Industry Insiders Q&A MASTER THREAD [separate thread for Xbox/Add On & PS3]

[RobertR1]

Filmmixer,

Thank you for all your input. Just as important as the techical Q/A, I'm glad you spoke up about the audio masters. What's sad is that while enthusiasts have always been "spen whores" they're taking it to a whole new extreme is this format war. Mainly since specs are what make them different. Its very refreshing to see, when a person actually working on the materials, provides their input on the subject of endless debates involving people who have no possible control over the release or an ability to do an A/B comparison with the master. So they cling onto their precious spec sheets and fight like it's DDay.

[ccutrer]

Originally Posted by Roger Dressler

Every DD+ decoder chip includes a converter that outputs a DD 640 stream without full DD+ decoding and DD re-encoding. Reduces computation load, and avoids compounding coding artifacts.

What about software decoders (i.e. Xbox 360 HD DVD add on/PowerDVD) - do they follow the same behavior as the chips, or are the software decoders independently implemented?

Also, for Dolby TrueHD, is there a similar mechanism, or being a lossless codec there was nothing to gain by sharing quantization values and such (I really don't understand audio compression theory at all).

Finally, I've heard before that if you're going to re-encode, it's best to use a different codec. I.e. an MP3 re-encoded to another MP3 at the same bitrate will lose quality, JPEG image saved again as JPEG will lose quality, etc. From that quote, it sounds like it would be less lossy for a DD+ to be transcoded to DD instead of say DTS? How about other conversions? Specifically (after the HD DVD update), the Xbox 360 will be able to output DD 640, DTS 1.5, or WMA Pro (not sure on the bitrate)... for both DD+ and DTHD, what would the best output setting be? From a much earlier post, Amir hinted that WMA Pro is the highest quality audio codec the 360 can output... would that be true across the board?

[sharkshark]

First of all, Marc, thank you so very much for taking time on mother's day to respond, far more detail than I was expecting. However, before I get into this I want to make something absolutely and perfectly clear - my use of "purported" was a slip, I meant it to be synonymous with "reported", without the connotation that there was some misrepresentation going on. I'm the first to admit that the typical response on fora such as this is to be skeptical of all types of posts, but I learned a long time ago that one of my biggest strengths is knowing what I don't know. It is with humility and respect I meant to frame the question, not to appear antagonistic. If that's how it came across, that's because of my sloppy prose and choice of words, not because of my intention.

Secondly, I have for fifteen years dabbled in audio production, electroacoustic composition, and other audio nerd things that do two things - give me enough knowledge to not know what the hell I'm talking about, and supreme respect for sound guys and the work that they do. I buy Mix mag and drool over equipment I don't know how to use. I purchase the glorious "Recording the Beatles" book to learn about the history and evolution of valve equipment in EMI's mixing desks from 61 through 70. I dream of sitting in Skywalker sound, tweaking the knobs as my favourite film plays (let alone chilling at Bob Ludwig's mastering room, with those speakers that have concrete bases - who knows if it helps them sound better, that's just so hardcore).

Now, to your responses:

Originally Posted by FilmMixer

1. Since we are talking about the advent of digital sound on film, I assume you are speaking of films since 1991 and onward.

Yeah, I was thinking post-Jurrasic Park, but mostly post introduction of DAW exclusively in the mixing environment - I figured, given format changes, etc., that there may be a "safety" mag of LCRS archived, in the same way that dye transfer prints are stored for celuloid.

It is becoming more and more common to deliver a show in uncompressed PCM .BWAV files (broadcast wave). Most people concur that this is a file that will have a long shelf life, and since it isn't tied to any proprietary format, it is a safe digital asset (i.e. not tied to the certain hot workstation.)

This is exactly what I was getting at, whether there was a more rigorous, professional, multiplatform format for storing m/c mixes from a variety of workstation sources. This leads to other questions however - are only final mixes stored, or are automation files for the mixing board, pre-mixes, DAW files, etc. archived in some standardized way. I'd assume for the latter that this would be up to the individual mixing dept. and filmmakers, but in the same way that editing stems are sometimes collected, it's interesting to me to see what pre-complete process elements are preserved for posterity

2. I take exception with that analysis. As I said earlier, for the past 15 years, a majority of films have been mixed in discrete 6 channel, and if a 5.1 didn't exist, you got the LtRt on the disc.. there may have been some matrix extractions done originally, but this was never the norm. If you can point me to the titles you are referring to that you know are 5.1's from a decoded LtRt, let me know... I don't know of any.

First of all, let me assure you (as above) that there was no analysis going on there, just conjecture... Secondly, I was thinking of films that were older and may have had m/c mixes at one point in time, but the archive only preserved the stereo mix. Take something like Milos Forman's Hair, and older film that I assume (yeah, I could look) probably had a 4ch mix accomplished (LCRS?), but the SD DVD sounds to me like little more than a pro-logic II pass on a 2ch master. While prestige titles like Star Wars would of -course- have the effort and expense spent on creating truly discrete 5.1 mixes from the original discrete 6ch elements (and, again, I'm glossing over the 70mm 6ch mix vs. the 35mm mix vs. the mono mix, all which has been documented many times for this film in particular), I simply assumed that there are many times that in the drive to get a DVD out that uses the fancy 5.1 setting that 2ch mixes were put through a process to open up the rear soundstage and provide a consistent center channel because it looks better on the box (see your final comments below). Note that I'm -assuming- and -guessing- here, I've literally got no idea what has been done in the past...

But you need to understand something else.. when we printmaster a film, we create discrete uncompressed PCM masters that are used to make the lossy codecs used for theatrical distribution..

That's actually what I had assumed to be the case, and what I hoped to be what was preserved (see above).

3. As per above, there maybe be different encodes of the masters, but the encodes come from the same master.. i.e. there is no consideration into what format the audio will be encoded. This isn't to say that the encodes will sound the same, but the master is the same, and in the case of 16 bit masters, have never delivered one on a film that was mixed in 24 bit, so any truncation, in my experience, is done by the studio or the encoder, and if it is either, I would almost always bet it was done for bit allocation issues, and not quality. And of course, the DD encode is going to be done separately from the DD+ or DTS HD or etc....

I guess what I was getting at was, in a consumer metaphor, people were creating mp3 192kb/s files from the master first, then making 360kb/s VBR mp3s, (or even lossless Flac files) from the original compressed file and releasing it as a higher bitrate version. It's a nefarious suggestion, one I'm not pegging on anyone, but it remains a question - if one format promises DD640kb/s, and other DD+1.5kb/s, is it safe to say that (whether or not you can hear the difference, a whole 'nother story) that the DD+ is closer data-wise to the master? What about DD vs. DD+ where the bitrate is the same?

And you are making the common mistake of confusing source channels with speaker channels. If you are in a 5.1 setup, and I panned something to the rear center, you will get a phantom center image of it, since the signal is equally in the LR and RR source. In a 7.1 setup, with a 5.1 input with DPLIIx decoding on it, that sound will end in the CS, wither in the mono CS in a 6.1 setup or in the LR RR in a 7.1 setup, and will stay out of the LB and RB channels. As another example, if I pan something between the LR, CS, and RS channels, in a 5.1 it will sound like it travels across the rear, and in a 7.1 playback, the transition across the back wall will be smoother.. same source, different reproduction.

I was trying hard to not make that common mistake by referring to "rear surround" instead of "side surround". At any rate, I think I'm running into real world mixing practices vs. the format's potential. Forgetting for a moment the layout, and think of the mix as 8 source signals on the board, playing eight unique parts. Then, mapping these unique channels to the FL/C/FR/SL/BL/SR/BR/SW layout, I could (white noise test? channel identification?) send a unique signal to -each- of these speakers in turn. In the case of 6.1 (or matrixed rear of 5.1 where you're mixing equal SL and SR to create phantom or non-phantom RC (rear centre)) I would be getting the same signal output from my BL and BR speakers. As you suggest, whether this is done at the mixing stage by panning to 90 degrees for those elements that are to be matrixed (or simply perceived by the ear) to be rear-center surround, or to have a unique signal associated for that, it maybe moot.

However (please bear with me, this might all be a mess, it's certainly making my head hurt!) I can picture a mix where when granted control to send signal to these specific channels you'd be able to have a far more subtle interaction between the side and rear surround speakers. In other words, where the matrix rolls off the panned-to-center signal and places that signal in the side speaker is the result of the selected processing method selected. On the other hand, being able to specifically direct sounds to a particular speaker, and be able to direct with great specificity in a panning from one speaker to the other how and when that occurs strikes me as an important tool. The discrete location of, say, a series of gunshots going across the back room would be able to be achieved with much greater precision, in theory, if you could place the shot in whatever speaker you choose. Where things get crazy, of course, is that if in fact you are mixing for discrete rear surrounds, you could of course mix a phantom center -between- BL and BR!

I'm no doubt confusing the issue all to hell - I'm trying to suggest that discrete 7.1 mixes could avoid -any- steering artifacts. Whether or not there is any creative advantage to this is another story. Give ALL of that madness, are there any true, discrete theatrical 7.1 presentations? IMAX with its second CC maybe? If for all intents and purposes CH6 and 7 of your 7.1 are a shared signal for theatrical, and that this signal could just as easily (and without a dramatic difference in perception) be made by adroit mixing of the side surround channels and dexterous matrix decoding, then we're back to where you started, namely, that the difference between a 5.1 mix and a 7.1 mix at home (with all the caveats above) are pretty damn close to being identical.

Your belief that most films are mixed with a mono surround track is wrong.

..again, I specifically mentioned -rear- surround mono tracks, namely, the "sixth" chanel being for all intents mono (all those speakers at the back of the theatre pulling the same signal from either the decoder or matrix box.

As for your assertion that it is useless for most films, well I'll let that comment speak for itself. Even on my quiet dialog films, I always have true stereo surround information going on.

Of course! However, I'm assuming they don't have stereo -rear- surround information!

As to why some titles get a lossless encode, and others don't, that's a long story, and is based on many decisions. But you can't assume that"Borne" sounds deficient "only in DD+" because you have no idea what the master sounds like.

This, in the end, was one of my (many, many) points, that I've got no idea about the master quality, and that TrueHD doesn't make something immediately good (or compressed soundtracks immediately bad). However, I can assume, from above, that as a modern film there at least -exists- a lossless archived mix, and that this mix -could- have been used, if the studios had wanted to.

What you should know is that you are hearing a first rate representation of the film makers work, and should be thrilled at that. We tend to spend way too much time debating this issue instead of enjoying the tracks... and since you, and most reviewers, aren't privy to the original masters, you shouldn't automatically assume that a lossy encode at 1.5kbps is automatically deficient.

...nor should we assume that we are hearing differences in -quality- when comparing mixes that have different -levels- (particularly of bass or surround levels) - a charge that many leveled against DTS, particularly on some Spielberg titles, where the -mixes- were different, promoting people to pass judgements on the compression codecs.

I hope that in the future that people on these boards remember that all this technology is here to let us enjoy movies and music, nothing else. Everybody has an opinion about how things look and sound, but I can tell you that with these new technologies, you are as close to the masters as ever. And just because 7.1 is the newest craze, you shouldn't believe you're missing out if it isn't on your favorite film... enjoy the movie, and don't fret about stuff you can't control. The studios, authoring houses, compressionists, mixers, DP's, editors, producers and directors do enough of that for you

Lord knows you've no time to read anything else I'd post on this thread, but we are totally in agreement here, and I've many times made similar claims. So many are missing the enjoyment of the film in favour of the fetishization of the technology. That said, I hope my clarifications (and further confusions above!) do a better job of articulating not only my genuine interest of this process -as a film lover-, but as someone with an appreciation for the art of sound presentation and mixing.

[dolby212]

Thanks Amirm

[dolby212]

I appreciate it

[Roger Dressler]

Originally Posted by hellokeith

I'm a bit confused (<-- bad pun ). Why would the DD+ be converted to DD in an HD DVD output scenario?

For connection to a legacy AVR through S/PDIF.

Originally Posted by AnthonyP

Hi Roger can you go into a bit more on how the conversion happens if it is not decoding and reincoding?

Originally Posted by scaesare

Would I be correct in assuming that the chip that does the transcoding does so by using the existing quantized data (bit values, exponent encoding, etc...) and transferring it in-tact to the new codec where possible, so as to avoid the complete decode/encode process and the resulting accumulative error?

In other words: reuse common data where possible across the two differing codecs, and only unroll the newer DD+ features that a DD decoder wouldn't be able to digest?

Yes! Much of what changed between DD and DD+ is syntax (structural), not coding operations. One prominent example is the option for shorter frame sizes. It means certain header information occurs more regularly, and some of this data gets stripped out when converting back to DD. The output block structure and bit allocation are all retained. There’s of course more to it, but I think you get the idea. If you want more detail, there is of course a white paper . Section 6 (page 22) covers this topic in morbid detail.

[madshi]

@Roger Dressler, thanks four your replies here, much appreciated!

Another question: What is your stance about open source decoders for Dolby formats? Do you consider them legal? Can Dolby software decoders generally be developed without having to pay fees? The Linux crowd is currently short of E-AC3 and TrueHD decoders. I understand that an open source E-AC3 decoder is in the works, thanks to openly available format specification. But it seems that specifications for TrueHD are not readily available. Would you consider making TrueHD specifications available to support open source development?

[madshi]

@Amir/Ben: Would you mind trying to find out which bitdepth Warner and Universal (and Paramount) are feeding into the DD+ encoder for the HD-DVD releases? If it's not yet the full bitrate of the master, maybe the studios could be convinced to go the extra mile for that last 1% of sound quality? I mean it wouldn't cost one bit more space/bandwidth, so it sounds like a good option to me!

Also: Is there a chance you could convince Warner to use 1.5Mbps instead of 640kbps for those discs which don't have a TrueHD track?

@Paidgeek, do you know which bitdepth Sony is feeding into the DD encoder?

Thank you!!

[mhafner]

Question for paidgeek: Is Sony planning to release any Bollywood on BR? They have rights to "Mission Kashmir" , "Lagaan" and some others, don't they?

[price3]

FilmMixer,
Thanks so much for your time (and all the insiders actually). My question is reguarding the final "finished" mix. In general who decides an audio mix is complete? Is this done with ears only or some sort of visual representation of the levels etc also?

[Andy Pennell]

Originally Posted by Imeldhil

is it true that I MUST have the add--on conenected to the console, or when connecting to LiVE will it download automaticlly??

Also, will the update make the selection of DTS or DD automaticlly??

Yes, you need the add-on connected, as the player software is stored on the drive itself: no drive, no software.

No, you select your preference for audio re-encoding.

[Roger Dressler]

Originally Posted by madshi

@Roger Dressler, thanks four your replies here, much appreciated!

Another question: What is your stance about open source decoders for Dolby formats? Do you consider them legal? Can Dolby software decoders generally be developed without having to pay fees? The Linux crowd is currently short of E-AC3 and TrueHD decoders. I understand that an open source E-AC3 decoder is in the works, thanks to openly available format specification. But it seems that specifications for TrueHD are not readily available. Would you consider making TrueHD specifications available to support open source development?

Regardless of my opinion, open source decoders, the development or use thereof, technically, is illegal, as I guess goes without saying. It's a patent thing. Hence Dolby does not make any efforts to help these come into existence. It doesn't really cost much to do it legitimately, and with the reference code and support/test materials Dolby provides, the outcome is assured. End of shameless plug.

[captaincelluloid]

Originally Posted by FilmMixer

On AVS, people find it very important to tier titles on picture quality or sound quality (which is usually just a subjective opinion on how much sub and surround information there is in a track.) IMO, the look and sound of the picture are there to do one thing... help tell a story. Some of my best work, what I am most proud of, is my most subdued. It's why I am at the point in my career that directors keep coming back to work with me.. because I don't, as a general rule, use sound for sounds sake, but I use it to help them tell their stories.

I hope that in the future that people on these boards remember that all this technology is here to let us enjoy movies and music, nothing else. Everybody has an opinion about how things look and sound, but I can tell you that with these new technologies, you are as close to the masters as ever. And just because 7.1 is the newest craze, you shouldn't believe you're missing out if it isn't on your favorite film... enjoy the movie, and don't fret about stuff you can't control. The studios, authoring houses, compressionists, mixers, DP's, editors, producers and directors do enough of that for you

Marc the FilmMixer;

Nicely put.

IF I MAY RE-PRESENT TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION . . . . .

ONE

On some 5.1 HDTV broadcasts all I get from the rear channels is just the foley and babble / walla tracks. No music ambience, no effects, no nothing.
Mostly on CBS shows most recently SHARK.

I'm guessing this is a local encoder issue . . . . but how does that happen?

Have you ever noticed this? Has anyone ever done that deliberately?

TWO;

A quick one; what is the reason for using three VERY tightly spaced mics for
recording voices for animated films.

I see this all the time in videos from PIXAR . . like this one;

thanks,


-30-

__________________

[FilmMixer]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

This leads to other questions however - are only final mixes stored, or are automation files for the mixing board, pre-mixes, DAW files, etc. archived in some standardized way. I'd assume for the latter that this would be up to the individual mixing dept. and filmmakers, but in the same way that editing stems are sometimes collected, it's interesting to me to see what pre-complete process elements are preserved for posterity

Didn't take your response to be antagonistic at all

In the past couple of years, we have been delivering all cut elements and pre dubs to the clients, along with their corresponding DAW counterparts. If the film is mixed on a traditional console, we sometimes send backups of automation files and the like, but they aren't really going to be of any use in the future.

Take something like Milos Forman's Hair, and older film that I assume (yeah, I could look) probably had a 4ch mix accomplished (LCRS?), but the SD DVD sounds to me like little more than a pro-logic II pass on a 2ch master.

That's easy to find out.. just put your ear up to the L or R speaker during a dialog scene.. if ya hear bleeding of the dialog in the speakers, it's a 99% chance that it is a decode job (it could also be mag bleed).

It's a nefarious suggestion, one I'm not pegging on anyone, but it remains a question - if one format promises DD640kb/s, and other DD+1.5kb/s, is it safe to say that (whether or not you can hear the difference, a whole 'nother story) that the DD+ is closer data-wise to the master? What about DD vs. DD+ where the bitrate is the same?

I am not an expert on those things, and I think that Roger has sufficiently addressed those issues on this thread recently..

I'm no doubt confusing the issue all to hell - I'm trying to suggest that discrete 7.1 mixes could avoid -any- steering artifacts. Whether or not there is any creative advantage to this is another story. Give ALL of that madness, are there any true, discrete theatrical 7.1 presentations? IMAX with its second CC maybe? If for all intents and purposes CH6 and 7 of your 7.1 are a shared signal for theatrical, and that this signal could just as easily (and without a dramatic difference in perception) be made by adroit mixing of the side surround channels and dexterous matrix decoding, then we're back to where you started, namely, that the difference between a 5.1 mix and a 7.1 mix at home (with all the caveats above) are pretty damn close to being identical.

This, in the end, was one of my (many, many) points, that I've got no idea about the master quality, and that TrueHD doesn't make something immediately good (or compressed soundtracks immediately bad). However, I can assume, from above, that as a modern film there at least -exists- a lossless archived mix, and that this mix -could- have been used, if the studios had wanted to.

I agree with your assertion that discrete is always better... but in my opinion and experience, when listening to a rear sound field with your back turned to the speakers, it is very difficult to tell the difference between discrete and matrixed surround channels, and this becomes a rallying flag for some audio zealots round these parts and I see it as a minor issue.

The only theatrical 7.1 mixes are in SDDS, and they use 5 across the front. And just so I didn't confuse the issue, studios do use these lossless masters to encode from, whether from our printmaster or a home video remaster (i.e. New Line and Lions Gate.)

[amirm]

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!). So when you wake up in the morning, you should be able to upgrade your software. And me free from telling you when are going to get it . Hope you all download it and provide feedback on what you think!

And sorry I did not give more of a notice. I was out on the cruise and only now got around to getting the specific time/date for it.

[FilmMixer]

Originally Posted by price3

FilmMixer,
Thanks so much for your time (and all the insiders actually). My question is reguarding the final "finished" mix. In general who decides an audio mix is complete? Is this done with ears only or some sort of visual representation of the levels etc also?

The director and picture editor are ususally the final voices.. although money plays a big part (feature film mixing stages run the client from between $800 - $1300 per hour, and the final mixes can be from 2 - 4 weeks)

When we final mix a film, after premixing, it is the mixers, supervising sound editor, music editor, film editor and director on the mixing stage... we start at the beginning and dub away. I like to start by running the reel down (film reels are on average 20 minutes per reel) with the faders up to hear what everybody has, and then we roll back to the top and start, usually going once through a scene, and then inching through the details.... and this is where we start to get a coherent mix.. we will throw things out, add things in, work the music, try it one way, then another, try alternate takes of dialog, lose music cues... etc. It's a fun process... Sometimes, if you have a car chase, for example, we have to decide if the sound effects are going to dominate, or the music.. if the effects win, I have to work really hard not to lose the music and get it through where I can... so we will go over and over it seconds of screen time at a time... Or when you have music that is played as source (i.e. from a radio or in a club) you have to get a sound for it (is it in the room or coming through the wall), mix it into the space and then mix it around the dialog so that you aren't stepping all over the words.

After we finish a reel, we will play it back and all take notes... raise music here, replace that door close there, etc....

We will then mix the other reels and fix those.

After that, we will assemble the mix so we can watch the film from beginning to end and take more notes.. still a lot of small detail notes, and making sure that one reel isn't out of balance level wise with the others (you mixes tend to get louder as the day wears on and your ears get tired).. somtimes go get big notes and then we will recut elements or try differnt directions.

Final fixes and then we move on to the mastering....

As a general rule, we mix ten hour days (9am - 7pm), and we do a lot of overtime and weekends to hit dates.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question.

[FilmMixer]

Originally Posted by captaincelluloid

Marc the FilmMixer;

Nicely put.

IF I MAY RE-PRESENT TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION . . . . .

ONE

On some 5.1 HDTV broadcasts all I get from the rear channels is just the foley and babble / walla tracks. No music ambience, no effects, no nothing.
Mostly on CBS shows most recently SHARK.

I'm guessing this is a local encoder issue . . . . but how does that happen?

Have you ever noticed this? Has anyone ever done that deliberately?

TWO;

A quick one; what is the reason for using three VERY tightly spaced mics for
recording voices for animated films.

I see this all the time in videos from PIXAR . . like this one;

thanks,


-30-

As per your first question, that's a weird one.. some people mix differently, but what you are hearing isn't normal, and sounds like an enocde error, or some strange affiliate issue.

On to the second question... I am no miking expert, and never got into that part of the process (live sound scares me too much, I'm more of a multi take guy ) However, that picture looks like it is setup to look cool for the camera.. because the first mic is blocking the other two..... but they may be using the back two mics in an M/S pair to get some stereo ambience for the recording.. I will pass the picture along to some of our ADR mixers and get back to you on that.

[Character_Zero]

Originally Posted by amirm

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!). So when you wake up in the morning, you should be able to upgrade your software. And me free from telling you when are going to get it . Hope you all download it and provide feedback on what you think!

And sorry I did not give more of a notice. I was out on the cruise and only now got around to getting the specific time/date for it.

Thanks! Will the update be run upon connection to Live or when a HD-DVD disc is played?

[prettyvacant]

Originally Posted by amirm

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!). So when you wake up in the morning, you should be able to upgrade your software. And me free from telling you when are going to get it . Hope you all download it and provide feedback on what you think!

And sorry I did not give more of a notice. I was out on the cruise and only now got around to getting the specific time/date for it.

Cheers Amir, been a long wait for this one (was worthy of my first post!)

Should be a good day, DTS fix AND the Matrix boxset in one day

[FrancescoP]

Originally Posted by amirm

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!).

Great news Amir!

One question: will the update be prompted to all Xbox360s or only to the consoles with the HD DVD player connected?

[Paul_Seng]

Amir or another MS insider,
My 360 died last week and I am right now waiting for a replacement voucher from Best Buy. My question (which I am sure I can call and find out later but would like to ask here) is what happens to the movie I downloaded and have not yet seen? Will I be asked to download it again or if I keep the hard drive I have it on will I be charged to view it? I watched the first 20 seconds when my 360 died. By the way it was the Horrorfest 1st double feature.

Thanks in advance

[amirm]

Originally Posted by FrancescoP

Great news Amir!

One question: will the update be prompted to all Xbox360s or only to the consoles with the HD DVD player connected?

I know there is a check on insertion of a new HD DVD. Not sure about otherwise but I have the question into the team. Will let you know what I find out.

In general, the update only applies to playing HD DVDs. So there would be no need to apply it to the console itself. But I assume your question relates to having the software, and adding the drive later...

[maverick0716]

This is very good news about the HD DVD player update........just in time for the Matrix Trilogy! Hopefully it will be a glitch free update.

[mjpartyboy]

Originally Posted by amirm

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!). So when you wake up in the morning, you should be able to upgrade your software. And me free from telling you when are going to get it . Hope you all download it and provide feedback on what you think!

And sorry I did not give more of a notice. I was out on the cruise and only now got around to getting the specific time/date for it.

This is fantastic news. I assume it's a worldwide release and not just the US.

[dhoganjr]

Amir,

Excellent news!

Any idea when it will be available to download off the web for those of us who still don't have access to broadband? I'm still waiting for the dashboard update to come up on-line...

Thanks for all your hard work!

[cyberbri]

Amir,

I have a question about the update (thanks for getting it to us, btw!).
Supposedly there will be a way to toggle DRC on/off (for DD+ only? or for TrueHD as well?), as well as a re-sample to DD or DTS option.

Where will these options appear for us to access? In the Dashboard?

And are there any other changes besides the below?
-Fixing a/v sync issues
-Fixing disc read/ compatibility issues with various discs
-Adding DRC/Night Mode toggle option
-Adding option to select DTS versus DD for audio re-sampling output

Thanks!

[crashoveridema0]

Dear amirm,

THis is great news thank you very much and good work on this new update for the hd dvd player, but i have a question. How does the hd dvd group plan on beating blu-ray cause i think there is alot more things hd dvd could be doing. Like are there other timed exclusive titles coming to hd dvd like the matrix trilogy? And i also think some retailers should offer the 360 elite with the 360 hd dvd player packaged together for 600 bucks, I think that would generate alot more players sold as well.

[PARASITE]

Is windows media pro 1.5mbs still an option for audio out? My pioneer VSX59TXI is dying to do this.
Thanks in advance.

[Dr_Kn0w]

Originally Posted by amirm

It is my pleasure to let you all know that the HD DVD udpate for Xbox 360 is slated for release on 5/15 (i.e. tomorrow!). So when you wake up in the morning, you should be able to upgrade your software. And me free from telling you when are going to get it . Hope you all download it and provide feedback on what you think!

And sorry I did not give more of a notice. I was out on the cruise and only now got around to getting the specific time/date for it.

Amir,


I think this is THE greatest news I've ever received on this forum. It has been a long time coming and I'm confident it will be well worth the wait. Please check out the feedback thread I've started in the HD DVD Players section for everyone's feedback on the forthcoming update. Kudos to you and your team working hard on getting this update out to us! I hope this will stop all of us hounding you for a fix/release date

[RedFive99]

Originally Posted by Character_Zero

Thanks! Will the update be run upon connection to Live or when a HD-DVD disc is played?

You will be prompted for the update when you launch the Xbox 360 HD DVD player while connected to Xbox Live. Please note that this is a free update for both Gold and Silver members.