Dolby Digital Pro, and DTS Master are a hoax! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 01:30 PM
Senior Member
 
chatanika's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hun,- how would you describe sending the new hi-rez audio through multi-channel analog outs? Can you hear digital? I thought one can only hear an analog wave. After passing through the digital to analog converter aren't you hearing an approximation of the digital signal? Guess I need a bigger fence, that's the third time this week my science escaped me!!
chatanika is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 01:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by chatanika View Post

Hun,- how would you describe sending the new hi-rez audio through multi-channel analog outs? Can you hear digital? I thought one can only hear an analog wave. After passing through the digital to analog converter aren't you hearing an approximation of the digital signal? Guess I need a bigger fence, that's the third time this week my science escaped me!!

You don't need a fence, just logic. But in any case I would call it what it is, sending it as analog which was my point was all along.

OH BTW before it gets converted to analog it will be converted to PCM, be it lossy DD or DTS or lossless True HD or DTS HD MA, no matter where the decoding takes place.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
post #93 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ehlarson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 2,241
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatse View Post

I'm pretty sure the same editor in that mag couldn't tell the difference between a CD and SACD.

The audibility of this difference is very much in question as discussed in this article published by the Audio Engineering Society.

http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=14195

People who have studied this carefully believe that SACD vs. CD differences are normally caused by:

1. SACD being more than 2 channels
2. The SACD content being remixed
3. The CD not being produced with correct dithering

NOT the resolution.

There is a link to another thread describing the science behind this which I will repeat because of its value:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=960826

Audio claims are full of snake oil. The science is out there. If you don't pay attention you will spend a lot of money on things that don't improve the quality of your sound. You may THINK it does, because of the subjective nature of the human mind. But the science and mathematics is another thing.

"Nature Abhors a Vacuum Tube" -  J. R. Pierce
ehlarson is offline  
post #94 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 06:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatse View Post

I'm pretty sure the same editor in that mag couldn't tell the difference between a CD and SACD.

That's interesting because there are many people who claim that SACD is just overspecced and offers nothing above redbook cd in terms of quality or fidelity. There are many more who insist vinyl still trumps all and have ungodly expensive tube amps, turntables and styluses.

I vowed long ago to stay out of such discussions because usually they eventually devolve into shouting matches between the engineers, who insist on double blind testing and rant about listener bias, and the artists, who believe that if they personally hear a difference, that's all that matters to them. Artistic types tend to infuriate the hyper-rational engineers because of their disinterest in proof and evidence, and the artists are offended by the suggestion that they aren't capable of discerning what sounds best without a battery of tests.

As far as lossless audio, aside from the cost of upgrading equipment (which most people do in cycles anyway) there is certainly no downside to it, even if it is true many listeners can't distinguish it from lossy compressed audio, because it is a fact that you're getting the unadulterated master recording directly to your speakers.
JohnFR is offline  
post #95 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 08:25 PM
Member
 
Magmatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjktcvs View Post

Who listens to movie soundtracks on a cheap pair of earphones in noisy environments? You are equating apples and oranges.



I never even tried to imply anything remotely like that. I need to be more clear.

HD DVD movies - 52
Blu-ray movies - 31
HD-XA2 firmware 4.0
HD-A2 firmware 4.0
BDP-S550 firmware 07.2.020
BD-P1400 firmware 2.3
RX-V663 firmware C051E / 04.07r2
Magmatic is offline  
post #96 of 210 Old 06-30-2008, 08:31 PM
Member
 
Magmatic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Burke View Post

mp3 fulfill requirements such as portability and ease of downloading. OTOH my main requirement for home theater is quality.

The bottom line is that as much as possible, I want my ears to be the only limiting factor. And having a lossless source is one step in that direction.

OK, I see. It's a preference and priority issue. Portability and quick downloads of music mean nothing to me, but faithful reproduction of music and instruments is, so my demand for ultimate quality lies there. It is not as stringent for my theatrical movies to obtain the same level of fidelity to the original. Perceptually transparent (or nearly so) audio suffices for me there quite nicely. Yet, the fact I have two AVR's and two different HD front end formats that support bitstreaming and decoding of lossless audio in movies demonstrates I'm not against it, either.

HD DVD movies - 52
Blu-ray movies - 31
HD-XA2 firmware 4.0
HD-A2 firmware 4.0
BDP-S550 firmware 07.2.020
BD-P1400 firmware 2.3
RX-V663 firmware C051E / 04.07r2
Magmatic is offline  
post #97 of 210 Old 07-02-2008, 09:27 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bjmiller48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Jose california
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote=mommacux;14188214]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post




On the first page of this thread,as well as through out it, there are several posters stating they noticed a difference with the new lossless codecs...myself included.


Hello MOMMACUX! I read your large post with quotes several times and think I am being asked a question? But I am not sure. If the question is to share my views, I belive you are correct: I only reported the findings of the well designed experiment and did not say I agree or not. If that is correct, here is what I believe: Dolby Labs, and Sony's Digital Theater Systems have spent an enormous amount of time and money to try to develop BDs core codecs that are indistinguishable (transparent) from the original movie tract. That was their goal and I believe they consider their task to have been achieved. While participants were dismayed, and Forum members upset, Dolby and DTS emgineers were celebrating that their mission was achieved: The core codec they designed was virtually indistinguishable to most of the listeners even in a special environment designed to reveal any subtle differences in human pereception of the sound tracts. So my view is that the article writer and editor miissed the boat. They should have entitled the article: "Great Success Achieved With Design of New Audio Codecs for Blu-ray Discs!" In other words, it is fantastic and terrific that they designed core codecs that sound to us like the original movie audio tract and we should all be delighted in the achievment. What say you?
If I missed the point, sorry, but I tried, Barry

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #98 of 210 Old 07-03-2008, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Goatse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pineapple under the sea
Posts: 3,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 13
sound is all perception. There was a study done that people find red cars louder than other colors.
Goatse is offline  
post #99 of 210 Old 07-03-2008, 09:44 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bjmiller48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Jose california
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goatse View Post

sound is all perception. There was a study done that people find red cars louder than other colors.

You must not own a sports car! The most popular color for sports cars is red. Although it varies, domestic sedans are most commonly white. Red sports cars make more noise than white sedans because the exhaust is tuned to do so. I have always known red cars are louder AND faster because of the buyer profile. Now, don't tell me they were all Hyundi Sonatas!
P.S. This is all in fun, and no harm or disrespect meant. Barry

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #100 of 210 Old 07-03-2008, 07:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JohnFR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,251
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Red sports cars are cop magnets,especially loud red ones, and most especially the loud red ones with the coffee can mufflers driven by the the little racerboys.

(P.S. Sorry to get OT but this thread looks like it's been beat to death anyway)
JohnFR is offline  
post #101 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 02:19 AM
Member
 
GeoffreyMorrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Here's the full article for you to read.

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM

The truth is, as much as it seems like you can, you can't do this test at home with commercial material. There are too many variables that make a direct A/B test on an individual Blu-ray impossible.

Let me know what you think.
GeoffreyMorrison is offline  
post #102 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 09:29 AM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bjmiller48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Jose california
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffreyMorrison View Post

Here's the full article for you to read.

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM

The truth is, as much as it seems like you can, you can't do this test at home with commercial material. There are too many variables that make a direct A/B test on an individual Blu-ray impossible.

Let me know what you think.

Thank you for putting this article on-line. One problem I had when describing the results of the tests was that people who had not read the article reacted very strongly. I started the thread because the article speaks for itself. You are not all idiots with perforated ear drums, and my integrity and credibility are not on trial.
I want to congratualtae your magazine for having the editorial integrity to publish your results, even though they were unexpected and, at first blush, confusing. But you are correct: accurate scientific comparrisons cannot be made at home. And although I feel you did not conclude your article in a way that correlated exactly with your scientific findings, you did report, that for your staff, the new BR codecs were indistinqishable from the original studio master tract. And even the higher bit rate CORE codec was virtually indistinguishable under ideal listening conditions.( I want to remind all readers that the core codec for BR is much better (higher bit- rate than the core codec for standard DVDs). On behalf of millions of a-v enthudsiasts around the world, I want to thank you for your editorial honesty. I believe the repercussions of the success of Dolby and DTS in having created these core codecs for Blu-Ray are yet to be heard,
respectfully,
Barry Miller, MD.

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #103 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 09:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rdclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Philadelphia Vicinity
Posts: 4,175
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 33 Post(s)
Liked: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

On behalf of millions of a-v enthudsiasts around the world, I want to thank you for your editorial honesty.

You do not speak for millions of anybody. You speak for yourself.

Wide Awake

on the Edge

of the World

 

rdclark is offline  
post #104 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 10:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Monterey Park, CA
Posts: 19,843
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1396 Post(s)
Liked: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

One problem I had when describing the results of the tests was that people who had not read the article reacted very strongly.

People weren't reacting strongly to the results of the article, they were reacting to your misleading and fraudulent topic line, which you worded specifically to "attract attention" to your thread. Nowhere in the article does it conclude that lossless packing technology is a "hoax", because it isn't (any more than zipping a data file would constitute a hoax).

Sanjay

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
post #105 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 10:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
boblinds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:


Why on earth would people stoop to personal insults?

I don't know, you tell me why you needed to insult me in your response to my original post. You were offensive and presumptuous. (Further, I would think someone who posted a thread with an "outrageous title" would understand the attention-getting power of "Sorry, but they're full of crap" without going into a silly little snit.)

For what it's worth, the tests I did were with audio professionals -- the ones who actually mix and master Hollywood movies -- in a Los Angeles studio where those movies have been mixed. A "professional studio environment" as I said in my post.

As far as that article is concerned, you'll note that Geoffrey Morrison could consistently hear the difference. Regardless of whether the hearing of each listener was checked or not, it also requires individual analytical skills to discern a difference in audio quality. If the listeners other than Morrison weren't clear on what they were listening for, they would be less likely to hear it.

Notwithstanding the "scientific" build-up to the test and the conditions under which it was conducted, it all comes down to ears and audio perception. The writer's conclusion in one test was that "we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference.." "Barely noticeable" is not scientific at all, it's a conclusion based on individual perception. "Scientific" would have been to graph multiple frequency bands in real time and then analyze the results.

Further, without having been there for the experience, I think the tests (particularly at the Dolby lab) were snake oil. First, that audio acuity test would induce ear fatigue in even a trained professional who is used to maintaining audial attention and clarity for several hours. It's going to make hamburger ears of an amateur or an interested hobbyist.

Then, they go on to the actual test which involves "center-channel anchored dialog, along with gentle percussive bell-like notes (xylophone, perhaps?) along with even more gentle triangle bell embellishments—just the ticket for an A/B codec comparison." Actually, the writer is wrong here. The problems with lossy compression schemes occur when you have big, multilayered soundtracks, perhaps with orchestral score. That's when lossy compression starts flattening the soundstage and perceptually filtering out the acoustic that was present in the original stems. A few bells and a couple lines of dialog isn't a problem. (Similarly, at the DTS labs they used "a DTS Blue Man Group recording, again using a spare, sparse selection for an easier and more revealing A/B comparison.") In short, for the lossy codecs, because we're dealing with perceptual audio techniques in deciding what to lose, "what" they compress is as important (if not more) than "how" they compressed.

I don't completely disagree with the conclusion of the article: the original Dolby and DTS codecs ARE good, at least acceptable. The new codecs are significantly better. I even prefer DD+ to the original DD5.1 by a wide margin. (And when you get to the new, lossless codec, the issue no longer exists.)

But I strongly disagree that "no difference" or "no discernable difference" exists between an original DD- or DTS-encoded track and the original, uncompressed track.
boblinds is offline  
post #106 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 10:59 AM
Member
 
GeoffreyMorrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds View Post

If the listeners other than Morrison weren't clear on what they were listening for, they would be less likely to hear it. Regardless of the "scientific" build-up to the test and the conditions under which it is conducted, it all comes down to ears, and audio perception. The writer's conclusion in one test was "we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference.." "Barely noticeable" is not scientific at all, it's a conclusion based on individual perception. "Scientific" would have been to graph multiple frequency bands in real time and then analyze the results.

I agree with your point that it all comes down to ears. Training or not, some people can hear subtle differences in audio, and others can't. Some people say that 128kbps MP3s are "CD" quality. Obviously not to most of us.

While "graphing multiple frequency bands" would be more "scientific" in some ways, it also would have been largely irrelevant. Just because something shows up on a real-time analyzer doesn't mean that it is even remotely audible. Audio, despite all the ways to measure it, is inherently subjective. So analyzing the stream would have intellectual interest, but it doesn't mean anyone could actually hear the difference. That's how these lossy encoders work, on a perceptual level. It decides if the human ear can't hear it... if so it's gone. Measurable on equipment? Probably. Audible? Possibly. The better the encoder, the less likely you are to hear the encoding.

The truth of the matter is, after you decode TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, they are bit-for-bit accurate to the original source. This is exciting for any audiophile (myself included). As far as DDP and DTS-HD HR go, well all of that is in the article.
GeoffreyMorrison is offline  
post #107 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 11:09 AM
Advanced Member
 
boblinds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 990
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
While "graphing multiple frequency bands" would be more "scientific" in some ways, it also would have been largely irrelevant.

Exactly. I completely agree which is why I'm amused by the stress the OP puts on "scientific" testing.

I'm also grateful and relieved that the next generation of consumer discs will have lossless compression. Comparing a standard DD5.1-compressed DVD soundtrack to the original uncompressed stems is just a heartbreaking experience. So much is lost, IMO. Theoretically we should now be able to hear ALL the great work these guys do in sound design and mixing.
boblinds is offline  
post #108 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 11:12 AM
Member
 
GeoffreyMorrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 94
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Ah. Fair enough.
GeoffreyMorrison is offline  
post #109 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 11:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
D_B_0673's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: MD
Posts: 1,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

Thank you for putting this article on-line. One problem I had when describing the results of the tests was that people who had not read the article reacted very strongly. I started the thread because the article speaks for itself. You are not all idiots with perforated ear drums, and my integrity and credibility are not on trial.
I want to congratualtae your magazine for having the editorial integrity to publish your results, even though they were unexpected and, at first blush, confusing. But you are correct: accurate scientific comparrisons cannot be made at home. And although I feel you did not conclude your article in a way that correlated exactly with your scientific findings, you did report, that for your staff, the new BR codecs were indistinqishable from the original studio master tract. And even the higher bit rate CORE codec was virtually indistinguishable under ideal listening conditions.( I want to remind all readers that the core codec for BR is much better (higher bit- rate than the core codec for standard DVDs). On behalf of millions of a-v enthudsiasts around the world, I want to thank you for your editorial honesty. I believe the repercussions of the success of Dolby and DTS in having created these core codecs for Blu-Ray are yet to be heard,
respectfully,
Barry Miller, MD.

Dr Miller,

If you use standard coaxial or toslink to a non HDMI reciever do you get the higher bit rate CORE Dolby or DTS. And if I understand correctly that would be better than the CORE Dolby or DTS on a Standard DVD using the same coaxial or toslink connection

Thanks

Dan
D_B_0673 is offline  
post #110 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 12:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
1brokebrother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Where the Mountains meet the Sea
Posts: 531
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_B_0673 View Post

Dr Miller,

If you use standard coaxial or toslink to a non HDMI reciever do you get the higher bit rate CORE Dolby or DTS. And if I understand correctly that would be better than the CORE Dolby or DTS on a Standard DVD using the same coaxial or toslink connection

Thanks

with what player??? does it decode lossless?
1brokebrother is offline  
post #111 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 12:53 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
JOHNnDENVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 13,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Ok, I'll possibly throw some fire on the flames..

The one test I have done a few times that I can stand behind is that a higher end audio piece sounds better with standard DD amd DTS than a low end piece does on lossless. So much for the couple a c-note AVR handling lossless in my opinion as always.
JOHNnDENVER is offline  
post #112 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 01:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
joemama127's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,936
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommacux View Post

Your the guy that keeps defending that piece of crap AX-100 projector in the display forums are'nt you?I don't know what's worse,you're goofy opinions or your typo's.

Oh my..

I love it when this happens

"The quickest way to get over your fear of plasma is to actually own *one"- joemama127

*or 3 :)
joemama127 is offline  
post #113 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 02:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
MichaelJHuman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 18,951
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Liked: 118
The conclusions of the article seem fair. I spent some time comparing various rates of MP3 files.

Some brief examples (Aerosmith's toys in the attic, all files AAC) Note that rates in MP3 files are the stereo rate. Divide by two to get the per channel bit rate.

40 kbs - Probably worse than AM radio. Obvious distortion
n
64 kps - Better, but still room for improvement
128 kbs - Very good. No obvious issues. Obviously better than 64 kbs though in listening tests
256 kbs - As I recall, I could tell 128 vs 256 apart when I had someone else change back and forth. A coworker definitely could with accuracy. But the differences are subtle. I can't quantify them well. Perhaps the 128 kbs sounds a bit...noisier? I think perhaps the high fequency stuff like cymbals suffers from a small bit of distortion

I don't remember if I tried it, but I would guess 256 vs 128 is very close to the point where differences are inaudible. I doubt I could tell 256 and higher rates or the original apart with any accuracy.

I am SURE there are people who hear better than me. My hearing is not great, to be honest. I encourage people to rip their favorite song at various rates to compare for themselves. Have a friend do the switching between different songs (put the bitrate in the name) and write down which rate A or B you preferred.

My personal experiments have convinced me that some people are overstating any differences between codecs used on optical discs. Differences are subtle at best at the rates they use.

Also, if you have the Toys in the Attic disc, rip No More No More and listen to the cymbal crashes towards the beginning of the song. I "think" 256 may sound slightly cleaner than 128, but I would need someone else to switch back and forth for me to be sure. At BEST it's a subtle difference.

"But this one goes up to 11"
MichaelJHuman is offline  
post #114 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 02:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Pugnax555's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelJHuman View Post

The conclusions of the article seem fair. I spent some time comparing various rates of MP3 files.

Some brief examples (Aerosmith's toys in the attic, all files AAC) Note that rates in MP3 files are the stereo rate. Divide by two to get the per channel bit rate.

40 kbs - Probably worse than AM radio. Obvious distortion
n
64 kps - Better, but still room for improvement
128 kbs - Very good. No obvious issues. Obviously better than 64 kbs though in listening tests
256 kbs - As I recall, I could tell 128 vs 256 apart when I had someone else change back and forth. A coworker definitely could with accuracy. But the differences are subtle. I can't quantify them well. Perhaps the 128 kbs sounds a bit...noisier? I think perhaps the high fequency stuff like cymbals suffers from a small bit of distortion

I don't remember if I tried it, but I would guess 256 vs 128 is very close to the point where differences are inaudible. I doubt I could tell 256 and higher rates or the original apart with any accuracy.

I am SURE there are people who hear better than me. My hearing is not great, to be honest. I encourage people to rip their favorite song at various rates to compare for themselves. Have a friend do the switching between different songs (put the bitrate in the name) and write down which rate A or B you preferred.

My personal experiments have convinced me that some people are overstating any differences between codecs used on optical discs. Differences are subtle at best at the rates they use.

One way you could test this by yourself is to extract a 20 or 30 second clip and encode it at various bitrates. Be sure to pad it with 5 seconds or so of silence at the end. Load up the various tracks into a player that has a playlist shuffle feature that will shuffle/sort the playlist, but that still retains the playback order (something that doesn't just jump around between the tracks). Make sure you don't see what the order is after hitting the shuffle button. Sit down and listen to the tracks and write down which one you think is which. Compare this to the final playlist. It probably helps to have multiple copies of each of the files at various bitrates to add a bit more variability to the playback order.
Pugnax555 is offline  
post #115 of 210 Old 07-14-2008, 03:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
quad user's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 517
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

I am surprised but would like to keep an open mind. My manual for my Blu-Ray player says that the lossless codecs are only avauilable through HDMI. Can you elaborate or support this claim so we all can learn from you? thanks, Barry.

Ever hear of ANALOG?

As for the ability to detect a difference between compressed and lossless audio... hey, even my WIFE can tell them apart.
quad user is offline  
post #116 of 210 Old 07-18-2008, 12:08 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bjmiller48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Jose california
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quad User, I hope you don't mind if I just reprint an earlier post by "thehun" on page 3, instead of replying myself.

'HDMI is the only way to transmit it in it's original form. Once it's decoded by the player and converted to analog, all you get is the "approximation" of the original digital signal in analog form, it is no longer a Dolby True Hd or DTS HD or uncompressed PCM since it's no longer a digital signal at all! I see why science "escapes" you now.


PS: I know the same thing happens obviously when the receiving end decodes the signal, but my point here wasn't about decoding but the continued misuse of certain terms in regards with the analog outputs. Analog outputs can only output ANALOG."
__________________

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #117 of 210 Old 07-18-2008, 12:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mike171979's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chino Hills
Posts: 1,415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

Quad User, I hope you don't mind if I just reprint an earlier post by "thehun" on page 3, instead of replying myself.

'HDMI is the only way to transmit it in it's original form. Once it's decoded by the player and converted to analog, all you get is the "approximation" of the original digital signal in analog form, it is no longer a Dolby True Hd or DTS HD or uncompressed PCM since it's no longer a digital signal at all! I see why science "escapes" you now.


PS: I know the same thing happens obviously when the receiving end decodes the signal, but my point here wasn't about decoding but the continued misuse of certain terms in regards with the analog outputs. Analog outputs can only output ANALOG."
__________________

"approximation" LOL

Guess what, the Receiver has DACs in it as well, so all your hearing is the "approximation" of the original digital signal out of your receiver too.

What you should have said is just that you trust the DACs in your Receiver more than you do the DACs in the player.

Which may or may not be better.
mike171979 is offline  
post #118 of 210 Old 07-18-2008, 12:32 PM - Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
bjmiller48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: San Jose california
Posts: 287
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_B_0673 View Post

Dr Miller,

If you use standard coaxial or toslink to a non HDMI reciever do you get the higher bit rate CORE Dolby or DTS. And if I understand correctly that would be better than the CORE Dolby or DTS on a Standard DVD using the same coaxial or toslink connection

Thanks

Yes for both questions.

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #119 of 210 Old 07-18-2008, 01:57 PM
Senior Member
 
mommacux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama127 View Post

Oh my..

I love it when this happens

You got me...

I misplaced my YOUR/YOU'RE's.

They should have been reversed.You also missed the fact that I misspelled ty'po.

Watched Batman Begins on BR bitstreaming True-HD,big improvement audiowise than the HD-DVD version.Videowise they're identical.I know the review on Blu-ray.com says otherwise,but to me the audio was an improvement.



Tom

JUPITER and beyond the INFINITE...
mommacux is offline  
post #120 of 210 Old 07-18-2008, 04:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
thehun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Wine country CA
Posts: 7,337
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike171979 View Post

"approximation" LOL

Guess what, the Receiver has DACs in it as well, so all your hearing is the "approximation" of the original digital signal out of your receiver too.

What you should have said is just that you trust the DACs in your Receiver more than you do the DACs in the player.

Which may or may not be better.

Sadly you can only evoke a knee jerk reaction without examining the context of the original post. The point wasn't about the "approximation" of the sound or any quality difference regarding where the decoding takes place, but how the signal was delivered. Simple is that.

sent via Morse code...........

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Players

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off