NetFlix BD's Without DTS-HD Master Audio / DD 5.1 Instead - Page 21

The sound quality can be better even when it's Dolby Digital since the max Dolby Digital bitrate for a BD is higher than the max Dolby Digital bitrate for a DVD. So they are still delivering better sound quality along with the better video quality.

True, I drew the same conclusions in an article I wrote for Helium some time ago about BD players with multi channel analog outputs and how they may not be worth considering for lossless audio, due to bass management issues. But I do believe that on some sound tracks there is a noticeable difference in terms of depth and clarity between standard DD and lossless, even with the slightly higher bit rate of BD's. I have also found that the difference between Dolby Digital Plus and True HD is much more subtle, at least to me. Regardless, my point was that Lionsgate's policy will probably have little impact on their retail sales of BD's.


Ian
Edited by mailiang - 12/5/12 at 9:17pm

Based on what I've read from Roger Dressler, the difference between DD @448 vs @640kbps is greater than the difference between DD @640kbps and Dolby TrueHD (lossless.)

In reference to what? His ears or his Dolby stats? David Birch-Jones and Home Entertainment editor-in-chief, Geoff Morrison, visited both Dolby Laboratories and DTS' headquarters to compare all the different formats. If I recall correctly, they found the biggest differences in their listening tests between the standard bare bones variety and the lossless tracks, which makes sense due to greater differences in the data compression rates. Even so, they were more subtle then they ever expected and therefore very subjective.. I believe Dolby Digital Plus maxes out at about 1.5mps, significantly higher then DD Blu-Ray.



Ian.
Edited by mailiang - 12/5/12 at 10:10pm

Except throwing more bitrate at Dolby Plus is a waste. DD+ was designed for ultra-low bitrates (lower than normal DD) and overcoming the 5.1 channel limitation. The 1.5Mbps on HD DVDs were only for marketing purposes: there was no additional audible information added once the bitrate passed 640kbps. That's why Warner didn't bother with it.

When comparing DD plus streaming to standard DD satellite, (same programing) I've found plus to be more detailed in terms of imaging and more lossless like. I have never been able to compare it directly to DD Blue-Ray or DTS MA. I can only go by Jone's and Morrison's listening tests.



Ian

It's not an apples to apples comparison since the bitrates are often different and companies add things like dynamic compression and other processing to their signals.

Then I guess Netflix is doing a better job with it then DTV. And it cost less! Still you can't convince me that there isn't a difference between lossy DD and DTS MA, on many of today's Blu-Ray audio tracks.


Ian
Edited by mailiang - 12/5/12 at 10:47pm

The DD+ on The Expendables2 that I rented from NF was really, really good, IMO. Yes, I'm ticked about them degrading it from lossless, but I was honestly surprised at how good it sounded. I will say that now days when I watch a DVD with plain DD, it does seem like there is just something missing to the quality of the sound.

I just rented Expendables2 from NF, and was very disappointed with DD track compared to other action movies with DTS MA.  I'm no audiophile, in fact I listen to no music on my system, only movies and hdtv.  I do have 6 tower speakers for fronts/surrounds/surrond backs, and have recently put in a 11.2 system with DTS NeoX denon avr.  To my ears the DD track sounded like typical HDTV, with more deep bass, but the clarity and detail of sound was sorely missing.  I had no idea the rental outfits were getting lossy discs.  I just noticed that the new Spiderman on NF for it's BR states the soundtrack is DD 5.1, I thought only Lionsgate was doing this and isn't this a Sony studio release? or are they doing it also?

I also noticed my copy of Expendables 2 from NF was DD, but at 640Kbps. I thought the sound was pretty good, didn't notice any problems with clarity.

For anyone interested, I just rented the new Spiderman BR from Redbox, and although the NF site states the BR only has DD 5.1, the Redbox has the DTS MA.  Maybe the NF does also but just entered incorrectly. 

I probably used the wrong desriptors regarding clarity. Perhaps sonic detail that I notice on lossless tracks vs the typical DD is what I perceived that was less present.  Of course the only true way of determining this is to listen to the same soundtrack in DD and DTS MA.  I really enjoyed the movie since I like all the actors and over the top these fantasy action movies offer.  But before anyone flames for me using the word actor referring to Stallone, Jet Li, et.al, please understand, I like Kung Fu theater too

Some good news!

I just watched my copy of Arbitrage from NF, and it's a Lionsgate release, but it did have the DTS-HD 5.1 audio on it!

Maybe Lionsgate has stopped with the exclusion of HD audio from their rentals? Or maybe this was such a weak title they figured it wasn't worth messing with? Either way, I was very happy to see this, and HEAR it. .

Ditto. Maybe they just ran out of rental discs. Only time will tell.



Ian

I suspect it was the latter...

They seem to be taking aim at what they feel are high demand titles so far.

This. Arbitrage didn't even pull in $8 million domestically. It was a flop and it's not worth their time to press separate discs for a title that so few will ever see.

Clearly Arbitrage is no Hunger Games or Expendables 2.

Although it wasn't any block buster, Gere's performance in this film was nominated for a Golden Globe award. You can't compare Arbitrage to the Expendables, (all action and little acting) which is a totally different genre and like Hunger Games caters to a much wider audience.



Interesting point.


Ian
Edited by mailiang - 1/5/13 at 2:52pm

Clearly I was referring to the box office take/potential for profitable sales of the films, not the quality.

Expendables 2 and The Hunger Games are big money releases for Lionsgate, Arbitrage is not. It's all about money, just like the decision to leave lossless audio off of select rental versions was all about money. It's just that simple. Suggesting that it's something along the lines of Lionsgate "running out of rental discs" is simply laughable.

Note that this has nothing to do with the quality or relative worth of any of the three films mentioned - it's simple economics and common sense.
Now that may have something to do with it. I still think it's more a matter of it not being worth the expense of a second pressing for a title with so little demand.
Edited by Steeb - 1/5/13 at 3:11pm

Its to stop ex rental sales, plain and very simple

Edited by mailiang - 1/5/13 at 4:50pm

Somehow I don't think the people lining up to buy the scratched up and abused ex-rentals really care if they are missing the full HD soundtrack. I still don't see how this is going to do ANYTHING measurable except annoy people like us.

It wasn't misread, you just apparently don't know what the word "flop" means. The movie was a commercial failure. Acknowledging that says nothing of the quality of the movie, just that it didn't make very much money.
Your entire response to me in post# 622 was based on your lack of understanding of my post, plain and simple. You engaged me in this conversation, not the other way around, remember? I couldn't care less if you put me on ignore, so you can stop with the "threats" any time.

"Hate to burst your bubble" indeed...

Commercial failure, flop, whatever, it was a decent movie and it received a nomination and a few awards. My intent was not to argue semantics with you.




Adding you to my ignore list was never a threat. It's a relief from reading confrontational posts like yours that will never impress me or anyone else. When you want to share a difference of opinion, or clarify a point, constructive criticism will have a lot more more impact then snide remarks like laughable. I'm happy to block your comments and you can do the same. Enough said.


Ian
Edited by mailiang - 1/5/13 at 11:29pm