Audio quality taking a beating from "cable cut" consumers and streaming companies - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
  • 1 Post By coralseastudios
  • 1 Post By sworth
Thread Tools
post #1 of 4 Old 06-10-2017, 10:15 AM - Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 1
Audio quality taking a beating from "cable cut" consumers and streaming companies

High Quality Audio is under siege.

As the options for entertainment explode around us, audio is once again sucking hind tit.

I attach a link to a report from the "Streaming Media East" conference in New York last month. The conference seemed focused on the issues of complaint by consumers who have (mistakenly in my view) decided to "cut the cord" to their cable TV provider, replacing this programming with streaming apps on some other device (Apple TV, Amazon Fire, etc).

And the issues that seemed to garner the most attention are "picture" related. Programs too slow to start streaming. Sports programming that lags "live" by 30 seconds or more. Lack of 60 frame support. All of these ON TOP of the usual complaints of glitches, buffering stalls, etc.

For those (like me) who really subscribe to the George Lucas statement that “sound and music are 50% of the experience”, this is just a continuation of the devaluing of the audio experience by those that are selling our work to the public.

And while the story shared here took the optimistic view that "streaming TV has the potential to surpass cable TV in quality". What a load of crap they’re selling! Cable TV has yet to surpass broadcast TV signals, and that’s with the incredibly flawed ATSC 2 system we currently use. (Picture discussion for another time. . although I haven’t seen a “smooth camera pan” in years due to all the data compression and missing frames).


Hulu said “surround sound is on our radar”, and Fox admitted “Dolby is at the bottom of our wish list”, blaming the lack of support on viewers who aren’t “asking for it”. This last statement is probably true, although irrelevant. Virtually all of this programming, whether created for the cinema or commercial television, was created with surround sound when produced. What gives these companies the right to streamcast these programs with inadequate audio?

As someone who has participated for decades in Standards-writing organizations, including over 25 years at the SMPTE, I’ve witnessed the process change from quality-driven to “what’s best for the tech companies”. A case in point is Dolby. During the writing of the Digital Cinema Standards, Dolby repeatedly pushed Dolby Digital for the new Standard, despite it being extremely bandwidth limited with known serious artifacts and generally poor audio quality. They pushed it with the argument that it “saved more data for picture quality”. As most known, the Digital Cinema Standard as approved carries full-bandwidth, AES audio channels without any data compression or reduction.

This meant that when Hollywood fully switched over to Digital Cinema, there would be no need for Dolby, or the Dolby Logo, on anything coming out of Hollywood. It was little surprise when Dolby (by purchasing a French company) suddenly showed up with a new “Dolby Atmos” logo that could be jammed into the movie credits. Never mind that Atmos is the worst of the immersive sound formats (much as Dolby Digital was the worst of the cinema formats). And with Dolby providing upwards of $1M in funding to SMPTE and filling the voting groups with Dolby personnel, their work is complete. 

It’s about the logos, not the technology.

In fact, some of the streaming channels have the ability to “trigger” the surround decoding in your home theater system even though they’re not actually sending the data thru.

Is this just a continuation of the denigration of audio quality at the altar of convenience? That’s what the iPod was all about - and engineers at the AES struggle to regain the “quality” argument in any meaningful way. Most home TV viewers struggle to understand even the dialog from thinner-than-thin TV panels that have the world’s worst speakers firing of the back of the set.

It’s chaos. It’s time audio engineers get involved in pushing back. Clearly the audio companies that SHOULD be taking a leadership position have no interest in doing so. The product being streamed on Hulu, Netflix, or a major network like Fox or NBC already have the "surround sound" logo on them. Actually DELIVERING this quality experience is of no consequence to them. Once the "logo" is on a product, their work is done. Actually getting the product used is just as irrelevant as providing a quality audio experience to the consumer.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	TechHive Audio.png
Views:	28
Size:	102.4 KB
ID:	2182297  
JA Fant likes this.
coralseastudios is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 4 Old 06-11-2017, 06:48 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
JA Fant's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Prattville AL
Posts: 2,755
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 558 Post(s)
Liked: 1385
I concur as above
JA Fant is offline  
post #3 of 4 Old 06-11-2017, 11:00 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
sworth's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hollywood, U.S.A.
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 644 Post(s)
Liked: 443
I'm not sure you've actually seen or heard streaming video lately. If you have a good connection to the server, video and audio quality are close enough to the master quality to not be noticeable by human eyes and ears. Compression in video can occasionally cause artifacting, but not in dropped frames- it manifests itself as banding during fade ins and fade outs. That affects maybe .1% of the frames in the average feature film and it's so fast most people don't notice it unless they still frame. Audio artifacting with the AAC codec is almost unheard of. Even at 192, AAC is audibly transparent in 99.9% of the cases, and above that, it's completely transparent.

Bigger file sizes doesn't mean better quality. Quality depends on the recording, mixing and mastering of the music a lot more than it does the format or file size. Hot mastering is a problem in pop music, but that is a mastering choice. It isn't a problem caused by codec compression. You could hot master a 26/96 track and it would sound just as bad. The one big thing that actually could improve sound quality would be multichannel sound, and that is pretty much only been accepted by consumers for home theater use, not music listening. That isn't the recording industry's fault. It's how people listen to music in their homes that determines what people will buy.
thehun likes this.

Last edited by sworth; 06-11-2017 at 11:06 AM.
sworth is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #4 of 4 Old 06-12-2017, 02:26 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
thehun's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Leftardia Kommiefornia
Posts: 9,761
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1158 Post(s)
Liked: 1173
^^^^ this.
Having said that this is the wrong forum to bitch about streaming video or audio.

De sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, Domine!

Attention, don't read my posts if you're a snowflake or easily offended.

The Hun
thehun is offline  
Sponsored Links
Reply Surround Music Formats

atmos , audio , dolby , streaming , surround

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