Social Feed

Diogen, you just don't and will not ever get it. A lossless audio track is a bit for bit transfer of the movie master. A lossy track is not. And no matter how you crunch the numbers it isn't. Now as for the sound expert, he is saying that there is no noticable differance between the DD+ of Transfers and the audio master. He is not saying that there is no differance at all. Those two statements are not the same. In addition he makes no statement about the differance in bandwith for the two formats or how that affects what you get on the disc from the studios. In this respect he stays away from the one thing he cannot and will not defend -- HD-DVD's lack of bandwith.

If the way Transformers was shot and the amount of data in the film is the reason that there was not enough bandwith for a lossless audio track on the disc, then future films using the same techninques will also not leave enough bandwith for the lossless audio tracks. Is that too difficult for you to understand?

The bottom line here is that HD-DVD does have a limit to what it can offer on a disc. And apparently (your words not mine) bandwith is that limitation. The sound engineer is just trying to say that Transformers DD+ sounds every bit as good as the movie master audio track. He does not believe that anyone could notice the differance. However, he does not say it sounds exactly the same nor does he make a comparison to the a lossless audio track like DolbyTrueHD or PCM for Transformers because none was available to compare. Of course a trained musicain or and audiophile might just notice the differance or someone one with an accute ear for sound -- to them the differance might just be enough to desire the lossless audio track. As more and more movies are shot in High Def there will be less and less bandwith for a lossless audio track on HD-DVD because of the bandwith limitation. Almost every movie by a BD only studio comes with at least PCM. Only the very old releases do not. Why is that? Wel,l according to YOU, it is bandwith -- HD-DVD does not have enough and BD obviously has enough. And at one time we all thought it was because of the extra space on BD. Thanks for setting us straigt on that Diogen.

Does this mean that HD-DVD is inferior or has less of a chance to succeed then BD -- NO. But it does point out that BD has room to grow where HD-DVD does not. Maybe when BD-Java is fully implemented in BD films like HDi is in HD-DVD this might also limit the bandwith of BD. But as has been explained (by you and others) HDi does not place a hit on the bandwith of HD-DVD -- just on the available space on the disc. Once again, BD here has room to grow simply because it has more bandwith to use.

If you can not at least face up to the facts (As You Have Stated Them Time And Time Again) then you obviously will not understand the bottom line.

HD-DVD has grown as much as it is going to (We are not talking about HDi features here). While it is bumping up against the bandwith limitation of its format (your words -- triple layer is not going to help here) BD not only has space to grow but bandwith to grow with. If you can not understand what you have consistantly said about the HD-DVD format yourself -- you are not going to understand what I am saying!

Or is it you don't want to accept what YOU keep saying in HD-DVD's defense?

JoeSp said:

Diogen, you just don't and will not ever get it.

Click to expand...

So, first you claim "most" (including yourself, I guess) knew the bandwidth issue with HD DVD.
A few posts later it turns out you have no f*cking clue since you continue referring to more discs.
A week later you seem to finally grasping WTF the issue is all about and feel educated enough to start teaching the implications?
I'm sorry to tell you, but you missed the mark. Again...

First. Specs. BD has better specs. Always did. Always will. I never argued about it. Never will.
Second. Specs are the means to reproduce picture and sound. Better specs does not automatically mean better picture and sound (Exibit 1: the first Fifth Element).
It depends mostly on the quality of the source, complexity of the sound/video track, amount of work put into it (dithering, filtering, etc.), codec used (if any), etc.

PCM is the best you can have if it is not f*cked up (e.g. while doing 24bit->16bit dithering). It takes 6-8Mbps.
If you have the storage and bandwidth - what BD has most of the time - then use it. No additional work to compress the track needed. High marketting value for specs suckers.

Question: Can we get away with less storage/bandwidth without losing output quality?
Answer: Yes. Using lossless compression (same as zip).
Although some Uber-experts like Richard (RBFilms, AVS) claim to hear the difference between the two, those with one ounce of brain material know what it means.
Losslessly compressed stream is the one that is bit for bit identical (after decompression) to the original PCM.

Question: Can we further reduce storage/bandwith?
Answer: Leaving the result bit for bit identical with the PCM original - NO.

Welcome to perceptual encoding!
The best known example is DD on DVDs. Unlike DTS (that is mostly like zip unless really pressed for storage), DD uses perceptual encoding: based on the science of human hearing, it claims to know what frequencies can be compressed more (or dropped alltogether) in different scenarios: i.e. during an explosion. That allows DD to drop the bitrate 20 times: from 8Mbps to 0.4Mbps.

Question: Can the PCM track be compressed perceptually lossless?
Answer: Maybe.
With the new hidef formats, both DolbyLabs and DTS Inc. came up with a few new codecs each to cover the gap between what was available before ( DD 640kbps, DTS 1.5Mbps) and lossless compression. One of those encoding schemes is DD+.

Now, the last remaining question is whether the difference between DD+ 1.5Mbps (300kbps per channel) and PCM is audible. When used with a stereo track, classical music, piano solo, playing on high end equipment in a proper setup and having golden ears - probably, yes. With artificial miltichannel soundtrack specifically created for movies - no (just like the originally quoted article says).

And before you start claiming Joe, that your equipment can reproduce everything PCM has to offer and DD+ is missing, have a look at this post
AVS Forum - View Single Post - R&B Films - DRS Mastering for Superior PQ / AQ

Put it all together and I assure you that if you are getting 16-bits of resolution while watching a movie (with your Onkyo 905), you are doing really, really good!

Click to expand...

Diogen.

EDIT:
Just noticed that you updated your post.

...But it does point out that BD has room to grow where HD-DVD does not.

Click to expand...

Read my post here
http://www.satelliteguys.us/1081209-post31.html

As more and more movies are shot in High Def there will be less and less bandwith for a lossless audio track on HD-DVD because of the bandwith limitation.

Click to expand...

The exact opposite is true: the codecs get better (i.e. need less bandwidth), the movies don't get longer, 2.35 AR is used more often, and more will be downloadable over the internet
(this doesn't count against the bandwidth limitation - GET IT?)

JoeSp said:

Diogen, you just don't and will not ever get it. A lossless audio track is a bit for bit transfer of the movie master. A lossy track is not. And no matter how you crunch the numbers it isn't.

Click to expand...

you just don't and will not ever get it. You listen with your ears not with a calculator.

I have said many times, not everyone can hear the same frequancys as others and some individuals have tremendous range while others (like my son-in-law) have a problem with high freqs , he has trouble discerning voices from high pitched actors. Others can block out freqs and zone in on a particular freq while to others all they hear is white noise. My wife likes bass hence she always pushes the bass while cutting out the tweeters. To her the tweeters giver her a headache -- it sounds like noise to her so she cancels out high freqs while boosting the lower ones. We are all differant in our physical ablilitys which is one reason why some hear a differance in a sound track and others only hear volume. Some folks just don't care as long as it is loud! You might ask what this has to do with audio tracks -- it has everthing to do with audio tracks and how that sound is recreated. The closer to the master the more defined and the clearer reproduction of every sound recreated is from the sound track. While DD+ on HD-DVD does a great job of reproduction it cannot do the same job as a lossless audio track. This does not mean that it does not sound great.

To you Vurbano, can you find where I said that the audio track on Transformers was not good? What I said was that if Transformers was on BD with all the goodies that was provided on HD-DVD there would still be room for a lossless audio track on the BD disc simply because of the bandwith availabilty on BD that is not there on HD-DVD. Has nothing to do with the calculator and everything to do with what BD can offer as compared to HD-DVD on a movie like Transformers. No calculators needed here. Just a true comparison of the abilities of HD-DVD and BD primarily concerning the differance in bandwith between the two and how that plays out in reproduction of movies in high def.

Diogen, maybe one day HD-DVD will be able to reduce the video bandwith requirement of HD-DVD so that you can offer a lossless audio codec on a movie like Transformers but that day is not here yet for HD-DVD. It is for BD if only because of the higher bandwith capability of BluRay! I don't see a problem here with my statement. It is true, it is factual and it is about the bandwith capablility differance between BluRay and HD-DVD.

Joe,

Glad your ears work, because those blue color glasses sure do taint your eyesight. From your review of We are Marshall.

From JoeSP:
"Extras: Here is the reason I give this a 10. The extras are in HD! Oh Yeah, this was just a real treat. The feature on the Coaches listing some of the most famous and successful coaches in college sports was great. Being able to see this in HD was also a real treat."

From Highdefdigest:

(Note that although "Legendary Coaches" gives me a readout of 1080p/MPEG-2 video, much of it looks like a 480 upconvert. The trailer and the West Virginia promo are plain old 480i/MPEG-2 video only, and windowboxed at 4:3 to boot.)

From the box:

Technical Specs
Blu-ray
BD-25 Single-Layer Disc
Video Resolution/Codec
1080p/VC-1
Speical Features
480p/i/MPEG-2
Aspect Ratio(s)
2.40:1
Audio Formats
English Dolby TrueHD 5.1 Surround (48kHz/16-bit)
English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround (640kbps)
French Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround (448kbps)
Subtitles/Captions
English SDH
French Subtitles
Spanish Subtitles
Supplements
Featurettes
Theatrical Trailer
Exclusive HD Content
None

While I do agree that it is a good movie with good picture and sound, definitely not a 10 and the extras definitely aren't 1080p.

Start being an HD fan.

S~

Joe,-
I'm glad we are on the same page re: the technical issues.
For the sake of finishing this particular discussion, I'll take your word for your abilities (and everything else that's needed) to hear the differences.

I think you don't believe in your said abilities yourself.
There was a test on AVS a month ago or so testing the listeners ability to hear audio compression.
People with $16,000 headphones (it turns out this is the only way to hear it) had a really hard time.
Some more tests are planned. Take part in them to answer the question about your hearing for yourself.

Diogen.