They don't always look perfect. Happy Feet has major banding issues, others have other artifacts, and when the movie is too long Warner gives us down to 448k DD - the same as good old DVD.
Wouldn't it be better and more consistent if all movies had the same lossless audio and high bitrate video?
They can't, they support two formats. One of which doesn't have enough room for lossless audio on longer movies. It reminds me of PS3 and 360 games, PS3 gets the shaft because it gets ports. Rockstar realized the lack of room on DVD and is going PS3 exclusive from now on due to the sheer power of the cell and the room on Blu-Ray. Maybe the lack of room will come into Warner's thinking and contribute to them choosing Blu-Ray exclusively. Here's hoping!
They don't always look perfect. Happy Feet has major banding issues, others have other artifacts, and when the movie is too long Warner gives us down to 448k DD - the same as good old DVD.
Wouldn't it be better and more consistent if all movies had the same lossless audio and high bitrate video?
I thought you knew better than post something like this. You know majority of lossless audio on Blu-Ray fail to score perfect 5/5 on reviews. There are audio tracks with 5/5 score that are mastered in lossy hidef audio format, DD+ @ 1.5mbps. Unfortunately, not all DD+ comes at 1.5mbps.
You know there are also variations of the what's considered lossless audio. The sampling rate of 16 vs. 24 bits along with being compressed and non-compressed, like TrueHD, DTS-HD and PCM tracks. Despite all the audio decoding options, it just all comes down to the original source material and intensity of audio track for the movie are the combined factors that determine the audio rating at the end. Of course, having the lossless option will help, but not all audio tracks can benefit from lossless audio option.
I don't think re-encoding 128k mp3 source audio track back to lossless would make it lossless in audio quality. I'm sure the huge file size would indicate it's lossless, but the audio quality would still be 128k mp3. However, you can still claim it as lossless audio track and take advantage of the larger storage space?.... Well, this is similar to using mpeg2 video encoding to take advantage of the larger storage space?
Do they care about the actual audio & video content or are they just interested in filling the disc space?
Despite all the audio decoding options, it just all comes down to the original source material and intensity of audio track for the movie are the combined factors that determine the audio rating at the end. Of course, having the lossless option will help, but not all audio tracks can benefit from lossless audio option.
It doesn't matter if you can benefit from it. It's about bringing a consistent experience for the buyer, and many people care just as they care about everything else in the movies. That's why they have invested thousands of dollars on their home cinemas.
Why not please everyone when it's possible? Lossless sound doesn't mean that people with audio equipment not capable of handling lossless are missing anything, but the opposite does.
And no, not all movies are perfect demo material regarding their soundtrack, but at least let that be the deciding factor as to which soundtrack the HD version will get - instead of letting the length and complexity of the movie decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
I don't think re-encoding 128k mp3 source audio track back to lossless would make it lossless in audio quality.
What does that have to do with anything? Soundtracks are not originally 128k mp3s.
It doesn't matter if you can benefit from it. It's about bringing a consistent experience for the buyer, and many people care just as they care about everything else in the movies. That's why they have invested thousands of dollars on their home cinemas.
Why not please everyone when it's possible? Lossless sound doesn't mean that people with audio equipment not capable of handling lossless are missing anything, but the opposite does.
And no, not all movies are perfect demo material regarding their soundtrack, but at least let that be the deciding factor as to which soundtrack the HD version will get - instead of letting the length and complexity of the movie decide.
What does that have to do with anything? Soundtracks are not originally 128k mp3s.
That is the point. There is no point offering Lossless audio track encoding from a 128k mp3 quality source master. Especially for the purpose of brining a consistent experience for the buyer, as you have pointed out, only the limited number of enthusiasts will be able to enjoy lossless audio when properly presented.
Most enthusiasts setups can tell when 128k mp3 quality track is being offered as lossless audio encoding and the lossless option is useless and is just merely a space filler. However, most users will not, even when the audio quality is worthy and presented as lossless.
The way Blu-Ray offers lossless is mostly a PR spin without delivering quality these audio encodes are supposed to bring to the HDM. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it's not something that is worthy of boasting as a blu-ray strength that does not deliver anything extra. I'm sure there are few HDM titles that lossless option is a must, but there are more HDM titles that Lossless is useless. I wish that every HDM audio track released are worthy of the full lossless offering, but that is not the case. I guess, anyone can offer lossless audio track despite being worthy of of the technology.
BTW, most of the argument about long movie & lacking lossless audio on HD-DVD is just a fanboy talk.
I think the title Troy, over 3 hrs long movie, came with TrueHD lossless audio track on HD-DVD. I think Blu-Ray version did come with extra multi-channel PCM track along with TrueHD audio because not all Blu-Ray players can decode TrueHD track. I can't see this as a strength because HD-DVD players do not require multi-channel PCM tracks to get lossless, but only blu-ray players do. Actually, the main reason for blu-ray to push lossless (mostly in the form of multi-channel PCM) is because many standalone players are not capable of decoding Hidef audio encodes like DD+, TrueHD, and DTS-HD.
One of the big problems with being an early adopter of any new media is lack of quality titles, especially if one has strong likes and dislikes. This is particularly true of 1Q 2008. Weeding through the titles to be released I find three that I'd buy and six I'd possibly consider renting. These are (those with an * are both HD and BD, the rest are BD):
Buy: 1/8 3:10 to Yuma, 3/11 No Country for Old Men and 3/18 Enchanted. It's also rumored that Amadeus* will be out in February but so far there's no firm date.
Possible rental: 12/26 Pan's Labyrinth*, 1/8 The Rock, 1/15 Breaker Morant, 2/19 Run Lola Run and Michael Clayton*, 2/26 The Assassination of Jesse James ...*, 3/11 Independence Day.
Several questions, has anyone watched Run Lola Run and if so how did you like it? Is the HD only releases for that time period any better?
The content industry should just stamp the discs with blue ray on one side and HD on the other. Then I would buy a combo player right now. Blue ray is technically not as good but they seem to have more content.
The content industry should just stamp the discs with blue ray on one side and HD on the other. Then I would buy a combo player right now. Blue ray is technically not as good but they seem to have more content.
I think you have that backwards. Blu ray Technically is better, and they have more titles.
True, but it is easier for a person to see a difference rather than hear it. Audiophiles have been tested with 256kbps MP3 compared to CDs and couldn't tell a difference, so how would your average joe compare (hell, they are happy with 128kpbs MP3s...). Plus, how many people have full 7.1 systems in their house (of good quality, not surround in a box)? It has got to be way less than the number of HDTV owners (hell, i'm happy with my 2.1 setup and HDTV).
To me, HD DVD and Blu-Ray is about video quality. All the in store displays are about video quality as well (comparing the footage to DVD). That is what will win people over. Until a movies video quality suffers because of the space on an HD DVD, i'm happy with my purchase.
A critical mass of consumers have 5:1 systems. Channel separation necessary on the extra storage will make a huge difference without having the compression artifacts being a barrier.
I put off watching it because I didn't want to "read" the story, but BOY its on HELL of a film! I have it on my AppleTV but I'll be buying it on BD asap a brilliant brilliant film IMO!
--
Merry xmas to all our readers, hope 2008 is filled with all the releases on all the formats you want!
A critical mass of consumers have 5:1 systems. Channel separation necessary on the extra storage will make a huge difference without having the compression artifacts being a barrier.
I would agree that a critical mass have 5.1 surround in a box systems. I would also argue that very (very?!?) few have a quality 7.1 system, which was the argument being made for the extra space on Blu-ray. HD DVD and Blu-Ray both have more than enough room for quality 5.1 tracks.
I've had a 7.1 THX system for about 4 years now. It's freaking awesome! Some of my DVD collection has 7.1 THX sound tracks, but now as many that have 5.1. I don't think any of my BR disks have 7.1, but I would like to see a 7.1 track happen. Isn't that one of the reasons why we payed the premium prices for our Stereo's, HDTV's and High Definition players?
As I said there are no 128k masters so there is no point in discussing it.
Should we also discuss HD releases of movies recorded in 240x320?
Do you even have a slightest idea of what you're talking about?
Sorry, my fault. I assumed you would know better. Of course, there is no such movie master with audio encoded in 128k mp3, but there are movie masters that would sound worse than if it had been encoded in 128k mp3. Same goes for video, but that would be another topic.
why do you think there is a restoration process?... on both audio and video.
That is the point. There is no point offering Lossless audio track encoding from a 128k mp3 quality source master. Especially for the purpose of brining a consistent experience for the buyer, as you have pointed out, only the limited number of enthusiasts will be able to enjoy lossless audio when properly presented.
Most enthusiasts setups can tell when 128k mp3 quality track is being offered as lossless audio encoding and the lossless option is useless and is just merely a space filler. However, most users will not, even when the audio quality is worthy and presented as lossless.
The way Blu-Ray offers lossless is mostly a PR spin without delivering quality these audio encodes are supposed to bring to the HDM. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it's not something that is worthy of boasting as a blu-ray strength that does not deliver anything extra. I'm sure there are few HDM titles that lossless option is a must, but there are more HDM titles that Lossless is useless. I wish that every HDM audio track released are worthy of the full lossless offering, but that is not the case. I guess, anyone can offer lossless audio track despite being worthy of of the technology.
BTW, most of the argument about long movie & lacking lossless audio on HD-DVD is just a fanboy talk.
I think the title Troy, over 3 hrs long movie, came with TrueHD lossless audio track on HD-DVD. I think Blu-Ray version did come with extra multi-channel PCM track along with TrueHD audio because not all Blu-Ray players can decode TrueHD track. I can't see this as a strength because HD-DVD players do not require multi-channel PCM tracks to get lossless, but only blu-ray players do. Actually, the main reason for blu-ray to push lossless (mostly in the form of multi-channel PCM) is because many standalone players are not capable of decoding Hidef audio encodes like DD+, TrueHD, and DTS-HD.
What the h3ll are you talking about? You just pull this crap straight out of your a$$ and start a sh*t smear campaign? WTF?
Here is a decent explanation of Uncompressed "Lossless" PCM, and TrueHD which are both on Blu-Ray disks. HD-DVD can not fit both due to space constraints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by originally written by By Joshua Zyber - High Def Digest
A couple of months ago, I wrote a column called Blu-ray and HD DVD Audio Explained that spelled out the basic functions, features, and differences among the various audio formats available on both High-Def disc types. In it, I explained that uncompressed PCM audio (as found on many Blu-rays) is an exact replication of the studio master, encoded on disc without compression, and that the lossless audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once decoded. Doing the math, that should mean that a lossless track is also identical to an uncompressed track. Indeed, that is the case. However, some confusion remains as to whether an uncompressed track is actually better than a lossless one.
Now that both High-Def formats have been available for over a year, and each has built up a catalog of hundreds of titles, we have several cases where two high-resolution audio tracks (one lossless and one uncompressed) can be directly compared for the same movie. Examples include Warner's dual-format releases of 'The Departed' and 'Troy: Director's Cut', which feature lossless TrueHD on HD DVD and uncompressed PCM on Blu-ray, or Sony's Blu-ray release of 'Ghost Rider' with both PCM and TrueHD on the same disc. Theoretically speaking, playing the same movie's soundtrack in both lossless and uncompressed encodings should sound absolutely identical, shouldn't it? Well, yes, except that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that come into play, and indeed some listeners have tried comparing the soundtracks and claim to hear a difference between them.
So what would cause a lossless track to not be identical to an uncompressed track? To get to the bottom of this, let's first take a look at the ways in which each audio format is encoded.
Isn't All Compression Bad?
(Note: Please keep in mind that the following examples have been simplified for conceptual purposes, and are not intended to represent the actual mathematical workings of either digital audio encoding or lossless compression, both of which are more complicated than I can explain here. However, this should hopefully serve to illustrate the basic concept of how a digital file can be compressed without losing important data.)
Let's begin with uncompressed audio. A PCM track is an uncompressed digital format that is 100% bit-for-bit identical to the source fed into it. If the studio master is:
101011100100101100010111
Then the PCM track pressed onto the disc would be:
101011100100101100010111
Pretty straightforward, right? The problem when it comes to High-Def discs is that, since the PCM file is totally uncompressed, an entire movie soundtrack takes up a huge amount of disc space. With their greater storage capacity, Blu-ray discs may often have enough room for this, but space is generally more cramped on HD DVD. Even on Blu-ray, some studios prefer to use that extra space for other purposes.
On the other hand, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are "lossless" compression formats. Although they're compressed to take up less disc space than a PCM track, once decoded they're also bit-for-bit identical to their sources. Think of this like a ZIP file that holds a PCM track. Once you unZIP the file, you get a 100% identical copy of the original PCM, without compromising any sound quality. What these formats do is drop certain data, and instead use flags to indicate that the empty spaces in the stream are meant to be filled with that data when decoded. As an example, let's pretend that we have a movie that's half sound and half complete silence. A PCM track might look like this:
101011100101000000000000
As you can see, all those 0s at the end are needlessly taking up space on the disc, literally for nothing but complete silence in this hypothetical scenario. To losslessly compress this, a TrueHD or Master Audio track might instead look like this:
1_1_111__1_1____________
By dropping the 0s, the lossless version takes up vastly less room, but when decoded those missing 0s are filled in and it looks like this again:
101011100101000000000000
Voila! A perfect reproduction of the source at less than half the disc space.
(Again, the above is a very simplified example of how lossless compression can be achieved. A real lossless audio algorithm doesn't just drop zeroes, but rather employs complex statistical models to analyze patterns in the data.)
Standard Dolby Digital, DTS, and (to a lesser extent) Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution are all "lossy" compression formats. In the above scenario, they'd not only drop the 0s, but also drop some of the 1s that are deemed less critical to human hearing, under the belief that most people won't be able to hear the difference. The higher the bit rate, the less data is dropped. DD+ and DTS-HD HR are not only higher bit rate than old DD and DTS, but also more efficient at maintaining more of the data at lower bit rates. Still, they're not a perfect replication of the studio master the way that the PCM or TrueHD and Master Audio formats are.
Sorry, it wasn't meant for the PS3 crowds. I have mistaken some of you guys as AV enthusiast. What the hell was I thinking....
And again you make no valid point. As if to say "I am so much more informed than any of you" Your ravings are total bull shit. If there was an ounce of truth to any of it it may be worth something, but your still totally full of shit. That means "wrong" or "Lying" in the real world.
What the h3ll are you talking about? You just pull this crap straight out of your a$$ and start a sh*t smear campaign? WTF?
I like it when the teeny-boppers come out to play:
h3ll
a$$
sh*t
Maybe try growing up? Hell, Ass and Shit. OH noes!!!11!1! My mommy is going to send me to my room now. Then again, you could always refute his post with some logic and reason. But then again, might be too difficult for someone on their Christmas break.
In other news, my brother just bought a PS3 and he is about to get a hand me down RP HDTV. I plan on taking a trip to see him soon. Honest question, what would be a good Blu-ray to rent to show him some HDM? He hasn't seen either format yet, and just the occasional football at the parents house in HD. I'd like something that looks really good.
Here is a decent explanation of Uncompressed "Lossless" PCM, and TrueHD which are both on Blu-Ray disks. HD-DVD can not fit both due to space constraints.
You still don't get. All HD-DVD players can decode the advanced lossless HiDef audio encodes, hence multi-channel PCM track would just be a redundant track of TrueHD encodes.
Of course, blu-ray players would need to have multi-channel PCM track because TrueHD encodes can not be decoded on most standalone blu-ray players.
Comments
They don't always look perfect. Happy Feet has major banding issues, others have other artifacts, and when the movie is too long Warner gives us down to 448k DD - the same as good old DVD.
Wouldn't it be better and more consistent if all movies had the same lossless audio and high bitrate video?
They can't, they support two formats. One of which doesn't have enough room for lossless audio on longer movies. It reminds me of PS3 and 360 games, PS3 gets the shaft because it gets ports. Rockstar realized the lack of room on DVD and is going PS3 exclusive from now on due to the sheer power of the cell and the room on Blu-Ray. Maybe the lack of room will come into Warner's thinking and contribute to them choosing Blu-Ray exclusively. Here's hoping!
They don't always look perfect. Happy Feet has major banding issues, others have other artifacts, and when the movie is too long Warner gives us down to 448k DD - the same as good old DVD.
Wouldn't it be better and more consistent if all movies had the same lossless audio and high bitrate video?
I thought you knew better than post something like this. You know majority of lossless audio on Blu-Ray fail to score perfect 5/5 on reviews. There are audio tracks with 5/5 score that are mastered in lossy hidef audio format, DD+ @ 1.5mbps. Unfortunately, not all DD+ comes at 1.5mbps.
You know there are also variations of the what's considered lossless audio. The sampling rate of 16 vs. 24 bits along with being compressed and non-compressed, like TrueHD, DTS-HD and PCM tracks. Despite all the audio decoding options, it just all comes down to the original source material and intensity of audio track for the movie are the combined factors that determine the audio rating at the end. Of course, having the lossless option will help, but not all audio tracks can benefit from lossless audio option.
I don't think re-encoding 128k mp3 source audio track back to lossless would make it lossless in audio quality. I'm sure the huge file size would indicate it's lossless, but the audio quality would still be 128k mp3. However, you can still claim it as lossless audio track and take advantage of the larger storage space?.... Well, this is similar to using mpeg2 video encoding to take advantage of the larger storage space?
Do they care about the actual audio & video content or are they just interested in filling the disc space?
They can't, they support two formats. One of which doesn't have enough room for lossless audio on longer movies.
That is exactly my point.
Despite all the audio decoding options, it just all comes down to the original source material and intensity of audio track for the movie are the combined factors that determine the audio rating at the end. Of course, having the lossless option will help, but not all audio tracks can benefit from lossless audio option.
It doesn't matter if you can benefit from it. It's about bringing a consistent experience for the buyer, and many people care just as they care about everything else in the movies. That's why they have invested thousands of dollars on their home cinemas.
Why not please everyone when it's possible? Lossless sound doesn't mean that people with audio equipment not capable of handling lossless are missing anything, but the opposite does.
And no, not all movies are perfect demo material regarding their soundtrack, but at least let that be the deciding factor as to which soundtrack the HD version will get - instead of letting the length and complexity of the movie decide.
I don't think re-encoding 128k mp3 source audio track back to lossless would make it lossless in audio quality.
What does that have to do with anything? Soundtracks are not originally 128k mp3s.
It doesn't matter if you can benefit from it. It's about bringing a consistent experience for the buyer, and many people care just as they care about everything else in the movies. That's why they have invested thousands of dollars on their home cinemas.
Why not please everyone when it's possible? Lossless sound doesn't mean that people with audio equipment not capable of handling lossless are missing anything, but the opposite does.
And no, not all movies are perfect demo material regarding their soundtrack, but at least let that be the deciding factor as to which soundtrack the HD version will get - instead of letting the length and complexity of the movie decide.
What does that have to do with anything? Soundtracks are not originally 128k mp3s.
That is the point. There is no point offering Lossless audio track encoding from a 128k mp3 quality source master. Especially for the purpose of brining a consistent experience for the buyer, as you have pointed out, only the limited number of enthusiasts will be able to enjoy lossless audio when properly presented.
Most enthusiasts setups can tell when 128k mp3 quality track is being offered as lossless audio encoding and the lossless option is useless and is just merely a space filler. However, most users will not, even when the audio quality is worthy and presented as lossless.
The way Blu-Ray offers lossless is mostly a PR spin without delivering quality these audio encodes are supposed to bring to the HDM. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it's not something that is worthy of boasting as a blu-ray strength that does not deliver anything extra. I'm sure there are few HDM titles that lossless option is a must, but there are more HDM titles that Lossless is useless. I wish that every HDM audio track released are worthy of the full lossless offering, but that is not the case. I guess, anyone can offer lossless audio track despite being worthy of of the technology.
BTW, most of the argument about long movie & lacking lossless audio on HD-DVD is just a fanboy talk.
I think the title Troy, over 3 hrs long movie, came with TrueHD lossless audio track on HD-DVD. I think Blu-Ray version did come with extra multi-channel PCM track along with TrueHD audio because not all Blu-Ray players can decode TrueHD track. I can't see this as a strength because HD-DVD players do not require multi-channel PCM tracks to get lossless, but only blu-ray players do. Actually, the main reason for blu-ray to push lossless (mostly in the form of multi-channel PCM) is because many standalone players are not capable of decoding Hidef audio encodes like DD+, TrueHD, and DTS-HD.
Buy: 1/8 3:10 to Yuma, 3/11 No Country for Old Men and 3/18 Enchanted. It's also rumored that Amadeus* will be out in February but so far there's no firm date.
Possible rental: 12/26 Pan's Labyrinth*, 1/8 The Rock, 1/15 Breaker Morant, 2/19 Run Lola Run and Michael Clayton*, 2/26 The Assassination of Jesse James ...*, 3/11 Independence Day.
Several questions, has anyone watched Run Lola Run and if so how did you like it? Is the HD only releases for that time period any better?
The content industry should just stamp the discs with blue ray on one side and HD on the other. Then I would buy a combo player right now. Blue ray is technically not as good but they seem to have more content.
I think you have that backwards. Blu ray Technically is better, and they have more titles.
True, but it is easier for a person to see a difference rather than hear it. Audiophiles have been tested with 256kbps MP3 compared to CDs and couldn't tell a difference, so how would your average joe compare (hell, they are happy with 128kpbs MP3s...). Plus, how many people have full 7.1 systems in their house (of good quality, not surround in a box)? It has got to be way less than the number of HDTV owners (hell, i'm happy with my 2.1 setup and HDTV).
To me, HD DVD and Blu-Ray is about video quality. All the in store displays are about video quality as well (comparing the footage to DVD). That is what will win people over. Until a movies video quality suffers because of the space on an HD DVD, i'm happy with my purchase.
A critical mass of consumers have 5:1 systems. Channel separation necessary on the extra storage will make a huge difference without having the compression artifacts being a barrier.
Possible rental: 12/26 Pan's Labyrinth*,
Have you seen PL at all?
I put off watching it because I didn't want to "read" the story, but BOY its on HELL of a film! I have it on my AppleTV but I'll be buying it on BD asap
--
Merry xmas to all our readers, hope 2008 is filled with all the releases on all the formats you want!
A critical mass of consumers have 5:1 systems. Channel separation necessary on the extra storage will make a huge difference without having the compression artifacts being a barrier.
I would agree that a critical mass have 5.1 surround in a box systems. I would also argue that very (very?!?) few have a quality 7.1 system, which was the argument being made for the extra space on Blu-ray. HD DVD and Blu-Ray both have more than enough room for quality 5.1 tracks.
That is the point. There is no point offering Lossless audio track encoding from a 128k mp3 quality source master.
As I said there are no 128k masters so there is no point in discussing it.
Should we also discuss HD releases of movies recorded in 240x320?
The way Blu-Ray offers lossless is mostly a PR spin without delivering quality these audio encodes are supposed to bring to the HDM.
Do you even have a slightest idea of what you're talking about?
As I said there are no 128k masters so there is no point in discussing it.
Should we also discuss HD releases of movies recorded in 240x320?
Do you even have a slightest idea of what you're talking about?
Sorry, my fault. I assumed you would know better. Of course, there is no such movie master with audio encoded in 128k mp3, but there are movie masters that would sound worse than if it had been encoded in 128k mp3. Same goes for video, but that would be another topic.
why do you think there is a restoration process?... on both audio and video.
That is the point. There is no point offering Lossless audio track encoding from a 128k mp3 quality source master. Especially for the purpose of brining a consistent experience for the buyer, as you have pointed out, only the limited number of enthusiasts will be able to enjoy lossless audio when properly presented.
Most enthusiasts setups can tell when 128k mp3 quality track is being offered as lossless audio encoding and the lossless option is useless and is just merely a space filler. However, most users will not, even when the audio quality is worthy and presented as lossless.
The way Blu-Ray offers lossless is mostly a PR spin without delivering quality these audio encodes are supposed to bring to the HDM. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, but it's not something that is worthy of boasting as a blu-ray strength that does not deliver anything extra. I'm sure there are few HDM titles that lossless option is a must, but there are more HDM titles that Lossless is useless. I wish that every HDM audio track released are worthy of the full lossless offering, but that is not the case. I guess, anyone can offer lossless audio track despite being worthy of of the technology.
BTW, most of the argument about long movie & lacking lossless audio on HD-DVD is just a fanboy talk.
I think the title Troy, over 3 hrs long movie, came with TrueHD lossless audio track on HD-DVD. I think Blu-Ray version did come with extra multi-channel PCM track along with TrueHD audio because not all Blu-Ray players can decode TrueHD track. I can't see this as a strength because HD-DVD players do not require multi-channel PCM tracks to get lossless, but only blu-ray players do. Actually, the main reason for blu-ray to push lossless (mostly in the form of multi-channel PCM) is because many standalone players are not capable of decoding Hidef audio encodes like DD+, TrueHD, and DTS-HD.
What the h3ll are you talking about? You just pull this crap straight out of your a$$ and start a sh*t smear campaign? WTF?
A couple of months ago, I wrote a column called Blu-ray and HD DVD Audio Explained that spelled out the basic functions, features, and differences among the various audio formats available on both High-Def disc types. In it, I explained that uncompressed PCM audio (as found on many Blu-rays) is an exact replication of the studio master, encoded on disc without compression, and that the lossless audio formats Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once decoded. Doing the math, that should mean that a lossless track is also identical to an uncompressed track. Indeed, that is the case. However, some confusion remains as to whether an uncompressed track is actually better than a lossless one.
Now that both High-Def formats have been available for over a year, and each has built up a catalog of hundreds of titles, we have several cases where two high-resolution audio tracks (one lossless and one uncompressed) can be directly compared for the same movie. Examples include Warner's dual-format releases of 'The Departed' and 'Troy: Director's Cut', which feature lossless TrueHD on HD DVD and uncompressed PCM on Blu-ray, or Sony's Blu-ray release of 'Ghost Rider' with both PCM and TrueHD on the same disc. Theoretically speaking, playing the same movie's soundtrack in both lossless and uncompressed encodings should sound absolutely identical, shouldn't it? Well, yes, except that sometimes there are extenuating circumstances that come into play, and indeed some listeners have tried comparing the soundtracks and claim to hear a difference between them.
So what would cause a lossless track to not be identical to an uncompressed track? To get to the bottom of this, let's first take a look at the ways in which each audio format is encoded.
Isn't All Compression Bad?
(Note: Please keep in mind that the following examples have been simplified for conceptual purposes, and are not intended to represent the actual mathematical workings of either digital audio encoding or lossless compression, both of which are more complicated than I can explain here. However, this should hopefully serve to illustrate the basic concept of how a digital file can be compressed without losing important data.)
Let's begin with uncompressed audio. A PCM track is an uncompressed digital format that is 100% bit-for-bit identical to the source fed into it. If the studio master is:
101011100100101100010111
Then the PCM track pressed onto the disc would be:
101011100100101100010111
Pretty straightforward, right? The problem when it comes to High-Def discs is that, since the PCM file is totally uncompressed, an entire movie soundtrack takes up a huge amount of disc space. With their greater storage capacity, Blu-ray discs may often have enough room for this, but space is generally more cramped on HD DVD. Even on Blu-ray, some studios prefer to use that extra space for other purposes.
On the other hand, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are "lossless" compression formats. Although they're compressed to take up less disc space than a PCM track, once decoded they're also bit-for-bit identical to their sources. Think of this like a ZIP file that holds a PCM track. Once you unZIP the file, you get a 100% identical copy of the original PCM, without compromising any sound quality. What these formats do is drop certain data, and instead use flags to indicate that the empty spaces in the stream are meant to be filled with that data when decoded. As an example, let's pretend that we have a movie that's half sound and half complete silence. A PCM track might look like this:
101011100101000000000000
As you can see, all those 0s at the end are needlessly taking up space on the disc, literally for nothing but complete silence in this hypothetical scenario. To losslessly compress this, a TrueHD or Master Audio track might instead look like this:
1_1_111__1_1____________
By dropping the 0s, the lossless version takes up vastly less room, but when decoded those missing 0s are filled in and it looks like this again:
101011100101000000000000
Voila! A perfect reproduction of the source at less than half the disc space.
(Again, the above is a very simplified example of how lossless compression can be achieved. A real lossless audio algorithm doesn't just drop zeroes, but rather employs complex statistical models to analyze patterns in the data.)
Standard Dolby Digital, DTS, and (to a lesser extent) Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution are all "lossy" compression formats. In the above scenario, they'd not only drop the 0s, but also drop some of the 1s that are deemed less critical to human hearing, under the belief that most people won't be able to hear the difference. The higher the bit rate, the less data is dropped. DD+ and DTS-HD HR are not only higher bit rate than old DD and DTS, but also more efficient at maintaining more of the data at lower bit rates. Still, they're not a perfect replication of the studio master the way that the PCM or TrueHD and Master Audio formats are.
What the h3ll are you talking about? You just pull this crap straight out of your a$$ and start a sh*t smear campaign? WTF?
Sorry, it wasn't meant for the PS3 crowds. I have mistaken some of you guys as AV enthusiast. What the hell was I thinking....
Sorry, it wasn't meant for the PS3 crowds. I have mistaken some of you guys as AV enthusiast. What the hell was I thinking....
And again you make no valid point. As if to say "I am so much more informed than any of you" Your ravings are total bull shit. If there was an ounce of truth to any of it it may be worth something, but your still totally full of shit.
What the h3ll are you talking about? You just pull this crap straight out of your a$$ and start a sh*t smear campaign? WTF?
I like it when the teeny-boppers come out to play:
h3ll
a$$
sh*t
Maybe try growing up? Hell, Ass and Shit. OH noes!!!11!1! My mommy is going to send me to my room now. Then again, you could always refute his post with some logic and reason. But then again, might be too difficult for someone on their Christmas break.
In other news, my brother just bought a PS3 and he is about to get a hand me down RP HDTV. I plan on taking a trip to see him soon. Honest question, what would be a good Blu-ray to rent to show him some HDM? He hasn't seen either format yet, and just the occasional football at the parents house in HD. I'd like something that looks really good.
Here is a decent explanation of Uncompressed "Lossless" PCM, and TrueHD which are both on Blu-Ray disks. HD-DVD can not fit both due to space constraints.
You still don't get. All HD-DVD players can decode the advanced lossless HiDef audio encodes, hence multi-channel PCM track would just be a redundant track of TrueHD encodes.
Of course, blu-ray players would need to have multi-channel PCM track because TrueHD encodes can not be decoded on most standalone blu-ray players.