| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The grain haters will be all over this release. |
| he is writing bitrate for PCM 6.9mbit 16bit, as far as I know 6.9mbit is 24bit |
| Warner has supplied both next-gen editions with matching Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround tracks (48kHz/16-bit), but this Blu-ray is also graced with an additional PCM 5.1 surround option (48kHz/16-bit/6.9mbps). Right upfront, the PCM sounded a bit louder, but after some level matching, a direct A/B comparison of several scenes revealed only slight differences. Although I'm sure this disc will stir up the whole TrueHD vs PCM debate, either way you slice it, the action scenes in '300' deliver the kind of demo-worthy audio that should be pure nirvana for any home theater enthusiast. |
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Sounds like Dialog-Normalization is applied to the TrueHD tracks. Big surpirse, coming from WB.
|
| Paul, Dialnorm is in the metadata, like downmix coeficients or EX flag, not in the audio/sound portion of the bitstream. You still get the studio master (all 24 bits). I guess one could complain that dialnorm attenuates the volume level by 4dB, but this can be easily rectified with a small turn of the volume knob. Also, if you calibrate using Video Essentials or Avia, then you won't be 4dB low because both those popular calibration discs use dialnorm. Have you read the Secrets article about dialnorm? If not, take a look. It dispells most of the myths surrounding dialnorm. Feature Article - "Dialogue Normalization: Friend or Foe" - June, 2000 (Updated August, 2001) |
| There is more to Dolby Digital than just raw audio information. That digital stream flowing into your decoder has other bits of information - called "Metadata" - along for the ride. Metadata is information your decoder can use to do certain things better, like downmixing the soundtrack to two channels or changing the dynamic range. One piece of Metadata which has gotten a pretty bad rap is Dialogue Normalization. In their 30 year history, Dolby has never been known to add something that would deteriorate audio quality, so I started to investigate. Like so many things in this world, Dialnorm, as we’ll call it for short, is somewhat misunderstood. |
|
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
Hey Paul,
the problem with DN isn't that it lowers the dynamic range (volume) by 4 (or more) db... the problem is HOW it does it. It does it by digitally recalculating the audio data to digitally down-scale the waveform. That means that you will NEVER get bit-for-bit accuracy from a TrueHD stream that's been flagged with dialog-normalization. And it can't be bypassed because Dolby won't allow any in-spec consumer gear to let the user avoid it! It doesn't matter that it's just a meta-data instruction flag: if Dolby REQUIRED that it's processing instructions be followed by your decoder, then the fact that the original PCM lossless data was represented prior to DN processing is moot. Dolby can claim that the process is transparent. But I find it less-than-ironic that when Dolby TrueHD streams on HD DVD didn't sound as good as their PCM counterparts, the first reason offered by industry sources involved with the mastering were "probably because of the Dialog Normalization on the TrueHD". Also, when I heard a Dolby track on DVD (Lion King) that sounded, to my ears, "like DTS" so much so that it stunned me because I had never heard a Dolby track sound so good, I contacted the audio engineer to ask why. The reply? "Oh, we didn't set the Dialog Normalization flag for that soundtrack". I've since been told by SEVERAL mastering egineers that they personally feel that most of the sonic benefits ascribed to DTS over DD are really just because of the slight sonic degredation from the DN on the DD tracks. DN is fine for commercials on TV where you're interested in level matching across multiple programs. BUT IT HAS NO PLACE ON A HIGH-FIDELITY SOUNDTRACK FOR A PACKAGED PRODUCT LIKE AN HD DVD OR BD MOVIE SOUNDTRACK. If multiple tracks need to be "matched" for streaming together, like commentary, then the secondary tracks should be mastered with DN to match the "reference" primary dialog level of the master/reference recording. You should never dumb-down the primary audio soundtrack to level-match to menu-clicks and over-compressed commentary. I find this humorous (from your link): I consider a 10:1 data-reduction algorithm used for lossy tracks to degrade sound quality. Don't you? Seems that Dolby's entire *business* has to do with compromises that were necessary in order to work within the confines of practical boundaries. I doubt that dynamic range compression or down-mixing algorithms enhance the sound quality of the PCM master much either. |
I always remember that, because it's essentially true, especially when you're talking the original DD that hit theaters, as opposed to the higher quality version we got at home.
My midis bring all the Force to the yard; my midis are better than yours!
| For the first time, you had your choice between Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. It was a while longer before I found a DTS theater not far from me and was in heaven. Suddenly I was driving a lot farther to see films since the sound in my local theater was truly pathetic, like hook your VCR up to a very old, low quality stereo pathetic. |
| the problem with DN isn't that it lowers the dynamic range (volume) by 4 (or more) db... the problem is HOW it does it. It does it by digitally recalculating the audio data to digitally down-scale the waveform. That means that you will NEVER get bit-for-bit accuracy from a TrueHD stream that's been flagged with dialog-normalization. |
| Which tells me that your preference for the "DTS theater" had essentially nothing to do with DD vs. DTS, but the particular theater setup. |
| one person's impression in a double-blind doesn't mean that same impression will be shared by another listener. |
| Some listeners prefer the sound of 16-bit audio 20 bit audio, for instance-- not because it's more accurate, but because they like the "bite" it adds to high-frequencies becuase they prefer that sonic signature. |
| The Reber experience is an example of the opposite happening--someone picking the 20 bit audio in a blind test despite a stated preference for 16 bit, which would once again call into question the source of the preference. |
| I don't disagree with your points that indications are likely that factors beyond the simple audio codecs were influential in the final sound that caused one theater to sound "pathetic" versus the other. I'm only suggesting that we can't make any absolute conclusions as we can't compare the results of two different listeners (ie, two different case-studies if you will)... that's all. so are we really arguing? |
| Given the much higher bit-rate for DTS (on CDROM) in the theater versus DD (between the sproket holes), wouldn't DTS be more apt to be thought of as the "20 bit" and DD as the "16 bit" in that comparison? |
|
Originally Posted by Tim Glover
My thoughts exactly Doug. I always kind of wished SDDS would have taken off though.
|
|
Originally Posted by Tim Glover
My thoughts exactly Doug. I always kind of wished SDDS would have taken off though.
|
My midis bring all the Force to the yard; my midis are better than yours!
|
Originally Posted by Grant H
My DD theatrical experience has been that it was more harsh, and in a THX theater of all places when I saw Episode II there was a blip in the sound at every reel change, which was really annoying. Interestingly, after I reported this to THX, that theater only had one THX screen instead of two.
|
