Writing a letter to Warner about lack of lossless audio on their BRD (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Regarding #4

those of use with laserdisc collections can hear the "clear" benefits of lossless audio even with old mono source material from vintage films.

Even a constricted, hiss-filled mag mono track will sound better left alone that with the added compromise of psychoactoustic reduction. In fact, the noise in old recordings might even tax the compresion algorithms making their effects more noticable.

Sony has released a number of 1950's films on Blu-ray with TrueHD and the option to play the core 640 kbps DD track as well. These are low-budget films from the 50s... not epic classics that would have received top-teir audio mastering in their day. Even with the audio tracks of such "B grade" 50s movies, you can hear the more open, natural sound of the lossless encoding in comparison to the 640 kbps DD lossy alternative.

 

[OliverK]

That's a good point about the BD25 often not having enough space for lossless.

I sometimes wonder if Warner just is too lazy to do a lossless track in cases where they do not already have one prepared that they could just slap on the Blu-Ray, seems to be the case for many catalog titles.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That was the rationale I was given by an insider in touch with WB on why we didn't see it on Interview With The Vampire (ie, there was room for lossless, but the encode was already prepared and they didn't want to bother re-encoding the file). Considering the titles that get re-authored for bonus features and other "lesser" issues, one would think that the AV transparency of the feature film would be reason enough... especially when the lossless masters exist and simply were downconverted to lossy for the existing encode.

 

[OliverK]

When there is a lossless master we can certainly demand it to be available, it was my impression that with many titles there was no lossless master.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

In all cases, lossy soundtracks are derived, at the very least, from a linear PCM lossless "master". The Prepwork to produce a Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD MA encode from the same LPCM master if there isn't space on the BD for LPCM does not present a cost/resources barrier.

 

[OliverK]

Well, if better elements can be expected to be existant in almost all cases I think Warner should really do something about this.
While I am not that much of an audio guy I cannot understand how they cannot put this on disc when it would take so little effort.

 

[JediFonger]

i believe i've replied about this before but what matters more is remastering the original audio sources... not just the final media delivery method/system. while we can benefit from lossless, i think remastering the original soundtrack elements will reap more benefit long term lossy OR lossless. if u don't remaster the original source... then all of this discussion is simply moot.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Plenty of historic soundtracks sound just fine exactly as they are, and sounded fantastic on laserdics. In fact, more often than not, "remastering" by tech-obsessed studio hands means remuddling. Take for instance the new "home theater" mixes for several Disney DVDs: Mary Poppins, Little Mermaid, and Aladdin. The new mixes are pretty bad, and in the case of Mary Poppins the audio engineers noise-gated the whole thing to get rid of "hiss" and in doing so wiped away 1/2 of the music... there are no highs.
Little Mermiad was similarly processed for noise reduction and ended up sounding flat and wooden on the most recent DVD. The older DVD which had the "regular" original soundtrack sounded terriffic with natural vocals.

And at Warner's hands, many fine high-resolution historic mixes like Ben Hur and Camelot were remixed for "home theater" by routing all the dialogue to the center channel, flatening the sound stage, and taking other strange liberties like altering musical cues.

Of course, there are exceptions like Disney's recent Sleeping Beauty, but that is a special case where the original stems were still available and Disney spent $$$$ for the best talent in the business to do it right. No studio can afford that level of perfection for every remastering title, just like no one can afford Lowry for every digital clean up, and so just like stock DNR for grain reduction we get stock EQ and noise-reduction for 99% of the audio "remasters" out there.

When it comes to audio fidelity, unless we're talking about *damaged* sound elements, the best remastering practices follow a "Less is More" philosophy.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I'm curious how you know this, especially since TrueHD uses a variable bitrate so that its space requirements aren't subject to a hard-and-fast calculation.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

That's true about the variable bit-rate for TrueHD, though at the 16-bit 48 kHz level there are reasonable bandwidth requirements to presume based on the wide range of existing encodes out there. My information about the reason for not including lossless comes from an insider who got the word directly from Warner after the initial back-lash over the lack of lossless on Interview got back to the WB disc producers. Apparently, when they said (promised) the BD community months ago that they'd be putting lossless on all catalog titles, they failed to mention that this only referred to titles not already authored.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The same applies to the promise to dial back the DNR. Titles already in the pipeline will not be redone.

 

[CraigF]

Having lossless is the most important factor, for those who want it LOL.

Secondarily: make it the default if TrueHD (played another WB BD last night that did have lossless and a menu, hooray, but no audio option on the main menu and defaulted to DD with "play movie"). Minor, but unnecessary.

Tertiarily (or whatever the word is): please record the BD lossless at a higher level. There is no good reason in digital to have it as low as WB typically does. It can and does often make a difference with downstream digital processing on the equipment *people actually use*, as opposed to in theory it shouldn't. Again, relatively minor but an unnecessary practice.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed, and point well taken.

However, every other studio is releasing lossless audio on the BD25 discs. Whether bandwidth or bitspace issues are cited, it seems odd that Warner alone is burdened by these technical difficulties. The fact that we also see lossless absent from occasional WB BD50 releases seems to point to factors other than disc-limitations as the source of the omission.

 

[David Wilkins]

I hope this isn't a violation of some policy here, but below is a direct link to Warner's customer comment section of their web site; it offers a quick, easy way for a lot of people to make their feelings and wishes known. Of course, it's wise to remain respectful and polite. A well worded, coherent, and reasonably intelligent comment is bound to make a far better impression than a rude, poorly written one.

Warner Bros : Help

 

[Michael Reuben]

Nothing wrong with it at all. Of course, an even better way would have been to attend the just-concluded HTF meet in L.A., where anyone for whom this issue is important would have had a chance to express his or her thoughts directly to George Feltenstein of Warner, who was very generous with his time and took numerous questions from our group.

(And no, this subject didn't come up.)

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Providing lossless wasn't the mistake: it shouldn't be assumed that audio gets short-changed either. our HD format supports both advanced audio and video. Not just video.

But that's not to say that there aren't options for optimizing AV for challenging content. For instance, rather than sacrifice lossless altogether, other compromises can be made that aren't ideal for audio, but that can free up more bit space for video while not resorting to lossy compression. So far all of the Universal titles I've seen have been 24-bit DTS Master Audio. Dropping down to 16-bit would cut bit space dramatically (I know with Dolby TrueHD, dropping from 24 to 16 cuts the file size almost in half. Not sure of the exact reduction for DTS master, but it's got to be significant). I don't have that particular Universal disc so I can't vouch for the bit-depth, but I'd presume it's 24 bit like the rest of the DTS tracks from Universal.

As video compression practices improve, we should be able to see lossless audio and uncompromised video even for challenging titles like this. New Line has insisted, for instance, that with careful compression they can provide lossless audio along with the extended cut for LOTR on a single BD50 without any negative impact on PQ. Most compressionists say that the space for lossless doesn't have to necessitate compromised video qualtiy for challenging titles, only that with challenging material it might mean more time and money need to be spend on the video encode to hand-tweak it. Perhaps Universal didn't want to make the additional investment with hand-tweaked compression and so added filtering so they could just set the average-bit-rate dial and go. In any case, it might be prudent for studios to forgo the most challenging compression jobs right now as practices continue to improve (and BD50 replication becomes more plentiful), and then revisit those same titles in a few years when superior compression won't require additional cost.

As an example of how compression technology improves over time, remember the first Titanic DVD release? both Fox and THX said that they purposefully went with a 4x3 lbxed image rather than 16x9 because they felt that the added picture information with a 16x9 capture would be too difficult to compress on a dual-layer DVD given the high entropy and run time of the film. At that time in DVD's life cycle, that might have been a true statement. However, a few years later, Fox re-released Titanic on dual-layer DVD with a reference 16x9 anamorphic picture. In the intervening years compression technology had improved to the point that the same bit-space could be more efficiently utilized by the MPEG2 codec, allowing a full 16x9 capture without increased artifacting or high frequency filtering.

AVC and VC-1 compression will have a similar improvement curve (so say all the compression experts). If not today, then a few years from Now Universal will be able to re-release that title with optimal image and lossless audio without the challenges incurred today.

 

[Michael Reuben]

David, have you ever noticed how, as soon as a subject appears to be nearing conclusion, you immediately shift to something else on which you can hold forth?

Having just recently visited Panasonic Hollywood Labs, where we were given a number of excellent presentations, I don't need a lesson in compression techniques and the learning curve.

I'm simply conveying what my particular source reported about what happened, in the current situation of limited BD-50 capacity, when a studio (Universal) actually listened to the ceaseless beat of the lossless drum. You can insist that such compromises aren't necessary, and maybe you're right. But you're not the one producing the discs. This leaves you in the enviable position of being able to claim that perfection is always possible without ever having to deliver it.

 

[PaulDA]

In an ideal situation, all audio would be lossless to accompany hi-def video--whether on BD or via cable/sat/OTA broadcasts. In the real world, though, there are tradeoffs--some necessary (cable/sat/OTA), some not necessary (lack of lossless on some BDs) but predictable (U-571 being a good example on BD). The issue of cost has already been raised (again, with U-571) as one factor that made achieving one goal (lossless audio) happen at the expense of another goal (less detailed image than HD DVD).

The reality is that while it is POSSIBLE to accommodate lossless audio and excellent video on a BD-25 AND that improvements to the processes will make that easier down the line, clearly there is an extra cost involved at the moment that studios are unwilling to assume (WB opts for lossy audio, Universal opts for sub-optimal video, just to cite cases from this thread). In the face of that reality, I would rather a studio "err" on the side of optimal video quality--as diminished video quality is far more noticeable to far more people than lossy audio.

I would, as would any HT enthusiast, PREFER optimal video and audio. But if I am forced to choose, I'll take lossy audio over sub-optimal video anytime. Lossy audio is far less a "sacrifice" than non-anamorphic SD DVD, by a major stretch, so a little perspective should be maintained. Keep asking for optimal audio and video (they are laudable goals) but let's not look at "lossy audio" as a sign of the apocalypse. A lossy encode from a well-recorded master is better than a lossless encode from a poorly recorded master--format is not everything.

 

[David Wilkins]

You make many excellent points.

A couple of issues remain, in the aftermath of your skillfully applied logic: (1) The matter of choices made by Warner, as to which titles will get lossless audio and which will not. Some of the choices seem illogical. (2) We still don't know how much of the lossy audio application is due to the shortage of BD50, and how much of it is simply a new philosophy at Warner.

I think it's important for consumers to maintain a persistent request, otherwise the easier route of lossy will become SOP, with little consideration applied. They should have to think it through carefully. How many notable issues during the past several years of home theater would never have been rectified if there hadn't been a persistent noise made by consumers? (Much of it originating in forums just like this one.)

 

[PaulDA]

I agree--most improvements on a variety of consumer goods have come from responding to customer requests and desires. So people should continue to point out they would prefer optimal audio and video. I just think the variables in play at this stage make it difficult to judge intentions vs limitations. It won't be long before BD-50 capacity will be sufficient to the task (as DVD-9 became) of meeting production demands AND codecs (video and audio) become more efficient (to the point of making BD-25 a viable alternative for optimal audio and video, if need be). Once those thresholds have been met, then it will become easy to determine if lossy audio is a necessary compromise (as it is in some cases now) or just the 'easy way out'. At that point, complaints will have even more foundation. In the meantime, lossy audio should not be seen as a major impediment to enjoying a movie (one is, of course, free not to BUY a movie if it lacks something one considers important) as a rental. After all, I don't know anyone who considered it tortuous to listen to LOTR, for example, in a mere lossy format.