[bjmiller48]

Sorry for the outrageous title, but I wanted to attract attention. All over the Forum people in many threads are having audio problems derrived from the HDMI output. And going to great lenghts and expense to process the high quality audio only found on the HDMI output. Well...it just isn't necessary! The July/August "Home Entertainment" magazine describes some very carefully performed tests at the DD research lab and then the DTS sound studios. They utilized special listening environments and very revealing equipment. A computer generated in a double blind manner, movie audio tracks of different qualities for the informed listeners to audition. In the Dolby studio, there was no difference detectable by almost every listener, when the original movie tract, the lossless version on BDs, the moderately compressed version (DD Plus), and finally the core DD5.1 on the BD that outputs through optical out! Astonished I was. The same thing happened at DTS. The magazine staff could not find any significant audible difference among the tracks, in excellent conditions created to show these differences. What does this mean? It means that our ears may not be capable of resolving the differences in these codecs, and there may be money to be saved by sending video to the projector, and optical audio to the amplifiyer/receiver for decoding to EX, neo DTS DD Pl11x or other great processors.

We have been set free from the monster that HDMI created. A faulty technology to begin with, we became slaves to its powers because we coun't get the "good sound' with out it!

Please read the above sited report as the methodology and participants were first class. (the editor of "Home Entertainment" magazine has posted this link to the article: http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM . He has also added more enlightening information in this thread. You comments are most welcome, Barry.

P. S. Title should read: "Dolby True HD", and DTS HD Master Audio are a hoax. I couldn't edit the title.

 

[peeweep69]

I read that article also, it was interesting, didn't know what to make of it. They weren't even using fancy equiptment either. The new formats sound pretty good to me, maybe, my listening environment and speakers are crap, who knows. I'm using analogs out.


I would say "Go Spartans", but you might not have gone to SJSU, LOL.

 

[boblinds]

Sorry but they're full of crap. I've also done blind tests in a professional studio environment, comparing DD and DTS compressed tracks with the original uncompressed stems from a film soundtrack and it was EASY to tell the difference. We could also consistently tell the difference between the DTS and Dolby compressed tracks.


If the HT magazine staff couldn't hear a difference, they need to get a new staff.

 

[bjmiller48]



Quote:
Originally Posted by boblinds /forum/post/14182553


Sorry but they're full of crap. I've also done blind tests in a professional studio environment, comparing DD and DTS compressed tracks with the original uncompressed stems from a film soundtrack and it was EASY to tell the difference. We could also consistently tell the difference between the DTS and Dolby compressed tracks.


If the HT magazine staff couldn't hear a difference, they need to get a new staff.

That is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I would expect from someone who has a very narrow view of A-V scientific progress to date, or from one who has already invested money in equipment that decodes lossless audio tracks.

So, a national magazine does tests in the nationally renowned Dolby and DTS research labs, under strick conditiions, and a wonderful, clear methodology, but you want us to believe "theyre full iof crap" because you have unsupported and very doubtful claims to have done the same thing? You embarrass your self unnecessarily. This data is very important and serious and must be added into the information we have to date. There is no room for the 'full iof crap" approach to scientific data.

I have always believed the 7.1 system in my dedicated movie room which is based on optical output of 640 kbs DD or DTS sounded better than the movie theater. And now there is some data to give us all pause, to reflect and rethink all that the manufactureres have asked us to believe. I hope we will hear from other open minded people.

 

[Gary Murrell]

I am shocked that this would even be mentioned, the advanced formats are better, it is not night and day but when it comes to PCM, TrueHD and DTS Master there is a very nice upgrade


what kind of equipment did they use?


the conclusion that you have stated in your title post is absurd IMHO, this is not science and will never be, science cannot prove what opinion says or eyes and ears see or hear, this is foolish and sounds like a plight from someone who doesn't want to invest in advanced sound playback


-Gary

 

[1brokebrother]

GIGO betcha

 

[Mr. Hanky]

Who knows...maybe it is true, but consider the motivations for breaking this valuable news to us. Maybe they are just winding up the inevitable marketing campaign for the digital download era (where lossy audio will be the order of the day)?

 

[Majestyk]

When I first heard TrueHD it sounded like I got new speakers; and this is coming from someone who can't tell the difference between regular DD and DTS, except a few titles. I wasn't even expecting much of an improvement.

 

[mommacux]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 /forum/post/14182619


That is the kind of knee-jerk reaction I would expect from someone who has a very narrow view of A-V scientific progress to date, or from one who has already invested money in equipment that decodes lossless audio tracks.

So, a national magazine does tests in the nationally renowned Dolby and DTS research labs, under strick conditiions, and a wonderful, clear methodology, but you want us to believe "theyre full iof crap" because you have unsupported and very doubtful claims to have done the same thing? You embarrass your self unnecessarily. This data is very important and serious and must be added into the information we have to date. There is no room for the 'full iof crap" approach to scientific data.

I have always believed the 7.1 system in my dedicated movie room which is based on optical output of 640 kbs DD or DTS sounded better than the movie theater. And now there is some data to give us all pause, to reflect and rethink all that the manufactureres have asked us to believe. I hope we will hear from other open minded people.

Your the guy that keeps defending that piece of crap AX-100 projector in the display forums are'nt you?I don't know what's worse,you're goofy opinions or your typo's.


Do you have an HDMI AVR to compare for yourself?


It seems to me your the one that is searching for buyer's justifacation as your trumpeting your optical based 7.1 system.


I mean the guy just offered a differring opinion and you jump all over his ****.


To me there is a very substantial and concrete improvement in the new formats...oh well to each his own.




Tom

 

[David Scott]

They sound better to me, and that's all that matters.




It's the same thing with dvd-audio vs dts/ac3, to me there's a big difference.

 

[griz_fan]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 /forum/post/14182316


Sorry for the outrageous title, but I wanted to attract attention. All over the Forum people in many threads are having audio problems derrived from the HDMI output. And going to great lenghts and expense to process the high quality audio only found on the HDMI output. Well...it just isn't necessary! The July/August "Home Entertainment" magazine describes some very carefully performed tests at the DD research lab and then the DTS sound studios. These were anechoic chambers with only the very most expensive (revealing) equipment. A computer generated in a double blind manner, movie audio tracks of different qualities for the informed listeners to audition. In the Dolby studio, there was no difference detectable by almost every listener, when the original movie tract, the lossless version on BDs, the moderately compressed version (DD Plus), and finally the core DD5.1 on the BD that outputs through optical out! Astonished I was. The same thing happened at DTS. The magazine staff could not find any significant audible difference among the tracks, in extraordinary conditions created to show these differences. What does this mean? It means that our ears are not capable of resolving the differences that are available, and there is much money to be saved by sending video to the projector, and optical audio to the amplifiyer/receiver for decoding to EX, neo DTS DD Pl11x or other great processors.

We have been set free from the monster that HDMI created. A faulty technology to begin with, we became slaves to its powers because we coun't get the "good sound' with out it!

Please read the above sited report as the methodology and participants were first class. You comments are most welcome, Barry.

P. S. Title should read: "Dolby True HD", and DTS HD Master Audio are a hoax. I couldn't edit the title.

Lighten up, Barry. Sheesh. There may be some legitimacy to the claim made by the magazine (I don't agree, but still...) Unfortunately, you have no credibility here. It is obvious from the tone of your post that you are on some sort of anti-HDMI Jihad. I would hardly call HDMI a "faulty" technology. I think Firewire would have been a better choice, but HDMI works quite well for me and millions of others. And yes, I do find the sound I get from Blu-Ray to be better. Heck, I just bought a copy of Ratatouille on Blu-Ray, even though I own the SD version, due in large part to the sound quality. According to you, I'm a giant chump who has bought into the HDMI snake oil. I've been blinded by their clever marketing and am now no longer capable of making rational decisions on my own. Thankfully, Barry is here to shine a light for all of us! All hail Barry!!!

 

[thebland]

I'll look for the article.. But I know that DTS / DD would never set up a comparison where the result could possibly be that their 10 year old DD / DTS codec is of similar quality to their new TRUE HD / DTS MA codec

.


Besides, it isn't true. At least not in my theater....


The other thing is most of us do not listen in anechoic chambers.. So, the extrapolation to the Home theater environment is invalid. Moreover, the conclusion that the human hearing is not up to the challenge for the technical improvements of the lossless codecs is also an invalid conclusion. That would require a study of the ear.

Remember, that the results as the OP reports them, are purely subjective to the author(s). No science at all.


It sounds like those that wrote the article are

1. idiots

2. have an agenda

3. Have no idea what they are talking about

4. All of the Above


I pick '4'.

 

[schroedk]

I read the article, and you're being somewhat disingenuous in their conclusions, which shows that you've got an agenda of your own.


Essentially, the writer, in the first paragraph or two, declares that he's not too adept at hearing differences in audio quality, and states that those who are accompanying him are more qualified.


Also, the writer primarily writes from his view (not those accompanying him), but still concludes that, although the differences TO HIM are slight, the newer HD codecs do offer better dynamics and realism than their older, compressed counterparts. He was not claiming that the newer codecs are not better, but instead was expressing surprise at how good the 10-year-old compressed codecs really can be on good equipment.


Nobody is saying that with the newer codecs, we're suddenly hearing things we've never heard before. Just like the video aspect of BD (and HD-DVD), the video differences to some are major improvements, and to others are very subtle. Of course the same will be true with audio, and most likely, to an even greater extent. That does not mean that the audio improvements are not real, and to some of us, they're quite discernible, in just the same way that some people cannot hear the difference between an MP3 at 128kbps vs. a CD on high-quality equipment. The writer of that article concludes that, even though the improvements to him are slight, they're still worthy improvements that if you have the means to achieve, are worth it even in his opinion.

 

[bjmiller48]



Quote:
Originally Posted by schroedk /forum/post/14183312


I read the article, and you're being somewhat disingenuous in their conclusions, which shows that you've got an agenda of your own.


Essentially, the writer, in the first paragraph or two, declares that he's not too adept at hearing differences in audio quality, and states that those who are accompanying him are more qualified.


Also, the writer primarily writes from his view (not those accompanying him), but still concludes that, although the differences TO HIM are slight, the newer HD codecs do offer better dynamics and realism than their older, compressed counterparts. He was not claiming that the newer codecs are not better, but instead was expressing surprise at how good the 10-year-old compressed codecs really can be on good equipment.


Nobody is saying that with the newer codecs, we're suddenly hearing things we've never heard before. Just like the video aspect of BD (and HD-DVD), the video differences to some are major improvements, and to others are very subtle. Of course the same will be true with audio, and most likely, to an even greater extent. That does not mean that the audio improvements are not real, and to some of us, they're quite discernible, in just the same way that some people cannot hear the difference between an MP3 at 128kbps vs. a CD on high-quality equipment. The writer of that article concludes that, even though the improvements to him are slight, they're still worthy improvements that if you have the means to achieve, are worth it even in his opinion.

Wow! Mission accomplished, mostly. I wanted to draw people"s attention to the fact that a popular magazine reported that the majority of listeners in a well performed test could not discern a significant diference in sound quality between the core DD, or DTS, and the other less compressed or uncompressed sound tracks on BDs in a blinded study.

Why on earth would people stoop to personal insults? Surely we are all open minded enough to step back and take the time to read the article before forming an opinion or insulting me. Or do what i did: After reading tha article, I wrote the editor and asked that they expand the information they provided and also give us the results by individual listener.

When reading the article, I hope the readers will separate the results of the test given in the body of the report from the commonly held views given at the end.

To those of you who felt the information useful, and did not feel the need to insult me or my equipment, thanks!

 

[wnorris]

The fact has been around for years, and proven by Dolby and DTS in separate double blind tests. A 1.5 Mbs DTS soundtrack (DTS Core for a DTS HD track), had been proven in at least five separate double blind tests, with audio experts as the test subjects, to be transparent to the master source. It isn't lossless, but it is transparent, meaning the listeners could not tell a difference.


Dolby has only done one test that I know of, and they didn't release the full details of the test, like DTS has done with theirs, which makes me a little more skeptical of their claims. But they claim that DD5.1 at 448 kbs is also transparent to the master. Like I said, I am skeptical of that, but would believe that DD+ at 1.5 Mbs would likely be transparent, the same as DTS at 1.5 Mbs.


It's further estimated that less than 1% of individuals on the planet at any given time have the ability to distinguish between the lossless and transparent tracks in a double blind test. Even fewer if you consider they need top end equipment to reproduce the tracks exactly.


All this was known before lossless tracks were even a glimmer in some engineers eye, but you have to admit, it is a good way to sell something and charge more for it, which is exactly the goal of marketing driven engineering...


I would also like to throw in that the majority of DTS tracks on DVD are 768 kbs, so you do hear an improvement between DTS on DVD and DTS on BD. I am also going on my personal feeling that Dolby's claims of transparency at 448 kbs are bogus, and that you will also hear an improvement in quality between DD5.1 and DD+ or better.

 

[Steve Carr]

I never felt the WOW Factor from the NEW CODECS I've been in many HT Audio stores getting some demos but still no WOW Factor.. But thats cool I was fine with standard DD and DTS. Back in 1997 when DVD hit the streets that was a WOW Factor and having your rear speakers in stereo. Then came DD-EX and DTS-ES (Matrix and Discrete) another WOW Factor by adding the back surrounds. I don't want to leave out Laserdisc because I feel they were the PIONEERS of it all and yes I still have alot of these crazy 12in disc's (AC-3) or DD if you like to call it was a major WOW compared to VHS Tapes.


Seeing and Hearing is believing in the HT Game. CIH with a Lens is the newest WOW Factor that I got into (no more black bars). A major WOW Factor for me is when I added a pair of Buttkickers to my system. If you want to "FEEL" your HT in Action its a "must have" no joke they get down for all you LFE lovers out there..


Steve

 

[schroedk]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 /forum/post/14183375


Wow! Mission accomplished, mostly. I wanted to draw people"s attention to the fact that a popular magazine reported that the majority of listeners in a well performed test could not discern a significant diference in sound quality between the core DD, or DTS, and the other less compressed or uncompressed sound tracks on BDs in a blinded study.

Why on earth would people stoop to personal insults? Surely we are all open minded enough to step back and take the time to read the article before forming an opinion or insulting me. Or do what i did: After reading tha article, I wrote the editor and asked that they expand the information they provided and also give us the results by individual listener.

When reading the article, I hope the readers will separate the results of the test given in the body of the report from the commonly held views given at the end.

To those of you who felt the information useful, and did not feel the need to insult me or my equipment, thanks!

Please explain to me how I stooped to personal insults, or in any way how I insulted you or your equipment.

 

[bjmiller48]



Quote:
Originally Posted by wnorris /forum/post/14183413


The fact has been around for years, and proven by Dolby and DTS in separate double blind tests. A 1.5 Mbs DTS soundtrack (DTS Core for a DTS HD track), had been proven in at least five separate double blind tests, with audio experts as the test subjects, to be transparent to the master source. It isn't lossless, but it is transparent, meaning the listeners could not tell a difference.


Dolby has only done one test that I know of, and they didn't release the full details of the test, like DTS has done with theirs, which makes me a little more skeptical of their claims. But they claim that DD5.1 at 448 kbs is also transparent to the master. Like I said, I am skeptical of that, but would believe that DD+ at 1.5 Mbs would likely be transparent, the same as DTS at 1.5 Mbs.


It's further estimated that less than 1% of individuals on the planet at any given time have the ability to distinguish between the lossless and transparent tracks in a double blind test. Even fewer if you consider they need top end equipment to reproduce the tracks exactly.


All this was known before lossless tracks were even a glimmer in some engineers eye, but you have to admit, it is a good way to sell something and charge more for it, which is exactly the goal of marketing driven engineering...


I would also like to throw in that the majority of DTS tracks on DVD are 768 kbs, so you do hear an improvement between DTS on DVD and DTS on BD. I am also going on my personal feeling that Dolby's claims of transparency at 448 kbs are bogus, and that you will also hear an improvement in quality between DD5.1 and DD+ or better.

Thanks for your information. Certainly much more usefull than saying I have crappy equipment. Your comments are the types of postings I hoped to solicit, whether in agreement or opposed to the findings reported in the article.

A aside. I am a little older than most in the forum, and so made no comment about my own experience or listening tests. But I come from an audiophile background. My separate audio system utilizes Magneplanar speakers, Bryston electronics, KD 500 turntable with Grace arm and cartridge, and a high end Denon universal player. I have many DVD-audio and SACD discs. I long for more realistic sound in my home. Do I sound like the kind of person that is hoping that the optical core output is as good as it gets? Common! Not on your life. I want to know the truth, and as a scientist, I know the very last place to look for it is in personal experience. A person simply cannot use the components he saved for, bought, and loves dearly to make objective evaluations of the quality of the output.

Finally, I do not like HDMI as a format. I was very disappointed that it was chosen, as I prefereed DVI-D for it's stout dependable connector, and the ability to make longer runs. I am not smart enough to think up the idea that it is a faulty and undesirable design. I read that concept in magazine articles that said Firewire "M", or DVI were all better designs. Maybe an engineer in the forum might comment? For now I will continue to support my HDMI cables with books so they don't bend and damage the weak connector.

 

[thebland]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bjmiller48 /forum/post/14183493


Thanks for your information. Certainly much more usefull than saying I have crappy equipment. Your comments are the types of postings I hoped to solicit, whether in agreement or opposed to the findings reported in the article.

A aside. I am a little older than most in the forum, and so made no comment about my own experience or listening tests. But I come from an audiophile background. My separate audio system utilizes Magneplanar speakers, Bryston electronics, KD 500 turntable with Grace arm and cartridge, and a high end Denon universal player. I have many DVD-audio and SACD discs. I long for more realistic sound in my home. Do I sound like the kind of person that is hoping that the optical core output is as good as it gets? Common! Not on your life. I want to know the truth, and as a scientist, I know the very last place to look for it is in personal experience. A person simply cannot use the components he saved for, bought, and loves dearly to make objective evaluations of the quality of the output.

Finally, I do not like HDMI as a format. I was very disappointed that it was chosen, as I prefereed DVI-D for it's stout dependable connector, and the ability to make longer runs. I am not smart enough to think up the idea that it is a faulty and undesirable design. I read that concept in magazine articles that said Firewire "M", or DVI were all better designs. Maybe an engineer in the forum might comment? For now I will continue to support my HDMI cables with books so they don't bend and damage the weak connector.

BJ,


Many here, like myself, have very robust systems (in dedicated rooms) capable of extremely high dynamics, state of the art electronics, a very low noise floor.


I agree with you re: bias: To help in my own impressions from succumbing to that, I have employed 3rd party calibrations and a third party certification for acoustics reverb times / etc in my room. Designing an experiment bullet proof from bias is impossible. But that said, trends suggested here in an enthusiasts forum are significant enough towards the belief that the lossless codecs do improve the soundtracks are good enough for must folks.


That said, that majority has found significant improvements with the new lossless codecs, myself included.

 

[Chuck V]

Is the article published somewhere on the Internet?


Thanks.


/Chuck