Universal at CES (1 Viewer)

[PeterMano]

I won't. Two channel uncompressed PCM lacks the pinpoint directionality of DD, but more than compensates with a far more open soundstage, its not even a close call, imo. I didn't think that would be the case, but one play thru of Black Hawk Down convinced me otherwise.

Also, I'm having a hard time understanding people panning the DTS core, beats the crap out of DD easily.

 

[Romier S]

Plenty of people feel the same about PIP functionality, downloadable web content that in three years no one is going to give a damn about or any number of other extras that have nothing to do with the presentation of the film. That's not to say that I necessarily feel that way but since you're so easily dismissing lossless audio because you don't care about it, that doesn't mean that many others can't do the same about the "finalized" hardware spec that equates to better interactivity features.

From my point of view, if it is indeed fair to claim that Blu-Ray isn't the "better" format due to it lack of interactivity functionality than it DAMN SURE is fair to say that HD DVD as a format has been utterly lacking and a disappointment to the Home Theater enthusiast wanting the best possible audio presentation for thier films (something which is far more pertinent to me than any extra a studio can put on a disc). As Adam noted, both of these formats have thier strengths and thier weaknesses. Those need to be acknowledged on both sides of the fence.

Oh and before this thread invariably moves into the "DD+ is good enough" nonsense that tends to arise whenever lossless is brought up, it's truly not my point. I'm not arguing transparency of sound. I'm not arguing the truly subjective nature of audio because it is futile in my eyes. What I am arguing is that if the space and bandwidth exists on these optical formats to put a 100% bit for bit, transparant to the master, 24-bit lossless/uncompressed audio track on the films I'm buying - then fucking do it. No compromises and no "well this is good enough". A statement which never ceases to amaze me on a forum who's missions statement reads "The Home Theater Forum is a place where those who enjoy watching movies in their homes can discuss all aspects of (re-)presenting films the best way they can."

 

[Douglas Monce]

Actually David my hearing is better than all but about .5% of people. I recently had an inner ear infection that had a huge effect on my equilibrium. After months of physical therapy to be able to stand up and walk in a straight line again, I was given an extensive set of hearing tests. I was told that I am able to hear sounds that almost no one else can. I can easily hear those teenage ring tones that adults are not supposed to be able to hear.

The only thing that I can say to you is Troy Director's Cut. Obviously it is possible to put a lossless audio track on a long movie and not have an effect on the picture quality. There are numerous HD DVD with long movies and lossless audio. Isn't it just possible that the producer is one of the 95% of the population that can't hear the difference between lossy and lossless, and simply thought it was a waste of space?

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.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'm not saying that lossless audio isn't important. It is. But only to the 5 to 10% of the population that can actually hear the difference. And the fewer who have the equipment that allow them to actually hear the difference.

The point is in the grand scheme of things the difference between DD+ and lossless is so small that most people really can't tell the difference, so its really not a selling point.

Even standard DVD with standard Dolby Digital already has better audio than you can hear in your local theater. So I'm already getting a presentation that is better than what the soundtrack was designed for.

Doug

 

[Dan Hitchman]

And we are still debating the merrits or lack thereof of lossy audio??

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

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't disagree with you at all Dan. If there is no reason not to have it then it should be there.

Doug

 

[PeterMano]

You have two people here, myself and Edwin already refuting your contentions and we're listening to just 2 channel pcm, and we're not alone by a long shot. You're quoting of statistics from who knows where, I find meaningless.

 

[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.

 

[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

 

[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...

 

[PeterMano]

The irony is biting here, because I've heard many parties state that the difference between DD and DD+ is minor.

 

[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

 

[Douglas Monce]

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

 

[RobertR]

So how much will it cost and when will it be available?

 

[Jari K]

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.

 

[Sanjay Gupta]

Amen.

 

[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.

 

[Zack Gibbs]

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.

 

[Jari K]

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..

 

[Jari K]

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".