What's new

300: HD DVD edition - Best hidef disc, period? A review. (1 Viewer)

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Which raises the question: Why are they interested in buying a movie the inherent look of which they hate? :)
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826

Sounds like Dialog-Normalization is applied to the TrueHD tracks. Big surpirse, coming from WB. :rolleyes
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
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.

:rolleyes


Note: Lexicon is a high-end digital decoder and may perform its own volume control in the digital domain. However, the sophistication and transparency of Lexicon's algorithms are superior to what comes programmed on "stock" eproms like Dolby Digital decoding chips. Most high-end processors still perform volume adjustment in the analog domain to avoid problems with degredation from digital-processing to reduce amplitude.
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
David, you remind me of my early high school days, when digital systems were just entering the fray in theaters. 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.

My buddy, studying the sound formats had summed it up: So Dolby compresses the sound so they can have more channels, and then applies noise reduction so you don't realize it sounds crappy.

:laugh: 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.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Interesting. A friend of mine, who has worked as a projectionist, once offered to have Gary Reber (whose fondness for DTS is very well known) listen to a movie with a DD soundtrack and a DTS soundtrack under blind conditions, and say which one he preferred. So which soundtrack did the well known DTS cheerleader pick? The DD one.

Which tells me that your preference for the "DTS theater" had essentially nothing to do with DD vs. DTS, but the particular theater setup.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
Robert G,

Roger Dressler has confirmed what I've said is accurate in several discussions at AVS.

DN flag (set to anything other than -31) causes the digital filter in the DD decoding engine to then recalculate the audio data (which *is* bit-for-bit accurate from TrueHD to start with) to perform digital-level-reduction based on the value. You no longer have bit-for-bit accuracy to the original data, just like running your audio data through a sampling rate converter or noise-shaping filter would re-write data.

That's how it works. Even Dolby doesn't challenge this. The only thing Roger Dressler had to say was that he felt personally that the re-writing of the data didn't cause any serious sonic degredation to the signal (a natural point of view for him to take). But he confirmed 100% that the process I've described above is exactly how DN is applied.



Possibly. But 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 (which it isn't), but because they like the "bite" it adds to high-frequencies becuase they prefer that sonic signature. The smoother, more accurate sound of the 20 bit sounds too "tame" to some listeners who like the more agressive mid-range of 16-bit sound.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
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.
 

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
My only point is that one person's impressions won't necessarily reflect that of another person. That point remains true. 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?
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
If you think in terms of one being technically "superior", yes, but the blind tests I was referring to would only be testing to see if a stated preference held up, not technical superiority. In that case, DTS should be thought of as the "16 bit", since both were the previously stated preference.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce
At the height of the Dolby Digital vs. DTS in theaters, say around 98 or 2000, I always felt that DTS sounded very shrill compared to Dolby Digital. And this was a case of seeing films in the same theater, same auditorium with in a week or so of each other. Of course it was never the same film, but my over all impression was that of a distinct shrillness in the DTS tracks. I've never understood why that was.

Doug
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce

The only time I ever got to hear a film in SDDS was at Sony Pictures itself. I never actually saw a film in a public theater that way. I did like what I heard at Sony, but of course that was a mixing theater where the acoustics were perfect.

Doug
 

Jeff(R)

Second Unit
Joined
May 14, 1999
Messages
372
I last heard SDDS while watching The Patriot on Independence Day in 2000. I was very impressed. :)
 

Grant H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
2,844
Real Name
Grant H
My "pathetic" theater never got any kind of digital sound until 1997. Sometimes it didn't even have surround. You knew you were in trouble when you walked in and you couldn't see any speakers. Even the best surround screen there was still lame though. It wasn't until I started driving over the mountain to see movies that movies started sounding better than a home VCR/stereo setup.

My old theater got a couple DTS screens so that they could get Star Wars. Lucas would only let it play in the best theaters in the market if you recall. My guess is it wouldn't have come to Lewistown and everyone would have gone to State College to see it. So I think they got 2 DTS theaters set up with that in mind. I did catch a show of Star Wars there and later X-Men, but the same DTS tracks were still better in State College because they were just plain better theaters. Superior speakers and acoustics.

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.

Usually, I find theatrical DD more boomy than DTS as well. Some sense this as a more active and superior track, whereas I find it headach-inducing. It's just like a lot of mid-frequency information is dropped. It's pretty much the same for me as going from a compressed scheme at home (be it DD or DTS) and comparing it with an uncompressed track. The lossless track sounds less punchy to me and not nearly as harsh. But more realistic, easier to listen to, less headache inducing.

I did have good experiences with SDDS watching the Star Wars and ESB rereleases in NYC, though they were a bit loud. Saw another movie in SDDS once that was so loud my father and I had to stuff tissues in our ears.
 

Douglas Monce

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2006
Messages
5,511
Real Name
Douglas Monce

The sound blip problem is an issue with the projectionist not knowing how to properly splice the reels together rather than a problem with DD itself.

Doug
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,805
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top