A Few Words About A few words about...™ The African Queen -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

It makes sense. It's not that the lossy DD track is better than a lossless track would have been. It's that there's no perceptible difference. Lossy audio compression keeps the bit rate down by compromising in the frequencies that the audience is least likely to notice. If the original audio track is sufficiently limited that no meaningful data exists in those frequencies, than the end product is audibly the same as the lossless track would be. It's like a JPG image of simple, flat color shapes versus a JPG of a field of wildflowers. In the photo of the field of wildflowers, a lossless image format like bitmap would be noticably superior to the compressed JPG because there's simply too much information for the JPG to handle without dumbing some details down. However, the image of the simple, flat color shapes will likely look identical in both images because the source material already provides large areas that are ideal for compression.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

And the lossless can of worms has its lid unceremoniously ripped off! I grow tired of these debates, as what we get at home is still better than what any state-of-the-art movie theatre can produce now. The bitrate on DTS at home vs. DTS in theatres is identical; however, with the advent of the lossless formats, we now have DTS HD MA. As well, the bitrate on Dolby Digital (even EX) in theatres is 320 Kbps; at home, on DVD it's 448 Kbps and we also have the DD Plus and True HD formats. There comes a point where any benefit to be gained by so called uncompressed or lossless formatting just becomes so much hot air.

You will note that many of RAH's comments mirror the warnings we used to see on CDs. "The high resolution of the digital audio may reveal limitations in the source material. Go and read up on the specs on analogue optical audio. They are all over the Web. Films of the 40s and 50s had extremely limited dynamic range and frequency response compared to modern recording techniques, which typically would translate to sound "imperfections." That's what RAH heard when Vertigo was remastered for DTS, and it's likely what we would hear if TAQ were mastered for lossless. Sure, we could employ digital tools to massage the original audio and make it sound smoother, but then we aren't being transparent to the source, are we?

The insanity of seeking perfection in all aspects of home theatre reproduction of imperfect material (and yes, no film is perfect, though some come very close) should be readily apparent.

 

[rich_d]

Agreed Adam. The audio on some old 1920 recording does not get better when compressed. No audio gets improved by being compressed. So, lossless is the way to go. Heck, it's not even a cost issue so no way does it make sense. That said, yes ... putting a 50 dollar saddle on a 10 dollar horse isn't going to make him run perceptively better.

Originally Posted by Adam Lenhardt

It makes sense. It's not that the lossy DD track is better than a lossless track would have been. It's that there's no perceptible difference. Lossy audio compression keeps the bit rate down by compromising in the frequencies that the audience is least likely to notice. If the original audio track is sufficiently limited that no meaningful data exists in those frequencies, than the end product is audibly the same as the lossless track would be. It's like a JPG image of simple, flat color shapes versus a JPG of a field of wildflowers. In the photo of the field of wildflowers, a lossless image format like bitmap would be noticably superior to the compressed JPG because there's simply too much information for the JPG to handle without dumbing some details down. However, the image of the simple, flat color shapes will likely look identical in both images because the source material already provides large areas that are ideal for compression.

 

[Brandon Conway]

[/url]

And the lossless can of worms has its lid unceremoniously ripped off!

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford




I don't quite understand your analogy, can you please explain it?






Crawdaddy

The last laserdisc of TAQ contained an uncompressed PCM audio track. Some 15+ years later, the Blu-Ray contains a low-bitrate lossy track. I would consider that a step backward.

We had the same problem with many DVDs. There are plenty of examples of titles where the PCM track on LD was light-years better than the DD 2.0 track on DVD. However, bandwidth was an issue so, PCM didn't really make sense with DVD since it could easily degrade the video quality. With Blu-Ray, the audio bandwidth allocation is separate, so that problem would be impossible.

Given the source material of TAQ, I'm not necessarily convinced that it would make a huge difference. But a lossless mono track would not have taken up much more space and it's inexcusable that they didn't.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H

You will note that many of RAH's comments mirror the warnings we used to see on CDs. "The high resolution of the digital audio may reveal limitations in the source material. Go and read up on the specs on analogue optical audio. They are all over the Web. Films of the 40s and 50s had extremely limited dynamic range and frequency response compared to modern recording techniques, which typically would translate to sound "imperfections." That's what RAH heard when Vertigo was remastered for DTS, and it's likely what we would hear if TAQ were mastered for lossless. Sure, we could employ digital tools to massage the original audio and make it sound smoother, but then we aren't being transparent to the source, are we?

The insanity of seeking perfection in all aspects of home theatre reproduction of imperfect material (and yes, no film is perfect, though some come very close) should be readily apparent.

If someone would take that DTS track from Vertigo and compress it down to 224kbps it would not sound closer to the analog track. The mag track sounds better because it's analog. Analog is a totally different animal and the whole digital vs. analog argument has been debated for decades. Any flaws heard in the lossless digital track would still be present on a lossy track, only with the possibility of compression artifacts.

I don't consider it "insanity" to have expected a lossless mono track when there's tons of space available to put it on there. Again, I'm not saying with this title we would have heard much difference but I'm still shocked when a major studio releases a Blu-Ray with lossy audio as the only option. It's not a deal-breaker for me on this title (like it was with The Aviator, for example), but I just don't understand the logic behind it.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jeff Adkins




If someone would take that DTS track from Vertigo and compress it down to 224kbps it would not sound closer to the analog track. The mag track sounds better because it's analog. Analog is a totally different animal and the whole digital vs. analog argument has been debated for decades. Any flaws heard in the lossless digital track would still be present on a lossy track, only with the possibility of compression artifacts.

I don't consider it "insanity" to have expected a lossless mono track when there's tons of space available to put it on there. Again, I'm not saying with this title we would have heard much difference but I'm still shocked when a major studio releases a Blu-Ray with lossy audio as the only option. It's not a deal-breaker for me on this title (like it was with The Aviator, for example), but I just don't understand the logic behind it.

That is their logic, that you wouldn't hear any difference with a lossless mono track.

The African Queen is presented with its original English mono audio track encoded at 224kbps Dolby Digital. It was encoded at a higher bit rate (224 vs. 192) than most other classic titles and has plenty of space for peaks encoded at 224kbps to cover the relative static dynamics of its range audio. Just to give this context, you wouldn’t construct a 100 gallon tank for 5 gallons of gas, there is no benefit in doing so and a higher bit rate ceiling provides zero benefits to the audio experience.

Now, you can choose to not accept that logic, but that's their position.






Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Harris]

A nice article on the restorative efforts:

https://www.editorsguild.com/FromTheGuild.cfm?FromTheGuildid=151

 

[CraigF]

They may be 100% correct about the lossy audio vs lossless. It sure would be nice to be able to decide for myself. Clearly some people who are apparently involved with the release don't have much respect or use for hi-res audio, and are telling us we can't usually hear the difference. Perhaps an audio upgrade at their home or business facility is in order? Hard to believe they can't hear a diff if it's quite plain here. Speaking in general, since obviously I have no way to tell with TAQ. An HD movie includes HD audio. I'll tell you when your product is too high quality for me, and I want you to reduce quality so I can tolerate it. Thanks.

 

[Mike Frezon]

The point of the discussion I keep getting hung up on (and keep coming back to) is that the use of lossless audio is simply guaranteeing the best presentation of the audio on the disc. Nothing else.

I understand the statement from the Paramount executive that the original audio elements apparently don't need to be presented in any higher resolution.

But why not do it anyway? I cannot imagine there's a cost factor or a space issue on the disc.

Originally Posted by Stephen_J_H /forum/thread/299090/a-few-words-about-the-african-queen-in-blu-ray/60#post_3674109

Unless someone can explain to me why Craig isn't right, that's my take on the situation.

While I hear the arguments about how a lossless track might reveal details to an old soundtrack that I don't want to hear, I have two reactions: 1.) that possibly there needs to be more restoration done to the audio side of the film (if possible) and 2.) if the lossy track is "all that's necessary" to get the job done (as Paramount explains)...wouldn't I hear the same imperfections in the audio track anyway?

Seems to me Craig is right. HD discs are for HD audio. That's why we're paying the premium. As I've wondered all along, I've never heard anyone advocate the use of an SD video encode on a Blu-ray release because the existing film elements weren't up-to-snuff.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'm not sure that I buy the notion that a lossy track isn't HD. (what ever that means in audio terms) After all its not as if the lossy track isn't capable of reproducing all the full fidelity of almost any audio track. It is. Its just a matter of if in throwing away some elements that 99% of the population can't hear, has an over all effect on the sound. It may or it may not. And the higher the bit rate, the less it throws away. The image we are looking at is in fact lossy also, but it is still HD quality. Its still 1920 x 1080.

We aren't exactly talking about a low bit rate track either. I heard a quote of 224kbps for a single mono track, as apposed to 448 (745 for DTS) spread among 6 tracks. If that were a 6 track mix at that bit rate it would be 1344kbps! That is an extremely high bit rate, and can probably more than accurately represent a 60 year old mono optical track. Now did they use a lossy track because the license for a losssless Dolby or DTS track was more? I don't know. Is it possible that a lossy encode of the sound track sounded more like the original optical sound than a lossless encode? Yes.

Doug

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by CraigF

When did it get decided that "HD audio" = lossless? What standards-setting body issued this decree that so many people seem to take for granted?

TV broadcasts are "HD" with lossy audio.

The Blu-ray spec permits a disc to qualify as "HD" with lossy audio.

In fact, lossy compression is pretty much the norm, because every single video codec used on Blu-ray is lossy. And yet no one complains, "That ain't HD!"

I understand the arguments in favor of lossless audio, and I'm not trying to downplay them. But this notion that somehow a source isn't "HD" unless there's a lossless audio track is, you'll pardon the phrase, lost on me.

 

[Edwin-S]

Why insist on a lossless track if there is a possibility that flaws in the original recording could be emphasized, resulting in a disappointing reproduction of the movie's soundtrack? Who would want to pay a premium for that? If anything, the result would be a chorus of complaints that the studio was putting out poor quality work and charging a premium for it.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Michael:

I thought Craig's rhetorical simplicity summed up my developing thoughts on the issue nicely. There's a lot about this discussion I don't understand. That's why I've been asking all the questions. And, I tell you truly...I've been learning a lot from people on both sides of the issue.

It seems to me that Blu-ray discs exist to give a better A/V presentation of a film than is currently available on a DVD. Maybe that's a flawed perception. I think of DVD as "SD" and Blu-ray as "HD." Maybe that's flawed, too.

Since the capacity of Blu-ray discs allow for lossless audio, the whole reason I began asking "the question" at the beginning of this thread was because I don't understand why the decision would be made NOT to include a lossless audio track when the technology exists, the disc space exists, and cost doesn't seem to be a factor.

So while there hasn't been a standard set by Congress, the IOC or the Rensselaer City Council (although I could talk to them about it) that "HD audio = lossless", I guess I am still grappling with the "why not?" of it all.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Originally Posted by Mike Frezon


It seems to me that Blu-ray discs exist to give a better A/V presentation of a film than is currently available on a DVD

Who could disagree with that statement? It's obvious, right? But then one has to fill in the specifics of what's meant by "better".

For example, many people (I among them) feel that, all other things being equal, Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks at a bitrate of 640kp/ps are "better" than those at a bitrate of 448kp/ps. The latter is the rate commonly used on DVD, and both significantly improve on the bitrate used in theatrical DD. The former is commonly used on Blu-ray as a compatibility track for systems that can't process Dolby TrueHD. But for zealots who have drawn a bright line between lossless and everything else, it doesn't matter that the 640kp/ps bitrate track is "better" and, in most cases, transparent to the uncompressed master. They'll say it's "not HD", because . . . well, just because.

Since the capacity of Blu-ray discs allow for lossless audio

That's an interesting assumption. Capacity is just that -- a finite amount of digital real estate. How to allocate it is part of the judgment of mastering the disc. Since the uncompressed video file far exceeds the capacity of even the largest Blu-ray disc, choices always have to be made. Some of the earliest Universal Blu-rays looked worse than their HD DVD counterparts, because the video suffered additional compression to make room for lossless audio (e.g., U-571). Every disc presents its own issues, and every disc producer has choices to make, based on a host of factors, some of them obvious, many of them probably not.

Generally, I'm happy to see lossless audio on a disc if only because it means there won't be any second-guessing. But I also don't consider it a tragedy when the disc doesn't feature lossless, particularly when the people who have heard it (which I haven't) report that the sound is high quality. And as a reviewer, I've learned to review discs, not specs.

 

[Douglas Monce]

Michael said it quite well.

I guess from my perspective, the codec is just a delivery system. As long as it is delivering high quality audio, or video that (at least to me) is indistinguishable from the original, I couldn't care less if it is lossy or lossless. Specs don't particularly interest me, the final result does.

Doug

 

[Mike Frezon]

More food for thought (and excellent information). Thanks, Michael.

The section of your response about disc capacity is interesting. I was under the false assumption (again...I'm learning here) that there was plenty of room on a Blu-ray disc for a lossless audio track of a normal length feature film...and still allow a high quality video presentation alongside.

I'm surprised to hear that the video of some HD-DVDs suffered because of the inclusion of a lossless audio track. That's what I get for being late to the HD game. I missed most all of the format war. If I hadn't, I might know a lot more about this issue. I was blissfully reading DVD threads while all that was taking place around me.

Originally Posted by Michael Reuben /forum/thread/299090/a-few-words-about-the-african-queen-in-blu-ray/90#post_3674256

Remember when Rhetorical Simplicity opened for the Stones during their 1974 tour? They were awesome!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Actually, it's some BRD titles that look worse than prior HD DVD release of the same title(s).







Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Douglas Monce

Michael said it quite well.

I guess from my perspective, the codec is just a delivery system. As long as it is delivering high quality audio, or video that (at least to me) is indistinguishable from the original, I couldn't care less if it is lossy or lossless. Specs don't particularly interest me, the final result does.

Doug

Yes, Michael pretty well sums up my position on this matter. A while back I was upset that the new BR release of Casino didn't have a lossless audio track on it and was the same disc used in the prior BR release. IMO, I think Casino made in 1995 with a great soundtrack could've benefited from a lossless audio track. However, I don't think the same benefit exists for TAQ with it's 60 year old mono audio track. Maybe, I'm wrong with my reasoning behind these two different releases.





Crawdaddy

 

[Douglas Monce]

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford




Yes, Michael pretty well sums up my position on this matter. A while back I was upset that the new BR release of Casino didn't have a lossless audio track on it and was the same disc used in the prior BR release. IMO, I think Casino made in 1995 with a great soundtrack could've benefited from a lossless audio track. However, I don't think the same benefit exists for TAQ with it's 60 year old mono audio track. Maybe, I'm wrong with my reasoning behind these two different releases.





Crawdaddy

I don't think I could disagree with that assessment. All things being equal, yeah give us the lossless track. Particularly for modern sound tracks. Now if we were talking about Dolby Digital plus, honestly I think it would be splitting hairs. But with blu-ray thats not really an issue.

Doug