The New Master List of BASS in Movies with Frequency Charts - Page 58

I agree. I recently picked up the BD steel book of the trilogy. The AQ is outstanding and offers a great sub workout. JP III really pumps.

I guess I was confusing labs with the studios and authoring houses. When I was a PA back in the day, we out sourced labs to process our video masters. That was thirty years ago, so I'm a little out of it.





I believe there maybe a noticeable difference when comparing DVD lossy to Blu-Ray lossless. but since the data reduction schemes are lower on lossy Blu-Ray tracks due to the increase in bandwidth, the differences are more subtle. DTS claims that it's core data rate is twice that on Blu-Ray then on other video formats.


http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...PCM?page=0%2C0


http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats...ter_Audio.aspx


As always, thanks for your input.


Ian

You're welcome. I've been very lucky to make a living in my "hobby."

DVD could contain the same 1509kbps DTS core that BR can.

And the bandwidth of BR didn't change the efficiency of the codecs.... DTS core is the same as it was since its introduction.

You misread the statement, which was comparing to other codecs, I.e. Dolby.

"Your older receiver will play back DTS-HD material with DTS surround audio at twice the data rate of other DVD video surround formats."

What has changed is the introduction of DTS-HD HR, which is a new lossy codec which goes up to 6.0 mbps.

If the bandwidth of BR doesn't change the efficiency of the codecs, how do they achieve the higher new codec's data rate? And why isn't it available on DVD? Also, Dolby's data rate is higher on BR then it is on DVD.




Ian

When you have more bandwidth, you need less data reduction to transfer the data. For a while, at least, Disney issued its BDs with uncompressed PCM multichannel. You can't do that or lossless compression on DVD because DVD lacks the bandwidth to hold all that data. Why DVDs did not use the highest bitrates available with the lossy systems is not clear to me, but apparently they don't, most of the time.

That's my point. Here are Dolby's specs for DVD and Blu-Ray:

http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/...-digital.html#


Ian

Caps or not, I've watched a few BD's over the years that were in DD rather than one of the lossless codecs and I never suspected anything was wrong until I accidentally discovered I wasn't using the TrueHD or DTS-MA track. Avatar a few months ago was the most recent. Probably didn't notice it because of the incredibly original script, top notch acting, and mind blowing direction.

Lossless is overrated and I'd love to see properly done double-blind testing done on it.

So can I assume your are not convinced by the results in Home Entertainment that I posted recently?


Ian

No idea what you're talking about, but I'm going to assume the answer is no. Just based on my own findings so far with the subject matter at hand. But, then again, advertising doesn't work on me either. Maybe I'm just an outllaw.

I do notice significant bass level difference in Saving Private Ryan although without checking them in speclab.
Compared them back to back using the end battle scene when the heroes are expecting an approaching tank in the crater,
the shaking bass level on DVD(R1, DD only) has bumped more than BD.

On the other hand WotW seems to be consistent in bass level between DVD and BD.

Yes. I concur! Both present with equal fervor.

Well now your changing what you said,
which was specifically on reference to DTS cored, not DTS-HD or TrueHD.

Go back and read what you said again.

Dolby was limited by the data frame size in DVD which changed with BR, hence the official adoption of 640DD. Except for very early exceptions, DD decodes have handled 640 with no problems (and a handful of DVD's which flaunted the spec did indeed contain a 640 track.)

In the end however, it has nothing to do with the original assertion that higher bandwidth increased the coding efficiency of the lossy offerings. The 2 are mutually exclusive.

It changed the maximum data rate available to the codecs, not the efficiency.

It actually a little more convoluted than that, because you have to separate the goal of the codec at some point. Lossy and lossless aren't trying to achieve the same thing.

Since lossy is constant bit rate and lossless is variable, coding efficiency Ganges its meaning depending of what you are trying to discuss.

Lossless requires a variable amount of data to achieve its goal. But once again bandwidth doesn't determine the efficiency of the codec, only the maximum data rate which the codec can use (which in the end sets the limit in what the codec can reliably encode and decide without loss of data. )

Its still the same amount of data reduction to achieve the same output.

Said another way, the availability of bandwidth doesn't hange how the encoders work (I.e. efficiency,) only what the maximum operating parameters of said codec can be.

And technically there was no reason DVD couldn't do 6 channels of 24 bit 48k PCM (6.9mbps)... Or even lossless (DVD-A used MLP, which is the foundation of Dolby TrueHD.) (it obviously wasn't in the DVD-V spec of course, but it has enough bandwidth to do it. )

Practically, however, you are correct that DVD has a bandwidth of ~ 10mbps. It wouldn't leave much room for video.

In the beginning, there were plenty of DVD's made with 1509 full bandwidth DTS lossy. IIRC, Saving Private Ryan was the first to use the half rate 768kbps.

Once again, however, the extra 768 was seen by most as being more beneficial allocated to video.

As to why DD was limited to 448, see my above post.

Unless I am reading the article wrong, the magazine link you posted seems to support Stephens feelings about the subtle difference between lossy and lossless. Maybe not as blunt a critique as sb1's, but.....

"We switched back and forth between the original PCM master and the core DTS version, and here we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference."

Actually I was alluding to your comments on bandwidth which I believed to be paramount when it comes to higher bit rates. Your recent posts clarifying codec efficiency verses higher data rates made me realize that we were talking about two different things. You have to admit, my posts have been keeping you busy.



Ian

Star Trek 2009 - Opening scene...

War of the Worlds - 3 scenes in one chart

Scene 1 - Trucks passing...
Scene 2 - Lightning strikes...
Scene 3 - Rise of the machine...

Damn rum. But that doesn't change my opinion. I could have been a little classier, though.

To stay on topic, I'm not sure what it is about Sunshine (there's movies with more impressive graphs), but it just hits the right chords with my system. More of an experience than a viewing.

I"ve noticed this with DVD's. Any reason why DVD versions are louder than BD?

Twister is overall louder on DVD compared to bluray. The bluray is lower but sounds more........cleaner and controlled.

War of the Worlds - DVD version - DTS soundtrack - 4 scenes in one chart

Scene 1 - Trucks passing...
Scene 2 - Lightning strikes...
Scene 3 - Rise of the machine...
Scene 4 - Machine vaporize crowd...

Saw the Immortals. Could have potential if the don't "mess" up the sound track.

That's good news...I feel that way about cowboys and aliens...hopefully favreau will stick to the same techniques as the first iron man.

Oh Serenity on BR is stout! The intro scene where the universal earth logo fades into the movie is pretty cool too!

Watched long ago but forgot.......

You mean boomy bass and not much surround use?

I thought they did a much much better job on iron man 2. Hate the way iron man 1 sounds

I'm a fan of the Jericho and the sonic booms when he takes off. I don't have the movie...both scenes are on the blu ray demo disk that the member was passing out.

The opening ambush and the sequence when he takes off to the Middle East are the best sounding parts. The rest... meh. Jericho part was cool too but short.

IM (1 and 2) are not terribly challenging for the better subs out there, but I have read of people discovering the limits of their subs with those movies. In IM1 the part where the prototype walks out of the cave caused numerous subs distress.

The Jericho missle explosions are pretty demanding too.

Causing my ears distress. Boomy boom boom.

WotW, Incredible Hulk, Battle:LA, Cloverfield, How to Train Your Dragon... now those are demanding.