Am I understanding this correctly? DD 5.1 vs. LPCM for example on The Prestige - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 103 Old 02-25-2007, 11:13 PM
Advanced Member
 
thebigdaddye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: dayton, ohio
Posts: 840
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianEK View Post

I have a question that may be slightly off topic, but I figure I could get my answer here rather than starting a new thread. I am looking at a Onkyo 604 receiver because I know it will accept PCM over hdmi using my ps3. From what I have heard the ps3 will itself decode the dd truehd into PCM for the receiver (and may soon do dts ma with a march update). I got a little confused because of all the talk of having a pcm soundtrack on the disc vs. the actual dolby truehd or dts ma and there may be problems having lpcm on long movies due to space reasons. What I want to know is if I get this Onkyo, will every movie I have on blu-ray be able to be output as pcm? or does the movie actually have to contain a pcm track for the ps3 to play it pcm to the receiver? I am having a hard time wording this correctly so I hope my explanation comes across right. I just don't want to buy a receiver now that can handle pcm from my ps3 only to find out later I will need to re-buy my receiver when it actually has hdmi 1.3 and the ability to decode dolby truehd and dts ma itself because there is no pcm track on the disc or something.

to answer you question as short as possible yes the blu ray disc has to have the pcm audio track on it, not all blu ray have pcm ( i have only found 1 so far though) also i have the onkyo 604 and it is a great receiver. the only real reason you would want to wait is if you want 7.1 pcm as the onkyo only does 5.1 which is fin with me. as far as the true hd and dts ma this is handled by the ps3 and it sounds like it will be included in one of the firmware upgrades. i am not 100% sure ,but from what i have read any receiver that does pcm over hdmi can handle true hd/ dts ma. maybe someone can correct me if i'm wrong ,but this is how i have read it. hope this helps on a side note the onkyo 604 is a great a/v receiver for under $400 to be able to hear pcm audio ( i got my online for $360 )
thebigdaddye is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 02:42 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Hughmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 7,556
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by invadergir View Post

OK I too have a question. Now i just bought a PS3 a few days ago to go duel formats and was wondering from other people and there experience. Is it better for me to listen to the plain ol' Dolby Digital track on the disc or use my ProLogic II MV setting with a 2.0 LPCM track instead. With the bigger rate and all will it still give me that rich/full 5.1 effect minus the true discrete effects.

I have tried both. In a movie like Prestige, the DD 5.1 soundtrack bit rate is @ 648kbps. The LPCM soundtrack bit rate is @ 6.9 Mbps. The LPCM soundtrack bit rate is 10+ times the DD 5.1 soundtrack. It is significantly clearer and louder I have found. Also, although it is stated as LPCM 2.0 on my PS3 sound settings, while playing the movie it says 5.1 when I press the select button to see what the various sound and video rates are. Now it isn't full 5.1 for me since I am using optical and not HDMI, but it is important to note that the 2.0 is actually 3.1 for me through my Onkyo receiver. The fronts, center and sub are all active. I lose the surrounds for dicrete surround sound and it is simulated, but the other speakers are discrete sound. And I can tell you it sounds like ! It is that good.
Hughmc is offline  
post #63 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 06:54 AM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

As a new member, realize that your credibility is quickly eroding....

Here's some of your quotes from other threads..



You don't seem to have a reference system, and your understanding of lossy compression is weak... most people in the business to feel that at 1.2-1.5mbps you approach transparency to the master.. the data rate for uncompressed PCM and decoded lossy is the same.. you get either 16 or 24 bit LPCM in the end, and even at 320-640, DD does a pretty good job.

In the theatrical world, we use ~340kbps DD for release prints... do I think it sounds 5x worse, or that the original LPCM masters is 5x better.. not a chance, and I evealuate these tracks on multi million dollar systems, which I can tell you reveal alot more about a track than your mid line receiver and $220/pair speakers.....

A high thread count does not automatically make you an expert, and you shouldn't come in here after less than a month of membership and make such bold statements that you don't know to be true.


Wow, you searched back through my old posts eh? What's next do you want to go through my underwear drawer too?

So by you logic why don't we just stick with 340kbs DD for all BD releases?

Once again I will site the following examples with 48/24 PCM and AVC mpeg-4. There is a reason why these titles have choosen to use 48/24 PCM, because it is the highest audio output (along with the lossless compressed formats, which we CAN NOT decode right now, and why would we ever need to with BD50 and soon to be BD75 disc).

The Prestige
Casino Royale
Pirates of the Carribean

Sure, it's not 5x as good, but the difference between 48/24 PCM and a 340kbs, 648kbs, or 1.5mbs DD is significant even on my less than reference speakers. Things like minor distortion in dialog (on lossy compressed material), depth of explosions, and degree of imaging in the soundfield.

Please note that this is MY OPINION (kinda like a**hole's everybody has one).

Also, if you feel the need please bash and ferensically disect the above poster's comments as well, he too hear's a difference with the 48/24 PCM tracks. And perhaps his post count will be more to your liking.
SetterP is offline  
post #64 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wet1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'll be the first to admit I don't know everything about all the different versions of PCM, DTS, Dolby...

Would it be possible for someone to list (in order of best to worst) the hierarchy of the common systems (tracks) and their rough equivalent? I don't want to see a Dolby/DTS war here just a basic listing of the preferred audio mode with its equivalent when applicable.

Thanks!
Wet1 is offline  
post #65 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Wet1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,363
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Also, I've noticed a few members saying that some tracks (say LPCM vs. DD 5.1) are noticably louder than another. Are you guys suggesting that because they are louder, they are better???
Wet1 is offline  
post #66 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 07:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
TomsHT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Douglassville, PA
Posts: 4,705
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Wow, you searched back through my old posts eh? What's next do you want to go through my underwear drawer too?

So by you logic why don't we just stick with 340kbs DD for all BD releases?

Once again I will site the following examples with 48/24 PCM and AVC mpeg-4. There is a reason why these titles have choosen to use 48/24 PCM, because it is the highest audio output (along with the lossless compressed formats, which we CAN NOT decode right now, and why would we ever need to with BD50 and soon to be BD75 disc).

The Prestige
Casino Royale
Pirates of the Carribean

Sure, it's not 5x as good, but the difference between 48/24 PCM and a 340kbs, 648kbs, or 1.5mbs DD is significant even on my less than reference speakers. Things like minor distortion in dialog (on lossy compressed material), depth of explosions, and degree of imaging in the soundfield.

Please note that this is MY OPINION (kinda like a**hole's everybody has one).

Also, if you feel the need please bash and ferensically disect the above poster's comments as well, he too hear's a difference with the 48/24 PCM tracks. And perhaps his post count will be more to your liking.

Since FilmMixer is a professional in the field and the one probably doing the encoding on some of the movies you purchase you might want to take the opportunity to learn a bit from him.

FilmMixer, how much space is actually saved with using the newer lossless codecs compared to PCM?

Personally I'm more interested in seeing/hearing more 7.1 tracks coming out then worrying about the actual audio track.
TomsHT is offline  
post #67 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 08:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

So by you logic why don't we just stick with 340kbs DD for all BD releases?

Once again I will site the following examples with 48/24 PCM and AVC mpeg-4. There is a reason why these titles have choosen to use 48/24 PCM, because it is the highest audio output (along with the lossless compressed formats, which we CAN NOT decode right now, and why would we ever need to with BD50 and soon to be BD75 disc).

If you really think I implied that we stick with 340kbps, you didn't really read my reply to your post... I don't think I even need to address that redicuolus surmise of my point.

Well, I know this is a BR discussion, but we can decode the lossless TrueHD on HD DVD, so I have heard plenty of them.

The reason why they use PCM? I suspect that it has to do with the fact that the BDA decided not to make decoding of the lossless codecs as madatory in their players, unlike the other camp.

What exactly is the "highest audio output?" I suppose you mean highest quality, and once again, one of the few disadvantages that I see with BR (and don't start with the fanboy comments, as I own 2 HD DVD and 2 BR players) is that advanced audio codec decoding isn't madatory on any hardware. I know we have been talking about losssy vs uncompressed LPCM, but lossless TrueHD/DTS-HD MA vs. PCM will yield no differnece in output.. the decoded PCM stream will match the LPCM... Maybe there is a reason that Fox chose the DTS-HD MA route.

And even though BR has a high data rate, using PCM cuts into the available data rate for the picture... I am sure that everyone would agree that is a benefit.

Quote:
Sure, it's not 5x as good, but the difference between 48/24 PCM and a 340kbs, 648kbs, or 1.5mbs DD is significant even on my less than reference speakers. Things like minor distortion in dialog (on lossy compressed material), depth of explosions, and degree of imaging in the soundfield.

So I just want to know what tracks you have been able to blind A/B with that has both PCM and lossy 640/1.5 DD+ on them so I can have some examples to hear... just curious.. Since I mix dialog for a living, I would like some examples of the distortion you mention.

Quote:
Also, if you feel the need please bash and ferensically disect the above poster's comments as well, he too hear's a difference with the 48/24 PCM tracks. And perhaps his post count will be more to your liking.

I've been a part of this community since 1999, and I think that my post count goes to show that I only try and post when I have something to add to the conversation.

Once again, my point is that you came in here and started spouting off '5x more audio data' and the like as facts, and they aren't... I am just trying to keep the flow of information in the realm of reality.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #68 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 08:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomsHT View Post

Since FilmMixer is a professional in the field and the one probably doing the encoding on some of the movies you purchase you might want to take the opportunity to learn a bit from him.

FilmMixer, how much space is actually saved with using the newer lossless codecs compared to PCM?

Personally I'm more interested in seeing/hearing more 7.1 tracks coming out then worrying about the actual audio track.

It can be as much as 60%, maybe a little more, I believe.. I need to check my numebers, so don't take that as fact.... (It's too early for that )but understand that obviously PCM runs full rate all the time even in complete silence, where as on lossless, for example, if their is silence, the used data rate is significantly lower..

I am not allowed to say what title, but I am involved with a film that I just finished that maybe the first domestic release with a true 7.1 track on it... more to come on that one.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #69 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
txfilmguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: My bachelor pad is in North Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,681
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

And from a technical point, they would be wrong. If the underlying source for the sound is the same (same number of sampling bits, same sampling frequency, etc.) the sound would be identical. Lossless is lossless and the only difference would be is in how the digital signal is converted back into analog.

From a blind test, LPCM vs. Dolby True HD:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/departed.html

"Now, how do the PCM and TrueHD tracks compare? Given this historic opportunity, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I invited a friend over, who is a big movie and music buff, but not particularly technical. He knows good audio when he hears it, yet doesn't know a PCM from an RPM from R.E.M. In other words, he's Joe Six-Pack with a great ear. Anyway, together we conducted a "blind" audio test -- we select ten short sequences from the film, and listened to a compare of each. We took turns firing up each scene, and selecting which one sounded better, with no knowledge of which sample was the Blu-ray and which the HD DVD.

After writing down our answers on little scraps of paper (note that we didn't throw them into a hat -- we aren't that dorky), the results were interesting. Out of the twenty comparisons (ten for him, ten for me), we could only detect differences on four scenes total. But of those four, we both always preferred the PCM track, if only a smidgeon. For example, there is a scene in involving an attempted trade bust between the Costello character and a Chinese gang. There is a sound of a gun firing that we went back over a few times, and as silly as it sounds, the force and impact of the sounds was a shade more realistic in PCM. Also a beneficiary of the uncompressed mix is the music, as this is a film brimming with rock songs. The first scene we picked featured the Rolling Stone's "Gimme Shelter," and again the PCM track boasted a slightly more spacious feel to the music in all channels -- as if the very highest end of the frequency range was more palpable.

Granted, these are very slight differences and subjective preferences. Had we not blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible. It is also certain that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell the difference without possessing the ears of a dog. Still, in this case I give a slight edge to the PCM track, though a comparison between a single title hardly qualifies as the final word. If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."
txfilmguy is offline  
post #70 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MSmith83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by txfilmguy View Post

From a blind test, LPCM vs. Dolby True HD:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/departed.html

"Now, how do the PCM and TrueHD tracks compare? Given this historic opportunity, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I invited a friend over, who is a big movie and music buff, but not particularly technical. He knows good audio when he hears it, yet doesn't know a PCM from an RPM from R.E.M. In other words, he's Joe Six-Pack with a great ear. Anyway, together we conducted a "blind" audio test -- we select ten short sequences from the film, and listened to a compare of each. We took turns firing up each scene, and selecting which one sounded better, with no knowledge of which sample was the Blu-ray and which the HD DVD.

After writing down our answers on little scraps of paper (note that we didn't throw them into a hat -- we aren't that dorky), the results were interesting. Out of the twenty comparisons (ten for him, ten for me), we could only detect differences on four scenes total. But of those four, we both always preferred the PCM track, if only a smidgeon. For example, there is a scene in involving an attempted trade bust between the Costello character and a Chinese gang. There is a sound of a gun firing that we went back over a few times, and as silly as it sounds, the force and impact of the sounds was a shade more realistic in PCM. Also a beneficiary of the uncompressed mix is the music, as this is a film brimming with rock songs. The first scene we picked featured the Rolling Stone's "Gimme Shelter," and again the PCM track boasted a slightly more spacious feel to the music in all channels -- as if the very highest end of the frequency range was more palpable.

Granted, these are very slight differences and subjective preferences. Had we not blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible. It is also certain that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell the difference without possessing the ears of a dog. Still, in this case I give a slight edge to the PCM track, though a comparison between a single title hardly qualifies as the final word. If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Yes, but this was rebutted by Kris Deering who did a proper level-matched test. There is a volume differential between the two tracks and apparently Peter didn't correct for that. The differences he attributes to the tracks can be associated with volume output, and PCM tracks have higher volume than TrueHD tracks.
MSmith83 is offline  
post #71 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
[quote=txfilmguy]From a blind test, LPCM vs. Dolby True HD:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/departed.html

[\\QUOTE]

[Flame suit=On]
Two friends having a beer and smoking something illegal does not impress me as a scientific test. If I was the author of that article I'd be embarrased.
[\\Flame Suit]

I've seen this posted so many times and each time I just wanna laugh at how gullible some people are.
jameskollar is offline  
post #72 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Kevin12586's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 4,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

I am not allowed to say what title, but I am involved with a film that I just finished that maybe the first domestic release with a true 7.1 track on it... more to come on that one.

This is good news for those of us with 7.1 systems. Since you can't tell us the movie, can you at least tell us what month it is expected to be released and is it a movie that was already released on DVD or is it something new to Blu-ray/HD DVD/DVD?

Also, do you believe in the near future more studios will begin to use true 7.1 soundtracks with their Blu-ray/HD DVD movies?

Thanks
Kevin12586 is offline  
post #73 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

Well said.

Thanks FilmMixer!

What I still don't get is how some in this thread still want to compare bitrates of PCM vs Compressed whatever (DD, TRUEHD, etc.). Let me say this as clearly as I can. RAW BITRATE COMPARISONS BETWEEN UNCOMPRESSED PCM AND COMPRESSED SIGNALS IS MEANINGLESS. Don't any of you who are spouting these numbers own a calculator? Let's do some math.

Using a reference of 48Khz 24bit depth at 5.0 tracks*, to find the bit rate use the following:

48000 samples per second X 5 channels X 24 bits = 5760000 bits per second.

Now let's look at at lossy DD signal over a 1.5 mbps connection:

1500000 bits per second / 5.0 channels / 24 bit depth = 12500 samples per second or 12.5 khz.

So, when I listen to a Dolbt Digital DTS track I'm only hearing up to 12.5 Khz? No, because the missing bits are derived during the decoding phase.

Give the bitrate stuff a rest! The when compressed tracks are decoded they still give you 48khz at 24 bits at 5760000 bits per second (assuming that was the source material).

* 5.0 since I cannot say with any authority if the .1 track is recorded at the same bit rate. Sorry.
jameskollar is offline  
post #74 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 10:43 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WirelessGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wet1 View Post

Also, I've noticed a few members saying that some tracks (say LPCM vs. DD 5.1) are noticably louder than another. Are you guys suggesting that because they are louder, they are better???

Yep.... Peter Bracke of Highdefdigest.com for one. When comparing LPCM and TrueHD of "The Departed" he stated that 4 out of the 10 scenes the LPCM track sounded better. However he totally missed that the LPCM track is 4-5db louder as documented by *************** and Kris Deering. So everybody is referencing one article where the reviewer clearly didn't do his homework to make statements about one being better and ignoring the two articles with important facts.

http://***************.com/htsthread...?sequence=1859
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...The%20Departed

Technically speaking.... assuming the same exact master was used, LPCM and True-HD should be bit-for-bit identical.

Last Watched 3D: Oz the Great and Powerful

It should be called Violet-Ray

WirelessGuru is offline  
post #75 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 11:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

It is. Very easy to find this out based on the bitrates of the BD tracks.

Kinda thought that was true but seems like a waste of bits since the max frequency you really need is 200khz. I'm not up to speed on how they mix the .1 channel so I stayed on the conservative side by stating "I don't know".
jameskollar is offline  
post #76 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 01:04 PM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Although I am reluctant to reply here I'll try my best to spell this out for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

The reason why they use PCM? I suspect that it has to do with the fact that the BDA decided not to make decoding of the lossless codecs as madatory in their players, unlike the other camp.

Yes see if you would go back and re-read my pionts in this thread you'll more fully understand my argument. Let's summarize shall we.....

1. BD50 disc have the capacity to accommodate both reference-level PQ and uncompressed 48/24 PCM (as evident with The Prestige at 130minutes and 45minutes of 1080p extras) Also soon to be shown on Casino Royale and Pirates.

2. Most studios that employ compressed lossless formats are those studios that are format neutral, given the constraints of 30gb hd-dvd.

3. Why should I need to wait for hardware to support the compressed lossless when I already have access (and enjoyment) of the same audio output via 48/24 PCM?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

What exactly is the "highest audio output?" I suppose you mean highest quality, and once again, one of the few disadvantages that I see with BR (and don't start with the fanboy comments, as I own 2 HD DVD and 2 BR players) is that advanced audio codec decoding isn't madatory on any hardware. I know we have been talking about losssy vs uncompressed LPCM, but lossless TrueHD/DTS-HD MA vs. PCM will yield no differnece in output.. the decoded PCM stream will match the LPCM... Maybe there is a reason that Fox chose the DTS-HD MA route.

The highest audio output being 48/24 (and once again as already mentioned by myself I completely understand that lossless TrueHD/DTS-HD MA vs. PCM will yield no difference in output given that they are both 48/24 encodes)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

And even though BR has a high data rate, using PCM cuts into the available data rate for the picture... I am sure that everyone would agree that is a benefit.

Not sure I'm following you here cheif. When you say data rate, are you refering to the video encoding or output to display? Once again, I think it has been proven that AVC is more than capable of producing a reference quality picture while using a PCM 48/24 audio track. It's really just an argument of space, sure you have to burn up 7-9GB average for a 48/24 PCM encode, but who cares if you have high-level AVC video encode.


Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

So I just want to know what tracks you have been able to blind A/B with that has both PCM and lossy 640/1.5 DD+ on them so I can have some examples to hear... just curious.. Since I mix dialog for a living, I would like some examples of the distortion you mention.

I havn't blind A/B any tracks PCM vs. 1.5 tracks because of course being blu-ray exclusive I don't have a hd-dvd (read: $500 paperweight shortly) But I have blind A/B of PCM vs. 648kbs DD and several of my friends have as well, and there is no mistaking the PCM 48/24 vs. it's 648kbs counterpart. If you try to argue this then I really think you are the one that is not being truthful.

For dialog distortion that I mentioned it's hard to cite specific examples but like at the end of words with an "s" the dialog breaks up slightly on the 648kbs DD. The tone is not as rich in male voice. Female voice may sound a little tinny (like speaking through a tin can). It's all minor nuiansces, but intelligible to me none-the-less. I may not have a million dollar reference system, but I have a critical ear with many years of professional musical experience.




Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmMixer View Post

I've been a part of this community since 1999, and I think that my post count goes to show that I only try and post when I have something to add to the conversation.

Once again, my point is that you came in here and started spouting off '5x more audio data' and the like as facts, and they aren't... I am just trying to keep the flow of information in the realm of reality.

And for that I would offer you my respect. I do appreciate your professional input, not like any of your would-be groupies would thinly vail as their own input via FAQ cut and pastes.

I never said anything about '5x more audio data' in this thread, you dug that up from another thread. And this fact is that PCM is 5x the audio data of a 648kbs DD track. I never implied that it sounded 5x better, but yes in my opinion it does sound significantly better.



In any case, you guys really missed the boat on my points the first time some maybe this will help the slower minded people focus on my empirical arguments that I wished to discuss.

1. BD50 (possible BD75) disc have the capacity to accommodate both reference-level PQ and uncompressed 48/24 PCM (as evident with The Prestige at 130minutes and 45minutes of 1080p extras) Also soon to be shown on Casino Royale and Pirates.

2. Most studios that employ compressed lossless formats are those studios that are format neutral, given the constraints of 30gb hd-dvd.

3. Why should I need to wait for hardware to support the compressed lossless when I already have access (and enjoyment) of the same audio output via 48/24 PCM?
SetterP is offline  
post #77 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 01:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Setterp,

Lose the stinking attitude, Dude. It's not making you any friends here. Point 2 of your post is incorrect. Fox, which is strictly Blu ray, is releasiong their titles using a compressed lossless format called DTS MA. Maybe you've heard of that. Also, you keep mentioning 48/24 PCM. It's only on a few titles. Most PCM on Blu Ray is 48/16. And your statement that PCM is 5X the audio data of a 648kbs DD track is also wrong.

An aside to those in the know: It's my inderstanding that DTS MA being released right now is 48/24. Is this true?
jameskollar is offline  
post #78 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 01:31 PM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

Setterp,

Lose the stinking attitude, Dude. It's not making you any friends here.

I'm trying dude, but I'm getting attacked on all sides here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

Point 2 of your post is incorrect. Fox, which is strictly Blu ray, is releasiong their titles using a compressed lossless format called DTS MA. Maybe you've heard of that.

Ok I'll give you that, I meant most BD exclusive studios. But in all honesty it is my belief that when BD does win the format war all studios will go AVC or VC-1 video and uncompressed 48/24 PCM, especially if we get the BD75.


Here's a quote from HDD that really struck a chord with me:

"If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

Also, you keep mentioning 48/24 PCM. It's only on a few titles. Most PCM on Blu Ray is 48/16. And your statement that PCM is 5X the audio data of a 648kbs DD track is also wrong.


Yes I understand that most BD titles are 48/16, but guess what dude of of the 6 48/24 titles I own 4 of them, so I know about the difference in sound quality between the two.

Once again I know it's not a direct apples to apples comparison because the DD is compressed and actually larger in final output. This is a faulty assumption that you continue to think I make, no need to link me to an FAQ.....
SetterP is offline  
post #79 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

I'm trying dude, but I'm getting attacked on all sides here.

Only because of your attitude. Tone it down and be willing to listen and learn and you'll get attacked less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Ok I'll give you that, I meant most BD exclusive studios. But in all honesty it is my belief that when BD does win the format war all studios will go AVC or VC-1 video and uncompressed 48/24 PCM, especially if we get the BD75.

Slow down a liitle. You make a blanket statement and expect not to be called on it? Show some humbleness and add caveats. It's also perfectly fine to say "I don't know." Finally, the last part of your statement is ok. You are expressing an opinion. In previous posts it seems like you expressing opinions as fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Here's a quote from HDD that really struck a chord with me:

"If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Ok, I guess you really liked that article. However, it's been pointed out serveral times in this thread that the HDD article you are referring to is flawed. That statement carries very little wieght for me. And that is not an attack on you, I just think the article is a bunch of hooey.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Yes I understand that most BD titles are 48/16, but guess what dude of of the 6 48/24 titles I own 4 of them, so I know about the difference in sound quality between the two.

And where did you mention this when you pointed out the "Buttery Goodness" of LPCM or TrueHD. Obviously, uncompressed 48/24 is going to sound better than TrueHD at 48/16 all else being equal (see, I just used a caveat). If that was the intent to compare the two and you had stated as much, then you probably would have been just fine.

The way your posts read is that lossless uncompressed is better than lossless compressed which given the same target samples per second and bit depth is just patently false. Now that I see that's not what you meant.
jameskollar is offline  
post #80 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin12586 View Post

This is good news for those of us with 7.1 systems. Since you can't tell us the movie, can you at least tell us what month it is expected to be released and is it a movie that was already released on DVD or is it something new to Blu-ray/HD DVD/DVD?

Also, do you believe in the near future more studios will begin to use true 7.1 soundtracks with their Blu-ray/HD DVD movies?

Thanks

The film hasn't been released theatrically yet, so I will not be able to give out any of that information yet.

But it may end up being used as a demo in public soon, and if it is, I will let all of you know when to expect it....

I was approached about this film by someone who is interested in creating 7.1 out of exisiting tracks, and somebody who is very respected in this industry, so this is our 'beta' per se, and he is pretty early in the process... but I promise to keep all informed of this title... It's a really cool sounding film.

Back to work, and I'll answer some of the other posts directed at me later tonight...
FilmMixer is offline  
post #81 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WirelessGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by benes View Post

While I agree that looking for differences between PCM and lossless is silly, your statement might not always be 100% true. It is possible that the TrueHD tracks are not bit-for-bit identical. It all depends on what encoding settings they have used. I have heard that there is an option to use a bitrate ceiling and if the datarate goes above that it will simply be clipped. We don't really know unless we ask the folks who encoded these tracks.

Isn't what you are suggesting is that TrueHD isn't truly lossless? Any change during the encode process that corrupts or changes the data by the decode stage isn't true to the master and thus negates it being lossless, correct?

Anyway, I tried to qualify my statement by the assumption of the same master, but I will concede that even with the same master some variables go into the compression encode stage that could potentially alter the data, therefore proving bit-for-bit false. That is a very tough thing to monitor however unless insiders who do the job report that information to us, and even then it could likely be different per title encode or studio.

I probably should have said... all thing being equal, and without insider information specific to the lossless compression encoding process to tell us otherwise, using the same master and assuming TrueHD (and/or DTS-MA) is truly lossless, the data should be bit-for-bit identical.

I'm actually surprised nobody has run the two tracks through a spectrum analyzer to try and spot inconsistencies. Then we might have something to talk about! Anyway, I apologize for being a bit OT as this thread was comparing DD 5.1 to LPCM. I just don't like LPCM being advertised as "better" than the lossless formats without actual proof and definately more proof than Peter Bracke's oversight of the loudness difference between the two tracks. Obviously the lossless formats are not better, but in theory they should be equal.

Last Watched 3D: Oz the Great and Powerful

It should be called Violet-Ray

WirelessGuru is offline  
post #82 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 03:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WirelessGuru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Here's a quote from HDD that really struck a chord with me:

"If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Personally I think LPCM is just temporary for BD. Of course the format has the extra headroom to support it. But I think LPCM is just a stop gap for BD until the players start supporting the new audio formats. To j6p the Dolby and DTS trademarks are held in higher regard than LPCM does even if the royalties are less.

Last Watched 3D: Oz the Great and Powerful

It should be called Violet-Ray

WirelessGuru is offline  
post #83 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:04 PM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WirelessGuru View Post

Personally I think LPCM is just temporary for BD. Of course the format has the extra headroom to support it. But I think LPCM is just a stop gap for BD until the players start supporting the new audio formats. To j6p the Dolby and DTS trademarks are held in higher regard than LPCM does even if the royalties are less.

That's one way to read into it, and I agree with the point that you make in terms of name recognition.

Although I think that BD is establishing a franchise format mark with the releases of Casino Royale and Pirates w/ 48/24 PCM. Maybe I'm wrong... either way I guess I'm happy, just a little bit confused by the continuous stream of HDMI 1.3 delays.
SetterP is offline  
post #84 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MSmith83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Although I think that BD is establishing a franchise format mark with the releases of Casino Royale and Pirates w/ 48/24 PCM. Maybe I'm wrong... either way I guess I'm happy, just a little bit confused by the continuous stream of HDMI 1.3 delays.

Is there any indication that Casino Royale will have a bit-depth of 24-bit? That's great if it is 24-bit, but I haven't heard this and all of Sony's releases have been 16-bit.
MSmith83 is offline  
post #85 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

That's one way to read into it, and I agree with the point that you make in terms of name recognition.

Although I think that BD is establishing a franchise format mark with the releases of Casino Royale and Pirates w/ 48/24 PCM. Maybe I'm wrong... either way I guess I'm happy, just a little bit confused by the continuous stream of HDMI 1.3 delays.

With respect, I hope you are wrong (but only in the following circumstance, otherwise, I don't care).

A LPCM track at 24bit 96Khz would be 2 X larger and twice the bitrate. Someday, I hope we have DTS MA at 24bit 96Khz which would be at the same bitrate as current LPCM 24bit / 48khz which as you have already pointed out works just fine. I don't even know if the master tracks on digitally recorded films is at this level so maybe the point is moot. But one can dream...
jameskollar is offline  
post #86 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:19 PM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSmith83 View Post

Is there any indication that Casino Royale will have a bit-depth of 24-bit? That's great if it is 24-bit, but I haven't heard this and all of Sony's releases have been 16-bit.

You make a good point here, all of the Sony releases have been 48/16 PCM. I just assumed that this titel would be the 48/24 treatment, but if they stay the course you're right it will be 48/16 unfortunately.

SetterP is offline  
post #87 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:23 PM
Member
 
SetterP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 180
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

With respect, I hope you are wrong (but only in the following circumstance, otherwise, I don't care).

A LPCM track at 24bit 96Khz would be 2 X larger and twice the bitrate. Someday, I hope we have DTS MA at 24bit 96Khz which would be at the same bitrate as current LPCM 24bit / 48khz which as you have already pointed out works just fine. I don't even know if the master tracks on digitally recorded films is at this level so maybe the point is moot. But one can dream...

Hmmm.... yes, you raise a good point here too in terms of 96Khz encodes. I am not knowledgeable in terms of the master tracks on digital film. Film Mixer, perhaps you could tell us if you know.

Once again, apologize for my lack of tact in this thread, certainly willing to learn. It's been a rough couple of days.
SetterP is offline  
post #88 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 04:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jameskollar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Lakewood, WA
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by SetterP View Post

Hmmm.... yes, you raise a good point here too in terms of 96Khz encodes. I am not knowledgeable in terms of the master tracks on digital film. Film Mixer, perhaps you could tell us if you know.

Once again, apologize for my lack of tact in this thread, certainly willing to learn. It's been a rough couple of days.

Thanks SetterP. Believe it or not it's not fun for me having the type of vitriolic debate we've just been through. Peace!
jameskollar is offline  
post #89 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
FilmMixer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Los Angeles Area, CA. USA
Posts: 6,747
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 395 Post(s)
Liked: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskollar View Post

With respect, I hope you are wrong (but only in the following circumstance, otherwise, I don't care).

A LPCM track at 24bit 96Khz would be 2 X larger and twice the bitrate. Someday, I hope we have DTS MA at 24bit 96Khz which would be at the same bitrate as current LPCM 24bit / 48khz which as you have already pointed out works just fine. I don't even know if the master tracks on digitally recorded films is at this level so maybe the point is moot. But one can dream...

We still haven't reached the point yet where we are doing anything at 96k... Warner Brothers last year installed the first large scale film consoles that can handle a large number of channels at 96k (1000) but I don't think that they have yet dubbed a feature on them.

It would really be a huge change in our work flow (all of our effects libraries are at 48, dialog is recoded at 48, etc...) for a change that I am not sure you would hear in a theatrical environment...

16 to 24 bit.. big jump

48k to 96k sample rate not so much... it really decreases sideband distortion, which can affect imaging and the like, but as I said, it doesn't neccessarily translate to the world of film sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WirelessGuru View Post

I'm actually surprised nobody has run the two tracks through a spectrum analyzer to try and spot inconsistencies. Then we might have something to talk about! Anyway, I apologize for being a bit OT as this thread was comparing DD 5.1 to LPCM. I just don't like LPCM being advertised as "better" than the lossless formats without actual proof and definately more proof than Peter Bracke's oversight of the loudness difference between the two tracks. Obviously the lossless formats are not better, but in theory they should be equal.

A great idea, but I don't think that would give you the answer.. You still have to account for minute level changes in the track due to the individual players mixers, etc... And it would require a great deal of equipment to do it right, because you need an analog output of the tracks, and then need to capture them onto a recorder, and then need to sync them up and be able to go back and forth to A/B them, or capture a stream from the spectrum analyzer...

In my opinion, however, there is no need.. the lossless codecs work as advertised.. they spit out what you put in.... but you always need to remember that what you put in may not be the original PCM master (it should be) and that if there is a concern for space, a studio might truncate a 24 bit master to 16 bit before encoding (as I think WB has done for most of their HD DVD titles.)...

And you need to take into account the way the mixers in each player work.... they should be transparent, but if not well designed, you will hear them.. and this is true for both BR and HD DVD, lossless or lossy codecs.. alot of people think that because the current crop of BR players don't decode lossless, they don't have mixers, but they do.
FilmMixer is offline  
post #90 of 103 Old 02-26-2007, 06:26 PM
Advanced Member
 
Hunter67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 601
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
FilmMixer,

I just want to start by saying thanks for sharing your profession and knowledge by posting here on the AVS forum; it makes a HUGE difference having an insider like yourself around here.

Question about the upcoming 7.1 film, would this be "Talk to me"?
Hunter67 is offline  
Reply Blu-ray Software

User Tag List

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