Dolby Digital Pro, and DTS Master are a hoax! - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 210 Old 07-21-2008, 10:18 AM
Member
 
loregnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 89
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I know the convo has changed here but I just saw this thread for the first time today and wanted to say that to me the biggest difference between lossless and most lossy tracks is that I can turn up the volume with the lossless more than most lossy tracks before it starts to hurt my ears. I find the louder I turn up most of those lossy tracks the more it becomes thin sounding and starts to hurt my ears.

To me though, aside from that fuller more natural sound I don't thin the difference is HUGE like some but then again, there is a loot of stuff humans say that I find to be bogus based on experience. Having said all that, I want lossless tracks on every disc since aside from ONE time (bourne ultimatum trueHD sounds weird like dynamic range control is on), it has been better than the lossy I have heard.

Note I said most as there are some DD+ tracks that to me sound great like Transformers, Kong, Bourne Ultimatum, etc. I think it really comes down to how well the jig was mastered rather than the codec used.
loregnum is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 210 Old 07-21-2008, 10:21 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 thehun View Post

First of all we are talking about the original master not the source of some of the recordings like dialog which was analog indeed, and much of the SFX and even music scores are digital creations, and never been analog. But the point is that the resulting master is digital, and the lossless encodes represents that, not that of the analog parts that was part of the recording prior to the mix. So his point and mine as well is that the digital master is the original in this case, and that the analog will "approximate" after conversion.

Thank you for helping clarify that we are discussing the various BR codecs, and how transparent they may be to the original digital master. Analog sources prior to the studio master were not within the boundaries of the debate.
I realized last night that I can express my view that HDMI is the only source of BR codecs with a simple sentence: "An HDMI cable may pass a BR codec between two HDMI connected components, but an analog output can never pass or output a BR codec.' Sweet and simple and I hope I didn't get myself in trouble again!
Barry.

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #183 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 08:57 AM
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
And using your analogy the receiver or ssp that hdmi is connected to can't either.
chatanika is offline  
post #184 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 09:30 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 chatanika View Post

And using your analogy the receiver or ssp that hdmi is connected to can't either.

Quite the opposite. the HDMI receiver will shake hands with an HDMI digital projector, and there has been no analog conversion in the loop.

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #185 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 09:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

Quite the opposite. the HDMI receiver will shake hands with an HDMI digital projector, and there has been no analog conversion in the loop.

I'm pretty sure you won't be sending audio to your projector. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Regarding your sentence, "An HDMI cable may pass a BR codec between two HDMI connected components, but an analog output can never pass or output a BR codec." This is technically true only with emphasis placed on the word "codec", which specifically refers to the undecoded signal. You cannot send an undecoded signal over analog, however you can decode it first and then send the lossless audio track over analog just fine.

With TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, a movie's soundtrack is stored on disc using those compression codecs. In order to listen to the soundtrack, the codec must be decoded to PCM and then the PCM converted to analog. Whether these steps take place in the Blu-ray player or in your receiver, they always happen in that order.

Basically, to listen to the soundtrack in full lossless quality, one of three things has to happen:

1) The Blu-ray player can transmit the raw undecoded codec to your receiver over HDMI 1.3. The receiver will decode it to PCM, then convert it to analog, and amplify the signal to your speakers.

or

2) The Blu-ray player can decode the codec itself, then transmit it as PCM (no loss of quality) over HDMI. From there, the receiver will convert it to analog and amplify it to your speakers.

or

3) The Blu-ray player can decode the codec and convert it to analog, then transmit it over the multi-channel analog connections to your receiver. In this case, the receiver only acts as an amplifier.

Assuming you have hardware capable of any of those options (not all Blu-ray players can decode lossless formats internally, and some don't transmit the codec bitstreams), whether you want to use HDMI or analog largely depends on which compenent (the Blu-ray player or the receiver) has better Digital-to-Analog Converters.

At some point, the digital storage signal needs to be converted to analog. The sound waves that hit your ears are analog. There are no 1s and 0s flying through the air to reverberate against your eardrums.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #186 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 02:04 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 Josh Z View Post

I'm pretty sure you won't be sending audio to your projector. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Regarding your sentence, "An HDMI cable may pass a BR codec between two HDMI connected components, but an analog output can never pass or output a BR codec." This is technically true only with emphasis placed on the word "codec", which specifically refers to the undecoded signal. You cannot send an undecoded signal over analog, however you can decode it first and then send the lossless audio track over analog just fine.

With TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, a movie's soundtrack is stored on disc using those compression codecs. In order to listen to the soundtrack, the codec must be decoded to PCM and then the PCM converted to analog. Whether these steps take place in the Blu-ray player or in your receiver, they always happen in that order.

Basically, to listen to the soundtrack in full lossless quality, one of three things has to happen:

1) The Blu-ray player can transmit the raw undecoded codec to your receiver over HDMI 1.3. The receiver will decode it to PCM, then convert it to analog, and amplify the signal to your speakers.

or

2) The Blu-ray player can decode the codec itself, then transmit it as PCM (no loss of quality) over HDMI. From there, the receiver will convert it to analog and amplify it to your speakers.

or

3) The Blu-ray player can decode the codec and convert it to analog, then transmit it over the multi-channel analog connections to your receiver. In this case, the receiver only acts as an amplifier.

Assuming you have hardware capable of any of those options (not all Blu-ray players can decode lossless formats internally, and some don't transmit the codec bitstreams), whether you want to use HDMI or analog largely depends on which compenent (the Blu-ray player or the receiver) has better Digital-to-Analog Converters.

At some point, the digital storage signal needs to be converted to analog. The sound waves that hit your ears are analog. There are no 1s and 0s flying through the air to reverberate against your eardrums.

Thanks for trying to clarify things but I really am not mixed up.
This basic science has been described repeatedly in this thread and no one disputes most of it.
There are two issue you just don't agree with and I am OK with that. Issue one is whether D/A decoding (and post decoding processing) of a lossless codec can be performed in a more sophisticated or superior manner by high end processors receiving the lossless codec as compared to the generally straight forward D/A conversion performed by the BR player to put out analog. I think this is a point that several people have agreed with and understand and others just don't seem to get it. Sorry.
Second issue:The paragraph that begins "Regarding your sentence." is right on until the last part where you still want me to believe the analog representation of the lossless codec is the same as the lossless codec. It is not, it will never be, and it has nothing to do with what we hear and how we hear it. Sorry if I can't be any clearer.
I am done with this topic and I believe evryone will be glad if it is put to rest. It is a tiny moot point that has been beat to death. It has little to do with whether the new compressed BR codecs are transparent to the original studio master.

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #187 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 02:12 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 bjmiller48 View Post

It is a tiny mute point that has been beat to death.

Poor little point. Couldn't make a sound to get anybody's attention...
Pugnax555 is offline  
post #188 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 02:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
gluvhand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Rockland County NY
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It is a tiny mute point that has been beat to death.

Moot even.
gluvhand is offline  
post #189 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 03:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

Issue one is whether D/A decoding (and post decoding processing) of a lossless codec can be performed in a more sophisticated or superior manner by high end processors receiving the lossless codec as compared to the generally straight forward D/A conversion performed by the BR player to put out analog. I think this is a point that several people have agreed with and understand and others just don't seem to get it. Sorry.

This is the exact point I made in the 2nd to last paragraph of my post.

Quote:


Second issue:The paragraph that begins "Regarding your sentence." is right on until the last part where you still want me to believe the analog representation of the lossless codec is the same as the lossless codec. It is not, it will never be, and it has nothing to do with what we hear and how we hear it. Sorry if I can't be any clearer.

What do you think happens to the codec bitstream after it's transmitted to your receiver? It's converted to analog, that's what.

Whether you want to do the Digital-to-Analog conversion in the receiver or the disc player despends on which unit has the better DACs. Certainly, some receivers will do a better job of this than some Blu-ray players. No argument there.

But you're arguing that it's impossible for any BD player to transmit a lossless audio format as analog, and that the conversion to analog automatically makes the signal not lossless anymore. No, sorry, you are wrong. You seem to be under the impression that by using HDMI the audio format stays digital from the disc all the way to your eardrums. That is simply not true. It has to be converted to analog somewhere. If not in the disc player, then it will happen in the receiver. The lossless codec is always converted to analog at some point. You wouldn't be able to hear it otherwise.

Maybe your receiver does a better job of the D-to-A conversion than the disc player. That's great. Use HDMI then. However, someone else could just as easily have a cheap receiver with poor DACs that are inferior to the ones built into his Blu-ray player. In that case, the person is better off using analog.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #190 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 04:05 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
One night you are going to sit up in bed and go "Oh, yeah', a codec is by its very nature digital, and the analog representation of that codec is just that. But it is no longer a codec. Until then, no amount of high school physics will change that fact (no insult intended, seriously). But you keep telling me the obvious. Of course the codec is decompressed to an analog signal for us to listen to. The analog signal derrived from the codec could never be converted back to the exact codec That is why it is not protected. The codec is protected, the analog is not because....it isn't the same!!!!

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #191 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 04:11 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
Actually, at some point you are going to understand that the codec is the compression/decompression algorithm, and isn't what is stored on the disc at all. What's stored on the disc is a data stream that has been compressed with said codec. But for the most part you're just arguing semantics anyways.
Pugnax555 is offline  
post #192 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

The codec is protected, the analog is not because....it isn't the same!!!!

Barry.. I understand your points, however it really isn't relevant to the discussion of codecs.

They aren't protected.

The delivery chain and transmission is, from AACS and/or BD+ (media to player protection) in the player and HDCP to the processors and display (transmission protection)... the codec is irrelevant.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #193 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 04:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

Issue one is whether D/A decoding (and post decoding processing) of a lossless codec can be performed in a more sophisticated or superior manner by high end processors receiving the lossless codec as compared to the generally straight forward D/A conversion performed by the BR player to put out analog.

I think this is a point that several people have agreed with and understand and others just don't seem to get it.

Is your position that doing the decoding in the receiver is always going to be superior than passing a Codec>PCM>Analog>A/D>Post Processing>D/A?

That's highly dependent on the equipment, no. And how good the A/D is, etc.... I don't think that always results in an audible differential.

Quote:
Second issue:The paragraph that begins "Regarding your sentence." is right on until the last part where you still want me to believe the analog representation of the lossless codec is the same as the lossless codec. It is not, it will never be, and it has nothing to do with what we hear and how we hear it.

The lossless codec stores a voltage value representative of what was fed into the A/D, and that voltage will be identical upon decoding of the lossless codec. I think that's Josh's point.

Your point is that regardless of what sample rate and bit depth you sample at, you will be missing information that was present when the signal was analog.

You're both right.

But in discussing the issue, those mutually exclusive ideas are picking out carpet together and turning into a mess....

Am I missing something?
FilmMixer is offline  
post #194 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 05:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Elite Pro-FHD1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 210
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by schroedk View Post

I read the article, and you're being somewhat disingenuous in their conclusions, which shows that you've got an agenda of your own.

Essentially, the writer, in the first paragraph or two, declares that he's not too adept at hearing differences in audio quality, and states that those who are accompanying him are more qualified.

Also, the writer primarily writes from his view (not those accompanying him), but still concludes that, although the differences TO HIM are slight, the newer HD codecs do offer better dynamics and realism than their older, compressed counterparts. He was not claiming that the newer codecs are not better, but instead was expressing surprise at how good the 10-year-old compressed codecs really can be on good equipment.

Nobody is saying that with the newer codecs, we're suddenly hearing things we've never heard before. Just like the video aspect of BD (and HD-DVD), the video differences to some are major improvements, and to others are very subtle. Of course the same will be true with audio, and most likely, to an even greater extent. That does not mean that the audio improvements are not real, and to some of us, they're quite discernible, in just the same way that some people cannot hear the difference between an MP3 at 128kbps vs. a CD on high-quality equipment. The writer of that article concludes that, even though the improvements to him are slight, they're still worthy improvements that if you have the means to achieve, are worth it even in his opinion.


Hit the nail on the head. Well played sir.

The improvements are there to be heard. No one saying that it's life-changing or that you'll somehow be blown away by the imrovements (though some will and that's completely okay).

But an improvement is an improvement.

It's the best sound available today to the public and that is a claim that can be said honestly and accurately.

I still run into people who refuse(d) to step up to Blu-ray (or the now defunct HD DVD) because they don't think it's that big a jump in quality. I respect that, but not even they could argue that there is no improvement at all to be seen.

Same with current gen gaming graphics. some people refuse to step up from PS2/Xbox because they say they are basically on par with current gen and that it's not worth it financially. That's okay too.

To say it is not worth it to step up to the new codecs/consoles/video formats is one's choice...

To say there is no improvement is just plain silly.


That said, I'm picking up my 1018AH-K this evening from Bestbuy. Just called and they confirmed it's there. Yippie.

I can finally get my 360 to do 1080P!

Pinoeer Elite Pro-FHD1 1080p 50" Plasma
Pioneer 1018AH-K ~ Dolby Tue HD / DTS HD Master Audio
Xbox360 w/ HD DVD, Wi-Fi add-ons
PS3 60GB w/ Blu-ray
DirectTv HD Receiver
Logitech Harmony 720 Uni Remote
Polk RTi8 L/R (Just replaced Sony 5.1, work in progress)

Lakers
Dodgers
Broncos (I know)

XboxLive Gamertag: SUPREME22
Elite Pro-FHD1 is offline  
post #195 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 08:23 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 Elite Pro-FHD1 View Post

Hit the nail on the head. Well played sir.

The improvements are there to be heard. No one saying that it's life-changing or that you'll somehow be blown away by the imrovements (though some will and that's completely okay).

But an improvement is an improvement.

It's the best sound available today to the public and that is a claim that can be said honestly and accurately.

I still run into people who refuse(d) to step up to Blu-ray (or the now defunct HD DVD) because they don't think it's that big a jump in quality. I respect that, but not even they could argue that there is no improvement at all to be seen.

Same with current gen gaming graphics. some people refuse to step up from PS2/Xbox because they say they are basically on par with current gen and that it's not worth it financially. That's okay too.

To say it is not worth it to step up to the new codecs/consoles/video formats is one's choice...

To say there is no improvement is just plain silly.


That said, I'm picking up my 1018AH-K this evening from Bestbuy. Just called and they confirmed it's there. Yippie.

I can finally get my 360 to do 1080P!

Pinoeer Elite Pro-FHD1 1080p 50" Plasma
Pioneer 1018AH-K ~ Dolby Tue HD / DTS HD Master Audio
Xbox360 w/ HD DVD, Wi-Fi add-ons
PS3 60GB w/ Blu-ray
DirectTv HD Receiver
Logitech Harmony 720 Uni Remote
Polk RTi8 L/R (Just replaced Sony 5.1, work in progress)

Whoa! We were not talking about the core bit-rate of standard DVDs compared to BR DVDs. Most, not all DVDs were recorded at a lower bit-rate than the core bit-rate of BR discs and the cited article said, and we all agree that there is a significant improvemnt between the two.
FilmMixer, are you there? Of course we are chosing paint, because these issues were resolved earlier. Semantics seems to be the main issue, and any time I take a short cut to save words someone pounces on it, even though it is a rehash. I only said that the components could have better converters and processors, never that they always did. It was an example to make a point. And if we talked about codecs storing voltage values every time we wanted to talk about the BR codecs, a boring and even longer thread it would be. No one ever suggested codecs were the music, that would be ridiculous. The Hun said it better than me a long way back. I wonder if people agree with his statement? regardless, can we all agree to put this down or did I chose red and someone wants white paint?
Thr Hun said:
"First of all we are talking about the original master not the source of some of the recordings like dialog which was analog indeed, and much of the SFX and even music scores are digital creations, and never been analog. But the point is that the resulting master is digital, and the lossless encodes represents that, not that of the analog parts that was part of the recording prior to the mix. So his point and mine as well is that the digital master is the original in this case, and that the analog will "approximate" after conversion."

Barry
bjmiller48 is offline  
post #196 of 210 Old 07-23-2008, 08:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by schroedk View Post

Also, the writer primarily writes from his view (not those accompanying him), but still concludes that, although the differences TO HIM are slight, the newer HD codecs do offer better dynamics and realism than their older, compressed counterparts. He was not claiming that the newer codecs are not better, but instead was expressing surprise at how good the 10-year-old compressed codecs really can be on good equipment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elite Pro-FHD1 View Post

I still run into people who refuse(d) to step up to Blu-ray (or the now defunct HD DVD) because they don't think it's that big a jump in quality. I respect that, but not even they could argue that there is no improvement at all to be seen.

There is no difference from SD DVD and BD in regards to audio quality for 5.1 films (let's not get into the discussion about 7.1).

On the video side, the change from 480i on the disc up to 1080p results in a 6x resolution increase in pixel count, along with an expanded HD color space, and true progressive storage.

On audio, there is no difference. Both formats produce, and store, 48,000 24 bit PCM words for each 6 channels per second. Same temporal and and value resolution (dynamic range and frequency response are identical).

What you are trying to argue is that you can hear the storage method, not the output.

Why is it that people will accept transparency in a video encode, at much higher compression ratios, when all pixels are visible at all times, but can't accept transparency with audio at lower ratios and not all channels being active at the same time with different information?
FilmMixer is offline  
post #197 of 210 Old 07-24-2008, 09:36 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Planet Boston, source of the spice, Melange.
Posts: 20,297
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 465 Post(s)
Liked: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Barry.. I understand your points,

You're doing better than I am. I can't make heads or tails of what point he's trying to make anymore.

Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever

My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Josh Z is offline  
post #198 of 210 Old 07-24-2008, 02:20 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
Simple --- first half of post - try pulling foot out of mouth from previous post. Second half of post re-insert other foot!
chatanika is offline  
post #199 of 210 Old 07-24-2008, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by chatanika View Post

Simple --- first half of post - try pulling foot out of mouth from previous post. Second half of post re-insert other foot!

Me confused.

Can you help clarify your post.. maybe with a quote.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #200 of 210 Old 07-24-2008, 11:56 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
I would have to quote half the statements in almost every post Barry has made. so the answer is no. I guess it's just as simple as we disagree. I believe that the analog outs on a decent bluray player can pass high resolution audio that can sound just as good hdmi, and definitely better than a coax, or toslink. For example the new pioneers have wolfson dacs which are the same as in arcam pre-amps. Correct me if I'm wrong.
chatanika is offline  
post #201 of 210 Old 08-23-2008, 04:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,448
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

There is no difference from SD DVD and BD in regards to audio quality for 5.1 films (let's not get into the discussion about 7.1).

On the video side, the change from 480i on the disc up to 1080p results in a 6x resolution increase in pixel count, along with an expanded HD color space, and true progressive storage.

On audio, there is no difference. Both formats produce, and store, 48,000 24 bit PCM words for each 6 channels per second. Same temporal and and value resolution (dynamic range and frequency response are identical).

What you are trying to argue is that you can hear the storage method, not the output.

Why is it that people will accept transparency in a video encode, at much higher compression ratios, when all pixels are visible at all times, but can't accept transparency with audio at lower ratios and not all channels being active at the same time with different information?

I dont mean to bump up an old thread but......
see i didn't know they were the same i thought lossless was different beast all together.
you always hear about "bit for bit identical to the studio master" that term gets to you. it gets you thinking wow, i have on this disc exactly what was mixed (encoded?) when the movie was made. so what makes compressed,and uncompressed audio different besides the kbps,mbps witch dont affect sound anyway?(or so i've heard)

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #202 of 210 Old 08-23-2008, 04:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
saprano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 3,448
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked: 273
And the thread title needs to be changed,its not a hoax,there is a difference.
it may not be that big(on some movies) but its there.

home theater addict
saprano is offline  
post #203 of 210 Old 08-23-2008, 10:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Urza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 26
I would not argue the difference part, what I would say,is it worth it? People are not going to drop major $$$ to hear a slight difference.

Does it cost studios a dime more to do lossless? If it does, a studio is going to put sound on a disc for the greatest audience,which is joe blow. Why on earth would they spend more money for us AVS nerds?. Anyone have input on the costs?

I'd love to get my hands on a Blu Monster's Ball.-LilStinky

Refering to a possible release of said movie on BD LOL
Urza is offline  
post #204 of 210 Old 08-23-2008, 10:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,909
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 582 Post(s)
Liked: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urza View Post

I would not argue the difference part, what I would say,is it worth it? People are not going to drop major $$$ to hear a slight difference.

Does it cost studios a dime more to do lossless? If it does, a studio is going to put sound on a disc for the greatest audience,which is joe blow. Why on earth would they spend more money for us AVS nerds?. Anyone have input on the costs?

The cost differences are minimal.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #205 of 210 Old 08-24-2008, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Urza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 78 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

The cost differences are minimal.


Im not in a position to argue with you, but if thats the case, why is Warner so lazy with lossless? Is it harder to add, or????

I'd love to get my hands on a Blu Monster's Ball.-LilStinky

Refering to a possible release of said movie on BD LOL
Urza is offline  
post #206 of 210 Old 08-24-2008, 03:28 PM
Senior Member
 
Scott Wallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 View Post

That is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I would expect from someone who has a very narrow view of A-V scientific progress to date, or from one who has already invested money in equipment that decodes lossless audio tracks.
So, a national magazine does tests in the nationally renowned Dolby and DTS research labs, under strick conditiions, and a wonderful, clear methodology, but you want us to believe "theyre full iof crap" because you have unsupported and very doubtful claims to have done the same thing? You embarrass your self unnecessarily. This data is very important and serious and must be added into the information we have to date. There is no room for the 'full iof crap" approach to scientific data.
I have always believed the 7.1 system in my dedicated movie room which is based on optical output of 640 kbs DD or DTS sounded better than the movie theater. And now there is some data to give us all pause, to reflect and rethink all that the manufactureres have asked us to believe. I hope we will hear from other open minded people.

I'm afraid I have to agree with others here that there is indeed a difference and in many cases it can be quite noticeable. Night and day? That's open to interpretation. But I have listened carefully to standard DD & DTS versus TrueHD & DTS-HD MA from the same discs and there is a difference and I don't think that point is arguable. What would be arguable is if the difference is worth getting equipment that plays nice together to play it back for you. As for the article you reference, one can find literature to support almost any claim one could make. What is far more relevant is in conducting a comparison for yourself and seeing if you hear a meaningful difference. To some, Bose is all the quality they need. To others, Wilson Audio X-2's are what's needed to get you there. Doesn't make the Bose guy wrong and the X-2 guy right because they obviously have difference perspectives and priorities. Though I'd pick the X-2 guy to conduct a test on hearing differences in movie soundtracks...
Scott Wallace is offline  
post #207 of 210 Old 09-02-2008, 02:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
alexg75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Burbank Ca.
Posts: 519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

In case anyone is interested, here is the list:

12 Monkeys
Amistad
Antz
Apollo 13
Babe
Blues Brother 2000
Born on the Forth of July
Boxer
Chuck Berry Hail Hail Rock'n'Roll
Cooler
Dances With Wolves
Dante's Peak
Daylight
Dragonheart
Eagles Hell Freezes Over
EDtv
Flintstones
For Richer or Poorer
Galaxy Quest
Jackal, The
Lethal Weapon
Lethal Weapon 2
Lethal Weapon 3
Liar, Liar
Little Rascals
Mouse Hunt
Mercury Rising
Nutty Professor
Patch Adams
Paulie
Peacemaker
Primary Colors
Queen - Live at the Bowl
Queen - Live at Wembley
Queen - We Will Rock You
River Wild
Shadow
Small Soldiers
Thin Red Line
Twister
Virus
Waterworld


Add to that list The Kids Are Allright (The Who) and Re-Animator (The Anchor Bay Collection).
alexg75 is offline  
post #208 of 210 Old 09-02-2008, 03:33 PM
 
CraigW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,710
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Wallace View Post

I'm afraid I have to agree with others here that there is indeed a difference and in many cases it can be quite noticeable. Night and day? That's open to interpretation. But I have listened carefully to standard DD & DTS versus TrueHD & DTS-HD MA from the same discs and there is a difference and I don't think that point is arguable. What would be arguable is if the difference is worth getting equipment that plays nice together to play it back for you. As for the article you reference, one can find literature to support almost any claim one could make. What is far more relevant is in conducting a comparison for yourself and seeing if you hear a meaningful difference. To some, Bose is all the quality they need. To others, Wilson Audio X-2's are what's needed to get you there. Doesn't make the Bose guy wrong and the X-2 guy right because they obviously have difference perspectives and priorities. Though I'd pick the X-2 guy to conduct a test on hearing differences in movie soundtracks...

The first time I heard a 24-bit @ 48kHz PCM track it stood out. The dialog was more intelligible (ie. less muddy), the upper range was more detailed and the bass sounded tighter.

Lossless is better. It seems to be the people with highend gear who don't want to believe that a midrange system with lossless capability could sound better than their esoteric brands. Nothing in those brand names can magically bring back data that is thrown away.
CraigW is offline  
post #209 of 210 Old 09-02-2008, 04:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Malcolm_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CLASSIFIED
Posts: 2,808
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
And this is what happens when we no longer have an HDM format war... We seem the need to argue over something.
BTW, I can tell the difference between the DTS-MA edition of ID4 and the DVD edition. No problem. I'd better, for all the money I put into my HT!

Blu Ray... 3-D TV... 4K... I Like New STUFF!!!

Malcolm_B is offline  
post #210 of 210 Old 09-03-2008, 02:19 AM
Member
 
Hakka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post







... and he hyphenates his last name.. What does that tell you?

He's got 2 dads?
Hakka 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