New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Universal at CES - Page 4

post #91 of 203
1/8/08 at 10:49pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I have listened to my own ears. Yes there is a difference. But in my opinion it's a very minor difference, now granted I don't have the best equipment in the world, not the worst either, and I don't have a great listening environment. But even listening in headphones I find the difference between DD+ and Lossless to be fairly minor. Now if you are talking about the difference between lossless and standard Dolby Digital I'll go with you 100%, major difference.
You continue going back to the same subjective argument and completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you hear a minor difference or whether I hear a major difference. It should be on the disc regardless...
Reply
post #92 of 203
1/8/08 at 10:50pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I have listened to my own ears. Yes there is a difference. But in my opinion it's a very minor difference, now granted I don't have the best equipment in the world, not the worst either, and I don't have a great listening environment. But even listening in headphones I find the difference between DD+ and Lossless to be fairly minor. Now if you are talking about the difference between lossless and standard Dolby Digital I'll go with you 100%, major difference.

Doug

The irony is biting here, because I've heard many parties state that the difference between DD and DD+ is minor.
Reply
post #93 of 203
1/8/08 at 10:54pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romier S
You continue going back to the same subjective argument and completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you hear a minor difference or whether I hear a major difference. It should be on the disc regardless...

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be. I'm just saying that if its not, frankly for me its not that big a deal.

And there may come a time when a film like the extended cut of Return of the King comes along, they may start looking at ways to free up space, even on a 50 gig disc. They just may start looking at the sound track. At that point I'll take a high bit rate DD+ track over a 16bit Lossless track any day.

Doug
Reply
post #94 of 203
1/8/08 at 10:56pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterMano
The irony is biting here, because I've heard many parties state that the difference between DD and DD+ is minor.

That I would I would strongly disagree with. Listen to the Dolby Digital sound track on the SD side of Hot Fuzz and then check out the DD+ track on the HD DVD side, its night and day!

Doug
Reply
post #95 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:25am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
we're FINALLY going to see a stand-alone BD player that's actually full-spec: The Panny BD50. And it will be a sweet machine with 7.1 analog output ta-boot
So how much will it cost and when will it be available?
Reply
post #96 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:34am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Martin
It was but IMHO their marketing failed them.

I think it has somewhat "failed" both formats at this point.. So that alone is not the excuse.

Software and studio support is IMO one of the main reasons. More studios = more films. Both formats have been lacking from time to time when it comes to film titles, but still.
Reply
post #97 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:36am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Romier S
Most of the "masses" can't tell the difference between SD and HD from a video perspective according to many on this forum so why should audio be any damn different? Isn't that what so many folks deem as the death knell of HDM in general and why Blu-Ray won't succeed even being the only format?

General consumer apathy is brought up in these discussions so often as to the reasons why HDM isn't "breaking out" but then when the enthusiasts (you know, the guys who currently make up damn near this entire market) ask for lossless - other enthusiasts come in and point to it as not being a selling feature or DD+ being good enough, or that certain percentages of the population simply can't hear it! You do realize the utter irony of that right? The complete double standard that exists in how the supposed enthusiast crowd view audio/video with completely different expectations?

Let me ask you then, could the general masses tell the difference between an anamorphic and non-anamorphic DVD back when studios like Disney and Fox were releasing non-anamorphic content to the market? Do you think the then budding mass audience DVD consumer realized or cared either way? Would you reply back and tell me that anamorphic enhancement should not have been included or should be swept aside because only 10% of the population could actually see the difference in resolution/image quality or had the equipment to take advantage of it? Most didn't have HDTV's back then right? Yeah, so why the hell bother requesting such a thing...

Look Douglas, this is an enthusiast run market at the moment. The reason SD DVD titles include anamorphic enhancement today is because guys like you and me SHOUTED from every forum and did everything we knew how to possibly do years ago to make sure that companies like Fox, Disney and the other studios supporting DVD would make sure that it was included. The same went for OAR transfers! I view lossless/uncompressed sound in the exact same way and I find it damn near unbelievable to see another enthusiast dismiss it in such a fashion because only a certain amount of the population can hear it, has the equipment to take advantage of it, or because your audio engineering colleagues tell you there's no difference.

For my part, I'll listen to my own damn ears and no one elses. I've sat in on demonstrations at trade shows (CEDIA this past year in fact) of DD+ and THD at Dolby's booth and I can hear the difference. If someone else can't, then fair enough. I'm not hear to question that as audio will always be subjective to the individual. If the space and bandwidth is there (as it is with Blu-Ray) then include it in every damn release. Nothing more, nothing less and no compromises.
Amen.
Reply
post #98 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:43am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I tend to agree with you Dave. Its sad that it seems that the format that is clearly lacking is going to win. A shame.

Doug
I can't believe that someone could honestly believe and say this. Blu-Ray is and has always been technically superior to HD-DVD and the gap will only widen with time. HD-DVD is a refinement of the DVD technology while Blu-Ray is an evolutionary product that still has lots of room for growth and improvement, which is something HD-DVD will always lack. The only thing HD-DVD had going for it was it's relative low cost, but then that would be expected considering that it is only a modification of the DVD technology and has thus had the advantage of over 10 yrs of price reductions.
Reply
post #99 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:49am

Re: Universal at CES

As long as it's being discussed...

Isn't HD-DVD's problem with lossless audio a matter of bandwidth and not storage? I believe that's what the Transformers producers said, that the picture took up so much bandwidth there wasn't room to send the audio through. Which is why a long movie like Troy can have lossless audio because it doesn't have robots exploding all over the place, making it easier on the bitrate.
Reply
post #100 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:50am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman
If things are going Blu then there should be 24 bit lossless tracks PERIOD. There would be zero excuse except for laziness or ineptness now.

Dan, do you mean that now IF "things are going Blu", we should have lossless, but the lack of lossless e.g. those Paramount-releases didn´t matter or.. ? ( )

I mean in the end it´s up to the studios to decide, since Blu-ray (at least) has room for PCM or lossless.. E.g. Warner hasn´t really supported even "plain" DTS on their SD DVD-releases (perhaps in some releases, not sure now) and we all know that their HD-releases (BOTH formats) lack lossless and HD DVD-titles even that 1.5Mbps DD+..

So quite frankly I can´t blame the formats, it´s up to Warner.

My point is, that this "IF Blu-ray is going to be the only HD-format, it SHOULD now have this-and-that" sounds a bit like bitter talk (not you Dan, generally speaking) in the front line..
Reply
post #101 of 203
1/9/08 at 1:04am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs
I believe that's what the Transformers producers said, that the picture took up so much bandwidth there wasn't room to send the audio through..

At least there was this:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/transformers.html

"I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps)."

Now of course a) fans won´t believe this or there´s this b) "lossless doesn´t matter"-argument, but at least they´ve said this.. Not sure is that 100% the "truth".
Reply
post #102 of 203
1/9/08 at 1:17am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjay Gupta
HD-DVD is a refinement of the DVD technology while Blu-Ray is an evolutionary product that still has lots of room for growth and improvement, which is something HD-DVD will always lack..

Good points Sanjay. The thing here is, that some people speak more with their "hearts" than their "brains" in these format-war issues. If you´ve 200 HD DVDs, the "other format" might suddenly sound a bit more "inferior" than it actually is (when it´s a fact that it´s not inferior at.. all).

Don´t get me wrong. I can´t take anything away from HD DVD and especially from the fact that it was indeed "ready" from the start and has produced great quality and newer codecs from the start. The A/V quality of HD DVD-titles have been more or less excellent.

But - we need to be able also to step away from those "old times" (lack of the better word now..), since Blu-ray is now equal to HD DVD. They use (more or less) newer codecs now and 1.1 is (finally!) ready. And like Sanjay pointed out, there are still room for improvements.

It´s a bit like the old record playing when HD DVD-fans compare these two formats (vice versa also, no doubt). Believe it or not, things have been evolved already, so we should start facing the facts. We need one HD-format and Blu-ray is a very good choice for that. So is HD DVD in many fronts, but the other one has to go. Eventually.
Reply
post #103 of 203
1/9/08 at 4:36am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanjay Gupta
I can't believe that someone could honestly believe and say this. Blu-Ray is and has always been technically superior to HD-DVD and the gap will only widen with time. HD-DVD is a refinement of the DVD technology while Blu-Ray is an evolutionary product that still has lots of room for growth and improvement, which is something HD-DVD will always lack. The only thing HD-DVD had going for it was it's relative low cost, but then that would be expected considering that it is only a modification of the DVD technology and has thus had the advantage of over 10 yrs of price reductions.

Blu-ray's technical superiority on paper, so far, hasn't translated to the real world. Up to this point it has been somewhat dodgy. Yes it has the potential to be a slightly superior format, but again they should have waited at least 2 years to release it.

What exactly do you mean grow and improve? People have been saying this for a while and I'm not really sure what they mean. Do you mean that there are still some features that blu-ray hasn't implemented? Does this mean that 2.0 players will become obsolete in a few months or a year?

Doug
Reply
post #104 of 203
1/9/08 at 4:39am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jari K
At least there was this:
HD DVD Review: Transformers | High-Def Digest

"I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps)."

Now of course a) fans won´t believe this or there´s this b) "lossless doesn´t matter"-argument, but at least they´ve said this.. Not sure is that 100% the "truth".

Well the question becomes what does that mean? Did the lossless track take up less space or use less bandwidth? Is it possible that at 1.5mbps, DD+ sounded better than a lossless audio track reduced to 16 bit and yet still took up less space?

Doug
Reply
post #105 of 203
1/9/08 at 7:07am

Re: Universal at CES

I've had my Sony BDPS301 hooked up to my Denon 3805 via the analog cables for the last couple of months, and I do hear an improvement when there are uncompressed tracks(POTC, SPIDEY 3, etc.). However, I don't think that the improvement is of such high quality that it would be a dealbreaker if those tracks were not included. For instance, I think both KING KONG and TRANSFORMERS sound outstanding. Everyone has different priorities. What I wanted to see with HDM was a better, more filmlike video presentation. The average DD or DTS track on SD DVD smokes what I hear at my local cinema, so lossless is just gravy for me.
Reply
post #106 of 203
1/9/08 at 7:30am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
As to the quality of the sound coming from a high bit rate DD+ track over lossless, honestly I'll take the opinion of people I've worked with who are audio engineers over "audiophile's" opinions any day of the week. The opinion is generally that there is almost no disernable difference between a high bit rate DD+ track and the original masters. In fact many seem to think that a high bit rate DD+ track will sound closer to the original masters than a 16bit lossless track.

high-bit lossy versus 16-bit lossless?

I think I've already answered that dilemma by suggesting high-bit lossless as the solution that works for transparency for all content all of the time.

The same "experts" telling you that DD+ lossy is "good enough" are the same folks who backed HD DVD and had a financial stake in the outcome of that bandwidth-crippled format.

The folks backing Blu are simply giving us lossless which makes the argument moot.

Quote:
I've had my Sony BDPS301 hooked up to my Denon 3805 via the analog cables for the last couple of months, and I do hear an improvement when there are uncompressed tracks(POTC, SPIDEY 3, etc.). However, I don't think that the improvement is of such high quality that it would be a dealbreaker if those tracks were not included. For instance, I think both KING KONG and TRANSFORMERS sound outstanding.

Sure they do! And they'd sound even better in pure lossless.

No one is saying that DD+ at 1500 doesn't sound great... we're just saying why stop at "great" when you can go all the way to true transparency for 100% of the population with pure lossless? It costs NO MORE for the studio to give you lossless on the disc. With HD DVD it was just a matter of weighing the pros and cons of PQ, SQ, and bonus features (PIP steals bandwidth so it competes with lossless on HD DVD). BD has a wide enough pipe that all three of these parties can get along with room to spare.
Reply
post #107 of 203
1/9/08 at 8:36am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Well the question becomes what does that mean? Did the lossless track take up less space or use less bandwidth? Is it possible that at 1.5mbps, DD+ sounded better than a lossless audio track reduced to 16 bit and yet still took up less space?

Yes, well I don´t claim that I (or even hi-def digest) have proper answers for those questions. Perhaps that comment (included in the review) just came from some unprepared spokesman from Paramount and even he didn´t fully knew the answers.. Hell, perhaps Paramount switches to Blu-ray and we still don´t get lossless-audio..
Reply
post #108 of 203
1/9/08 at 9:39am

Re: Universal at CES

Oh trust me, I remember DVD's release very well. I was in the L.A. test market and bought my SD2007 in May of 1997 *before DVD's release to the general public in September*.

As alreadt pointed out: the first DVD player from Sony were $1000. And not all BD players (unless your only counting the very first Sony) were $1000.

Second, the point about DVD having problems was in comparison to the claims that were made against BD not having a "final spec" or "still evolving". The point was: DVD was still evolving post-launch. No component video for a lot of players. No progressive scan. It took a year for dual layer discs to start being made (I remember buying Contact and ooh-ing and aah-ing...until my Toshiba paused for a full second on the layer change).

All I meant was: all formats are still evolving, still buggy. BD, HDD & DVD all had problems and it's not fair for someone to ding BD for something that all formats have an issue with. And while as you point out, there may be some slight differences, the net result is the same: players that weren't 100% compatible with the discs they were supposed to play.

Like it or not, once we got away from VHS, the home video formats are now software/hardware relationships, sharing more alike with PCs than old analog systems like VHS/Beta/LD. As such, there's going to be bugs, the standards will evolve, or slightly change, etc. And it's always worst at the beginning, thus the hard life of us early adopters.

If we're still having these conversations one year from now, when all new players should be BD 1.1 if not 2.0, then you can say that the BDA hasn't gotten its act together. It's no secret they rushed to the market with an unfinished spec because HD-DVD was ready first. But personally I can't blame them for not wanting to give HD-DVD a 1+ year head start. That would have spelled certain doom.

In retrospect, I think the entire HD launch was entirely too early. According to most market projections, the HDTV penetration rate will greatly increase this year and subsequent years. Now would have been a better time to launch than a year and a half ago. Back then less than 10% of households had HD sets, let alone 1080p HDMI sets, to really show the benefits of HDM. I know on my old 2001 HDTV the difference was minimal, it wasn't until I bought a new 1080p SXRD that I could really tell the PQ difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey
The first BR players were $1000, twice the cost of DVD, except for the heavily subsidized PS3.

Hardly any TVs at the time had component since DVD was the first device to have it for the general consumer.

No display device had this capability so why have it? If you had a projector you ran it through some sort of video processor to convert it to the optimal resolution of the projector.

Because VHS was still doing great business and its model was rental pricing and at the introduction of DVDs, Blockbuster wasn't renting DVDs. Plus many felt at the time that DVD was only a stop-gap measure and was going to push back HDM years and should never have been created in the first place.

Every player had some discs it couldn't play because the spec was not specific enough in some areas and was left of to the firmware coders to make a decision. That is completely different than not having a spec or just ignoring entire sections of it.

DVD is only 10 years old and it seems most people can no longer remember what is was really like when it was introduced.
Reply
post #109 of 203
1/9/08 at 9:49am

Re: Universal at CES

Just so people remember how expensive this HT hobby can be, I paid $1000 for the Sony-7000 back in the late summer of 1997. That player was non-progressive so I bought my first progressive dvd player in 1998, which was a Toshiba for $1200. Furthermore, neither player could decode DTS.
Reply
post #110 of 203
1/9/08 at 10:19am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Blu-Ray is and has always been technically superior to HD-DVD
Totally false. BluRay's storage and bandwidth sizes were based upon MPEG2 video and uncompressed LPCM audio and that was all they were going to support, period. Toshiba showed that 30 Gig of advanced codec video and lossless compressed audio was superior video and equal audio and was cheaper to boot.

If there really was strong karma, all those who think HD-DVD should never have existed would be immediately transported to a reality where that was true. They could be watching their 50 Gig MPEG2 $40 movie on their $1000 player blissfully ignorant that:
A. The players could be cheaper.
B. The movies could be cheaper.
C. The video could look better.

I prefer to support companies that get it right the first time (although there is plenty of room left to improve video at this point) than the reactionary companies who only reluctantly provide technologies to improve quality because of their competitor and then claim they are superior because they have higher bandwidth and more storage.

"But the HD-DVD consortium was going to go with ultra-low bitrate HD on DVD that was worse than MPEG2!"
That was never going to happen and was something Blu supporters were touting as a reason to back Sony before any HD product was even on the market.
Reply
post #111 of 203
1/9/08 at 11:09am

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Anstey
"But the HD-DVD consortium was going to go with ultra-low bitrate HD on DVD that was worse than MPEG2!"
That was never going to happen and was something Blu supporters were touting as a reason to back Sony before any HD product was even on the market.

Totally False. HD-DVD was most certainly going to use red laser technology, but changed to Blue because of... Blu-ray. Innovation came from both sides, and arguing about what could have been if things were completely different is pretty pointless. Both formats included advanced codecs in their spec long before either of them were released.
Reply
post #112 of 203
1/9/08 at 11:23am

Re: Universal at CES

I think that what has happened is that each side has pushed the other. If HD DVD was originally going to just be red laser, it was pushed to go blue by BD. If BD would be MPEG2 and high prices it was pushed to do better by HD DVD's strengths in those areas.

So while it seems necessary that we get to a single format for mass adoption, I think in the end the format war has been beneficial in some ways. I just hope now that continued improvements and price reductions in BD won't be slowed in the wake of the apparent victory over HD DVD. As has been noted, they need to keep pushing the envelope to overcome the "DVD is good enough" perspective.
Reply
post #113 of 203
1/9/08 at 12:39pm

Re: Universal at CES

Glenn,

"I think that what has happened is that each side has pushed the other. If HD DVD was originally going to just be red laser, it was pushed to go blue by BD. If BD would be MPEG2 and high prices it was pushed to do better by HD DVD's strengths in those areas.

So while it seems necessary that we get to a single format for mass adoption, I think in the end the format war has been beneficial in some ways. I just hope now that continued improvements and price reductions in BD won't be slowed in the wake of the apparent victory over HD DVD. As has been noted, they need to keep pushing the envelope to overcome the "DVD is good enough" perspective."

My point exactly.

Personally, I would be quite happy to see this war continue unabated until a truly superior technology emerges as the victor. And sorry folks, at this point Blu Ray is not there. And if the competition stops, I am not sure what incentive Sony will have to get it there.

Ideally, from a consumer perspective, the war should continue until Blu Ray show us true interactivity ala in movie experience, true connectivity via internet, true compatability (pick a friggin standard and have all machine comply with it!!!) and true accessability (machine that don't cost a small fortune and software that is competetively priced with DVD). And how about some innovation of your own Sony? What have to got to wow us? All I have seen is playing catch up to the inferior HD DVD.

Until such time, I say go HD DVD. Don't give up the fight to bring HD to the masses. Keep being innovative, keep being aggressive.

Studio support will ultimately win this war but the studios should not blindly support a lacklustre product (hd or blu). At the very least, they should expect a lot more from the hardware that is running their product but I am not sure if they even care.

Dave
Reply
post #114 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:00pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet
high-bit lossy versus 16-bit lossless?

I think I've already answered that dilemma by suggesting high-bit lossless as the solution that works for transparency for all content all of the time.

The same "experts" telling you that DD+ lossy is "good enough" are the same folks who backed HD DVD and had a financial stake in the outcome of that bandwidth-crippled format.
.


Actually the folks that are telling me that DD+ practically indistingushable from the original master are sound engineers that I have worked with, they have nothing what ever to do with HD DVD.

But David assume for a moment that you have a film of the running time of Return of the King. Suppose that even on a BD50, you are running out of space. Suppose that a 24bit lossless audio track won't fit, because of the running time and the fact that they are trying to put 4 commentary tracks on the thing. Maybe even PIP commentary tracks. Would you rather have a 16bit lossless or a 1.5mbps DD+?

Now granted this situation probably won't come up very often, but it may very well come up. When authoring a disc, EVERYTHING is a compromise.

Doug
Reply
post #115 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:04pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by GlennH
I think that what has happened is that each side has pushed the other. If HD DVD was originally going to just be red laser, it was pushed to go blue by BD. If BD would be MPEG2 and high prices it was pushed to do better by HD DVD's strengths in those areas.

So while it seems necessary that we get to a single format for mass adoption, I think in the end the format war has been beneficial in some ways. I just hope now that continued improvements and price reductions in BD won't be slowed in the wake of the apparent victory over HD DVD. As has been noted, they need to keep pushing the envelope to overcome the "DVD is good enough" perspective.

This is definitely true. Both sides have benefited enormously from the format war. Thank god for the format war!!!

Doug
Reply
post #116 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:20pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
Actually the folks that are telling me that DD+ practically indistingushable from the original master are sound engineers that I have worked with, they have nothing what ever to do with HD DVD.

But David assume for a moment that you have a film of the running time of Return of the King. Suppose that even on a BD50, you are running out of space. Suppose that a 24bit lossless audio track won't fit, because of the running time and the fact that they are trying to put 4 commentary tracks on the thing. Maybe even PIP commentary tracks. Would you rather have a 16bit lossless or a 1.5mbps DD+?

Now granted this situation probably won't come up very often, but it may very well come up. When authoring a disc, EVERYTHING is a compromise.

Doug

That's EASY... split the films to two BD50's and create intro, intermission, and exit music like a premium road show release of yore and make sure the mix is 7.1, 24 bit/96 kHz! Someone should put this in Peter Jackson's ear so they don't do it like the four disc DVD sets!
Reply
post #117 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:22pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Actually the folks that are telling me that DD+ practically indistingushable from the original master are sound engineers that I have worked with, they have nothing what ever to do with HD DVD.

Would they be the same engineers telling us that you can't hear the difference between 640 DD and lossless? Because I've heard that too (from somone who participates on this board... I remember having a bit of a debate as he insited that only the best of the best audio systems would be able to reveal the difference), and my and everyone else's ears I know has no difficulty debuncing that myth.

There are also engineers who maintain that even high-bit lossy DD+ is not transparent against the linear master (though very very good). So who's opinion do we trust? If we have room for lossless, then WHY NOT JUST DO IT and not worry about who's definition of transparent we need to have faith in? Having personally met with some audio engineers who didn't even know that if they closed their eyes in front of a pair of stereo speakers they could literally "hear" the phantom center image float in the room between them, I tend to take a guilty-until-proven-audiophile point of view when I hear people cite "engineers" as the font of audio fideltiy truth.

Quote:
But David assume for a moment that you have a film of the running time of Return of the King. Suppose that even on a BD50, you are running out of space. Suppose that a 24bit lossless audio track won't fit, because of the running time and the fact that they are trying to put 4 commentary tracks on the thing. Maybe even PIP commentary tracks. Would you rather have a 16bit lossless or a 1.5mbps DD+?

Personally, I think that 24-bit lossless should be maintained above any special feature, so it would be a matter of deciding which special feature to eliminate. Naturally, you'd be eliminating even *more* special features to maintain 24-bit lossless on HD DVD.

Quote:
Now granted this situation probably won't come up very often, but it may very well come up. When authoring a disc, EVERYTHING is a compromise.

And BD incurs far fewer compromises.
Reply
post #118 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:27pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Those are all reasons why I'm not the least bit embarrassed to have chosen HD-DVD.

I purchased HD-DVD first and while most of my current purchases over the past 5 months have been mostly Blu-ray. And even though I am convinced that Toshiba has lost the war even if they drag it out a bit longer. I am not embarrassed, nor will I ever regreet buying my HD-DVD player. Now weather or not I actually upgrade the HD-A1 to a HD-A35 is another story. I am however going to upgrade my Sony BDP-S300 to a Denon DVD-2500 BTci at towards the end of the year.

But back to Universal and there current stance of being HD-DVD. For the most part the majority of Universal HD titles will be put on hold until they are available on Blu-ray. There may end up being a few titles that I end up buying anyway but for the most part Universal will not get much of my $$ until they support Blu-ray. What can I say I am a little weak.

I hope Universal will take a serious look at the current situation and do whats best to help HDM move forward in the market place. With that in mind I will wait and see what Toshiba does in the coming weeks in regards to the format war. Lets hope that the war is not prolonged just for the sake of stubbornness!

Quote:
You continue going back to the same subjective argument and completely missing the point. It doesn't matter whether you hear a minor difference or whether I hear a major difference. It should be on the disc regardless...



I have to agree that it should be available no matter what. While I currently do not have the ability to decode DTS-HD MA I will in a few months. I do however have the ability to listen to DD+, Dolby True HD and PCM. IMHO while DD+ does sound good, its basically a souped up DD. I do not consider DD+ to be a huge improvement of DD and I am not a big fan of DD+. I would not be suprised if DD+ only came about because Toshiba needed a format because they knew that not all there releases on HD-DVD could use Dolby True HD. Or Dolby had a feeling that not all of the HD-DVD's could use a Dolby True HD track, hell maybe my second theory is closer to the truth.

From what I have heard both PCM and Dolby True HD are both superior to both DD and DTS lossy formats. I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that DTS-HD MA will be just as good as PCM and DTHD. One of my biggest pet peaves is that most of the HD-DVD titles only have lossy DD+. Its almost funny that DD+ seems to be a HD-DVD only thing, as most of the Blu-ray titles seem to have a lossless solution. Maybe part of the reason lossless seems to stand out on my HT is the use of a pair of Altec Lancing Voice Of The Theater A-7's? But I firmly believe that lossless audio is superior to the old lossy formats we have been use to for the past 10 years. I will continue to support titles with lossless audio and will start passing on HD-DVD titles that have DD+. I will be focusing my purchases on titles that offer lossless solutions.
Reply
post #119 of 203
1/9/08 at 3:33pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman
That's EASY... split the films to two BD50's and create intro, intermission, and exit music like a premium road show release of yore and make sure the mix is 7.1, 24 bit/96 kHz! Someone should put this in Peter Jackson's ear so they don't do it like the four disc DVD sets!

Yes that would be one way to do it. But may not be the way they want to do it.

Doug
Reply
post #120 of 203
1/9/08 at 7:50pm

Re: Universal at CES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Monce
I'm not saying that it shouldn't be. I'm just saying that if its not, frankly for me its not that big a deal.

And there may come a time when a film like the extended cut of Return of the King comes along, they may start looking at ways to free up space, even on a 50 gig disc. They just may start looking at the sound track. At that point I'll take a high bit rate DD+ track over a 16bit Lossless track any day.

Doug

You know Doug, this was making me think of one very important point. In regards to both HD formats. The way you feel about the audio is how most average Joe 6 packs feel about both audio and video. It just doesnt matter to them. Shoot i only know a handful of people that have a 5.1 surround set up at all! Some of them are not even done right. Course i also know a few in that handful that have a nice A/V setup, but they still get something wrong. Stretching or zooming pan and scan DVDs, or putting the surround speakers on the TV, next to the mains, for instance. When all is said and done, people dont "get it", and a bunch of them dont want to. Its just TV.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray