Sony to start using Dolby True HD on Blu-ray... (1 Viewer)

[Ben_Williams]

I agree with you about a true head to head comparison. I do, however, think this is a step in the right direction. This also gives Sony the opportunity to monitor feedback regarding the tracks on the forums and, hopefully, make a better decision on which method to use going forward.

Despite the criticism that Sony seems to (unfairly, in my opinion) always get about Blu-ray, one must admit that they have been quick in responding to concerns about the direction they take with Blu-ray...

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Oh, it's definitely a step in the right direction. Otherwise, I wouldn't have started the thread...

 

[PeterTHX]

Isn't this the same Amir who is now preaching that Dolby Plus is transparent and anything more isn't needed?

Since his specialty is video codecs I wouldn't put too much faith in this. He's been wrong before and the whole perceived differences could be due to D/A conversion, signal path, etc.

Besides, the Dolby at 20-bit should sound better. "Departed" was 16 bit, and not a very active track at that.

 

[ppltd]

Why would they include both a PCM and Dolby THD track. Seems redundant, and a hugh waste of space. It would almost require that all disks be released in the more costly dual layer format, which does not make business sense to me. Has this been confirmed that they will include both?

 

[Ben_Williams]

Sony hasn't made a firm decision yet, but are currently considering doing this.

 

[MarekM]

If there is space, it would be nice to have a chance to compare those two tracks, even if one will be 16bit and other one 20bits....

I am sure they will not add two (PSM and DoblyTrueHD) tracks on each release...

Marek

 

[DaViD Boulet]

It is redundant. I think Sony's tactic with this first DTHD title is a bit experimental... hence the dual lossless tracks.

Oh please... PLEASE Sony, don't apply dialog normalization to the Dolby lossless track!

 

[ppltd]

I tend to agree with you. I can see no profit in having two lossless tracks for Sony.

 

[ppltd]

If it is a marketing experiment for Sony, I would think it would result in more accurate feed back if they did not include dual lossless tracks.

 

[Douglas_H]

Do you guys think that most audio systems in HT setups can actually resolve whatever differences there may be between DD+ and TrueHD?
What percentage of audio systems out there can actually handle TrueHD or lossless PCM?
I think there is far more audible difference in the soundtrack design than in the codec used.
I think the issue is not as big a deal as many like to make it seem.
Seems a bit surprising that Sony would pay the licensing fees for DD+TrueHD unless they wanted to cut down the number of BD50 releases.

 

[ppltd]

This certainly may be part of the reasoning. Another is probably user recognition. The general public knows what Dolby is, but has no idea what PCM is. Most of these decisions made by the studios are purely marketing related.

 

[PeterTHX]

First you have a million plus PS3s out there with DTHD.

You have the PPanasonic about to be updated to support it.

Sharp's new player supports it. New receivers and HDMI 1.3 devices are about to hit the market.

Sony is more than likely easing people from PCM to THD, the same way they're gradually switching from MPEG2 to AVC. Saves space, potential for better quality.

 

[BrettGallman]

Plenty of audio systems are enabling people to enjoy the benefit of TrueHD right now. The PS3 can decode it, the Panny BD player will be able to, and, on the HD-DVD side, the A1 also decodes it.

 

[Douglas_H]

Brett,
Yes I am aware of that but my question was more directed to the equipment downstream of the player, receivers, pre/pros, speakers etc.
First off to get PCMTrueHDDD+ requires either analog outs or HDMI and a processor to receive them. Analog should be no big unless you are already using the analog inputs for something else then you need a switcher.
HDMI requires a processor to at least convert & pass the signal through to the amp.
I'm just wondering how many HD discs users are actually taking advantage of the higher resolution formats. My thinking is that it is the minority, big time. I may be way off base in this assumption.
One thing that I feel pretty sure about is that most user's systems cannot resolve whatever differences there may be between DD+TrueHDPCM.
Speaking for myself, I have found DD+ tracks that are superior or equal to TrueHD IOW, there are more important differentiators than the codec itself.
I am not saying that DD+ or TrueHD are a waste, in fact to me they're as important as the PQ. I just think that people get hung up on these numbersspecs and assume one is better than the other based purely on paper specs.

 

[BrettGallman]

I don't know. I just assume that if users are willing to shell out money for an HD player, they probably have A/V receivers with at least analog audio inputs. That's just an assumption on my part as well.

Anyway, while I don't think there should be a difference between PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-MA (since they're all lossless), there really is a difference between those formats and DD+. Don't get me wrong, DD+ is no slouch, but something like Batman Begins sounds absolutely incredible in TrueHD.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

The THD track is also 16-bit according to what I've read over at AVS. I have read 2 different reviews and in both cases they said that the PCM had a slight advantage in sound quality. Again, I haven't heard the HD-DVD, but if the same master was used they should sound identical unless processing was involved.

 

[BrettGallman]

The TrueHD track on The Departed had some dialogue normalization applied to it, which supposedly accounted for the differences between that track and the PCM track on BD.

 

[MarekM]

what you have to compare is DD+ with DoblyTrueHD or PCM on same title...

"based purely on paper specs ?" come on, are you going to compare 640kb/1.5mbit DD+ with LOSSLESS TRACKS ?

on HD DVD, please check Harry Potter4, Batman Begins,etc...
on Blu-ray, please check BHD,KOH,Chicago,Pearl Harbor,etc...

and there are many many more on blu-ray with amazing PCM tracks with clearly better sound on average equipment compare to DD, or DD+

Marek

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes.

You don't need $$$$ gear to hear the difference. Even Dolby Plus... which is basically like the 640 kpbs Dolby on Blu-ray, sounds harsher and less natural than PCM/lossless. And this is even on "average" gear.

Here and at AVS many posters have been surprised that they can hear *and* appreciate the improvement with lossless because prior to HD media they assumed their system wasn't good enough.

It's not about noise-floors. That's a myth. You don't need a 120db noise-floor in your gear to hear the improvement with lossless. You just need ears!

dave

 

[ChristopherDAC]

The difference between 20 bit and 24 bit linear PCM should be effectively indiscernable to the human auditory apparatus, even in mathematically ideal listening conditions. This is not at all true of the difference between linear PCM and sub-band coding with perceptual masking. Even the highest capability level of Dolby AC-3, for example, allocates about 2.5 bits per sample. The difference between 320 kbps (theatrical) and 384 kbps (LaserDisc) AC-3 is well known to be audible ; the audibility of the difference between 640 kbps AC-3 and linear PCM should not be in question. Even the 1.5 Mbps dts Zeta so many HT buffs have sworn by is really designed only for "acceptable" performance — the makers call it "transparent", for certain specific conditions of content and definitions of transparency. Comparisons by others on this forum have suggested that 16-bit, 44.1 kHz PCM on a LaserDisc can be considerably preferable to 192 kbps AC-3 stereo from a 24 bit 48 kHz master on a comparable DVD. This should suggest comparisons to the case of 640 kbps AC-3 5.1 versus PCM 5.1, even when the PCM is only 16-bit sampling depth.