CES 2007. HD-DVD not looking to well.

[teachsac]

Better to go "techie" on someone instead of going postal . . .

I would not go postal. Just giving the facts man. Just the Facts. If Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are so bad, why are all of the Blu-ray people screaming so loudly for it. When will Panny, Sony, Pioneer add TrueHD support? I'm waiting for it myself. Hopefully March/April.

Just because it is LPCM, doesn't necessarily mean the audio track itself is lossless.

S~

High Definition fan (not fanboy).

 

[CochiseGuy]

I would not go postal. Just giving the facts man. Just the Facts. If Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are so bad, why are all of the Blu-ray people screaming so loudly for it. When will Panny, Sony, Pioneer add TrueHD support?

S~

No, I was just trying to inject some humor. You're absolutely correct. PCM is an audio stream, not a codec. The HD DVD forum mandated every HD DVD player be able to decode at least one HD audio format. So, every HD DVD player can decode TrueHD from the disc and pass it on in a PCM stream to any A/V receiver. Thus, I am able to enjoy TrueHD audio on my 5 yr. old receiver with 5.1 analog inputs.

Blu-ray does not mandate any HD audio decoding on players, and no player released to date can decode TrueHD audio. So to get improved audio, they have to encode space hungry uncompressed PCM on their discs. That's why 30GB HD DVD's encoded with space efficient VC-1 video and TrueHD audio look and sound as good - if not superior - to BD 50GB discs encoded with space hungry mpeg2 video and PCM audio.

I never have under that argument that Blu-ray is the "superior" format, even on paper.

 

[teachsac]

No, I was just trying to inject some humor. You're absolutely correct. PCM is an audio stream, not a codec. The HD DVD forum mandated every HD DVD player be able to decode at least one HD audio format. So, every HD DVD player can decode TrueHD from the disc and pass it on in a PCM stream to any A/V receiver. Thus, I am able to enjoy TrueHD audio on my 5 yr. old receiver with 5.1 analog inputs.

Blu-ray does not mandate any HD audio decoding on players, and no player released to date can decode TrueHD audio. So to get improved audio, they have to encode space hungry uncompressed PCM on their discs. That's why 30GB HD DVD's encoded with space efficient VC-1 video and TrueHD audio look and sound as good - if not superior - to BD 50GB discs encoded with space hungry mpeg2 video and PCM audio.

I never have under that argument that Blu-ray is the "superior" format, even on paper.

I totally agree with you cochise : Owning both formats, while the panny is very good, and promises advanced audio support soon, I prefer the look and sound of my Toshiba. Mine has been flawless. I understand some people have had problems, but the PS3 folks are now reporting just as many problems playing back discs.

My point was to set the record straight against some of the baseless info.

S~

 

[JoeSp]

Hey, My PS3 supports DolbyTrueHD.

And I own 21 BD movies and they all play wonderfully. I belong to a BD forum where no one has reported problems playing any BD movies on the PS3. As a matter of fact when SPEED first came out the only player that played it with no problems at all was the PS3.

 

[teachsac]

Joe,

I'm glad you haven't had any problems (this is honest and not sarcastic). There have been numerous threads over at AVS about titles not playing on the PS3 (The descent for one), people experiencing freezing, and skipping. Like the Toshiba, these might be isolated and not affect everyone. My Toshiba has had no problems, and my Panasonic has been absolutely flawless.

Hopefully one day, BD will start supporting TrueHD and DTSHD MA on their discs. X-Men 3 is the only one I know the has DTSHD MA (although unsupported by any BD player at this time), and I can't remember right off hand any that have DOlby TrueHD, though I could be mistaken and haven't checked the backs of the boxes lately.

Although 16-bit uncompressed LPCM off the master audio track is very good, 24 bit Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are absolutely outstanding.

Scott

 

[hpman247]

I would not go postal. Just giving the facts man. Just the Facts. If Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are so bad, why are all of the Blu-ray people screaming so loudly for it. When will Panny, Sony, Pioneer add TrueHD support? I'm waiting for it myself. Hopefully March/April.

Just because it is LPCM, doesn't necessarily mean the audio track itself is lossless.

S~

High Definition fan (not fanboy).

Most BD people want lossless audio in the form of uncompressed PCM. Something when i was writing that made me think LPCM was the same. It apparently is not. THanks for telling me so I don't make that mistake in the future

 

[hpman247]

Joe,

I'm glad you haven't had any problems (this is honest and not sarcastic). There have been numerous threads over at AVS about titles not playing on the PS3 (The descent for one), people experiencing freezing, and skipping. Like the Toshiba, these might be isolated and not affect everyone. My Toshiba has had no problems, and my Panasonic has been absolutely flawless.

Hopefully one day, BD will start supporting TrueHD and DTSHD MA on their discs. X-Men 3 is the only one I know the has DTSHD MA (although unsupported by any BD player at this time), and I can't remember right off hand any that have DOlby TrueHD, though I could be mistaken and haven't checked the backs of the boxes lately.

Although 16-bit uncompressed LPCM off the master audio track is very good, 24 bit Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are absolutely outstanding.

Scott

According to numerous sources, uncompressed PCM thru the analog outs is better than True-HD thru the analog outs. I know they are both losless, but I have heard Uncomp PCM as well and it is amazing.

 

[John Kotches]

Most BD people want lossless audio in the form of uncompressed PCM. Something when i was writing that made me think LPCM was the same. It apparently is not. THanks for telling me so I don't make that mistake in the future

LPCM is a waste of space. Every bit of mux capacity; and every byte of storage used up adds up.

Just to throw some raw numbers out.

LPCM @ 24/48K/6 = ~6.9Mbits/sec; > 6GB for 2 Hour Movie
LPCM @ 24/48K/8 = ~9.1 Mbits /sec; > 8GB for 2 Hour Movie
LPCM @ 24/96K/6 = ~13.8 Mbits/sec; > 12GB for 2 Hour Movie
LPCM @ 24/96K/8 = ~18.4 Mbits/sec; > 16GB for 2 Hour Movie


These numbers are per soundtrack. The space disappears quickly on titles with multiple lossless soundtracks.

Compare that with Dolby TrueHD for the same:
24/48K/6 = ~3.4 Mbits/sec ABR ; ~3GB for 2 Hour Movie
24/48K/8 = ~4.7 Mbits/sec ABR ; ~4.2 GB for 2 Hour Movie
24/96K/6 = ~6.2 Mbits/sec ABR; ~5.6 GB for 2 hour Movie
24/96K/8 = ~8.3 Mbits/sec ABR; ~7.5 GB for 2 hour movie

This just doesn't compute to me. An additional 3-9GB is a fair amount of space to place HD extras when they are available.

But that's just me thinking objectively about the subject.

 

[John Kotches]

According to numerous sources, uncompressed PCM thru the analog outs is better than True-HD thru the analog outs. I know they are both losless, but I have heard Uncomp PCM as well and it is amazing.

This is one of the most uninformed posts I've read. Truly uninformed. Unless the soundtracks have been tweaked (which is not an impossibility) the data being delivered to the DACs is bit-for-bit identical. If it weren't TrueHD by definition would not be lossless.

Additionally; both datasets must be buffered and reclocked; using the same circuitry. This is necessary due to the packetized nature of the soundtrack. Additionally the buffering / reclocking is necessary due to a reformatting to the I^2S protocol that the DACs require.

So if you have two identical feeds to the DAC (and you will) the only difference then becomes the end-users knowledge that one track is uncompressed; and the other losslessly compressed.

Please 'splain that to me; because clearly I'm not getting it.

 

[hpman247]

This is one of the most uninformed posts I've read. Truly uninformed. Unless the soundtracks have been tweaked (which is not an impossibility) the data being delivered to the DACs is bit-for-bit identical. If it weren't TrueHD by definition would not be lossless.

Additionally; both datasets must be buffered and reclocked; using the same circuitry. This is necessary due to the packetized nature of the soundtrack. Additionally the buffering / reclocking is necessary due to a reformatting to the I^2S protocol that the DACs require.

So if you have two identical feeds to the DAC (and you will) the only difference then becomes the end-users knowledge that one track is uncompressed; and the other losslessly compressed.

Please 'splain that to me; because clearly I'm not getting it.

I know this. And this is the response to all people who post what I posted, which is why I thought about not posting it. I know that it is supposed to be bit-for-bit identical, but NUMEROUS SOURCES say that uncompressed PCM sounds better than True-HD. I cannot prove this, nor do I understand why, but there are a lot of people that say this is the case.

 

[John Kotches]

I know this. And this is the response to all people who post what I posted, which is why I thought about not posting it. I know that it is supposed to be bit-for-bit identical, but NUMEROUS SOURCES say that uncompressed PCM sounds better than True-HD. I cannot prove this, nor do I understand why, but there are a lot of people that say this is the case.

This is truly, truly comical. You say "I know this" and continue to post. Shouting "numerous sources" doesn't make it a fact. And when push comes to shove; those that actually have a clue about this know exactly why this is a false assertion.

First off; to actually do the comparison you have to have the same soundtrack that is passed as LPCM and as Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD. They don't exist. So any of these "sounds better" comparisons are made by comparing an LPCM soundtrack on one disc with a losslessly compressed soundtrack on another. There might be a few of the Warner titles that has LPCM and TrueHD for the soundtracks on different formats; but once you introduce multiple players you've just changed the variables again due to different hardware in play.

You know, it was common knowledge that the world was flat at one point in time too. There were "numerous sources" for that as well. That didn't make it any more incorrect.

 

[hpman247]

Whatever dude

 

[s8ist]

DTS is more compressed than Dolby Digital, and yet many prefer DTS.

 

[berck]

DTS is more compressed than Dolby Digital, and yet many prefer DTS.

Since when? DTS has always prided them selfs on the fact that DTS isn't as compressed as DD. On DVD's that have both sound tracks, I've made some comparisons. They either sound the same, or the DTS sounds like it has a better overall range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Theater_System
http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/dolbydigitaldts.php
http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/dolbydts/dolbydts.htm

 

[hpman247]

DTS is more compressed than Dolby Digital, and yet many prefer DTS.

umm. Kotches can prolly give u the low down, but i do believe that DTS soundtracks are less compressed than DD, and that is why they are sparsely on DVD's.

 

[tawhite]

Whatever dude

Well, there is an intelligent response.

 

[BobMurdoch]

I would not go postal. Just giving the facts man. Just the Facts. If Dolby TrueHD and DTSHD MA are so bad, why are all of the Blu-ray people screaming so loudly for it. When will Panny, Sony, Pioneer add TrueHD support? I'm waiting for it myself. Hopefully March/April.

Just because it is LPCM, doesn't necessarily mean the audio track itself is lossless.

S~

High Definition fan (not fanboy).

HD DVD advantages....

1. NO region coding.... Buy discs from anywhere, not just what Hollywood wants you to see (so some of those BluRay exclusives in the US can be seen on HD DVD elsewhere)
2. Porn producers embracing it (Only Vivid will have both formats)
3. Chinese players coming later this year to dramatically drive down pricing.... Once you can buy one for $100-200 at Walmart the format will thrive
4. Smaller production houses will release on HD DVD only. Since the major studios are hogging BluRay disc replicator facilities for their own product, supply constraints will push them to HD DVD by default....
5. I expect Disney to cave quickly as well once they realize that PS3 owners PROBABLY aren't going to buy the Little Mermaid in HD. Unless they think Ariel looks hot.... They were one of the first to bail on Divx when THAT exclusive was a dud, and I expect them to follow suit....

 

[teachsac]

HD DVD advantages....

1. NO region coding.... Buy discs from anywhere, not just what Hollywood wants you to see (so some of those BluRay exclusives in the US can be seen on HD DVD elsewhere)
2. Porn producers embracing it (Only Vivid will have both formats)
3. Chinese players coming later this year to dramatically drive down pricing.... Once you can buy one for $100-200 at Walmart the format will thrive
4. Smaller production houses will release on HD DVD only. Since the major studios are hogging BluRay disc replicator facilities for their own product, supply constraints will push them to HD DVD by default....
5. I expect Disney to cave quickly as well once they realize that PS3 owners PROBABLY aren't going to buy the Little Mermaid in HD. Unless they think Ariel looks hot.... They were one of the first to bail on Divx when THAT exclusive was a dud, and I expect them to follow suit....

Not that I don't agree with you, but this is a separate response to the original post which was only about LPCM and Dolby True HD, differences and availability on BR. My response was not to go through all of the pluses and minuses for each format.

I am neutral. I own the Toshiba and the Panasonic.

Scott

 

[JoeSp]

HD DVD advantages....

1. NO region coding.... Buy discs from anywhere, not just what Hollywood wants you to see (so some of those BluRay exclusives in the US can be seen on HD DVD elsewhere)
2. Porn producers embracing it (Only Vivid will have both formats)
3. Chinese players coming later this year to dramatically drive down pricing.... Once you can buy one for $100-200 at Walmart the format will thrive
4. Smaller production houses will release on HD DVD only. Since the major studios are hogging BluRay disc replicator facilities for their own product, supply constraints will push them to HD DVD by default....
5. I expect Disney to cave quickly as well once they realize that PS3 owners PROBABLY aren't going to buy the Little Mermaid in HD. Unless they think Ariel looks hot.... They were one of the first to bail on Divx when THAT exclusive was a dud, and I expect them to follow suit....

1. No region coding is still up in the air. Probabaly will be decided by this summer.

2. There will be plenty of porn on BluRay -- just not right now.

3. Oh yeah, I can't wait for a CHEAP Chinese player -- you know they are going to be feature rich -- NOT.

4. And where oh where Bob did you find this little tidbit. If there is no HD-DVD then they will release on what is out there.

5. You keep bring up Disney -- why don't you give it a rest -- not going to happen this year -- who says -- why Buena Vista the publisher for Disney movies.

Bob, you keep bringing up the same stuff. Most of this stuff was well reported during and after the CES this year. But yet, every so many posts you keep bringing it up. Maybe one of these days you will be on target but not today with this post.

 

[John Kotches]

Whatever dude

That's probably your most intelligent response to date.