This is an inquiry regarding the perceived differences between high bit rate sound tracks (TrueHD and DD+) and their transcoded optical versions (DD 640kbps and DTS 1.5Mbps).

I bought a Toshiba HD-DVD A3 not long ago because, at $200 and a dozen movies, it was too good a deal to pass up. My receiver is a Denon 3805, a lovely box, but without HDMI. Of course, that means I can't get to the high bit rate audio tracks on the discs. As one who appreciates DVD-A and SACD, that limitation has been bothering me. Before deciding whether to upgrade my receiver or swap the A3 for an XA2 or A35, I arranged for a demonstration at a local shop. We used the movie 300 on a Pioneer BD-P95FD Blu-ray player, bitstreamed to a Denon 4308, and speakers far better than mine. We compared the TrueHD track to the transcoded DD 640kbps version.

The TrueHD track sounded better. But, I was surprised that it wasn't much better. TrueHD had a bit more detail and dynamic range. It was smoother and easier on the ears. But, the improvement didn't knock my socks off. This was not like the difference I hear going from Redbook CD to DTS 5.1 to high resolution formats such as SACD and DVD-Audio. In fact, I hear a much bigger improvement going from standard DD to the 640kbps version than I do in the last step to TrueHD.

From reading through some rather arcane discussions on other bulletinboards, I am learning there's support for the notion that the top end of the basic Dolby Digital and DTS standards gets pretty close to limit of what we can hear. Since standard DD and DTS fall far short of the top bit rates, the transcoded tracks will take us up quite a bit in quality.

I am curious about the experiences of people who have the equipment to listen both ways. Do you find a more significant difference on the lossless tracks than I heard in my one side-by-side test? While I would certainly listen to TrueHD, dts-MA, and their lossy cousins if I had the right equipment, I am not feeling the need to upgrade based on what I heard.

Thanks for your input.


Peter

but without HDMI. Of course, that means I can't get to the high bit rate audio tracks on the discs.But can't you get this via the analog connections?

Ed

But can't you get this via the analog connections?

Ed

Unfortunately, not with an A3. The only HD-DVD players with analog outs are the XA2 and A35. My multichannel receiver inputs are already in use for an SACD/DVD-A player. So, that would mean both a higher priced player and a multichannel analog audio switch that costs more than the player.

While I would certainly listen to TrueHD, dts-MA, and their lossy cousins if I had the right equipment, I am not feeling the need to upgrade based on what I heard.

Thanks for your input.


Peter

The opinion that matters is your own. If you feel an upgrade is not justified, it isn't. I like the extra dynamic range of TrueHD, but I already had equipment in place to facilitate when I purchased my HD-DVD player. If I had to upgrade everything, plus speakers to make the difference worthwhile, I think I would be perfectly content with high bitrate DD. If you had an XA2 ir A35, analog might be an option, but again your talking about investing more money that in the end may not be justifiable to your ears. And as I said, it's your ears that count.

It's not like music where the audio is all that matters. Your brain is going to be mostly focused on the visual experience with the audio re-enforcing that. Plus, movie soundtracks aren't all that high-resolution to begin with when compared to music recordings...at least good ones.

The opinion that matters is your own.
Absolutely.

I guess what I am asking is whether others who are in position to do the comparisons come away with similar impressions. One listen on someone else's equipment might not be a valid test. If others find only subtle improvement from the lossless codecs, I'll happily wait awhile to upgrade. It sounds like you hear an improvement with TrueHD, but not a huge one.

I guess what I am asking is whether others who are in position to do the comparisons come away with similar impressions. One listen on someone else's equipment might not be a valid test. If others find only subtle improvement from the lossless codecs, I'll happily wait awhile to upgrade. It sounds like you hear an improvement with TrueHD, but not a huge one.
- I upgraded my Marantz SR-7400 to a Denon 3808ci and am glad I did. The biggest difference that I noticed was the greater dynamic range and audio quality. Everything was just "crisper". I have a Paradigm Studio setup (60v.3, 40v.3, CC-470).

Even DD+ is an improvement over DD and DTS. I was listening to "With or Without You" from U2: Rattle and Hum and I have never heard the song sound that good. IMO, it's the same level of upgrade from CD to SACD/DVD-A. Hope that helps.

Even DD+ is an improvement over DD and DTS. I was listening to "With or Without You" from U2: Rattle and Hum and I have never heard the song sound that good. IMO, it's the same level of upgrade from CD to SACD/DVD-A. Hope that helps.
Thanks, tokerblue. I am not quite clear from your response whether you are talking about DD and DTS at their usual bit rates or the 640 kbps version transcoded from the TrueHD and DD+ sound tracks.

I like the extra dynamic range of TrueHD,
I don't think that lossless vs lossy offers any more dynamic range. That's determined by the original sample bit length. For example if it's 24 bits per sample, that determines the dynamic range. Lossy encoding won't reduce that.

Ed

I am 20 and can still hear above 24khz.
TruHD, LPCM sound similar to DTS but with more ultra and sub sonic details.
Better yes, 480-1080p or Red Book to 24/192 not so much.
Also Lossles sound transcends the cinema, so it might be a conflict of purist ideology.
I got tge HDDVD of Darkman and the BD of Halloween, the lossles tacks were 5.1 as opposed to Stereo and mono.
This invalidates the concept of master audio, as we are hearin modern remixes of 1 or 2 track magnetic recordings.

I am 20 and can still hear above 24khz.
then you would be TRULY unusual, as this would be 4khz above the normal human hearing range

TruHD, LPCM sound similar to DTS but with more ultra and sub sonic details.
questionable comment, based upon your first statement

Better yes, 480-1080p or Red Book to 24/192 not so much.
ummm... 480-1080p are video resolutions

Also Lossles sound transcends the cinema, so it might be a conflict of purist ideology.
"transcends the cinema"? :confused:

I got tge HDDVD of Darkman and the BD of Halloween, the lossles tacks were 5.1 as opposed to Stereo and mono.
This invalidates the concept of master audio, as we are hearin modern remixes of 1 or 2 track magnetic recordings.

the last point is basically true.

I don't think that lossless vs lossy offers any more dynamic range. That's determined by the original sample bit length. For example if it's 24 bits per sample, that determines the dynamic range. Lossy encoding won't reduce that.

Ed

Lossy compression by definition will reduce dynamic range by reducing the bit depth of the original sample. Lossless may also reduce bit depth, but only if it does not clip any information. This doesn't rule out the engineer reducing bit depth before encoding, but that is not a function of the codecs themselves.

The loss of dynamic range in lossy compression also raises the noise floor which forces reference levels to be higher. This is why many comment that DD and DTS sound "louder" than TrueHD or PCM. Also why popular music recorded today (compressed a lot) sounds louder...and like crap. :D

Lossy compression by definition will reduce dynamic range by reducing the bit depth of the original sample.

Nonsense. Lossy compression does not reduce the 'bit depth' of the original sample. It reduces the bit rate.

Anyway, you can check the supposed effect on dynamic range yourself, using a good mp3 encoder and wave analysis software like Audition. Measure the difference between peak and average level, for the original versus the mp3 at various bitrates.

The other nonsense in this thread is that one can reliably tell the differences claimed, using the sighted comparison methods described



Lossless may also reduce bit depth, but only if it does not clip any information.


Utter nonsense. Lossless is LOSSLESS. If it 'clips any information', it's not lossless.

Ccontenj,
Its normal for young people to hear past 20khz. The noise of CRT screens drove me nuts.
About video resoloutions, those 2 are analogous to the Red Book to 24/192 demonstration.

I don't mean to be rude and I learn much from these kinds of technical discussions, but I would still appreciate responses to my original inquiry about the sound that people actually hear: if you have been able to compare TrueHD, DD+, dts-HD MA, and dts-HD with their lossy higher bit rate DD/DTS transcodes, do you hear significant quality differences?

Thanks, again.

Ccontenj,
Its normal for young people to hear past 20khz. The noise of CRT screens drove me nuts.
About video resoloutions, those 2 are analogous to the Red Book to 24/192 demonstration.

no. it's not "normal" at all. the human hearing range is generally accepted to be 20hz-20khz. it is truly unusual for a human to be able to hear frequencies above 20khz. TRULY unusual. as in "extraordinarily rare".

hearing ranges (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml)

more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiograms_in_mammals)

more (http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/hearing.html)

what the heck, one more (http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node271.html)

i could give you more, but you get the point.

fwiw, the crt noise you hear is approximately 15.7khz...

and no, that analogy doesn't work.

I don't mean to be rude and I learn much from these kinds of technical discussions, but I would still appreciate responses to my original inquiry about the sound that people actually hear: if you have been able to compare TrueHD, DD+, dts-HD MA, and dts-HD with their lossy higher bit rate DD/DTS transcodes, do you hear significant quality differences?

Thanks, again.

unfortunately, i have not had the opportunity to blind test this... however, i will guess that based on some abx testing that i did with lossy encoded music, that any audible difference between a "lossless" codec and a hbr lossy transcode will be quite small, if noticeable at all. assuming same masters, level matching, etc.

i'd be willing to bet that 2 or 3 well placed room treatments would have WAY more of an affect than lossless vs. hbr lossy.

The loss of dynamic range in lossy compression also raises the noise floor which forces reference levels to be higher. This is why many comment that DD and DTS sound "louder" than TrueHD or PCM. Also why popular music recorded today (compressed a lot) sounds louder...and like crap. :D

With that last sentence, you're confusing two uses of the word compression.

When you're talking about the infamous compression applied to pop music, you're right. There are algorithms and devices called 'compressors' which are designed specifically to compress the dynamic range. These are applied on recordings and do reduce the dynamics.

When you're talking about lossy compression, this is a completely separate beast. It has nothing to do with dynamic range compression, in general. It's data compression, not dynamic range compression, and the goal is (as was already stated) to reduce the number of bits stored and transmitted.

Ccontenj,
Its normal for young people to hear past 20khz. The noise of CRT screens drove me nuts.

CRT screen noise is usually <20kHz.

I don't mean to be rude and I learn much from these kinds of technical discussions, but I would still appreciate responses to my original inquiry about the sound that people actually hear: if you have been able to compare TrueHD, DD+, dts-HD MA, and dts-HD with their lossy higher bit rate DD/DTS transcodes, do you hear significant quality differences?

The method you used, and the one you are expecting people to report from, won't tell you what is 'actually' heard. It will tell you a lot about peoples' beliefs, though.

Lossy compression by definition will reduce dynamic range by reducing the bit depth of the original sample. . .As krabapple already pointed out, most if not all of what you said is nonsense. On the most fundamental point, I've never seen the definition of lossy compression that you are giving. I think that you have mixed up bit depth and bit rate - two very different things. Also you seemed to have mixed up two very different uses of the word compression - dynamic audio compression (which I absolutely abhor) and lossy compression. Again, the two are completely different things and have nothing to do with each other.

Ed

CRT screen noise is usually <20kHz.As far as 480i CRT's go, it's not "usually" but always 15734 Hz. Certainly audible and < 20kHz.

Ed

The method you used, and the one you are expecting people to report from, won't tell you what is 'actually' heard. It will tell you a lot about peoples' beliefs, though.
What's your point? That people are incapable of listening to something, making a judgment about whether one version sounds better than another, and by how much. That's the method I used and had no problem coming to a conclusion, which was not the one I expected, btw.

What's your point? That people are incapable of listening to something, making a judgment about whether one version sounds better than another, and by how much.


To do so reliably -- yeah, pretty much that's what I;m saying. It's too easy for people to fool themselves.


That's the method I used and had no problem coming to a conclusion, which was not the one I expected, btw.

Doesn't matter. The psychological facts were in long ago: people are consciously and unconsciously influenced by things like appearance, price,
and what they've heard or read before, when it comes to judging sound quality. That's why Revel, for example, uses blind comparison tests to develop its loudspeakers. It's also why any scientific investigation into perception of audible difference, is going to employ a blind method.

Stay on subject.

I had a hunch DD was already approaching the max our ears could interpret. I am sure there is a slight difference in TRUEHD but it would depend on the individual's hearing and what equipment was used. I know this, for the POSSIBLE improvement I MIGHT hear I am not going to be upgrading my current 6.1 setup.

Course some rave about dvd audio and SACD and I don't hear much difference between them and a normal cd. Don't care what others think they hear, that won't affect what I hear on my setup so don't even chime in here. Thx

Is it worth the expense ? I would say no. I went with 6.1 in my setup and it could have been 7.1 and now don't they
have 9.1 or something ? I mean how far will we take this ?
It is almost becoming a bragging rights competition. Your ears can only take in so many speakers so to speak and only a certain frequency range so I say keep your money.

I recently upgraded from an Onkyo TX-NR801 to a new Yamaha HTR-6190 receiver. One of the first things I did after getting it setup was to see how much better Dolby TrueHD and PCM was compared to regular Dolby Digital. To be honest I didn't notice any huge improvements over standard Dolby Digital at 640kbps. I would say there's a slight improvement but the difference is so small its not worth upgrading your equipment. It's not the night and day difference i've heard people raving about.

I have a Pioner Elite 84 receiver with HDMI and hooked up my PS3 to enjoy BluRay movies. How can I get the best audio results and take advantage of DD Plus? Do I want to use the PCM setings on the receiver or set it for DD?

I have a Pioner Elite 84 receiver with HDMI and hooked up my PS3 to enjoy BluRay movies. How can I get the best audio results and take advantage of DD Plus? Do I want to use the PCM setings on the receiver or set it for DD?

dave, do you have current firmware on your 84? if not, you'll need the firmware upgrade to apply the lfe boost via hdmi.

as far as how to "set" it, my 82 recognizes whatever it is sent and uses that... so it's the player (bpd-s1 and a20 in my case) that is determining what the avr is going to do.

I went with 6.1 in my setup and it could have been 7.1 and now don't they have 9.1 or something ? I mean how far will we take this ?They'll take it as far as they want. What difference does it make to you how many speakers others have? There's no gun to your head forcing you to use more speakers. Use the number of speakers you want; soundtracks can be downmixed in the receiver to match your set-up. Your ears can only take in so many speakers...How many is that?

Sanjay

What difference does it make to you how many speakers others have?

I imagine it's the whole "keeping up with the Jones'" thing.

no. it's not "normal" at all. the human hearing range is generally accepted to be 20hz-20khz. it is truly unusual for a human to be able to hear frequencies above 20khz. TRULY unusual. as in "extraordinarily rare".

hearing ranges (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/ChrisDAmbrose.shtml)

more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audiograms_in_mammals)

more (http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/hearing.html)

what the heck, one more (http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/Multimedia/node271.html)

i could give you more, but you get the point.

fwiw, the crt noise you hear is approximately 15.7khz...

and no, that analogy doesn't work.
The wikipedia one you posted shows a diagram with human hearing up to 23khz. And I think with the analogy he was going for the difference you see in 480i to 1080p is greater then the difference you hear in jumping up to lossless sound... which does make sense.

- Jon

I imagine it's the whole "keeping up with the Jones'" thing.Understood (though not a good reason to add more speakers).

Sanjay

The wikipedia one you posted shows a diagram with human hearing up to 23khz. And I think with the analogy he was going for the difference you see in 480i to 1080p is greater then the difference you hear in jumping up to lossless sound... which does make sense.

- Jon

please note the wording in the paragraph above the diagram... :) and he was claiming above 24khz in his original post... and using crt noise (which as a couple of us have pointed out, is significantly below 20khz) as his reference...

and the analogy he was attempting to make was indeed that it was an equivalent difference...

Understood (though not a good reason to add more speakers).

Sanjay

Never said it was a good reason. ;)

Honestly, though, I see a lot of posts here and elsewhere about how they have to get HDMI, 7.1, and TrueHD without even knowing what those mean. They just know they're "good" and the "got to have it" thing.

They'll take it as far as they want. What difference does it make to you how many speakers others have? There's no gun to your head forcing you to use more speakers. Use the number of speakers you want; soundtracks can be downmixed in the receiver to match your set-up. How many is that?

Sanjay


Fine waste your money if you like, no need to be a jerkoff. But also no need for 9, 10 or whatever amount of speakers either. Oh I forgot your a SPECIAL MEMBER.

Fine waste your money if you like, no need to be a jerkoff. But also no need for 9, 10 or whatever amount of speakers either.No "need" to use 5.1 speakers either. You've been posting in multiple threads, complaining about the idea of using more speakers. If someone decides to spend (not waste) money on more speakers, what's your complaint? No one's asking you to do it.

You still didn't answer how many speakers the ear can take in.

Sanjay

Nonsense. Lossy compression does not reduce the 'bit depth' of the original sample. It reduces the bit rate.

Anyway, you can check the supposed effect on dynamic range yourself, using a good mp3 encoder and wave analysis software like Audition. Measure the difference between peak and average level, for the original versus the mp3 at various bitrates.

The other nonsense in this thread is that one can reliably tell the differences claimed, using the sighted comparison methods described






Utter nonsense. Lossless is LOSSLESS. If it 'clips any information', it's not lossless.

Why don't you try actually reading a post before calling something nonsense and backing that up with your own nonsense.

How exactly do you reduce bit rate without reducing depth? Are we listening to things at slower speed than the original? Does time magically slowdown when using lossy compression?

I didn't say lossless clips information. Lossless compression will clip the sample if it does not contain any information. No need to waste bits if there's no information there. The final uncompressed sample will restore the clipped "information", in order to return the full bit depth. Try reading up on MLP compression before commenting with....oh that's right, nonsense.

Yes, firmware has been updated and LPE set to +10. Still wondering if PCM is better than DD?

Yes, firmware has been updated and LPE set to +10. Still wondering if PCM is better than DD?

technically speaking, it should be... depending on rest of equipment, room, etc.... it's certainly not the "OMG!!!! NIGHT AND DAY DIFFERENCE!!" that some might have you believe... the perceptual lossy codecs really are quite good...

if you have 7.1, applying pliix to pcm has been reputed to give good results... can't comment on that, as i only have a 5.1 setup...

Why don't you try actually reading a post before calling something nonsense and backing that up with your own nonsense.

How exactly do you reduce bit rate without reducing depth? Are we listening to things at slower speed than the original? Does time magically slowdown when using lossy compression?

Wikipedia is your friend

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Bit_Rate

"Technically speaking, bit depth is only meaningful when applied to pure PCM devices. [B]Non-PCM formats, such as DSD or lossy compression systems like MP3, have bit depths that are not defined in the same sense as PCM. This is particularly true for lossy audio compression, where bits are allocated on a per tone basis, and the bits actually allocated to individual samples are allowed to fluctuate almost randomly within the constraints imposed by the allocation algorithm. Recently, many lossy formats such as DTS and WMA Pro have been promoted as 24 bit. However, this is not correct. A lossy file will not actually contain 24 bits worth of information per sample, but is actually a file that was originally mastered at 24 bits and then compressed."


In PCM, bit depth -- i.e., 16 bit, 24 bit, 32 bit -- is directly related to dynamic range. It's the amount of bits per sample. Have you ever actually compared a good lossy compressed audio file to its source, in terms of dynamic range (peak versus average level)? I have. The change is negligible.



I didn't say lossless clips information. Lossless compression will clip the sample if it does not contain any information. No need to waste bits if there's no information there.


That's not what 'clipping' means in digital audio. Clipping, in digital audio, is what happens when a signal exceeds 0dBFS

The final uncompressed sample will restore the clipped "information", in order to return the full bit depth. Try reading up on MLP compression before commenting with....oh that's right, nonsense.

That you would use terminology like 'clipping' to describe discarding of information based on a psy model, suggests it's you who needs to do some reading.

Fine why don't you put a speaker every 2 feet. JerkWhy does the idea of using more speakers bother you so much? Again, no one is making you do it.

Meanwhile, you never answered how many speakers the ear can take in.

Sanjay

Meanwhile, you never answered how many speakers the ear can take in.
As many as one can afford, and no more apparently.