DD Plus vs True DD Question. (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Robert,

Even WB went on record saying that the reason they didn't go to 448 kbps Dolby on DVD was because "it made no difference in sound quality" over 384, despite other studios all moving to 448 kbps Dolby on DVD to improve sound quality. Plenty of "experts" in mixing have claimed that they couldn't hear the loss associated with Dolby compression on laserdisc and DVD. just go search any of the old bulliten boards/newsgroups to see (those were heated debates when DVD was new as many audiophiles felt the compressed audio was compromised in comparison to the PCM of laserdisc).


Robert,

the reason I said this is related to the very philosphy of psychoacoutic data reduction: the algorithms used to throw away audio data are based on *generalized* models of human hearing that reflect many, but not all, people's perceptions. In otherwords, it's a known fact that with any psychoacoustic data reduction algorithm, some poeple won't hear a difference, and some will. In theory, at some bit-rate, that gap will close as you get closer and closer to pure lossless. But since the test to determine that is impossible given the distribution of listeners with difference hearing perceptions in the population, why not just give us lossless???

The backwards logic to me seems to be arguing for not using lossless based on the possibility that it *might* be transparent without any data to back it up. Why even go that way when true transparency is easily obtained with using lossless technology?

 

[Michael Reuben]

The only problem is that no one's arguing that. You keep saying they are so that you can "refute" it, which is the essence of a strawman argument.

M.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Then what exactly have you/others said regarding not needing lossless audio? I've suggested why its important to have it on all HD titles. It's sounded to me like others have suggested that it's not important to have it on all HD titles (owing in part to the notion that DD+ at 1500 might be audibly transparent to the master... ala the example with that external article regarding Transformers).

 

[Cees Alons]

No one said that. You just continue changing the original topic.


Cees

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I then disagreed with these statements.

Then others disputed my disagreement.

If no one disagrees with me, then what were they disputing?

 

[RobertR]

I'll ask the same question I've asked you multiple times: Under proper double blind conditions, when there was no question that the ONLY difference was the codec? I've yet to get an unqualified "yes".

 

[Echo42987]

DTS-HD and TrueHD can't pass through an optical or coax can they?

I thought that format was strictly HDMI

-Nick-

 

[Cees Alons]

That's correct Nick.


Cees

 

[Michael Reuben]

I said you'd grossly misrepresented the article in question. And you're still doing it.

M.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Correct. This thread went off in a tangent started in post #5 that has little bearing on the OP. Certain words trigger certain responses.

 

[PaulDA]

Now if Warner uses a lower bitrate DD+, then it will not contain as much information as the higher bitrate DD+ BUT it may well be equivalent to DTS 1.5mbps in total information (though even that is not something I would say definitively as I do not know the ratio for comparing DD and DTS, or even if it is a meaningful measurement).

As a rule, I would select the highest resolution track the player allows for output as a downrezzed codec (presuming, of course, one cannot play back the full advanced codec) simply to put the odds on the best available sound in my favour.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Sigh. I never intended or stated to be talking about the entire article... my comments pertained ONLY the particular paragraph I quoted.

My appologies to anyone who felt I was dismissing the entire article, which I was not intending to do (agreeing more or less with the rest of what that author had to say).

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul,

very true that different codecs will have varying degrees of efficiency at different rates, so there's not a 1:1 comparison between them by bit-rate alone.

However, I also agree with your point that, even when transcoding to DTS at 1500, it's probably a better idea to go with the highest-bit-rate Dolby track you have on hand on the disc. There are naturally some lossess associated with transcoding... you're introducing yet another psychoacoustic compression algorithm on the original signal, so the better the signal to start with, the better it will probably end up after conversion to DTS.

Of course, with the price of HDMI 1.3 hardware coming down all the time (and even HDMI 1.1 would do the trick), it's probalby not a bad idea for anyone who cares enough about sound quality to ask these questions about transcoding to start saving for their next audio decoder/reciever and avoid transcoding altogether.

I just got my Marantz 8002 (HDMI 1.3). I'm eager to hear what I've been missing...

 

[PaulDA]

I'll likely upgrade my player to one with analogue MCH outputs before I upgrade my receiver, but certainly anyone who is beginning to put together a system from scratch should take pains to get a receiver/pre-pro that has HDMI audio capabilities.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Just spent my first evening with my new Marantz SR8002 (HDMI 1.3) receiver. Enjoying Dave Matthews in 5.1 Dolby TrueHD 24-bit/96 kHz.

WOW.



Ok.... thanks for letting me share...

 

[Michael Reuben]

And the reason your comments were invalid is because you wrenched the paragraph out of its context and thereby misrepresented it. Which is what I said to you at the time, and you've been trying to wriggle out of it ever since.

At the risk of repeating myself, the author of the article does not say that some form of lossy soundtrack is "good enough" and can therefore substitute for a lossless track. What he says is that someone who can dismiss a fine presentation of a film on disc merely because it lacks a lossless track (or some other technical "must-have") has forfeited all credibility, because that person has so fetishized technical specifications that he's lost sight of what those specifications were designed to do. Or, to put it differently, he's not watching movies; he's watching technology.

I think we all understand your point, David -- you want lossless tracks on every disc. It's a simple enough point, and it can be made without inventing fictitious adversaries.

M.

 

[ReggieW]

Excellent. I plan on getting this receiver as well. I presently have a NAD T762, but would feel a little uncomfortable going from NAD to something like Onkyo (which is what I was considering to replace the NAD). I can live with this a little more since Marantz, like NAD, is also known/respected for its audiophile sensibilites. The new flagship NAD T785 is more than I'm willing to spend for a receiver, nor does it actually have onboard decoders for DTS-HD MA or Dolby Digital Plus & THD.

Disappointing given its $3000 price point.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

So, having read the entire article, I must agree with the writer's assessment: evaluation of HD media is hugely subjective, and easily influenced by buzzwords like "lossless" and items like the bitrate meter on the PS3. Only one of my current DVD players has a bitrate meter, and I stopped looking at it a long time ago, because it didn't give me an accurate picture of what was going on with respect to encoding and compression.

As a side note, Dolby Digital Plus, if encoded at 1509 kbps as the article indicates was the case with Transformers, will still sound impressive, even if it is a compressed format, particularly when compared to Redbook standard CDs, which are 16-bit "lossless" encoded at 1141 kbps.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That's what we were told when vidoephiles chose laserdisc and didn't want to watch VHS. It's what we were told when we wanted DVD instead of laserdisc. It's what we were told when we wanted 16x9 anamorphic DVD instead of 4x3 letterboxed. It's what we were told when we wanted good upscaling and projection instead of 480-interlaced.

It seems it's what we're told anytime we push for greater transparency to the film original. Why?

Why single one group out as specification-extreemists when everyone has the right to disagree with the mastering of a non-optimal signal based on their own sight/sound priorities? If you go to the DVD software forum, you'll find plenty of movie lovers who dismiss HD collectors as having forfeited our credibility because many of us won't buy a standard-def DVD in expectation of high-def because high-definition fidelity is important to us. The same arguements are used.


I DO agree with the author that to suggest that the whole disc effort is dismissed as worthless because of not attaining a perfect-transparency score in one area, when the objective measure is still very good, is an unbalanced view. But it doesn't mean that being critical about any short-coming of a particular disc is out-of-balance. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just express our criticism of an aspect of a disc production without being (mis) interpreted as criticizing the entire effort?

If it wasn't for die-hard videophiles and audiophiles pushing for things to look and sound their very best, we wouldn't have HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc at all. We'd still be enjoying VHS and 4x3 letterboxed DVD on our 480i 4x3 TVs. It's good that there are always a few cinephiles willing to take some risks and criticize shortcomings of an otherwise excellent presentation. It ensures that standards stay maintained by the industry for everyone else to enjoy.

 

[JediFonger]

i think everyone should be concerned about the source from which these HD medias are inked from. if the source is good, the HDM will be good, if the source is bad, there's NOTHING HDM can do to fix that. i'm talking both audio and video elements.

therefore, i think people should be concerned about how movie studios treat their source materials, cause that has a direct bearing on how it will look on both HD medias and DVD's and everything else in between.

once you achieve perfection from the source material, THEN we can compare encoders, codecs, format, size, bitrate, etc.

cause honestly, once you account for color-matching for all of the codex, properly optimized vbr for video, volume-level matching for all audio, it's truly transparent.

this is why CG discs are usually demo material because: 1. the video source is 100% digital 2. audio source is 100% digital.