The Matrix hits HD DVD May 22. BD release "later" - Page 12 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #331 of 358 Old 03-28-2007, 02:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dobyblue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CANADA
Posts: 1,865
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

No one said they never got a prototype working. But it never made the transition to mass-production viability. Nor to handle dual-layer-DVD.

It absolutely did handle dual-layer DVD. It was a triple layer, single-sided, BD25/DVD9 hybrid.

You said the "BD camp tried to get this working and gave up." and "they weren't able to make it happen"

No-one asked for it to be made which is why there is no spec for it. To suggest anything else is false.

"From what was said" - I'm not sure what you read was said, but from what I read no studios expressed any interest in a hybrid disc.
dobyblue is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #332 of 358 Old 03-28-2007, 02:46 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dobyblue View Post

It absolutely did handle dual-layer DVD. It was a triple layer, single-sided, BD25/DVD9 hybrid.

You said the "BD camp tried to get this working and gave up." and "they weren't able to make it happen"

No-one asked for it to be made which is why there is no spec for it. To suggest anything else is false.

"From what was said" - I'm not sure what you read was said, but from what I read no studios expressed any interest in a hybrid disc.

My mistake - I went from memory and didn't re-read the article.

They did give up - they decided it could not be manufactured in a practical manner (ie yield and cost). Interesting that it is not in the spec - I'm sure someone else around here said it was indeed in the spec - but I guess we were just mis-tooken
rdjam is offline  
post #333 of 358 Old 03-28-2007, 02:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
UxiSXRD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The key part is that noone was interested. Doesn't seem like an extraordinary proposition to glue two discs together to create a flipper.

-- "No matter where you go, there you are."

SXRD/Denon/Polk/PS3/360/WiiU
Blu-ray bliss
SXRD Owner's Thread
PSN: Uxi

UxiSXRD is offline  
post #334 of 358 Old 03-28-2007, 06:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

I disagree. While 720p and 1080p are far apart, I think a discussion about whether an anamorphically compressed 1440x1080 encode was different than a 1920x1080 encode would be pretty similar to whether a 16/48 audio encode is different than a 24/48 audio encode. While video can be zoomed up and looked at, which is one difference between it and audio, we are talking about measureable differences here, not some hocus pocus with different cables that can't even be measured. Or are you going to claim that information wasn't lost when going from 24/48 to 16/48?
I'm seriously trying to figure out what you are looking for here. We are on the internet, so how do you want me to prove this? It isn't like we can go into a room and test these. Filmmixer (the guy who does this professionally) has mentioned having people come out so he can show them, but as long as we are on the internet here, what is it you want? Are you somebody who knows that 16/48 and 24/48 are different, but just wants to complain? Or are you somebody who doesn't know and is actually trying to find out if there is a difference? If the latter, do you need me to hold your hand? You can go find the literature as easily as I can. As I said, I've already talked to a guy at Dolby about this (as well as reading discussions here). I can point you to one link from Filmmixer here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...45#post9885845

where he talks about this stuff and says:
but if you just are looking to play a game of saying that you haven't seen proof, then there isn't much I can do. Are you somebody who would claim that there isn't any difference between CDs and SACDs?
Why? Somebody could just play like you and say that there isn't any difference between PCM and DD. Or are you willing to accept that one without whatever thing it is you want as "proof"?

Seriously, what is it that you are looking for that could be done here?

--Darin


I've seen a lot of writing on both and quite frankly most of it is exactly how I stated. For example discussions on how better equipment with a 16/48 recording can sound better than other less competent equipment at 24/48. So there are many variables. And it's not about holding anyones hands. It's about you using hyperbole to make a point. The technical aspects of dithering and compression take into account bits low enough in the scale as to be essentially valueless from a listening perspective. So there is no certain answer as you made it appear - that blu ray was being short-changed because of 16/48 is wholly the product of hyperbole and nothing more.
HPforMe is offline  
post #335 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 12:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

For example discussions on how better equipment with a 16/48 recording can sound better than other less competent equipment at 24/48.

Of course it can. What do you think that proves? 720p can look better on a better display than 1080p on an inferior display, but you wouldn't use that to claim that 720p and 1080p were the same for sources, right? And please don't take some ridiculous position about this applying to audio and not video. It applies to both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

So there are many variables.

Of course there are. And one of them is the quality of the source. You can take the position that there isn't any difference in the qualities of the sources if you want to, but I sure hope you aren't basing that on the fact that better equipment can make the one with missing information from the master sound better than the other one on inferior equipment.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #336 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 12:51 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
I can record on my home studio at either 16 bit or 24 bit. When I do 24bit and master down to 16 bit for CD, I can hear the difference. And when I have to make an mp3 (even at 320kps) to upload to my Myspace or to email, OOF! The reduction in sound quality is drastic.
Dave Mack is offline  
post #337 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 09:54 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Of course it can. What do you think that proves? 720p can look better on a better display than 1080p on an inferior display, but you wouldn't use that to claim that 720p and 1080p were the same for sources, right? And please don't take some ridiculous position about this applying to audio and not video. It applies to both.

Don't agree. Pixels and resolution you can see. 24/48 - the extra 8 bits are at the very lowest and likely most if not all not audibly perceptible.


Quote:
Of course there are. And one of them is the quality of the source. You can take the position that there isn't any difference in the qualities of the sources if you want to, but I sure hope you aren't basing that on the fact that better equipment can make the one with missing information from the master sound better than the other one on inferior equipment.

Again, your point is to make general assumptions and my point is to ask you to prove that the dithering and compression by Warner compromises the quality for Blu ray from the 24/48 master (if indeed a particular track is recorded that way). You can't. The lossless track is bit for bit identical to the dithered track. Prove that the dithering has compromised the quality of the 24/48 master in those Warner tracks and you've made your point. Until then you speak in generalities.
HPforMe is offline  
post #338 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 10:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Don't agree.

You don't agree about what, that a source encoded at 720p could look better on a superior display than the same source at 1080p on an inferior display? Or do you think your example of the superior equipment proves something about the audio, but wouldn't about the video? Again, what do you think you've proven with your statement about the superior equipment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Pixels and resolution you can see. 24/48 - the extra 8 bits are at the very lowest and likely most if not all not audibly perceptible.

Even if most are not audibly perceptible, that doesn't mean that 16/48 isn't a reduced quality source. As I said, with video you can zoom it up (or you can walk up close to it). But sit somebody at a normal viewing ratio and there will be limits to the pixels and resolution they can see, with a fair amount of factors playing into when they can see differences and when they can't. Especially with upscaling on a higher resolution display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Again, your point is to make general assumptions and my point is to ask you to prove that the dithering and compression by Warner compromises the quality for Blu ray from the 24/48 master (if indeed a particular track is recorded that way). You can't. The lossless track is bit for bit identical to the dithered track. Prove that the dithering has compromised the quality of the 24/48 master in those Warner tracks and you've made your point. Until then you speak in generalities.

Seems like what you want to do is ask me to prove something that can't be proven here and then take a ridiculous position that the same kind of thing wouldn't apply to video. I bet you can't prove to me on this forum that doing anamorphically encoded 1440x1080 sources would compromise quality compared to doing 1920x1080 of the same sources (other than weak sources), but I'm guessing you believe it would. It is mighty convenient that you've taken the position you have on how audio and video are different, even though much of video is subjective and your reasoning for the video is because of something you can't be done on this forum (it is only proof that could be provided by doing something off the forum).

As I've said, Filmmixer (who works on this stuff) has offered to have some people out to let them listen to the same source, but with 16/48 vs 24/48, so he can show them the differences. Again, what kind of proof are you looking for that could be done with words on this forum?

BTW: Could you prove that TrueHD or PCM are better than DD here on this forum? If not, are you going to go around challenging anybody who asks for one of the lossless tracks on these next gen releases to provide you proof that DD isn't as high a quality? DD on superior equipment could sound better than TrueHD or PCM on inferior equipment.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #339 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 04:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


Seems like what you want to do is ask me to prove something that can't be proven here and then take a ridiculous position that the same kind of thing wouldn't apply to video. I bet you can't prove to me on this forum that doing anamorphically encoded 1440x1080 sources would compromise quality compared to doing 1920x1080 of the same sources (other than weak sources), but I'm guessing you believe it would. It is mighty convenient that you've taken the position you have on how audio and video are different, even though much of video is subjective and your reasoning for the video is because of something you can't be done on this forum (it is only proof that could be provided by doing something off the forum).

As I've said, Filmmixer (who works on this stuff) has offered to have some people out to let them listen to the same source, but with 16/48 vs 24/48, so he can show them the differences. Again, what kind of proof are you looking for that could be done with words on this forum?

BTW: Could you prove that TrueHD or PCM are better than DD here on this forum? If not, are you going to go around challenging anybody who asks for one of the lossless tracks on these next gen releases to provide you proof that DD isn't as high a quality? DD on superior equipment could sound better than TrueHD or PCM on inferior equipmen

The analogy you persist in making between video and audio is limited. Anything beyond drawing superficial differences between bit depth and pixels and sampling frequency and frame rates becomes both inexact and mostly false. Therefore, your insistence on drawing exact analogies is mostly false and clearly unhelpful.
HPforMe is offline  
post #340 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


BTW: Could you prove that TrueHD or PCM are better than DD here on this forum? If not, are you going to go around challenging anybody who asks for one of the lossless tracks on these next gen releases to provide you proof that DD isn't as high a quality? DD on superior equipment could sound better than TrueHD or PCM on inferior equipmen

Now you want to get into more general comparisons with sound. The question is whether you can hear the difference between lossless tracks and lossy tracks even if the latter are at higher bitrates (such as 1.5 Mbps DD+ or core DTS-HD MA at the same). The comparisons we were discussing above related to going so far into the noise floor that those extra bits would not make an audible difference. I don't understand what you're getting at frankly.
HPforMe is offline  
post #341 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 05:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Now you want to get into more general comparisons with sound. The question is whether you can hear the difference between lossless tracks and lossy tracks even if the latter are at higher bitrates (such as 1.5 Mbps DD+ or core DTS-HD MA at the same). The comparisons we were discussing above related to going so far into the noise floor that those extra bits would not make an audible difference. I don't understand what you're getting at frankly.

You are asking me to prove something that is very difficult to prove on a forum in writing (differences in sound). Are you playing around just to be a pain, or could you prove to me in writing here that lossless is better than DD (I didn't mention DD+ and that was not my question, DD was). If you can't prove that to me in writing here, then you should quit playing the game of asking me to prove something you know can't be proven in writing here (I already pointed you to a person in the field who says he has done testing and there is an audible difference between 16/48 and 24/48 and you ignored it), or you should take the same position about lossless and DD. You seem to think that your better equipment statement means something, but the same applies to lossless and DD at 640k.

I already mentioned that the 16/48 to 20/48 is considered the much more important part. The lowest part of 24/48 most likely is inaudible, but that doesn't mean there wasn't stuff lost going all the way to 16.

Would you argue with a statement that putting DD 640k on the disc with no lossless is leaving the best audio off, and would you ask somebody to prove that in writing here? I'm wondering if you are even following what I am getting at. I've asked you multiple times what it is you want here and you just keep repeating that I need to provide proof. What would suffice as proof in writing here to you? Can you answer that this time, please? You could probably go listen to some tracks with each if Filmmixer would host you, but I'm talking about what you are looking for here. Is this just a game of knowing that it can't be proved in writing here, since it is sound, and it seems that you won't count what Filmmixer has said? And of course my conversation with somebody from Dolby where they told me that they know people can hear the difference between 16/48 and 24/48 isn't proof here.

Do you have even a shred of proof that there aren't audible differences between these? Even Amir (one of the biggest HD DVD supporters) doesn't claim that those sources aren't any different audibly.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #342 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 07:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


You are asking me to prove something that is very difficult to prove on a forum in writing (differences in sound). Are you playing around just to be a pain, or could you prove to me in writing here that lossless is better than DD (I didn't mention DD+ and that was not my question, DD was). If you can't prove that to me in writing here, then you should quit playing the game of asking me to prove something you know can't be proven in writing here (I already pointed you to a person in the field who says he has done testing and there is an audible difference between 16/48 and 24/48 and you ignored it), or you should take the same position about lossless and DD. You seem to think that your better equipment statement means something, but the same applies to lossless and DD at 640k.

I never made or stated any comparisons on anything based on bit numbers. You did. You are like those guys who think because the number is higher it must be better. That's your game not mine. Qualitative differences in sound formats are indeed discernible on a general level but you we'ren't talking about that. You were trying to suggest that you could hear bits so low down the noise floor that you're sure Warner screwed it up in the 16/48 sampling and bit number. Surely an exercise in supersensitive aural abilities.lol!
HPforMe is offline  
post #343 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 08:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

I never made or stated any comparisons on anything based on bit numbers. You did. You are like those guys who think because the number is higher it must be better.

No, I do not think that. I have talked to and read from people very knowledgeable on this subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Qualitative differences in sound formats are indeed discernible on a general level but you we'ren't talking about that. You were trying to suggest that you could hear bits so low down the noise floor that you're sure Warner screwed it up in the 16/48 sampling and bit number. Surely an exercise in supersensitive aural abilities.lol!

If you think that people couldn't hear the difference between 16/48 and 24/48, then you definitely disagree with many experts. I've made no claims about my own hearing abilities and my point still stands about people complaining about how it is unfair for a studio to do something for their chosen format because of the other format and considering reverse conditions. It is interesting how you've demanded that I prove that 16/48 isn't as good here on the internet when you couldn't even prove that DD at 640k isn't as good as lossless here, just because of the nature of the limitations of just writing here, and won't even answer a simple question about what you would accept as proof. Wouldn't surprise me if you've just been playing dumb on that this whole time.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #344 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 10:16 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
rdjam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

It is interesting how you've demanded that I prove that 16/48 isn't as good here on the internet when you couldn't even prove that DD at 640k isn't as good as lossless here

Sorry to interrupt your debate with HPforMe, but I'll interject some key points here:

1) Lossless audio sounds clearly better than DD 640K. The fact that you would even debate this implies that you have never listened to them together. It takes absolutely no effort to tell the difference between the DD+ track on Phantom of the Opera and the TruHD track. The first time I switched tracks was eye-opening.

2) The POTO track was a 16/48 5.1 mix. It was night and day to the DD+ mix. So whether one can tell the difference between 24/48 is almost irrelevant, as the jump in quality from DD or DD+ 640K to 16/48 lossless is so dramatic as to almost make the extra jump uneccessary. Would I take a 24/48 track if presented with one? With pleasure. Am I happy with the improvement of 16/48 in the meantime? Definitely. As the formats mature, I'm sure we'll see more.

3) I don't even know why you are getting so worked up about this anyway, since most of the lossless tracks on Bluray are ALSO 16/48. Certainly Warner is not alone here.

Just thought a little common sense would help out here...
rdjam is offline  
post #345 of 358 Old 03-29-2007, 10:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Dave Mack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 11,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
all sounds, tones have overtones in addition to the primary tone which determines the pitch (note) of the tone, (sound) Even when not really audible, the overtones affect and color the primary tone. 24 bit audio allows more of these to be recorded.

http://www.24bitfaq.org/#Q0_3_3
Dave Mack is offline  
post #346 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 11:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

No, I do not think that. I have talked to and read from people very knowledgeable on this subject.
If you think that people couldn't hear the difference between 16/48 and 24/48, then you definitely disagree with many experts. I've made no claims about my own hearing abilities and my point still stands about people complaining about how it is unfair for a studio to do something for their chosen format because of the other format and considering reverse conditions. It is interesting how you've demanded that I prove that 16/48 isn't as good here on the internet when you couldn't even prove that DD at 640k isn't as good as lossless here, just because of the nature of the limitations of just writing here, and won't even answer a simple question about what you would accept as proof. Wouldn't surprise me if you've just been playing dumb on that this whole time.

--Darin


You're answers are getting longer but you're not adding anything further. Many prefer to RECORD at 24/48 because there's more headroom at the bottom (dynamic range). But individuals record also based on the material where 16/48 can be more than enough. Don't put words in my mouth about experts. They may well sound different and better but there may well be no discernible difference. Their both being sampled at the same rate after all.

Additionally, you like to draw out false analogies. The comparison between a 640 kbps track and a lossless track at usually twice or more the bitrate does indeed give a discernible qualitative difference as I stated above. But you have to prove that a 16/48 lossless track operating at a high bit rate has the SAME discernible differences compared to the original sourced lossless 24/48 track. Noticed I stated the same discernible differences as your false comparison or analogy is trying to convey. Why didn't you just state an even lesser ranged and sampled track, just to make your point more pointless.

Secondly, put your money where your mouth is then. Please make a comparison between POTO and the original master. Then come back to this forum and waste my time and others and tell how and in which way there was a discernible difference. Otherwise quit special pleading and making gratuitous claims about Warner giving the shaft to blu ray with TrueHD 16/48.
HPforMe is offline  
post #347 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 12:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Sorry to interrupt your debate with HPforMe, but I'll interject some key points here:

1) Lossless audio sounds clearly better than DD 640K. The fact that you would even debate this implies that you have never listened to them together. It takes absolutely no effort to tell the difference between the DD+ track on Phantom of the Opera and the TruHD track. The first time I switched tracks was eye-opening.

2) The POTO track was a 16/48 5.1 mix. It was night and day to the DD+ mix. So whether one can tell the difference between 24/48 is almost irrelevant, as the jump in quality from DD or DD+ 640K to 16/48 lossless is so dramatic as to almost make the extra jump uneccessary. Would I take a 24/48 track if presented with one? With pleasure. Am I happy with the improvement of 16/48 in the meantime? Definitely. As the formats mature, I'm sure we'll see more.

3) I don't even know why you are getting so worked up about this anyway, since most of the lossless tracks on Bluray are ALSO 16/48. Certainly Warner is not alone here.

Just thought a little common sense would help out here...

I never made the assertion you made. You missed the point of these postings. I would indeed as I stated above make and do make qualitative judgments on how better it sounds. I stated there are indeed qualitative differences. That wasn' the point. You were looking at his attempt to bait the argument away from his claim that 16/48 Warner tracks were short-shrifting blu ray. I simply asked him to prove the 16/48 losseless was short-shrifting. Was there a problem with the dithering or wave shaping? Did they throw out redundant bits or bits not even captured by sound equipment? Was there a problem with the compression?

Again, he tries to draw a parallel between discerning a difference between a lossy 640 kps track for example and a lossless track at twice the bitrate or more. Poor analogies just like the attempt to reduce the sound issue directly to video by attenuating the analogy. While I can clearly, contrary to your understanding of this argument, and anyone else I would suggest could, discern a clear difference between 640/lossless tracks, the same claim cannot be made, and clearly he can't without a direct comparison of a 16/48 24/48 POTO track. The worst thing to do is speak in vacuums based only on numbers.
HPforMe is offline  
post #348 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 01:36 PM
Senior Member
 
ninjanki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Let me jump in an simplify things for everyone:

1) Uncompressed PCM: Very good, no matter what specific resolution, since most of the relevant and used ones are great and at least CD quality lvl. The more resolution, the better it can be, bu we would be splitting hairs to find out which is better for each master.
2)DDTHD or DTS-HDMA: Almost very good, but only because not all players can decode them(if they could, it would be as good as uPCM). uPCM is preferred for compatibility.
3) DTS - I would rather not need this compression, but DTS is good for compatibility and sounds good.
4) DD and everything else: Bottom of the list of quality and value.

And Warner should get their act together and start giving consistent, descent audio on all their bd releases, and no more DD-only crap we've been given most of the time. They only have lame excuses not to do it.
ninjanki is offline  
post #349 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 02:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


3) I don't even know why you are getting so worked up about this anyway, since most of the lossless tracks on Bluray are ALSO 16/48. Certainly Warner is not alone here.

That's true. Darinp2 should be upset by Sony (I guess they're shortchanging their own format,lol!) then who, for example, just released a 16/48 track pcm movie The Identity. Bad.
HPforMe is offline  
post #350 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 05:44 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

1) Lossless audio sounds clearly better than DD 640K. The fact that you would even debate this implies that you have never listened to them together.

The fact that you would say that shows that you aren't following the conversation. I never said DD 640k didn't sound better than lossless. From everything I know lossless (including PCM) is inherently better than DD 640k and 24/48 lossless is better than 16/48 lossless. HPforMe keeps saying that I need to prove here that 24/48 lossless is better than 16/48 lossless (even though he won't answer what kind of proof he wants) and I have pointed out that the same kind of game could be played with lossless and DD 640k. Somebody listening to it and claiming to hear a difference isn't proof, partially as evidenced by HPforMe not including the results from Filmmixer comparing 16/48 to 24/48.

Can you prove that lossless is better than DD 640k here on this forum in writing? "Its obvious" and "I (or so-and-so) can hear a difference" aren't proof. If they were I could just use them as my proof here, but HPforMe wouldn't accept that as proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

3) I don't even know why you are getting so worked up about this anyway, since most of the lossless tracks on Bluray are ALSO 16/48. Certainly Warner is not alone here.

Of the 3 majors Fox is doing 24/48 (DTS HD MA), Disney is doing 24/48 on some things, and paidgeek from Sony has said that they are going to try 20/48 TrueHD. I can understand them making tradeoffs and doing what they can with the different encodes, just like I can understand people at Warner making decisions that are best for Warner. But it seems like you want to avoid the real question, which is whether after complaints that they shouldn't hold back format A for format B, does it work in reverse? That is, should they hold back format B for format A? Things like saying that CD sound is fine for you and that is your answer to my question just look like attempts to keep from addressing that issue, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

Just thought a little common sense would help out here...

It would have been nice if you had provided some and understanding the conversation would have likely helped.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #351 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 05:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

While I can clearly, contrary to your understanding of this argument, and anyone else I would suggest could, discern a clear difference between 640/lossless tracks, the same claim cannot be made, and clearly he can't without a direct comparison of a 16/48 24/48 POTO track.

Can you prove here in writing that lossless is better than DD 640k? Saying that you can hear a difference isn't proof. I'm wondering if this concept of demanding proof in writing here for something like this if you can't even provide proof for a larger difference, is going over your head, or whether you are playing around. Do you understand that concept? If so, can you provide proof here (not off the forum)? If not, are you just playing a game by asking for proof of the other here on the forum?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #352 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 06:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

That's true. Darinp2 should be upset by Sony (I guess they're shortchanging their own format,lol!) then who, for example, just released a 16/48 track pcm movie The Identity. Bad.

If the thing really has 3 PCM tracks, (French, German, and English) as highdefdigest says, then I can understand that. I understand that only the PS3 can play TrueHD right now and PCM allows others to use it.. So, I understand why they didn't use TrueHD, which probably would have allowed them to go to at least 20/48 (a good choice IMO, especially when the extra bits will go to something else). Using 16/48 with 3 PCM tracks doesn't look like a case of just leaving bits in the bandwidth and space unused when they could have been used for higher bit depth, which is what was being discussed here. If they were just leaving bandwidth and space unused then I would like to see them go higher than 16/48 and from what paidgeek has said, I expect this to be something they keep in mind. I am curious about whether Sony plans to continue including more than one lossless (through PCM or otherwise) track.

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #353 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Can you prove here in writing that lossless is better than DD 640k? Saying that you can hear a difference isn't proof. I'm wondering if this concept of demanding proof in writing here for something like this if you can't even provide proof for a larger difference, is going over your head, or whether you are playing around. Do you understand that concept? If so, can you provide proof here (not off the forum)? If not, are you just playing a game by asking for proof of the other here on the forum?

--Darin

What does that give YOU though? True, it isn't proof. On the other hand, very few if anyone will debate that low bitrate lossy tracks such as 640 kbps, give you better sound than lossless or high bit rate lossy tracks. That's because there is less compression or lossless compression and less sound artifacts. Of course when you have lossless tracks the sound is in fact and not only theoretically, bit for bit identical to the master - therefore you expect and subjectively perceive the difference.

On the other hand, when you suggest a high bitrate lossless 16/48 track is shortchanging blu ray you have to start experiencing the difference between that same track compared to the 24/48 lossless or pcm master. Remember, the example we're using is a track originally recorded in 24/48 and dithered down to 16/48 where the sample rate is exactly the same as the master. The only change is the bit depth. It isn't an obvious difference as saying you're comparing an 8 bit and lower sampling track (say 22kHz) lossy track with the same track recorded at 16/48 and delivered lossless. There is a point in the sampling where you've already satisfied the Nyquist Theory two-fold and more (44.1-48) kHz) (since the highest frequency generated which we can purportedly hear is 22kHz). Bit depth is already high at 16 bit where the extra bits are now going further down (low level). It's been suggested that you'd be lucky if most converters were actually providing 20 bits of useable information.

So unless we start experiencing more commonly 16/48 lossless/pcm tracks and can compare them to their original 24/48 (such as two of the formats have different sampled tracks) it is pure speculation to claim that the dithered tracks are in some fashion short changing anyone. If I get a chance to hear such tracks more commonly, as I've heard lossy/lossless tracks many times now, then I and you could make more concrete statements.

And again, as was pointed out, 16/48 tracks are being used as I stated in the latest Sony release. If they had a qualitative concern for the tracks (I don't know how in the world they would with a 16/48 pcm track) I'm sure they wouldn't be providing them.
HPforMe is offline  
post #354 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 07:00 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
darinp2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 21,165
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

What does that give YOU though? True, it isn't proof. On the other hand, very few if anyone will debate that low bitrate lossy tracks such as 640 kbps, give you better sound than lossless or high bit rate lossy tracks.

I know few people would debate it, yet you can't prove it here and are asking me to prove that 24/48 is better than 16/48. If you truely understand this, then that would be hypocrisy IMO and you should see that. Is that getting through at all? I am pointing out that you are asking me to prove something that you know I can't prove in writing here, while you couldn't prove a similar thing in writing here, but with an even bigger gap. The fact that the majority of people would agree, but yet you can't prove it is part of the point about you just repeating over and over that I have to provide proof, while refusing to even say what proof you would accept.

You obviously won't accept that Filmmixer (who is in the business of providing tracks for us) has done testing and says that there is an audible difference between 24/48 and 16/48, so trying to use that you or somebody else heard a difference as your evidence is a little bit hypocritical, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

Of course when you have lossless tracks the sound is in fact and not only theoretically, bit for bit identical to the master - therefore you expect and subjectively perceive the difference.

That logic applies to 24/48 versions that are bit for bit identical to the original master, versus a 16/48 version that is not bit for bit identical to the original master (only to a new master with less bits).
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

On the other hand, when you suggest a high bitrate lossless 16/48 track is shortchanging blu ray you have to start experiencing the difference between that same track compared to the 24/48 lossless or pcm master. Remember, the example we're using is a track originally recorded in 24/48 and dithered down to 16/48 where the sample rate is exactly the same as the master. The only change is the bit depth.

And Filmmixer explained in a post I already gave you a link to that the bit depth is the more important one of the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

It's been suggested that you'd be lucky if most converters were actually providing 20 bits of useable information.

And how long ago did I point out that it was the 16/48 vs 20/48 that was the main difference here and what Filmmixer reported on hearing a difference between? I didn't say it was a huge difference between 16/48 and 24/48. I said that I have talked to and read from people who are very knowledgeable on this subject and they say there is a difference. There wouldn't have to be a single audible difference in the bottom 4 bits for 16/48 and 24/48 to differ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HPforMe View Post

And again, as was pointed out, 16/48 tracks are being used as I stated in the latest Sony release. If they had a qualitative concern for the tracks (I don't know how in the world they would with a 16/48 pcm track) I'm sure they wouldn't be providing them.

And as I pointed out, paidgeek has addressed that they would like to go higher. And that in this case it looks like they put 3 PCM tracks on there, so it is understandable why they would need to limit them.

To recap, I was trying to ask rdjam whether he applied the same rule to both sides as far as whether format b should be held back for format a, after complaining about format a being held back for format b. Then you jumped in with the "prove it" thing over and over while refusing to even say what you would accept as proof or be able to show that you could provide proof here for something that should be much easier to prove (since the difference is bigger). Here was the original:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdjam View Post

BTW - Warner have done the right thing, here. They should no more hold back their HD DVD version because of BDJ than they should hold back their SD DVD version either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darinp2 View Post

Do you believe that Warner should hold back 24/48 lossless from Blu-ray because of issues on HD DVD with fitting that in either their bandwidth or space? In short, should they limit the quality of the Blu-ray for HD DVD, or should they make the Blu-ray version the best it can be within Blu-ray's limitations (not HD DVD's)?

I'm still not sure if the concept that you keep demanding proof on this forum for something that would need to be proven off this forum (since it is about sound) is sinking in. Seriously, if you can't prove something that should be so much easier to prove right here, because of the limitations of writing on a forum, why do you keep demanding proof from me on the forum? Is it a game?

--Darin

This is the AV Science Forum. Please don't be gullible and please do remember the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
darinp2 is offline  
post #355 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 07:33 PM
Member
 
BGOOD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Gee, can we start a new thread on when The Matrix might arrive on BD?

Bill
BGOOD is offline  
post #356 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 07:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HPforMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:


I know few people would debate it, yet you can't prove it here and are asking me to prove that 24/48 is better than 16/48. If you truely understand this, then that would be hypocrisy IMO and you should see that. Is that getting through at all? I am pointing out that you are asking me to prove something that you know I can't prove in writing here, while you couldn't prove a similar thing in writing here, but with an even bigger gap. The fact that the majority of people would agree, but yet you can't prove it is part of the point about you just repeating over and over that I have to provide proof, while refusing to even say what proof you would accept

No one is trying to prove anything. You're suggesting something in which no one on the new formats has had any chance to experience. By simply asserting a bit difference (at the very lowest levels) you purport to assert a negative comment against Warner and any other studio, including Sony which release 16/48 lossless tracks. The fact you would even have the temerity to suggest we are actually being shortchanged in being given lossless audio is beyond comprehension in and of itself, let alone suggesting a difference without the format users having any qualitative ability to make judgments.
HPforMe is offline  
post #357 of 358 Old 03-30-2007, 10:28 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
alfbinet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Brooklyn (Cleveland), Ohio
Posts: 3,068
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGOOD View Post

Gee, can we start a new thread on when The Matrix might arrive on BD?

Bill

Fall 2007 or December 2007? You never know. Both sides always have a surprise. It seems that HD DVD is not Ded yet (for a poster on high def digest.) It is going to be an interesting summer, even according to Bill H.)

Chad Billheimer rocks as a ISF Calibrator for Ohio.
Roller Coaster season is upon us. Proud member of American Coaster Enthusiasts (ACE) Woodies Rule!
alfbinet is online now  
post #358 of 358 Old 06-09-2008, 06:41 AM
Newbie
 
bg_nyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGOOD View Post

Gee, can we start a new thread on when The Matrix might arrive on BD?

Bill

I know... came here to get some info about Matrix release date for BD and all I see is this. Oh well... New thread anyone?
bg_nyc 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