know. *shrug*

I think they gave Transformers the award for audio because they didn't want it to feel left out. ;)

I agree with this. Its like they felt guilty and had to give it something.

However I find it hilarious that they gave it "best audio" LOL.

The people complaining about the Close Encounters box set win obviously don't own that box set. Definitely higher quality than Planet Earth.

I agree with this. Its like they felt guilty and had to give it something.

However I find it hilarious that they gave it "best audio" LOL.

The people complaining about the Close Encounters box set win obviously don't own that box set. Definitely higher quality than Planet Earth.


?

?

Did ANY of these "critics and bloggers" even see Planet Earth?

I don't care WHICH format they would have choosen. It should have won hands down - period!

I agree that Planet Earth was a great series with excellant PQ etc. However, the experience that CEofTK provided, with the three different versions of the movie was slightly more significant, IMO.

I agree that Planet Earth was a great series with excellant PQ etc. However, the experience that CEofTK provided, with the three different versions of the movie was slightly more significant, IMO.

Seems the HDM buying public does not agree with your conclusion . . . neither do I.

I like Planet Earth, but I certainly wouldn't have expected it to win the Best Box Set award.

I agree that Planet Earth was a great series with excellant PQ etc. However, the experience that CEofTK provided, with the three different versions of the movie was slightly more significant, IMO.

Then what about Blade Runner? Doesn't that have many versions of the film included in the box set?

Well it CERTAINLY wasn't PQ:p

It was the number of discs sold.

Casino Royale - best live action picture . . . ??????????

Live action means no scifi or fantasy. Which pretty much is a battle between CR, DieHard4, Bourne, though DH4 is walking a fineline since it relies just a little too much on SFx.

Then what about Blade Runner? Doesn't that have many versions of the film included in the box set?
It's not out yet in North America.

Live action means no scifi or fantasy. Which pretty much is a battle between CR, DieHard4, Bourne, though DH4 is walking a fineline since it relies just a little too much on SFx.

Read the criteria again - SI from each format.

In 20 months . . . 3 films . . that's it?

It's not out yet in North America.

But shouldn't it be counted since it will be released this year?

Read the criteria again - SI from each format.

In 20 months . . . 3 films . . that's it?

There are others, but those 3 are the biggest. (All Bourne and all DH should quality, as would Layer Cake, Enter the Dragon, and a whole bunch of lesser movies, including the very well made District 13 (Banlieue 13)). Realistically, those 3 would be the nominees (methinks). If Bourne3 had been out by now, Hot Fuzz would have no chance at that HD DVD title --- it's just not in the same class. FWIW, I though any of the bourne movies were better than Hot Fuzz. Even comparing them in the same sentence is giving that disk too much credit.

Live action means no scifi or fantasy. Which pretty much is a battle between CR, DieHard4, Bourne, though DH4 is walking a fineline since it relies just a little too much on SFx.

I didn't see that description of "live action" in the article.

Batman Begins is a live action movie. As was Spiderman 3.

Live action means no scifi or fantasy.
That's not what "live-action" means at all. It basically means "not animated." It means real people were shot - hence, there was "live action." It has nothing to do with the genre of the film.

The most telling part of the voting is that no Warner neutral (with the same features) titles won. When half the voters are biased one way or the other, this is going to happen. And what kind of category is "best catalog"? For a movie that was 1 year old at the time of release? For a release that did not include multiple cuts of the film? For a release that didn't included any extras but the trailer? For a release that used an outdated video codec and was priced outrageously for a "catalog" title? Warner and their bountiful catalog releases be damned, I guess.

They shoud have had two more categories for catalog titles. These would have been interesting.

Best upgrade over the SD DVD for video.

Best upgrade over the SD DVD for audio.

I agree with this. Its like they felt guilty and had to give it something.

However I find it hilarious that they gave it "best audio" LOL.



I agree with this. It seems they just decided to give something to all the big hitter titles of 2007.

I agree with this. It seems they just decided to give something to all the big hitter titles of 2007.

So what happened to The Prestiege and The Departed?

what are these?

the gamespot of the year HD video awards sponsored by eidos? :)

I was very happy to see that Hot Fuzz won. It is my favorite HD DVD. :)

What is really ironic is that the audio on Hot Fuzz is much better than Transformers. Transformers had the worst audio on any HDM release I have ever heard. It really just baffles the mind why they would award it "best audio".

I was very happy to see that Hot Fuzz won. It is my favorite HD DVD. :)

What is really ironic is that the audio on Hot Fuzz is much better than Transformers. Transformers had the worst audio on any HDM release I have ever heard. It really just baffles the mind why they would award it "best audio".


The worst audio on any HDM release? How can this be taken seriously? It sounded incredible, as most would say. It won the award, so maybe something is wrong with your disc? It sounded amazing to my ears. I thought my neighbors would be at my door with torches and pitchforks! :)

Best Collection/Multidisc Set: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

I can't imagine this is a better set then Star Trek Season 1. There are so many extras and bits of info on the Star Trek set along with the super cool original episode trailers!!!!

I maybe in the minority here but i think the best sounding movies are the ones that have a musical score that really gets inside your ear and makes you feel. Obviously transformers has sound effects out that wazoooo that sound awesome, but to me nothing compares to the musical score in superman returns when it is cranked up....especially the music when he is flying with lois around the city... it sound so pure and so real....

After hearing that for me, finding movies with strong musical scores thats in dolby truehd is more important that picture quality.

My ears cant wait for Lord of the Rings

Transformers had the worst audio on any HDM release I have ever heard. It really just baffles the mind why they would award it "best audio".

Apparently, they didn't share your opinion. Why is that so baffling?

Apparently, they didn't share your opinion. Why is that so baffling?

It wasn't just my opinion. Do a little research on the internet, and you will see that thousands of people had problems with the Transformers audio for several reasons:

1) The entire soundtrack is so muted that you have to crank the receiver to higher levels than any other movie. For example I own about 300 DVDs and 70 HDM movies. All of the titles are extremely (hurt your ears) loud at -15db on my Yamaha RX-V2700. To get an equivalent volume with the Transformers HD DVD disc the volume must be set to -2db. Hundreds of owners have all independently reported this problem.

2) The LFE is broken and not transparent to the reference IMAX experience. This was discussed at length on Michael Bay's personal forum site. There may have been some mastering issues. For example there is no detectable LFE during the pulse explosions in the opening scenes. Hundreds of owners have independently reported this problem.

3) It is a DD+ lossy soundtrack.

For these reasons it is truly baffling why this disc would be awarded "best audio". There are so many superior DTHD and PCM soundtracks out there it is just hilarious that Transformers got this award. I think some editor must have decided to have a joke.

Well the winn for BD version of 300 is the most strange. Sure its a good purchase but thats really the Warner title were i bought the red over the blue because it had more.

Makes me wonder who the critics and the bloggers were.

Maybe it was a critic that also blogged ;)

My guess would be that given the two were the same, but the HD DVD was getting the award for the additional content, they took a balanced approach by giving the best title award to the BD instead -- either direction could be questioned equally with a 50/50 shot.

I wasn't surprised one bit about Transformers. It is truly amazing and should demonstrate to all of hollywood what all soundtracks should sound like. It is amazing.

Transformers also sounded better after the firmware updates that Toshiba released for all of its 1st , 2nd and 3rd generation players.

Obviously a lot of people agree with the fact that its audio was outstanding even if its was not lossless as DD+ did deliver the required effect.

The 300 win might have been for overall sales or for advancing HDM in general in terms of impact.

It wasn't just my opinion. Do a little research on the internet, and you will see that thousands of people had problems with the Transformers audio for several reasons:

1) The entire soundtrack is so muted that you have to crank the receiver to higher levels than any other movie. For example I own about 300 DVDs and 70 HDM movies. All of the titles are extremely (hurt your ears) loud at -15db on my Yamaha RX-V2700. To get an equivalent volume with the Transformers HD DVD disc the volume must be set to -2db. Hundreds of owners have all independently reported this problem.

2) The LFE is broken and not transparent to the reference IMAX experience. This was discussed at length on Michael Bay's personal forum site. There may have been some mastering issues. For example there is no detectable LFE during the pulse explosions in the opening scenes. Hundreds of owners have independently reported this problem.

3) It is a DD+ lossy soundtrack.

For these reasons it is truly baffling why this disc would be awarded "best audio". There are so many superior DTHD and PCM soundtracks out there it is just hilarious that Transformers got this award. I think some editor must have decided to have a joke.

And thousands other people have repeatedly stated that the audio mix on the HD-DVD is among the finest they've ever heard (myself included). Sorry, but I didn't experience any of those problems. And to imply that it is not worthy of consideration just because it's a DD+ lossy track is shortsighted and uninformed.

So no, I don't think it was a joke at all. I think it was an excellent call.

Best Picture Quality shouldn't have been offered to POTC-2. I thought Hot Fuzz, Transformers and Casino Royale itself was better.

All of the awards seem appropriate except for one.

Giving Transformers the award for best audio is laughable. The disk I bought didn't even have the LFE channel working properly.

The audio isn't even lossless.

Makes no sense at all. It would be like giving Superbad the Academy Award for best Drama.

Giving 300 the award for BD is laughable. Especially when you consider they also gave the 300 HD the award for best feature (Blue Screen) when the HD looks as good as the BD version and it has the special feature on the same disc. What a joke.

?

Did ANY of these "critics and bloggers" even see Planet Earth?

I don't care WHICH format they would have choosen. It should have won hands down - period!Absolutely. +100

Also, there is no way that Pirates had the best PQ - King Kong was light years ahead of it, as was Hot Fuzz.

And I obviously don't understand the criteria used to select "300" Bluray as the winner, either - it was the identical encode to the HD DVD version, and the HD DVD version had far more features, plus the interactivity. And "300" on Bluray was not the biggest selling release of all time either - so who know how the heck this got the nod... Congrats to Warner anyway - tho they would have been on safer ground naming "300" on both formats as the double winner.

Transformers also sounded better after the firmware updates that Toshiba released for all of its 1st , 2nd and 3rd generation players.

Obviously a lot of people agree with the fact that its audio was outstanding even if its was not lossless as DD+ did deliver the required effect.
Not gonna' say it couldn't've (that's an Oregonian contraction, BTW) sounded better, but...

it sounded great do me!

I want the best, but if we could get mass adoption with a majority of films on HDM, I would be plenty content if I had to live with that kind of quality.

Lost me at "#1 300 Blu-ray".

I was very happy to see that Hot Fuzz won. It is my favorite HD DVD. :)

What is really ironic is that the audio on Hot Fuzz is much better than Transformers. Transformers had the worst audio on any HDM release I have ever heard. It really just baffles the mind why they would award it "best audio".

Its my demo material.

From http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?sec_id=2&newsid=11663

The winner for Best Audio Quality should surprise a LOT of people on these boards (you know who you are).



High-Def Award Winners:

High Def Title of the Year: 300 (Blu-ray), Warner Home Video

Best Live-Action Blu-ray: Casino Royale, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Best Live-Action HD DVD: Hot Fuzz, Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Animated: Ratatouille (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Picture Quality: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (Blu-ray), Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Best Audio Quality: Transformers (HD DVD), Paramount Home Entertainment

Best Bonus Feature: 300 (HD DVD), Bluescreen Picture-in-Picture, Warner Home Video

Most Innovative Use of New Technology: HD DVD U-Shop feature (Internet purchase ability), Universal Studios Home Entertainment

Best Long-Form Music Video: Dave Mathews & Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City Music Hall (Blu-ray), Sony BMG

Best Catalog: Kingdom of Heaven: Director’s Cut, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

Best Collection/Multidisc Set: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

Hot Fuzz/King Kong and a whole lot more titles & Planet Earth? Anyone? anyone?

?

Did ANY of these "critics and bloggers" even see Planet Earth?

I don't care WHICH format they would have choosen. It should have won hands down - period!

I am of the opionion that these awards carry no weight. I think half of these bloggers just voted based on what they read in their favorite AVS forum.

I agree with this. It seems they just decided to give something to all the big hitter titles of 2007.

Exactly.

what are these?

the gamespot of the year HD video awards sponsored by eidos? :)

lol...pretty good.

I was very happy to see that Hot Fuzz won. It is my favorite HD DVD. :)

What is really ironic is that the audio on Hot Fuzz is much better than Transformers... It really just baffles the mind why they would award it "best audio".

Not really ironic, but still baffling that it won best audio.

Brandon

And "300" on Bluray was not the biggest selling release of all time either

Um, yes it was (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom112507/index.php). Page 10.

Once you get past a few objective issues that might mar a transfer, this seems to largely devolve into a mish mash of subjective views about the movie itself, the the technical specifications, the reviews, the unknowable faithfulness to the director's "intent," and, of course, how the movie looks and sounds. And not everyone will agree about what to consider, let alone how much weight to give any particular factor. So its much like the Oscars, Golden Globes, Pulitizers, Nobels, any other prize with vague and non-objective factors awarded in a political world.

On the upside, they spark debate.

All of the awards seem appropriate except for one.

Giving Transformers the award for best audio is laughable. The disk I bought didn't even have the LFE channel working properly.

The audio isn't even lossless.

Makes no sense at all. It would be like giving Superbad the Academy Award for best Drama.

The 300 bluray win is puzzling not the trasnformers audio award.

not only does 300 look exactly the same on both formats , but the hd dvd has more features and interactivity.

Also . I don't see your connection. So what if the audio isn't lossless. If its the best sounding disc then its the best sounding disc. Though I wouldn't know as my sound system is lacking

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showpost.php?p=649623&postcount=12

Being a judge in another of the HMM awards shows, I can tell you how they run that one. Studios submit titles and pay the $150/title fee per category (there are costs involved in running this, of course), and supply HMM with copies of the title. HMM sends those out to judges who watch them and rank them. Previous awards I was involved with had us assign a number between 1-10, but the previous time had us ranking the titles in a category in order. Titles are supposed to be ranked based on picture/audio quality, menus and bonus material. In the case of the TV-DVD conference (the one I'm involved in), the finalists in each category are put up on a website where consumers vote for the "winning" DVD, and consumers ultimately decide the winner. Yes, that means the "best" title doesn't always win, the award usually goes to the most popular title.

I don't think the HD awards go to a public vote like the TV-DVD awards do (otherwise we would have seen the website URL posted somewhere), so it's likely the awards are given out based on the points assigned by the judges (not all of them work at HMM).

Anyway, just some insight into how the awards are handled; nothing shady about it.

Gord

Anyway, just some insight into how the awards are handled; nothing shady about it.

Other than the bias of the judges towards their choosen format. I do believe there were at least a few on that panel that have been VERY vocal about their preference.

Also . I don't see your connection. So what if the audio isn't lossless. If its the best sounding disc then its the best sounding disc. Though I wouldn't know as my sound system is lacking

............................................________
....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?..................................... .................\,
.................../..........................................................., }
................./......................................................,:`^`. .}
.............../...................................................,:”...... .../
..............?.....__...................................... ...:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}......... ...../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,........................ ...`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\


Lossless by definition is transparent to the master, lossy is by definition not.

There are plenty of Dolby TruHD, DTSHD-MA, and PCM tracks presented in 7.1 lossless surround that would have been better picks.

Instead they picked a controversial lossy soundtrack where the director Michael Bay even said publicly that he was investigating its "issues".

I would encourage you to invest in 7.1 dedicated surround system for your theater you are not getting the entire HD experience if you are not getting lossless audio.

What I'm disappointed about is Kingdom of Heaven winning for best catalog title. Sure, it looks and sounds great, but they dropped all of the extras from the 4-disc DVD set. Fox shouldn't be rewarded for that.

There are other titles that are as good but still contain extras. 2001 would have been a better choice.

Lossless by definition is transparent to the master, lossy is by definition not.

No, you are misusing the definition of the word "transparent" there. Lossless is bit-for-bit identical to the master, while lossy is not. This is not in dispute.

Whether a lossy track can be audibly transparent to its master despite compression is a completely separate matter.

There are plenty of Dolby TruHD, DTSHD-MA, and PCM tracks presented in 7.1 lossless surround that would have been better picks.

The Transformers soundtrack sounds better than many lossless tracks, because it comes from a better mix and was mastered in excellent quality.

Discs just be judged by their actual quality, not by their specs.

Josh Z,

I thought that the "transformers" soundtrack was loud and that was about it.

IMO it was muddy and had poor front soundstage placement. Just a big wall of sound.

It didn't sound bad, but it could have been so much better.

I agree with you that soundtracks should be judged by how they sound, not how they look in specs. That goes both ways, you can't justify a DD+ soundtrack by just saying look at King Kong and Transformers.

I agree with you that soundtracks should be judged by how they sound, not how they look in specs. That goes both ways, you can't justify a DD+ soundtrack by just saying look at King Kong and Transformers.

Nor can you judge lossless or uncompressed formats as a whole by selectively picking out the best examples. There are plenty of underwhelming lossless/uncompressed tracks.

Being bit-for-bit identical to the master isn't much of an advantage if the master doesn't sound very good.

Nor can you judge lossless or uncompressed formats as a whole by selectively picking out the best examples. There are plenty of underwhelming lossless/uncompressed tracks.

And you can't say that DD+ is good enough (especially for hd dvds biggest title of the year) when you can't compare it to the master.

Yes there are plenty of underwhelming lossless/uncompressed/DD+/DD/DTS tracks.

Josh Z,

I thought that the "transformers" soundtrack was loud and that was about it.

IMO it was muddy and had poor front soundstage placement. Just a big wall of sound.

It didn't sound bad, but it could have been so much better.

I agree with you that soundtracks should be judged by how they sound, not how they look in specs. That goes both ways, you can't justify a DD+ soundtrack by just saying look at King Kong and Transformers.

Not sure what Transformers you were watching(1996 cartoon?).

It sounds gorgeous when I play it.

Not sure what Transformers you were watching(1996 cartoon?).

It sounds gorgeous when I play it.

It was the HD DVD version, sorry. Maybe I don't have as good of a setup as you.

I thought Transformers was way to loud in the theaters - the final battle annoyed me more than anything. I haven't got around to watching the HD DVD yet. I'm sure the beginning has some killer bass though.

No, you are misusing the definition of the word "transparent" there. Lossless is bit-for-bit identical to the master, while lossy is not. This is not in dispute.

Whether a lossy track can be audibly transparent to its master despite compression is a completely separate matter.

For you lossy may be audibly indistinguishable from the master, however another person with better hearing and better equipment will be able to tell the difference.

This award is not about lowest common denominator, but rather what is "best". Hence the name "best audio."


The Transformers soundtrack sounds better than many lossless tracks, because it comes from a better mix and was mastered in excellent quality.



This may be true of some older movies with poor master audio tracks, however there are dozens of lossless HDM releases FAR superior to the Transformers HD DVD. Even the director of the movie, Michael Bay, was investigating issues with the Transformers HD DVD audio. Hardly a sign of the "best audio" HDM release when the director becomes concerned.

Discs just be judged by their actual quality, not by their specs.

Not sure that your sentence above is even coherent but I'll try to respond.

By definition a lossy soundtrack cannot be perfectly transparent to the master. It is simple provable science that information is lost.

One of the greatest advances brought to us by HDM is the ability to access lossless audio.

It is an insult to audiophiles everywhere that this award was given to a lossy, highly controversial track where even the director was concerned about its quality.

It just makes no sense, and the apologists for lossy audio are doing a disservice to everyone truly concerned about quality.

I thought Transformers was way to loud in the theaters - the final battle annoyed me more than anything.

That is exactly how I feel. I watched in the theater and own the HD DVD. It was mixed a little hot. You can turn it down but then you can't hear the dialog or background noise very well.

I guess I am not the only one....

And you can't say that DD+ is good enough (especially for hd dvds biggest title of the year) when you can't compare it to the master.

Yes there are plenty of underwhelming lossless/uncompressed/DD+/DD/DTS tracks.

Seems to me that the same is tru for your position. You can't say that it isn't good enough if you can't compare it to the master. There is way too much bloviating on this issue, again. THis disc sounded amazing in my system, so much so that I can hardly imagine it sounding any better.

Not sure that your sentence above is even coherent but I'll try to respond.

By definition a lossy soundtrack cannot be perfectly transparent to the master. It is simple provable science that information is lost.

One of the greatest advances brought to us by HDM is the ability to access lossless audio.

It is an insult to audiophiles everywhere that this award was given to a lossy, highly controversial track where even the director was concerned about its quality.

It just makes no sense, and the apologists for lossy audio are doing a disservice to everyone truly concerned about quality.
Sorry but his statement makes perfect sense. Something can have great specs and still sound poor. You bring up audiophiles. CD's had better specs but the LP counterparts sounded much better than the CD's to many audiophiles. I for one have many examples where this is the case. Others argued how can this be, perfect sound forever right? Look at the specs, the LP can't possibly sound better than the CD! Same thing here. You are really wasting your time arguing over specs when you do not have access to the master to make a comparison. Simply put, you have no way of knowing unless you can. There is a film mixer here who did have this access and claimed the DD+ was transparent to the mix as I recall. What more can you possibly ask for? Transformers was a tremendous sounding mix on HD-DVD among the best I have heard on any HDM format, period.

There is a film mixer here who did have this access and claimed the DD+ was transparent to the mix as I recall. What more can you possibly ask for? Transformers was a tremendous sounding mix on HD-DVD among the best I have heard on any HDM format, period.

See you are basing your opinion on Filmixer saying that it is transparent to the master. So you are arguing that it IS with no personal knowledge. I am arguing that we DON'T know if it was the best possible track for "transformers". I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Just like other posters arguing that DTS HD MA is the same as TruHD when they have never heard DTS HD MA.

Sorry, I disagree with "transformers" being the best HDM soundtrack. Obviously I am not the only one.

No I haven't heard the master so I have no way of knowing. I was just citing someone who had and says it was transparent. Hopefully I will get the opportunity one day on a sound set. My point is that we have no way of knowing yet we spend all this time yaking like we do. All I can do is judge what I hear. Does it sound great on my system? If it does, that is all I care about. If it sounds like crap, I will not be happy. Getting all worked up over specs that may or may not be important is just a waste of time. That is my point. Transformers may or may not be the best sounding soundtrak. Whether it is or isn't may have nothing at all to do with whether it is True HD, DD+ or DTS MA.

Other than the bias of the judges towards their choosen format. I do believe there were at least a few on that panel that have been VERY vocal about their preference.
Perhaps, but that's why there were more than just a few judges.

The only proof we had was filmixer saying so. I have no reason to believe him, I have no reason to doubt him either.

So I will agree to disagree.

I think the problem people have with Transformers winning is that they're afraid that the award sends the message to the studios that lossy audio is good enough. They want something lossless to win because that may encourage more lossless tracks (just like how I don't want Best Catalog Title to be a barebones disc).

SirDrexl,

I agree that the "best" catalog title should have included everything you possibly could.

Maybe CE3K should have been best catalog title and Planet earth should have been best box set.

By definition a lossy soundtrack cannot be perfectly transparent to the master. It is simple provable science that information is lost.

Unless the lost information would be inaudible if present. That is what is meant by 'transparent'. The removed information is not audible information. Your ears cannot hear ALL frequencies of sound, I don't care how well you've taken care of your ears. Some frequencies are beyond human detection. Remove this information to create a space-saving encoding and nothing audible is lost. Get it?

I think the problem people have with Transformers winning is that they're afraid that the award sends the message to the studios that lossy audio is good enough. They want something lossless to win because that may encourage more lossless tracks (just like how I don't want Best Catalog Title to be a barebones disc).
I think lossy is "good enough"... if it's done right... like Transformers may have been, according to the reviews.

Now, what did I think...

I think the sound across the front was crystal clear for Transformers. Obviously there can be differences in the audio performance on different setups, but on mine the sound across the front was the absolute opposite of "muddy".

Now my surrounds weren't quite as punchy as some of the reviews suggested, but part of that is because I haven't properly calibrated the settings for my surrounds. I used to have towers for my surrounds, but unfortunately I had to go to bookshelf speakers for my surrounds in my new setup, because of the limitations of the new room I have the stuff in now. However, the point is the reviews did suggest the use of the surrounds was very dynamic and I don't doubt them. Once I recalibrate my rears, I will retest to form my opinion about that though. I'm really trying to figure out a way to get the towers back as the rears though. :p

Look, I'll say it again because we apparently have a forum here where everyone wants lossy over lossless.

The director of the movie, Michael Bay, was concerned about the issues with the HD DVD Transformers audio.

I don't care if some obscure person claimed to one of you that he heard no difference between Transformers HD DVD and the master. We have no way of knowing if that is true or just someone lying on the internet.

However the director of Transformers, Michael Bay, was concerned enough about the audio on this disk to investigate and post publicly about it.

CASE CLOSED. NOT "BEST AUDIO" OF THE YEAR, WHEN THE FILMS DIRECTOR DOESN'T THINK SO.

Has anyone ever considered that they gave the audio award to Transformers BECAUSE all the forums that these "critics and bloggers" run have seen the controversey about the exclusion of TrueHD on this movie. And want to continue the discussions . . . as is happening?

Like throwing gasoline on a the dying embers of an old fire . . .WHOOSH!

So, what did Bay say about the audio on Transformers? Cuz I haven't heard that yet.


Has anyone ever considered that they gave the audio award to Transformers BECAUSE all the forums that these "critics and bloggers" run have seen the controversey about the exclusion of TrueHD on this movie. And want to continue the discussions . . . as is happening?

Like throwing gasoline on a the dying embers of an old fire . . .WHOOSH!
No.

I generally don't subscribe to such paranoid conspiracy theories. ;)

Has anyone ever considered that they gave the audio award to Transformers BECAUSE all the forums that these "critics and bloggers" run have seen the controversey about the exclusion of TrueHD on this movie. And want to continue the discussions . . . as is happening?

Like throwing gasoline on a the dying embers of an old fire . . .WHOOSH!

Lee I wish they would make TruHD madatory for all HD DVDs. I am generally much happier with my HD DVDs that have TruHD.

I can think of several HD DVDs that have better audio quality than Transformers.

Why not give Transformers the award for best PQ? The PQ was reference.

Lee I wish they would make TruHD madatory for all HD DVDs.
I don't.

I can think of several HD DVDs that have better audio quality than Transformers.
So which ones? I'm currently not in the best position to judge yet because my surrounds need to be recalibrated, and I don't have full-range surrounds anyway, and I probably don't own as many summer blockbuster movies as a lot of people here.

Why not give Transformers the award for best PQ? The PQ was reference.
Well, again, you'd get others complaining about that choice too. It's all personal opinion after all.

So, what did Bay say about the audio on Transformers? Cuz I haven't heard that yet.



No.

I generally don't subscribe to such paranoid conspiracy theories. ;)

Well maybe you should . . look at what everone is posting. What is the topic of the posts?

How many are discussing Close Encounters? - Well we had a few of those - but it had to get pushed out of the way because of the Transformers . . .

Why? Cause no one gives a crap about the box set award . . . nor do they care about the IME award . .

But the Audio award? Oh yea - lots care about that.

Bugs - remember - you can't see the nose on your face either.;)

So, what did Bay say about the audio on Transformers? Cuz I haven't heard that yet.
Basically someone on his forum posted that they were having issues with the audio. Bay said he would look into it.

I don't think anything else was discussed, discovered or implied in the post.

Instead they picked a controversial lossy soundtrack where the director Michael Bay even said publicly that he was investigating its "issues".Allow me to knock this back, please.

You certainly know that Michael Bay only said this (just when the disc was first being released) in response to a poster's "claim" that he had an audio problem.

There IS no issue, or you would have heard about it by now.

Ah, so this so-called concern about the audio by Michael Bay is a complete non-issue then.

Ah, so this so-called concern about the audio by Michael Bay is a complete non-issue then.
Yep.

If you are interested, here is everything he wrote about the "issue".


I called Paramount to check out if we have a few bad discs out there.

Michael

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=303

IMO, as good as Transformers sounded, Blackhawk Down mops the floor with it. That is one Visceral sound mix.

True BHD is way more impressive than the Transformers soundtrack for overall sound quality. I guess since that title is older, they must have missed it..

Transformers should have had uncompressed or lossless audio and will have it once it is released on Blu-ray once this format war is over or Paramount goes neutral again (not enough money sent to them for support).

Pirates DMC for sure is up there for best PQ however Apocalypto surpasses it in many scenes and is overall more impressive in my opinion..

Well Michael Bay has also said the following in the past few days so one can only assume that he is NOT happy with his current HD DVD releases.

What you don't understand is corporate politics. Microsoft wants both formats to fail so they can be heroes and make the world move to digital downloads. That is the dirty secret no one is talking about. That is why Microsoft is handing out $100 million dollar checks to studios just embrace the HD DVD and not the leading, and superior Blu Ray. They want confusion in the market until they perfect the digital downloads. Time will tell and you will see the truth.

and this:

I know what the final product should look like - Blu-ray suits my films better

So Obviously he is not happy with the final product on HD DVD. It is pretty obvious that he is refferring to the idea that his movie might have had lossless audio on Blu-ray.

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607

For the Record: I don't agree with him. When Dolby TruHD is used on HD DVD it is just as good as Blu-ray. If Paramount had used lossless they might have avoided this director backlash.

True BHD is way more impressive than the Transformers soundtrack for overall sound quality. I guess since that title is older, they must have missed it..

Transformers should have had uncompressed or lossless audio and will have it once it is released on Blu-ray once this format war is over or Paramount goes neutral again (not enough money sent to them for support).

Pirates DMC for sure is up there for best PQ however Apocalypto surpasses it in many scenes and is overall more impressive in my opinion..

So Supe - guess you don't believe the experts who are forecasting a true stalemate for the war?

PS: Shoulder all healed up?

guess you don't believe the experts who are forecasting a true stalemate for the war?



I agree Lee, we are definitely headed for a 2:1 permanent stalemate. No format will outright "win", and both will be around for several years to come.

I am very happy that I own both formats now. :)

This award is not about lowest common denominator, but rather what is "best". Hence the name "best audio."

Best encode would be a different award from best audio.

For instance, if hypothetically we agreed that Movie A's master sounds better overall by 50% than Movie B's master then we would say that Movie A had better audio than Movie B. If after being digitally encoded let's say then that Movie A lost 5% of it's quality difference and Movie B was losslessly endcoded in it's transfer.

Would Movie B now have better audio than Movie A? Of course not since it was already 50% behind and Movie A only lost 5% in quality lead over movie B right?

Would Movie B have the "Best Encode"? Yes, and that's the difference.

And you can't say that DD+ is good enough (especially for hd dvds biggest title of the year) when you can't compare it to the master.

Nor can you say it's not good enough without that comparison. And around and around we go...

The proper way to judge this title isn't to worry about whether the digital data is mathematically lossless or not, but rather to listen to it and decide whether it sounds good or sounds bad. If it sounds bad, it deserves criticism. If it sounds good, it deserves praise.

It's really as simple as that.

For you lossy may be audibly indistinguishable from the master, however another person with better hearing and better equipment will be able to tell the difference.

When the frequencies removed by the compression are beyond the range of human hearing, it doesn't matter how much you paid for your speakers or how discerning you think your ears are, you will not be able to hear a difference.


By definition a lossy soundtrack cannot be perfectly transparent to the master. It is simple provable science that information is lost.

Again, you're misusing the definition of the word "transparent". Information may be lost, but if that information is undetectable to human senses, the final result is still transparent to the source.

When the frequencies removed by the compression are beyond the range of human hearing, it doesn't matter how much you paid for your speakers or how discerning you think your ears are, you will not be able to hear a difference.

Again, you're misusing the definition of the word "transparent". Information may be lost, but if that information is undetectable to human senses, the final result is still transparent to the source.

You are speculating about the nature of the information lost. In fact I would call it wishful thinking to postulate that the only information lost would for some reason be undetectable. Please provide some sort of proof to back up these claims that the difference between a lossy encode and the lossless master is undetecable by the human senses.

I can tell you flat out that I have compared the lossy DD track to the lossless high bitrate PCM track on movies like Casino Royal and there is an audible difference. Visiting friends have also heard the difference when comparing the two in my theater on several different movies.

Nor can you say it's not good enough without that comparison. And around and around we go...

Josh, I would rather err on the high side than the low side.

You are speculating about the nature of the information lost. In fact I would call it wishful thinking to postulate that the only information lost would for some reason be undetectable. Please provide some sort of proof to back up these claims that the difference between a lossy encode and the lossless master is undetecable by the human senses.

I can tell you flat out that I have compared the lossy DD track to the lossless high bitrate PCM track on movies like Casino Royal and there is an audible difference. Visiting friends have also heard the difference when comparing the two in my theater on several different movies.
The Transformers track is 1.5mbps. So your comparison between Casino Royale's 640kbps track and its PCM track might not be very relevant.

The Transformers track is 1.5mbps. So your comparison between Casino Royale's 640kbps track and its PCM track might not be very relevant.

Well if you think that the difference between 640kbps and 1500kbps (1.5mbps) is going to make a huge difference, then the difference between that 1.5mbps and the 6.0-7.9mbps that is common on lossless tracks should make an even bigger difference!

Difference between DD and DD+ = 860kbps or 0.86mbps

Difference between DD+ and Lossless =~ 6400kbps or 6.4mbps

I can't believe someone would use a 640 kbps DD track denigrate a DD+ 1.5 mbps track. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. These arguments are way past ridiculous. How about some simple understanding about the science behind these codecs!

I know what the final product should look like - Blu-ray suits my films better



So Obviously he is not happy with the final product on HD DVD. It is pretty obvious that he is refferring to the idea that his movie might have had lossless audio on Blu-ray.


He said "look like" not "sound like."

Well Michael Bay has also said the following in the past few days so one can only assume that he is NOT happy with his current HD DVD releases.



and this:



So Obviously he is not happy with the final product on HD DVD. It is pretty obvious that he is refferring to the idea that his movie might have had lossless audio on Blu-ray.

http://www.shootfortheedit.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607

For the Record: I don't agree with him. When Dolby TruHD is used on HD DVD it is just as good as Blu-ray. If Paramount had used lossless they might have avoided this director backlash.

You're trying very hard to defend a guy who obviously has an agenda, who makes generalized and false statements, who accuses MS of something which has been denied repeatedly by MS. Or we could simply turn it around and make all kinds of wild accusations about Sony. That gets you nowhere. Bay's comments are nothing but sour grapes. They don't prove a single thing about the adequacy of the lossy soundtrack.

When the frequencies removed by the compression are beyond the range of human hearing, it doesn't matter how much you paid for your speakers or how discerning you think your ears are, you will not be able to hear a difference.
I agree.

SirDrexl,

I agree that the "best" catalog title should have included everything you possibly could.

Maybe CE3K should have been best catalog title and Planet earth should have been best box set.

Well the 300 BD winning best over the 300 HD with the same encode and more features proves these awards are nothing less than a sad joke.

Well the 300 BD winning best over the 300 HD with the same encode and more features proves these awards are nothing less than a sad joke.

That's OK. This thread is no longer about the awards. For the last 100 posts it's about the Transformers Audio issue . . . AGAIN. (HINT: the horse is already dead. You can't kill it twice)

I can't believe someone would use a 640 kbps DD track denigrate a DD+ 1.5 mbps track. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. These arguments are way past ridiculous. How about some simple understanding about the science behind these codecs!

Actually it would be Fuji apples to Red Delicious because both are perceptual coded lossy formats. Oranges would be lossless.;)

Actually it would be Fuji apples to Red Delicious because both are perceptual coded lossy formats. Oranges would be lossless.;)

+1

seems like some folks here have a format agenda. I am not concerned with format, just audio quality. my hope is that soon all releases on HD DVD and Blu-ray will have lossless audio mandatory.

And to follow up:

DD+(1.5mbps) is much closer to DD(640kbps) than Lossless(6.0mbps+) is to DD+

avultra,

Well Michael Bay has also said the following in the past few days so one can only assume that he is NOT happy with his current HD DVD releases.

I am confused. What you quoted Bay as saying has nothing to do with the audio quality of Transformers. So you have no proof whatsoever that Bay is dissatisfiedd with the audio quality of Transformers, per se. If you do, please provide a link, otherwise your Bay quote is bait and switch.

You are speculating about the nature of the information lost. In fact I would call it wishful thinking to postulate that the only information lost would for some reason be undetectable. Please provide some sort of proof to back up these claims that the difference between a lossy encode and the lossless master is undetecable by the human senses.

Go to any audiophile board, or any of the psychoacoustic journals, and there are plenty of double blind tests showing that people cannot reliably tell the difference between lossless and high bitrate codecs.

I can tell you flat out that I have compared the lossy DD track to the lossless high bitrate PCM track on movies like Casino Royal and there is an audible difference. Visiting friends have also heard the difference when comparing the two in my theater on several different movies.

Well, that is no surprise, because I seriously doubt you were blind to the conditions. You have a clear bias for lossless tracks, and if you knew the track was lossless, you would of course say it was better.

DD+(1.5mbps) is much closer to DD(640kbps) than Lossless(6.0mbps+) is to DD+

Yes if you speak bitrate, but we speaking audio quality.

And its not a linear scale.

+1

seems like some folks here have a format agenda. I am not concerned with format, just audio quality. my hope is that soon all releases on HD DVD and Blu-ray will have lossless audio mandatory.

And to follow up:

DD+(1.5mbps) is much closer to DD(640kbps) than Lossless(6.0mbps+) is to DD+

Audibly, or are you just counting bytes?

Do you really feel that there is a linear perception-to-bitrate relationship in perceptual coding? If so, please look at the data rates for compressed and uncompressed video, and explain to us all the 95% quality loss for video on HDM.

And for fun, lossless audio can be 3Mbps. Only PCM requires 6+ Mbps.

On edit: I like the way MovieSwede thinks!

There should be a new category in next year's awards for "Longest Running HDM Argument/Debate."

The 'Transformers audio' debate would win hands down, with 'Bram Stoker's Dracula: did Zoetrope drop the ball or is this the way Coppola wanted it?' coming in a distant second. :)

Brandon

Actually its nice that they dared give best sound to a title that didnt get lossless. That shows studios that they need a good source and not just lossless.

Beside even if Transformer could sound better, it still beat all thoose lossless titles with just a lossy encode.

If you winn you winn.

(Of course I do have my doubts over the jury)

I think the opposite. This will show the studios that lossless isn't necessary and they won't bother with it.

I really hope TrueHD and DTS-MA become the norm over time.

The only reason why people complain about the Transformers audio mix is because they know it's not lossless. If they thought it was lossless, they wouldn't be complaining about it. Simple as that.

It's the placebo effect. It's one of the unfortunate side effects of the HDM war. And it is kinda sad, really, because it prevents some people from enjoying what is right in front of them. Their loss.

You are speculating about the nature of the information lost.

And what do you think you're doing?

Well if you think that the difference between 640kbps and 1500kbps (1.5mbps) is going to make a huge difference, then the difference between that 1.5mbps and the 6.0-7.9mbps that is common on lossless tracks should make an even bigger difference!

Difference between DD and DD+ = 860kbps or 0.86mbps

Difference between DD+ and Lossless =~ 6400kbps or 6.4mbps

First off, compression doesn't work on a linear scale.

Secondly, Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus are not even the same compression format. DD+ is more efficient than standard DD.

It seems that you are literally judging quality only by looking at the bit rate numbers, without a clear understanding of what those numbers mean.

Actually it would be Fuji apples to Red Delicious because both are perceptual coded lossy formats. Oranges would be lossless.;)

Or maybe crab apples to red delicious apples :)

It seems that you are literally judging quality only by looking at the bit rate numbers, without a clear understanding of what those numbers mean.

So, are you suggesting actually listening and comparing the audio instead of reading the specs and comparing the numbers? Why would you do that? Your ears might confuse you if they haven't been trained in exactly the right way. ;)

One thing is clear about this discussion of "best" sound: You can't go by specs and you can hardly trust your ears. I've been reviewing audiophile recordings for close to forty years, and, trust me, audiophiles can't agree on anything about audio (some of the most-trusted audiophiles use tubed equipment with incredibly high distortion rates because it sounds "best" to them; fair enough). Now, reviewing movies on disc as well, I find people tellinig me all the time how much easier it must be to judge the picture and sound quality of a disc than it is to judge the quality of the film itself, and I tell them, no, it's just as subjective.

Take the controversial "Transformers" win for best sound, for example. I said in my review of "Transformers" that we don't know if a TrueHD track would have sounded better, only that the DD+ sounds as good as we can imagine. Without access to master tapes in side-by-side comparisons, it's impossible to know how accurate an audio or visual transfer is. But I could find no "wrong" with the "Transformers" audio, and thus gave it a 10/10 audio rating.

Does that mean I would have voted for "Transformers" for best audio? No, because while it sounded in my system pretty much as I remember it from a theater, I found "Letters from Iwo Jima" to have a much better all-around soundtrack. But it's a matter of what is meant by "best" audio. If you're considering just bass, does it mean the loudest bass, the deepest bass, the tightest bass? If you're looking at surround information, is it the disc with the most action in the surrounds or the most effective action in the surrounds? The all-important midrange: Are we looking for naturalness in dialogue or a forward projection as in most movie houses to clear up soft spots? Frequency balance? Flat or hyped for extra oomph and clarity? Dynamics? Too much, too little, too strong? Make the dynamic range too wide and listeners will be using their remotes every two minutes to adjust the volume; so most soundtracks compress the dynamics. Same thing with transient impact; too strong and you blow the listeners' speakers.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but you get the idea. Even with specific criteria for judging picture and sound quality, two different people seeing and hearing the exact same thing may come to different conclusions about its worth.

John

I think the opposite. This will show the studios that lossless isn't necessary and they won't bother with it.

I really hope TrueHD and DTS-MA become the norm over time.

Well for BD it isnt really an issue since it cant implement DD+ the same way.

As for HD its not that big issue either, studios will deal with TrueHD because its good marketing (once the public knows what TrueHD, PCM and DTS MA HD is...)

But the masters orginal sound is the thing that impact the most.

One thing is clear about this discussion of "best" sound: You can't go by specs and you can hardly trust your ears. I've been reviewing audiophile recordings for close to forty years, and, trust me, audiophiles can't agree on anything about audio (some of the most-trusted audiophiles use tubed equipment with incredibly high distortion rates because it sounds "best" to them; fair enough). Now, reviewing movies on disc as well, I find people tellinig me all the time how much easier it must be to judge the picture and sound quality of a disc than it is to judge the quality of the film itself, and I tell them, no, it's just as subjective.

Take the controversial "Transformers" win for best sound, for example. I said in my review of "Transformers" that we don't know if a TrueHD track would have sounded better, only that the DD+ sounds as good as we can imagine. Without access to master tapes in side-by-side comparisons, it's impossible to know how accurate an audio or visual transfer is. But I could find no "wrong" with the "Transformers" audio, and thus gave it a 10/10 audio rating.

Does that mean I would have voted for "Transformers" for best audio? No, because while it sounded in my system pretty much as I remember it from a theater, I found "Letters from Iwo Jima" to have a much better all-around soundtrack. But it's a matter of what is meant by "best" audio. If you're considering just bass, does it mean the loudest bass, the deepest bass, the tightest bass? If you're looking at surround information, is it the disc with the most action in the surrounds or the most effective action in the surrounds? The all-important midrange: Are we looking for naturalness in dialogue or a forward projection as in most movie houses to clear up soft spots? Frequency balance? Flat or hyped for extra oomph and clarity? Dynamics? Too much, too little, too strong? Make the dynamic range too wide and listeners will be using their remotes every two minutes to adjust the volume; so most soundtracks compress the dynamics. Same thing with transient impact; too strong and you blow the listeners' speakers.

Sorry, I'm rambling, but you get the idea. Even with specific criteria for judging picture and sound quality, two different people seeing and hearing the exact same thing may come to different conclusions about its worth.

Thank you, John. This is one of the most on-the-nose descriptions I've read about the difficulties every disc reviewer faces when evaluating audio.

It should also go without saying that many of the same type of issues are encountered when evaluating video. These ratings are very subjective, and often have more to do with the movie itself and the reviewer's preferences than with faithfulness of the disc transfer.

That's not to say this is a "flaw" in the system. It is what it is. Unfortunately, most readers just don't understand the process.

Take the controversial "Transformers" win for best sound, for example. I said in my review of "Transformers" that we don't know if a TrueHD track would have sounded better, only that the DD+ sounds as good as we can imagine. Without access to master tapes in side-by-side comparisons, it's impossible to know how accurate an audio or visual transfer is. But I could find no "wrong" with the "Transformers" audio, and thus gave it a 10/10 audio rating.

Does that mean I would have voted for "Transformers" for best audio? No, because while it sounded in my system pretty much as I remember it from a theater, I found "Letters from Iwo Jima" to have a much better all-around soundtrack. But it's a matter of what is meant by "best" audio.
Sorry, I'm rambling, but you get the idea. Even with specific criteria for judging picture and sound quality, two different people seeing and hearing the exact same thing may come to different conclusions about its worth.

John
As you elude to, its the quality of the mix John that suffers. Its compressed to make it louder. The soundstage is mushed together. Its obvious the mix was overprocessed though to many stages and conversions which is why the atmosphere clues are missing.
It does sound good on a mid-fi system though. :(
Now contrast this to the work of Disney/Pixar. There is NO comparison.

So how could you, being an audiophile of 40 years, have given it 10/10? Why not report in your review what you finally state here months later?

(You have just been added to my pet peeve of reviewer waffling, whether it be Greg Rodgers of WSR or Kris Deering of Secrets).

I just want to know how the 300 BD is title of the year, but the 300 HD DVD has the best features. The HD DVD is the same disc with the features. I think I know why the HD DVD guys, including Warner, skipped that little event.

I just want to know how the 300 BD is title of the year, but the 300 HD DVD has the best features. The HD DVD is the same disc with the features. I think I know why the HD DVD guys, including Warner, skipped that little event.

I believe it had the highest sales for opening week of any title released to date.

If Transformers DID have a lossless audio track, what would Blu-ray fanatics use to attack the movie then? Bitrate?

The root of this whole silly argument is Blu-ray vs. HD DVD, period. People are so bent out of shape that they're arguing that a non-existant audio track is better than an existant one.

The movie has been out for weeks and weeks and people are STILL going on about it.

Even with specific criteria for judging picture and sound quality, two different people seeing and hearing the exact same thing may come to different conclusions about its worth.


To me there is only one criteria that matters. Is it identical to the studio master after decompressing. Seems to me pretty objective.

I believe it had the highest sales for opening week of any title released to date.

I believe it was for "best disc" not highest sales, but who knows what their definition of best is.

I believe it had the highest sales for opening week of any title released to date.


Then they are voting for format and not HDM, because the HD DVD is superior in everyway.

And what do you think you're doing?



First off, compression doesn't work on a linear scale.

Secondly, Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital Plus are not even the same compression format. DD+ is more efficient than standard DD.

It seems that you are literally judging quality only by looking at the bit rate numbers, without a clear understanding of what those numbers mean.

Well I have read over your posts and it is obvious now that you are attached to a certain format rather than audio and sound quality.

I don't care what format they put the lossless audio on, but it is my hope as a true enthusiast that lossless audio becomes mandatory on the winning format.

I see that your signature says you claim to be curator of "Laserdisc Forever". Why anyone would get so attached to a format is beyond belief when there is HD quality available now. Enjoy your Laserdiscs.

I am sure you will soon be curator of "HD DVD forever" if it loses and you can tell everyone how much you love your lossy audio just like Laserdisc.

As you elude to, its the quality of the mix John that suffers. Its compressed to make it louder. The soundstage is mushed together. Its obvious the mix was overprocessed though to many stages and conversions which is why the atmosphere clues are missing.

You haven't listened to Transformers, have you? "compressed to make it louder"? Huh? What does compression have to do with sound level? Transformers is actually a fairly low volumn level movie. "mushed together"? Again, huh? Transformers has very good sound stage. It's amazing that you are mentioning things that no ones else, even professional reviewers, haven't noticed.

I'm sorry Paramount decided to go HD DVD exclusive and Blu-ray misses out (I really am as I think it's bad for HDM on a whole), but come on, it's has excellent video and audio, regardless on what codec is being used.

John

You haven't listened to Transformers, have you? "compressed to make it louder"? Huh? What does compression have to do with sound level? Transformers is actually a fairly low volumn level movie. "mushed together"? Again, huh? Transformers has very good sound stage. It's amazing that you are mentioning things that no ones else, even professional reviewers, haven't noticed.

I'm sorry Paramount decided to go HD DVD exclusive and Blu-ray misses out (I really am as I think it's bad for HDM on a whole), but come on, it's has excellent video and audio, regardless on what codec is being used.

John
There is dynamic compression and data compression. The two get mixed and matched here quite a bit. Every bit of dialog and foley in a major motion picture has the dog poo squeezed out of it, and the overall mixes are also dynamically compressed, just not to the point of music which has no dynamic range at all.

You haven't listened to Transformers, have you? "compressed to make it louder"? Huh?
John
Maybe I got the soundtrack confused with me over-cooked steak.

"So how could you, being an audiophile of 40 years, have given it 10/10? Why not report in your review what you finally state here months later?" --reincarnate

I never said I was an audiophile. I said I have been reviewing audiophile recordings for years. I gave "Transformers" a 10/10 because it sounds as good as I remember it from the theater and as good as I've would imagine it could sound. I have also given other movies 10's for sound; that doesn't mean they all sound the same. To repeat, I said I would have voted for another disc to which I gave a 10/10: "Letters from Iwo Jima," which was my favorite soundtrack of the year. There is no waffling here; I reported in my review of "Transformers" just what I said here. Surely, you don't think that every 10/10 rating is the same? That would be like saying two films with the same 10/10 rating were identically liked by the reviewer and contained the same material.

I think the problem some folks have is in thinking that everything can be reduced to black-and-white answers. To some people there is only good and bad, friend or foe, perfect or awful. The world is not like that; it's made up of shades of gray.

John

"To me there is only one criteria that matters. Is it identical to the studio master after decompressing. Seems to me pretty objective." --ABCD

And how does anyone at home know if a disc's soundtrack is identical to a studio master without having access to the studio master, which we don't? Beyond that, there is the fact that two people can listen even to the same studio master and have different opinions about whether it's good or not.

Let me give you an example in terms of video: "Oceans Thirteen" on HD DVD or Blu-ray. It looks awful. Why? Because the director chose to oversaturate the colors and use lots of grain, among other things. If the transfer duplicates this intentional look, does the reviewer have to like it? One of my reviewer friends said the picture looked like it had been filtered through urine. Another reviewer friend actually called me on the phone to ask what the heck was wrong with the picture. He thought maybe his TV set or player had broken down. But I saw the movie in a theater and thought it was a good transfer of an intentionally bad print.

Needless to say, if you look at a few reviews of "Ocean's Thirteen," you'll see comments and ratings that vary wildly. As I said a moment ago, life is not black-and-white, not good or bad, not entirely one opposite way or another, but made up of shades of gray.

John

John:

You are so right.

As far as I am concerned 300 is the worse looking movie I have ever seen.

On disc it looks like VHS upconverted to 1080.

But it exactly replicates the print in the theater.

John:

You are so right.

As far as I am concerned 300 is the worse looking movie I have ever seen.

On disc it looks like VHS upconverted to 1080.

But it exactly replicates the print in the theater.
Remember 300 is pretty much all digital. It would be more fair to say that the film was a replication of the digital master, which the HDM master is closer to.

Well I have read over your posts and it is obvious now that you are attached to a certain format rather than audio and sound quality.I have found John to be very fair, FWIW. I find him to be less inclined to one side than some of those who are judging him.

Remember 300 is pretty much all digital. It would be more fair to say that the film was a replication of the digital master, which the HDM master is closer to.

It is to my understanding that the look of the film is supposed to replicate the Frank Miller Graphic Novel - Flat and low contrast . . . . 100% successful - I hated it:(

How does one judge a print of a famous oil painting?

Do you evaluate the technical ability for the print process to replicate the nuances of the original oils?

Does one fault the painter for using a muted color palette originally?

Does one discuss if the original oil-on-canvas had distracting brush strokes?

Do you fault the printing process for NOT being oil?

What if you hate the art itself, although it's technically presented perfectly?

etc...


When one is simply categorizing something as "best" based on their own subjective criteria, you will get as many opinions as there are reviewers. Better reviews will provide some rational for their evaluation, and then you may draw your own conclusions from there.

(Now imagine how much more difficult the above questions are to answer if you've never SEEN the original oil painting, as is the case with the studio masters of films...)

Well I have read over your posts and it is obvious now that you are attached to a certain format rather than audio and sound quality.

Says the guy arguing that only his preferred audio format is good enough and everything else must be crap, regardless of how it may actually sound to his ears. :rolleyes:

Says the guy arguing that only his preferred audio format is good enough and everything else must be crap, regardless of how it may actually sound to his ears. :rolleyes:

I don't have a preferred audio format.

I would be equally happy with: PCM, Dolby TruHD, or DTSHD-MA.

I am equally happy to see any of these audio formats on either Blu-ray or HD DVD.

I don't have a preferred audio format.

I would be equally happy with: PCM, Dolby TruHD, or DTSHD-MA.

I am equally happy to see any of these audio formats on either Blu-ray or HD DVD.

That is the best post of this thread. I agree 100%

I don't have a preferred audio format.

I would be equally happy with: PCM, Dolby TruHD, or DTSHD-MA.

That you have 3 preferred formats rather than just 1 does not negate my point.

I am equally happy to see any of these audio formats on either Blu-ray or HD DVD.

I like all of those formats as well, but discs like Transformers and many others have proven that Dolby Digital Plus is also capable of delivering excellent audio quality.

"To me there is only one criteria that matters. Is it identical to the studio master after decompressing. Seems to me pretty objective." --ABCD

And how does anyone at home know if a disc's soundtrack is identical to a studio master without having access to the studio master, which we don't?

Perhaps we need some kind of certification process (eg. by Price Waterhouse?) so we know we are getting an identical copy of the studio master. For me, that would be the end of it. I know I am getting the real deal, and all my concerns would be addressed.

There will be no more questions like "is this codec better than that", "does it sound better to you than to me", "is this what was intended". I will be able to watch that movie without lingering doubts in the back of my mind about the audio.

There will be no more questions like "is this codec better than that", "does it sound better to you than to me", "is this what was intended". I will be able to watch that movie without lingering doubts in the back of my mind about the audio.

And then you can get back to worrying about important things like:

a) Should I upgrade my speakers
b) Should I upgrade my subwoofer
c) Should I upgrade my receiver/pre-amp/amps
d) Should I upgrade my player
e) Should I add room treatments
f) Should I upgrade cables/power cords

2) The LFE is broken and not transparent to the reference IMAX experience. This was discussed at length on Michael Bay's personal forum site. There may have been some mastering issues. For example there is no detectable LFE during the pulse explosions in the opening scenes. Hundreds of owners have independently reported this problem.


You know there is no LFE in IMAX, right?

3) It is a DD+ lossy soundtrack.

Don't get me started :)

You know there is no LFE in IMAX, right?

Guess he didn't:

IMAX SOUND

Unlike conventional theatre sound systems, IMAX digital surround sound systems deliver multi-channel, uncompressed, full fidelity sound that is simply unsurpassed in depth and clarity. IMAX's amplifiers generate up to 14,000 watts of power, not volume, to provide the audience with life-like sound. IMAX's proprietary loudspeaker system delivers exacting volume and quality at every seat throughout the theatre. From a small drop of rain to an enormous clap of thunder, you'll hear every shade and subtlety, regardless of where you are sitting.

Lee,

My theater has over 2,000 watts of power! It is only a 2 seater though.


Filmixer,

What company do you work for (don't know if it has been asked before).

Lee... IMAX is a great experience, but it is far from reference with regards to Hollywood films transfered into the format. I think that some people equate sheer volume with quality, and IMAX excels in that regard. I haven't spoken to one mixer who has been happy with the way their mixes have translated into that environment it's a completely different beast, and the only way to truly achieve an outstanding representation of a theatrical (i.e. studio film) mix is to have the mixers and director remaster it inside of an IMAX theater, which doesn't happen.

IMAX is great for spectacle, but IMO, looses all of the subtlety and texture in these tracks in favor of power and brute force.

If you want to hear what a director intended, the closest experience outside of the dub stage, at this point in time, is to hear the track in a properly calibrated cinema in a digital projection performance, with the uncompressed audio along with it.

Filmixer,

What company do you work for (don't know if it has been asked before).


Todd-AO.

Todd-AO.

I thought that you stated that you had helped mix "transformers" it isn't listed on the website.

"IMAX is a great experience, but it is far from reference with regards to Hollywood films transfered into the format." --FilmMixer

I'd like to second that. I've only seen two films at my local IMAX theater, but they both sounded pretty bad to me. Maybe it was just the audio adjustments on the two films I saw or a poorly adjusted audio system at this particular theater, but the sound was not only too loud and bassy, it was remarkably muddy. Midrange clarity was out the window at the expense of blaring sound effects. Not pleasant.

John

I thought that you stated that you had helped mix "transformers" it isn't listed on the website.

I never said that.... it was mixed at Sony.

Todd-AO.

Ahhhhh . . . the "mother" to all large format film technology and 6 Track Multi Channel sound.:)

NOTE: For readers - TODD-AO is a combination of Michael Todd - the Broadway producer who took on Cinerama and American Optical out of Buffalo, NY (Who I believe is no longer around - they built the lenses for the cameras)

I believe we are talking about two different issues - IMAX films presented in an IMAX theater and Hollywood films presented in an IMAX theater.

IMAX is 6 channels - 4 screen and 2 surround.

Hollywood is 5.1 channels - 3 screen channels, 2 surround and an LFE channel.

It may very well be a round peg in a square hole as far as fit.

Plus the Aspect Ratio doesn't work - IMAX is 1.45 while Hollywood is 1.85 or 2.40.

It might be like a comparison of going to a live concert versus listening to a CD at home. One is just LOUD while the other is "accurate" if that is the word to use.

Ahhhhh . . . the "mother" to all large format film technology and 6 Track Multi Channel sound.:)

I believe we are talking about two different issues - IMAX films presented in an IMAX theater and Hollywood films presented in an IMAX theater.

IMAX is 6 channels - 4 screen and 2 surround.

Hollywood is 5.1 channels - 3 screen channels, 2 surround and an LFE channel.

It may very well be a round peg in a square hole as far as fit.

Plus the Aspect Ratio doesn't work - IMAX is 1.45 while Hollywood is 1.85 or 2.40.

It might be like a comparison of going to a live concert versus listening to a CD at home. One is just LOUD while the other is "accurate" if that is the word to use.

All of your point once again reiterate why the original comment made by avultra was off base, as he specifically mentioned "Transformers".. an IMAX presentation of a Hollywood film is anything but reference.


PS.. love the analogy.. I was going to use that one in the future ;)

EDIT: The current Todd-AO studios is the largest independent sound post production company around outside of the studios.

All of your point once again reiterate why the original comment made by avultra was off base, as he specifically mentioned "Transformers".. an IMAX presentation of a Hollywood film is anything but reference.


PS.. love the analogy.. I was going to use that one in the future ;)

EDIT: The current Todd-AO studios is the largest independent sound post production company around outside of the studios.

Interesting - I didn't know that.

Could you compare Todd-AO with Skywalker Sound - a percentage of films mixed? - something to help us understand the size and importance of Todd-AO.

PS - I added a NOTE to my post - brief history of your company.:)

PPS - I made a lot of money back in the 1980's on Todd-AO stock. It was very active in that you could see as much as a $2.00 change between opening and closing bell in a day. Used to buy 1000 and then 2000 share blocks 2 or 3 times a week . . . until one week - it didn't work - so I took the loss and called it a day on Todd-AO.

PPPS - American Optical was one of my accounts - I sold them IBM mainframe equipment.

Interesting - I didn't know that.

Could you compare Todd-AO with Skywalker Sound - a percentage of films mixed? - something to help us understand the size and importance of Todd-AO.

PS - I added a NOTE to my post - brief history of your company.:)

PPS - I made a lot of money back in the 1980's on Todd-AO stock. It was very active in that you could see as much as a $2.00 change between opening and closing bell in a day. Used to buy 1000 and then 2000 share blocks 2 or 3 times a week . . . until one week - it didn't work - so I took the loss and called it a day on Todd-AO.


Todd-AO merged with Glenn Glen Sound in the late seventies..

In comparison to Skywalker, we probably mix 2 to 3 times the films they do per year... In the past 10 years, of the films that won the Oscar for Best Sound, 5 were mixed at Todd AO (Dreamgirls, Chicago, Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan) , two in New Zealand at Park Road Post(King Kong and Return of the King), one at Warner Brothers (The Matrix) one at Sony (Ray), and one at Skywalker (Titanic)...

It's a great company to work for..... :)

Film Mixer:

Can you give us a little history on the sound companies maybe starting with RCA/Westrex all the way up to today.

"I can't believe they are actually paying me to do this stuff! I would do it for free!":p

Black Hawk Down, Saving Private ryan and Gladiator, its hard to beat that I guess.

I guess clients are waiting in line???

There is dynamic compression and data compression. The two get mixed and matched here quite a bit. Every bit of dialog and foley in a major motion picture has the dog poo squeezed out of it, and the overall mixes are also dynamically compressed, just not to the point of music which has no dynamic range at all.

+100

So many people miss this point. Everything now uses so much AUDIO compression that the life is sucked out of modern recordings. Audio engineers pushing sound mixes to hit as close to 0db as possable. I believe it has hurt the art of audio mixing.

However, DATA compression shouldn't be mixed up with AUDIO compression. Very good point Slim.

BTW I love the mixes in both TF and BHD.

Yes, agreed..!!

It is like the old school rock music engineers...they compress everything to make it "louder" and more "in your face."

Hollywood is very much the same albeit sometimes they are working with so many tracks, that I am surprised they can get any detail or definition whatsoever out of the recording. I do not envy the job they have on their hands ... it is a tough challenge they face.

The good news is that the art of audio recording is still alive and well with a handful of old school engineers I work with. The bad news is that they are few and far between.

I have encountered many "modern" engineers who are unaware of the finer points that make the difference with respect to the art of audio recording and mixing. These same engineers do not believe / understand the subtle differences that improve / enhance the quality of sound during the original recording process and good practices that maintain the quality / integrity throughout the recording / mixing / encoding process.

I know people argue with us about our theories and practices … but I do not really care. I have nothing to prove to them. We continue to do our best and pay respect to the work of the original artists’ by doing so.





+100

So many people miss this point. Everything now uses so much AUDIO compression that the life is sucked out of modern recordings. Audio engineers pushing sound mixes to hit as close to 0db as possable. I believe it has hurt the art of audio mixing.

However, DATA compression shouldn't be mixed up with AUDIO compression. Very good point Slim.

BTW I love the mixes in both TF and BHD.

I have encountered many "modern" engineers who are unaware of the finer points that make the difference with respect to the art of audio recording and mixing. These same engineers do not believe / understand the subtle differences that improve / enhance the quality of sound during the original recording process and good practices that maintain the quality / integrity throughout the recording / mixing / encoding process.


Richard.. what are some of the "finer" points or "subtle" differences that you feel most make a difference in how one mixes?

Everything !!

From capture using microphones, cables, and recording techniques that most engineers feel do not apply to digital ... to the storage and transfer of source material where most feel digital is immune to any "issues" such as jitter as I have pointed out in previous posts ... to re-clocking ... to audio resolution (48/16 verses 96/24 and 192/24) that some debate is inaudible ... to the introduction of distortions via AC Line Conditions and Electrical Interference from other AC operated equipment ... to the use of better sounding Cables, Equipment, and Analog/Digital Converters ... to the overall proper care, handling, and good practices that maintain audio quality and the integrity and transparency of the original source.

Of course, being a "Science Forum" and all ... I understand most people here are not really all that "Subjective" in their evaluations. It appears that most prefer "Science" using sine waves, oscilloscopes, and math to form opinions.

That is all well and good to a degree, but I often differ in my opinion ... which is firmly rooted in science ... but not married to it. I believe that a subjective evaluation with repeatable results confirmed by an audience of my peers ... really is the final word.

Here are two articles from a Pro Engineer that would agree at least in part with some of what I have claimed regarding 96/24 and 192/24 and 384/24. He states his professional opinion here in writing. I personally do not care for DSD much, so I differ in opinion on that.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_elliot_mazer/index.html

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Feb03/articles/elliotmazer.asp?print=yes

For those too lazy to click the link ... here is one excerpt from one of the articles. Sorry I can't show you this in a waveform, but there is NO doubt a real difference between these audio resolutions when evaluated on a subjective basis.

From article posted on www.soundonsound.com:

"The high-sample-rate HD system at last seems to offer the kind of neutrality Elliot Mazer likes, in a digital format. "With 192kHz, the recording medium is not there, which is slightly different than when you use the best analogue system. The 192kHz format makes listening to digital pleasurable, and it does not sound digital. It moves me more. I feel the same about DSD [Sony's one-bit, super-high sample rate technology used in the Super Audio CD format] but 192/24 PCM is my favourite, and 192 sounds better than 96 by a long shot. I'll bet that 384 will sound even better. The differences are in the width, depth and height of the recording. When one compares a CD with 192, the CD sounds small in every dimension: height, width, depth, breadth. The higher the sampling rate, the greater the bit depth, the more natural things seem to sound. Pflash Pflaumer, one of the inventors of HDCD, said that he thought that these higher rates removed things like time smear, whatever that is."


Richard.. what are some of the "finer" points or "subtle" differences that you feel most make a difference in how one mixes?

“300” uses the same video encode and identical lossless audio content on both BD & HD DVD, while the HD DVD has additional features not available on the BD, namely the PiP Bluescreen that was awarded "Best Bonus Feature" in this same poll... yet the BD version of "300" is tagged as HD title of the year?


Give me a break, :)

Re: sample rate and bit depth,

One could probably trace down an element or several in nearly every recording ever made (microphones, preamps, etc.) that would be incapable of capturing a signal which would take 24/196+ of resolution to reproduce. That’s not to say the actual performance did not have that kind of audible information present, just that you are limited by the equipment used for capture.

Then there is the equipment that was used for subsequent I/O (if applicable) and mixing. I have worked with audio plenty, and can rarely if ever hear a difference between 16/48 or 24/96 - 24/192. It becomes even more difficult to hear a difference when you start layering tracks because each one adds something to the noise floor and takes away from the dynamics and presence of a singular track.

Listen to a good movie mix (which will typically have multi-layered orchestral scores, dialog, and SFX all fighting for space) and assuming the same master is used, you aren't likely to hear an appreciable difference between 16/48 and 24/192+ using most equipment.

Pushing up the sample rate and bit depth isn’t going to magically ‘open up’ a recording when sample rate and bit depth were never the limiting factors to begin with.

Your mileage may vary of course, but in my experience sample rate and bit depth over 16/48 aren’t worth all of the fuss they seem to get.

Adding audio output channels to music and movie mixes (5.1 and beyond) seems like a much more worthwhile pursuit for several reasons.

Not looking to argue, just stating my opinion based upon my experience. 