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.
What part am I not getting again? I just posted an perfect explanation of both formats for one person in particular. I was hoping you would have read it.
And if you have not noticed there has been a firmware update for AFAIK all first generation BR players that enables TrueHD, but the point is moot because they already have one PCM master track anyway.
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.
Why would you want or need both? If both are lossless, then they are equal. Reread the article, they explain just that. PCM and TrueHD are the same, yet PCM takes up more space. Its like having a Word document and a ZIP file containing said Word document. Your argument is that Blu-Ray is better because it can hold the Word document and the ZIP file, while HD DVD can only hold the ZIP file. Blu-Ray needs to have both files, because not all players can access both file types. However, all HD DVD players can access the ZIP file.
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!
I rented the DVD and watched it. It's definitely a movie you'd want to watch more than once. I may end up buying it now that it's out on BD.
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.
Why don't you start thinking about the public domain of the forums and restrain yourself. These forums used to have an auto-sensor that would sensor our language for us. I wish they still did. teeny-boppers? Please...
I think you have that backwards. Blu ray Technically is better, and they have more titles.
I really have seen no real key difference and from reviews it seem that both formats offer great quality. In fact sometimes a blu ray is not as good as the HD and vis versa. Why not have two formats? Just like the xbox and nintendo and just like PC and Mac? I think having the discs offering both formats on the disc is the best way to end this war.
I have a very high quality 7.1 and would like to see both available if the disc has both formats. That would eliminate the worries of buying a potential Betamax type device.
"However, the real issue is what do these ?better? specs get us in regards to picture and audio quality. After all, that is why there formats were created in the first place, to deliver better PQ and AQ as well as invigorate the flagging DVD market. In short, from my review of both formats? real world performance it is clear to me that both deliver the same video and audio experience despite Blu-Ray?s better specs. Both are capable of stellar video performance. I have been utterly flabbergasted by the video presentation on both formats. It is amazing that such video quality can now be delivered to your home."
Why would you want or need both? If both are lossless, then they are equal. Reread the article, they explain just that. PCM and TrueHD are the same, yet PCM takes up more space. Its like having a Word document and a ZIP file containing said Word document. Your argument is that Blu-Ray is better because it can hold the Word document and the ZIP file, while HD DVD can only hold the ZIP file. Blu-Ray needs to have both files, because not all players can access both file types. However, all HD DVD players can access the ZIP file.
A true audiophile does not believe that TrueHD is lossless no matter how many times you explain it to them. To them it's still been degraded. Believe me, I've tried.
I really have seen no real key difference and from reviews it seem that both formats offer great quality.
Both are seemingly identical until you look at Disk Space available and durability. Blu Ray kills in both, and disk space is an obvious benefit for the future as is durability.
What part am I not getting again? I just posted an perfect explanation of both formats for one person in particular. I was hoping you would have read it.
And if you have not noticed there has been a firmware update for AFAIK all first generation BR players that enables TrueHD, but the point is moot because they already have one PCM master track anyway.
Don't just read it. Try to understand the article you are quoting.
BTW, you did kinda answered what you did not understand. You're last couple of sentences explain that.
you're were trying to say "Blu-Ray does not need True-HD because of the multi-channel PCM track"... right?... Now repeat it again by exchaning:
Don't just read it. Try to understand the article you are quoting.
BTW, you did kinda answered what you did not understand. You're last couple of sentences explain that.
you're were trying to say "Blu-Ray does not need True-HD because of the multi-channel PCM track"... right?... Now repeat it again by exchaning:
1) Blu-Ray to HD-DVD
2) True-HD to Multi-channel PCM
3) Multichannel PCM to True-HD
You get it now?... sigh....
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
Now do YOU get it!
you really have no idea, do you?... If you don't understand, then ask politely. If you still don't understand after being informed, then it's obviously not your place to make an argument.
Just look at what you've posted as my claims from your understanding of the topic. That clearly explains that it's not your place to make an argument. Moving on....
BTW, does everyone know there is BOGO deal on HD-DVD's from amazon?...
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
Now do YOU get it!
He never said that. He made up one hypothetical example of a much broader point. Yes, he could have picked a better one, one that was actually plausible for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that he never claimed that audio masters are 128bit 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guartho
He never said that. He made up one hypothetical example of a much broader point. Yes, he could have picked a better one, one that was actually plausible for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that he never claimed that audio masters are 128bit mp3s.
I still don't see how having more audio options is a negative. Some receivers have PCM, but not Dolby True HD some have both. You don't have to upgrade your receiver to hear in Dolby True HD since you have the option to listen to PCM.
I still don't see how having more audio options is a negative. Some receivers have PCM, but not Dolby True HD some have both. You don't have to upgrade your receiver to hear in Dolby True HD since you have the option to listen to PCM.
When HDM players can decode TrueHD, then the player can decode TrueHD into multi-channel PCM via HDMI to the AVR. There's no need to upgrade your receiver since the HDM players are able to do decode DD+ & TrueHD and deliver HiDef audio.
Early reports indicate that the PS3 has sold a total of 8.4 million units so far. Take that, Toshiba!
I didn't realize that Toshiba was competing in the video game console market? We all know not 100% of PS3 owners are connected to an HDTV, let alone using their device as a HDM player.
It looks like the companies that focused on video games first ([email protected] million and [email protected] million) are taking it to Sony just fine.
I didn't realize that Toshiba was competing in the video game console market? We all know not 100% of PS3 owners are connected to an HDTV, let alone using their device as a HDM player.
It looks like the companies that focused on video games first ([email protected] million and [email protected] million) are taking it to Sony just fine.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that M$ has "sold" 15 million units? shipped maybe, but how many of those are going to replace broken units?
at an apparent failure rate of one third, well one third of 15 million is 5 million, which would equate to m$ only having shipped 10 million units that are actually functional.
its well documented that m$ post the shipped units figures and then post the sold units per month to get double coverage, and one does not equal the other.
When HDM players can decode TrueHD, then the player can decode TrueHD into multi-channel PCM via HDMI to the AVR. There's no need to upgrade your receiver since the HDM players are able to do decode DD+ & TrueHD and deliver HiDef audio.
So the receiver doesn't need to have Dolby TrueHD if the Player is decoding it? What does it output it as then? PCM? So to clarify, these receivers that are 7.1 with HDMI video switching (but not 1.3 for Dolby True HD) can still play the True HD audio tracks from the players? I've been holding out for a $1200 receiver for nothing?
Anyone know of a sleeker receiver out there? I don't want one with every video and audio input ever conceived, just HDMI, maybe component, less of the other crap.
Comments
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.
What part am I not getting again? I just posted an perfect explanation of both formats for one person in particular. I was hoping you would have read it.
And if you have not noticed there has been a firmware update for AFAIK all first generation BR players that enables TrueHD, but the point is moot because they already have one PCM master track anyway.
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.
Why would you want or need both? If both are lossless, then they are equal. Reread the article, they explain just that. PCM and TrueHD are the same, yet PCM takes up more space. Its like having a Word document and a ZIP file containing said Word document. Your argument is that Blu-Ray is better because it can hold the Word document and the ZIP file, while HD DVD can only hold the ZIP file. Blu-Ray needs to have both files, because not all players can access both file types. However, all HD DVD players can access the ZIP file.
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!
I rented the DVD and watched it. It's definitely a movie you'd want to watch more than once. I may end up buying it now that it's out on BD.
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.
Why don't you start thinking about the public domain of the forums and restrain yourself. These forums used to have an auto-sensor that would sensor our language for us. I wish they still did. teeny-boppers? Please...
I think you have that backwards. Blu ray Technically is better, and they have more titles.
I really have seen no real key difference and from reviews it seem that both formats offer great quality. In fact sometimes a blu ray is not as good as the HD and vis versa. Why not have two formats? Just like the xbox and nintendo and just like PC and Mac? I think having the discs offering both formats on the disc is the best way to end this war.
I have a very high quality 7.1 and would like to see both available if the disc has both formats. That would eliminate the worries of buying a potential Betamax type device.
I found this review very unbiased,
http://www.tvpredictions.com/2007/12...is-better.html
"However, the real issue is what do these ?better? specs get us in regards to picture and audio quality. After all, that is why there formats were created in the first place, to deliver better PQ and AQ as well as invigorate the flagging DVD market. In short, from my review of both formats? real world performance it is clear to me that both deliver the same video and audio experience despite Blu-Ray?s better specs. Both are capable of stellar video performance. I have been utterly flabbergasted by the video presentation on both formats. It is amazing that such video quality can now be delivered to your home."
Why would you want or need both? If both are lossless, then they are equal. Reread the article, they explain just that. PCM and TrueHD are the same, yet PCM takes up more space. Its like having a Word document and a ZIP file containing said Word document. Your argument is that Blu-Ray is better because it can hold the Word document and the ZIP file, while HD DVD can only hold the ZIP file. Blu-Ray needs to have both files, because not all players can access both file types. However, all HD DVD players can access the ZIP file.
A true audiophile does not believe that TrueHD is lossless no matter how many times you explain it to them. To them it's still been degraded. Believe me, I've tried.
I really have seen no real key difference and from reviews it seem that both formats offer great quality.
Both are seemingly identical until you look at Disk Space available and durability. Blu Ray kills in both, and disk space is an obvious benefit for the future as is durability.
What part am I not getting again? I just posted an perfect explanation of both formats for one person in particular. I was hoping you would have read it.
And if you have not noticed there has been a firmware update for AFAIK all first generation BR players that enables TrueHD, but the point is moot because they already have one PCM master track anyway.
Don't just read it. Try to understand the article you are quoting.
BTW, you did kinda answered what you did not understand. You're last couple of sentences explain that.
you're were trying to say "Blu-Ray does not need True-HD because of the multi-channel PCM track"... right?... Now repeat it again by exchaning:
1) Blu-Ray to HD-DVD
2) True-HD to Multi-channel PCM
3) Multichannel PCM to True-HD
You get it now?... sigh....
Don't just read it. Try to understand the article you are quoting.
BTW, you did kinda answered what you did not understand. You're last couple of sentences explain that.
you're were trying to say "Blu-Ray does not need True-HD because of the multi-channel PCM track"... right?... Now repeat it again by exchaning:
1) Blu-Ray to HD-DVD
2) True-HD to Multi-channel PCM
3) Multichannel PCM to True-HD
You get it now?... sigh....
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
Now do YOU get it!
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
Now do YOU get it!
you really have no idea, do you?... If you don't understand, then ask politely. If you still don't understand after being informed, then it's obviously not your place to make an argument.
Just look at what you've posted as my claims from your understanding of the topic. That clearly explains that it's not your place to make an argument. Moving on....
BTW, does everyone know there is BOGO deal on HD-DVD's from amazon?...
you can find the direct link from here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=942206
Just ordered 4 HD-DVD titles for $31.92 shipped. It's definitely better holidays for the HDM fans.
Date Open Close Low High Average Vector** Strategy***
12/24/2007 + 1 190.58 193.70 190.20 196.47 192.74 -2.16% Sell
12/24/2007 + 2 183.43 192.80 181.54 194.90 188.17 -4.48% Hold
12/24/2007 + 3 180.43 189.43 180.41 193.42 185.92 -5.62% Hold
12/24/2007 + 4 182.81 184.89 182.42 190.71 185.21 -5.98% Hold
12/24/2007 + 5 181.61 182.94 181.50 187.91 183.49 -6.85% Hold
12/24/2007 + 6 180.41 180.49 180.19 185.21 181.58 -7.82% Buy
12/24/2007 + 7 182.23 184.15 178.00 186.12 182.63 -7.29% Sell
12/24/2007 + 8 182.22 182.34 175.17 184.53 181.07 -8.08% Buy
12/24/2007 + 9 181.18 185.42 179.14 186.90 183.16 -7.02% Hold
12/24/2007 + 10 183.18 188.59 179.53 190.37 185.42 -5.87% Hold
Accuracy, %* 96.53 97.45 95.12 96.01 96.28
WTF are you talking about? What I don't get is that your the one who was claiming that PCM audio was a 128 bit encode from an mp3. Get a grip and stop trying to shift the focus off the fact that you were making erroneous claims about Blu Ray audio.
Now do YOU get it!
He never said that. He made up one hypothetical example of a much broader point. Yes, he could have picked a better one, one that was actually plausible for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that he never claimed that audio masters are 128bit 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.
He never said that. He made up one hypothetical example of a much broader point. Yes, he could have picked a better one, one that was actually plausible for instance, but that doesn't change the fact that he never claimed that audio masters are 128bit mp3s.
What exactly wasn't he implying in that post?
I still don't see how having more audio options is a negative. Some receivers have PCM, but not Dolby True HD some have both. You don't have to upgrade your receiver to hear in Dolby True HD since you have the option to listen to PCM.
When HDM players can decode TrueHD, then the player can decode TrueHD into multi-channel PCM via HDMI to the AVR. There's no need to upgrade your receiver since the HDM players are able to do decode DD+ & TrueHD and deliver HiDef audio.
Early reports indicate that the PS3 has sold a total of 8.4 million units so far. Take that, Toshiba!
I didn't realize that Toshiba was competing in the video game console market? We all know not 100% of PS3 owners are connected to an HDTV, let alone using their device as a HDM player.
It looks like the companies that focused on video games first ([email protected] million and [email protected] million) are taking it to Sony just fine.
I didn't realize that Toshiba was competing in the video game console market? We all know not 100% of PS3 owners are connected to an HDTV, let alone using their device as a HDM player.
It looks like the companies that focused on video games first ([email protected] million and [email protected] million) are taking it to Sony just fine.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe that M$ has "sold" 15 million units? shipped maybe, but how many of those are going to replace broken units?
at an apparent failure rate of one third, well one third of 15 million is 5 million, which would equate to m$ only having shipped 10 million units that are actually functional.
its well documented that m$ post the shipped units figures and then post the sold units per month to get double coverage, and one does not equal the other.
When HDM players can decode TrueHD, then the player can decode TrueHD into multi-channel PCM via HDMI to the AVR. There's no need to upgrade your receiver since the HDM players are able to do decode DD+ & TrueHD and deliver HiDef audio.
So the receiver doesn't need to have Dolby TrueHD if the Player is decoding it? What does it output it as then? PCM? So to clarify, these receivers that are 7.1 with HDMI video switching (but not 1.3 for Dolby True HD) can still play the True HD audio tracks from the players? I've been holding out for a $1200 receiver for nothing?
Anyone know of a sleeker receiver out there? I don't want one with every video and audio input ever conceived, just HDMI, maybe component, less of the other crap.