Consumers Must Demand an Increase in Audio Quality for 'HD-DVD', Not Just Video! (1 Viewer)

[ChrisA]

A discrete tactile transducer channel is much more than a special output from Parasound with filters. It would be a discrete 0-500 Hz channel specifically for what is appropriate for tactile information and would have to be created by recording studio as part of the mix. Please see my signature file for complete details. For instance, D-Box (Oddessey) makes a proprietary discrete tactile/motion track for movies for use with its 3-D motion/tactile system. Hollywood will eventually start mixing these tracks for every movie, hopefully sooner than later...

DTS has commercially released a new decoder that is scalable to multiple bitrates, bit depths, sampling rates, and up to 10 channel discrete surround, so they can be flexible if they want to be. If they're smart, DTS will be in talks with the Blu-Ray group pronto!

DTS is fiesty... that's good news.

 

[ChrisA]

We should really start a thread that discusses all of the aspects of HD-DVD and come to some kind of consensus on all of the issues.

We actually did that already, not that it can't be done again... that is how we came up with the HD-DVD petition, which I have listed in my signature file below...

Perhaps we can do a search and dig up those threads again to add some new info...

 

[Todd Hochard]

Ultimately, the video will benefit so much more than the audio from increased bandwidth, we would not be able to justify 10 mbit/sec for a primary 5/6.1 track. I am an 'audiophile' (utilizing five Nautilus 802 speakers, 7 Bryston 7BST monoblocks, I love speaker building, etc...), however, even the digital 1080p MASTER uses 4X compression and requires 350-400 Mbit/sec bandwidth for the video. I cannot deny the fact that the HD-VIDEO for any HD-DVD format would benefit from maximum useage of bandwidth. I don't think I know anyone who is more enthusiastic about audio than myself. You can't justify 10Mbit/sec audio (24/96 MLP multichannel) even with 20+ Mbit/sec video. Ideally, it is a matter of allocating the bandwidth where it makes the most difference. I really like the idea of 24/96 MLP for the front 3 channels and 20/48 for the rear channels (which MLP is capable of), however, I still think we would be nudging the 7 Mbit/sec bandwidth mark...

This entire thing reads like the reasoning that you, David, and Dan berated me for saying last year. I see you've turned from the Dark Side.

Let me help them get started- dts 4096(tm)

I'm still not counting on 1080p, but we can hope.

Todd

 

[ChrisA]

I've always said the same thing that I said here... it is the same thing we put in the HD-DVD petition.

 

[Eric F]

What's wrong with DTS 96/24? It's a good compromise and inexpensive to implement.

 

[ChrisA]

Beware of marketing gimmicks... DTS actually has to use more lossy compression with 24/96 than say 20/48. DTS added a tiny bit more bandwidth, but not nearly enough for any true 24/96 format... even lossless compression at 24/96 still requires 10 Mbit/sec...

DTS definitely needs to move into the 4 Mbit/sec range ESPECIALLY when doing 24/96. Also, percpetual lossy coding is about eliminating data (such as higher frequencies) that we are less likely to notice... It is a bit of an oxymoron to use 24/96 and lossy coding... I have less of a problem with 24/96 DTS if it is runnning at high bandwidths such as 4 Mbit/sec, not the pathetic 24/96 marketing gimmick DTS is currently offering...

I would be fine with 24/96 DTS for a primary audio track for movies running at 4096 kbps (4Mbit/sec).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Errm.. no. Dolby Digital on DVD runs at a higher bitrate than it did on LaserDisc. PCM uncompressed audio does also.

Rob Gillespie,
So there are DVD's with uncompressed multichannel LPCM soundtracks, that are better than LD?
Are they "ONLY" available in "Middle Earth"?

 

[Ned]

Why does everyone assume that DTS is superior to Dolby Digital? As a *codec* there is no evidence that it is superior to DD at the *same* bitrate (DTS conveniently made sure they were at a higher bitrate). Why not just push for an improved, higher bitrate Dolby scheme?

DTS brainwashing in full effect.

Is MLP even worth bothering with? If the studio making the DVD just takes the theatrical DD audio track and dumps it back into MLP, you gain nothing but a lossless copy of a lossy track. They would have to go back to uncompressed source to make the MLP cut. Good luck with that.

What bitrate is DD on the actual film stock? There's no point using a higher bitrate than the theatrical audio track. If it's 448kbit on the film then saving that to a 2-4mbit track for HD-DVD won't improve the quality.

These are some of the issues that need to be analyzed rather than everyone just yelling what magical new format they want.

 

[ChrisA]

What bitrate is DD on the actual film stock?

Most masters are PCM, or the soundtrack can be obtained from a PCM master... Your assumption is incorrect. Most movies are mastered at 24bit/48Khz. MLP 20/48 was suggested by me because it is an incredible system and should already be an integral part of every HD-DVD player.

 

[Richard Paul]

Ned, the problem is that Dolby Digital can't go any higher than 640 Kbps. A higher bit rate version of Dolby Digital would require a whole new codec. Dolby apparently has no interest in a improved codec and seems to be content with the royalties it get's from DVD and the future royalties it will get from ATSC. I personally hope Dolby will not be mandatory for pre-recorded Blu-ray since DTS is better than Dolby Digital. Also disregard my comment on Dolby Digital only going up to 576 Kbps since it applies only to D-Theater.

 

[Scott L]

Well put it this way.. if they don't come out with a new format for Blu-Ray it makes one think what the hell they're doing with all that spare time in Dolby Labs/Digital Theater Systems??

 

[Roogs Benoit]

Maybe Dolby could modify Dolby-E for consumer use instead of only for professional use. Eight channel capabilities but I'm sure at a rate too high for HD-DVD. Why is it that current DD format in the theater is 320 Kbps and enjoyed by us all looking at a 40' wide screen but DD at 448 is unacceptable for HD-DVD in our homes looking at a tv monitor?
If we are talking HD-DVD specs for pre-recorded discs created mostly by large media companies. I think the best we will end up with is a higher DD bit rate most likely 640Kbps, and MLP,DTS or any other format will be possible also but not mandatory. Remember that the HD-DVD specs are the minimum mandatory requirements not the possibilities. DTS is not a mandatory audio format for DVD but an option, DD and PCM are the only mandatory audio formats. Let's hope for these higher quality codecs are at least options but don't necessarily have to be "spec."

Dolby Digital only going up to 576 Kbps since it applies only to D-Theater.

Richard: what D-Theater system uses Dolby @ 576 Kbps?

Thanks,
Roogs

 

[ChrisA]

Why is it that current DD format in the theater is 320 Kbps and enjoyed by us all looking at a 40' wide screen but DD at 448 is unacceptable for HD-DVD in our homes looking at a tv monitor?

Absurd. I didn't realise that all home theaters were using TV monitors these days. Personally, I use a 100" 1.85:1 screen and sit around 12' away... HD-DVD will markedly improve picture quality and eliminate the need for degrading video scalers. I don't go to commercial theaters expept once in a blue moon... they have lousy sound in comparison to what I have at home (and no tactile feedback).

Also, Commercial theaters often have significant background noise, poor performing speakers, especially for the large volume of the 'auditorium'.... home theaters can easily excel in audio compared to a commercial theater.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Chris' point is well taken: The home venue is capable of far better picture and sound that we experience at the local theater...and HD-DVD should provide us with the maximum AV quality possible.

Something new to throw into the mix...

Several key industry leaders are rumored to be demonstrating WM9 video compression a the September CEDIA show and comparing directly with MPEG2 for HD applications at various rates. So far the word is that even at only 7-8 mbps WM9 is blowing the pants off of D-VHS MPEG2 titles mastered at 30+ mbps!!!.

This is no joke folks. Apparently the WM9 video compression codec really is light years ahead of MEPG2 and requires virtually *no* high-frequency filtering to achieve efficient and artifact-free compression...something that MPEG2 relies upon heavily which softens the picture noticably.

Those who have seen demonstrations say that the jump in image quality from D-VHS 1080i (MPEG2) to WM9 is as dramtic an improvement as going from DVD to D-VHS.

Right now all D-VHS titles are "hard coded" for 1080I playback and so have had additional vertical filtering applied (GRRRRRRR) but apples/apples comparisons of the compression schemes indicates that all things being equal WM9 can produce a significantly better picture even at significantly lower bit-rates.

POINT BEING....

If Sony can serve the videophile community and include WM9 as a codec to be used for BluRay HD titles, we may end up with a lot more bandwidth for audio than we have right now in the MPEG2 paradigm.

 

[Roogs Benoit]

home theaters can easily excel in audio compared to a commercial theater.

You are going to the wrong theaters then. Here in Hollywood there are a few theaters that might be able to compare with your home theater.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I dont recall saying ALL home theaters use tv's for viewing but the majority certainly do.
Your impressive setup is in the vast minority in relation to the general publics home theaters.

True, but with HD content don't we want our "ultimate" hi-res video to look it's best when viewed on the very best systems? the problem with DVD is that the disc producers can't decide who to master for...the guy with a 27" 4x3 TV or the guy with a 100" projection system.

HD-DVD should be all about the best image on the best systems. It will look good on any lesser system by default, but the reverse is not necessarily the case.

BTW, regarding audio, yes, there are supurb theater systems. However, still the very best sound can be obtained in privately owned systems. But either way...whoever said 384 DD was "good enough" for the theater? Heck...I MUCH prefer to screen a film in DTS. And mulit-channel analog mag tracks sound better yet for historic 70 mm films.

Theater audio has a ways to go before it becomes "transparent" for the audiophile so there's no reason to hold up the 384/448 DD format/datarate -- which was a compromise to fit digital auido between the sprocket holes of a 35mm print -- as a reference standard (which it objectively is not) and marry HD-DVD to the same limited fidelity.

 

[Roogs Benoit]

Theater audio has a ways to go before it becomes "transparent" for the audiophile so there's no reason to hold up the 384/448 DD format/datarate -- which was a compromise to fit digital auido between the sprocket holes of a 35mm print -- as a reference standard (which it objectively is not) and marry HD-DVD to the same limited fidelity.

384/448DD format is not available for film (between the sproket holes) 320 is what is used for film. As far as DD not being a reference standard I understand for music it is not but for film it is. DD @ 448 Kbps is very accurate at reproducing the film soundtrack but I would like to see some improvement too for HD-DVD. Even if it's just a higher bitrate Dolby AC-3.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Roogs,

good conversation.

DTS (someone correct me if I attribute this to the wrong party) did a test a few years back when digital sound was first being used in theaters. They compared DD, DTS, and traditional magnetic-analog soundtracks to determine what sounded best to untrained theater goers (ie...not techy audiophiles or in-the-know industry experts).

They found that consistently movie-goers picked the magnetic analog sound as the best-sounding and prefered it over DD *and* DTS soundtracks.

Those who have the luxury to screen various restored film prints at the egyptian theater report the same thing...that *NO DIGITAL THEATRICAL* format comes anywhere close to conveying the resolution and richness you get with high-quality magnetic analog soundtracks (in the case of multi-track 70 mm mag audio...who could argue??).

What that should make clear is that neither DD nor DTS (at the data-rates used in theatrical environments) are "good enough" to properly communicate all the sonic information that the average human being is capable of experiencing and enjoying in a film soundtrack.

448 DD may improve upon 320 DD, but even DD isn't pretending that it acheives encoding transparency to the uncompressed source. Sorry folks...but the reason why the industry says that lower-fi audio is "ok for movies" vs music is not because movie soundtracks are of lower-quality, it's because that typically when people watch a movie they just "don't care" as much about the sound and pay more attention to the picture.

Well...do *you* pay attention to the sound? I do. If I didn't, I wouldn't spend the $$ on the audio system that I have. And if casual audience members can appreciate the improvement of a high-quality magnetic soundtrack vs a DD or DTS encoded when watching a movie in a theatrical environment...that should tell you that the "average" person may care more about audio when watching films than Dolby labs would want you to believe.

I'm not pretending to know what the magic threshold format would be, but IMO it should be a digital codec/bitrate that reveals no discernable difference between it and the uncompressed high-resolution master even to an audiophile. *that's* what you and your films deserve.

 

[ChrisA]

I had no doubt MPEG 2 is outdated, however, what you have just justified is Blu-ray running 1080p with WM9 at 20+ mbps with a nice MLP 20/48 track, or DTS 4096 track...

Sure I'll entertain a new DD format but you have got to be kidding if you would settle for even a 640k DD track with HD-DVD... You don't even get a flat 20-20,000 frequency response...

 

[Chris Farmer]

Jeez I hope they stay away from WM 9. I agree that MPEG 2 is outdated as a codec, but please, go with MPEG 4 rather then a proprietary codec like WM 9. All we need is for MS to control the video codec behind HD-DVD. Even if MPEG 4 isn't quite as good, it's still a substantial improvement over 2, and the benefit of being an open standard in a case like this is substantial.