Hi-Res Audio Formats on BR & HDDVD

[nightflier]

Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.

This is false. Using the 5.1 analog outputs forces the audio to go through one conversion from D/A in the players to the receiver, go back to digital for bass management,delay, and levels, and then back to analog to your amps. That is alot of analog and digital conversion, and opens up the chance for dropped bits and digital errors. However the benefit with this connection is that it is backwards compatible with pre HDMI receivers.

If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?

However SACD sounds much more like analog and very non fatiguing when the bitstream stays in the DSD mode thoughout the entire chain(no PCM conversion)

I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?

If anything its efficiency. Both TrueHD and DTS HD use variable bitrates that allows the audio to be transported in a pipeline that expands and contracts as bits are required to maintain losslessness and transparency. SACD uses a constant bitrate which means the pipeline has to be consistantly the same size moment by moment, much like LPCM (or PCM) audio.

So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.

At CES Dolby was playing concert recordings at 24/96khz encoded in Dolby TrueHD. It sounded VERY good. I heard DTS HD master audio recordings of the Firebird Suite recorded at 24/96khz through 7.1 channels at a Dts Demo in New York not to long ago. That was a wow event to say the least.

Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.

I do not think HD DVD has a problem with including the lossless formats capacity wise as long as the movie is not too long. The problem with HD DVD is bandwidth and capacity together. HD DVD can never use uncompressed PCM because of space and bandwidth problems when video is in the pipeline. To counter that HD DVD basically uses True-HD and VC-1 because this is the most efficient coupling of audio and video codecs. However, when you start using PIP, mutliple language soundtracks, and interactive features in the mix even these tools have to be compromised because of bandwidth issues. You either have to give up the True-HD lossless audio, or you have to compress the video more aggresively. The prime example of this happening is the upcoming Transformers HD DVD and Shriek the Third. There is going to be so many interactive features running along with the movie, there was not enough bandwidth for a True-HD soundtrack.

Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.

Bluray has a much larger moment to moment pipeline. It has a 40mbps constant video rate, with peaks to 48mbps. It has an overall 54mbps bitrate. If you kept your video peaks below 40mbps(way beyond what HD DVD can do), you could have 5.1 uncompressed PCM track at 24/48khz, a 24/48khz Dolby True-HD soundtrack, and Dolby digital at 640kbps in two languages, and extras all going in the pipeline at once. Or they could use 4 TrueHD bitstreams in different languages, and a couple of 640kbps other language as well at the same time. Great for an all region release. No disc capacity or bandwidth problems which is very important for the future growth of the format.

That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints. Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.

Pioneer and Sony have plans for a higher grade upscale Bluray player later this year, or early next. Onyko also has said it will release a high end HD DVD player. It has not said when though.

Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.

Just the ability to pass DVD-A, SACD, and 8 channel uncompressed audio at up to 24/192khz.

Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.

This is still a puzzle, as no standard have been set. However there have been a few 7.1 soundtracks on bluray that has used the surrounds in this fashion

So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.

Most definately. As a film mixer I have noticed that overall sound levels in the mains and bass frequency and level have gotten so loud, you almost cannot produce a soundtrack without an LFE track.

It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?

Actually the PS3 supports SACD. I know of no standalone that does. Perphaps Sony high end bluray player will support it, I just don't know that one.

Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?

I would not rule Sony nor Pioneer's high end bluray players. These players will have chipsets that support the most high end of video and audio solutions. Also Onkyo's HD DVD player sounds very promising as well. They have just not annouced a release time on this player. Toshiba is in a hard place. Their selling point to their exclusive studios is cheap price of the players. It would be very hard to justify a high end piece and accomplish the selling point they promised. I am not endorsing either format, just presenting the facts.

These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Based on an interview with one of the founders of ARCAM in Stereophile earlier this year, it seemed like ARCAM was favoring HD-DVD. (I posted a link in the other thread.) Have manufacturers like Denon and Marantz that are known for excellent video (and audio) performance announced any plans to launch players that support either format?

I read that article as well. Arcam was favoring HD DVD because it is so closely aligned with DVD that it is a bit easy to produce a player for. Arcam is a small company, and really cannot afford the cost of producing a bluray player. What they could have done is liscense a design from another bluray manufacturer, and tweak the design to their standards.

Denon has announced two Bluray players being released next year. No word from Marantz as of yet.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=nightflier]Thanks for the detailed information. I still have some questions though.

If my receiver is capable of keeping the 5.1 inputs all analog throughout and onto my amp (it is), then there is only one conversion: inside my source. In my case, and I will suspect in many cases, the conversion capabilities of the source are superior to those in most receivers.

Actually no there is two. If you use the players 5.1 analog outs, the player does D/A conversion and sends it to the receiver. Only if the player does bass management, delay and level setting(all the Toshiba players have bugs in their internal processing) will the source remain analog all the way through. If the receiver has to do the post processing, then you have to convert the audio back to digital to do it. I would not use Toshiba post processing because it does not boost the LFE the required 10db for Dolby and Dts playback.

Also, this does not answer my question. Does HDMI (pre-1.3) pass True-HD and DTS-HD sound?

If the player does the decoding, yes. It will convert it to PCM(which is what it was before encoding) and pass it through HDMI 1.1, 1.2, 1.2a

I would like to agree, although I don't have the facilities in-house to test this out. So under what circumstances would the bitstream be converted to PCM, if there is no additional conversion after the music leaves the source, as in my setup?

If you use bass management, delay, or level settings, the signal must be converted to PCM. There are no post processing tools in DSD except on the ultra high end SACD only players.

So this would make it more costly to ask a player to do both? I presume that the electronics required to do both would be more complex.

Its not in the electronics, its in the bitstream. SACD cannot do variable bit rate because the stream is not PCM, its DSD. DSD works very differently from PCM as it needs no reconstruction filters. Since both Dts HD MA and DTHD are both PCM based, they can do both constant and variable bit rate processing.

Firebird is one of the more dynamic pieces I can think of, and one I know quite well. Makes me wish I could have heard that.

It was heaven on earth as far as music listening goes.

Obviously this is a serious limitation of HDDVD. Of course, they could distribute it on two disks, but that would not help sales, I think. This to me, is a significant argument in favor of BR. That said, I can care a whole lot less about the interactive features, but that's me and I don't think the buying public would agree.

The public apparently doesn't agree with either of us on this issue.

That said, BR still has a limit that we are reaching pretty quickly. While HDDVD is clearly left behind, the reality is that at some point BR will reach those same constraints.

That reality is a loooong way off. First there isn't a single movie released on DVD that could challenge a 50gb disc. There are three that I know of that have maxed out HD DVD. If the 50GB disc looks like it will be maxed out in the future, then BR has a 100GB that is compatible with all current bluray players. TDK developed it, and it is ready to go. All it would take is a small adjustment to current bluray replication lines. This is called insider information.

Hence my argument that both formats are still limiting as compared to VOD and downloads which do not have that limitation. Another risk is that a new disk format emerges that has more capacity than both to include all the sound formats people will want or need for the next few years. HDDVD's limitations here may serve to demonstrate that both formats have limitations and may not be the best choice.

I know of no format in developement that has the capacity of 100GB except bluray. And any format that does come down the pipeline has to have the support of the CE manufacturers, and the studio's have to support it as well.

VOD has alot more limitations that either of the HD disc. I cannot do lossless audio, it has to be much more agressively compressed which can create artifacting, and it has to compete with other programming for bandwidth which leads to more compression. It is expensive(you have to have digital cable which ain't cheap), full of DRM, time limits, and it has can be much more problematic than disc. Right now it cannot be owned or stored.

Still waiting for the Denon player too. Still, I'm more looking at products in a different class like Classe and Meridian.

You will be waiting a while. It took years into the DVD format before they released a player.

Still, the fact that many players are not 1.3 compliant should be a huge deterrent to people buying in. It isn't, because most of the buying public is focussed on video, but for those of us who care about sound, this should be a big issue.

Nightflier, you don't know what you are talking about, hence starting this post. If the decoding is done onboard the player, then 1.3 compliance is not necessary. Don't buy into marketing hype. All bluray and HD DVD disc are authored in the advanced mode to include interactivity. That means if the consumer wants the interactivity, the decoding has to take place in the player. When the player decodes the formats, it transcodes the audio back to its orginal form which is PCM. The 1.1 HDMI standards allow 8 channels of 24/192khz PCM audio to pass. So this 1.3HDMI not in players is a big issue to those who are ignorant of the formats.

So let me get this straight. There is no consensus on how to us the last two channels when listening to TrueHD and DTSHD? This to me is another big reason to wait things out. I sure hope that the 1.3 spec does a better job of specifying how they should be used.

Another non worry for the educated, and a big worry for the uneducated. First, there isn't a single post production facility in Hollywood that can mix 7.1. Secondly 7.1 is really marketing hype to me because most small rooms cannot support 7.1 without creating an acoustical mess, or the effect being so subtle as to be barely heard. The 1.3 spec only addressing transmission, not spatiality.

It's about time! Geez, it sure took the industry long enough. One of the reason that DVD-A always sounded sop much better to my ears is because the bass always seamed bigger. We only tested this on a few disks, but that was always what we heard and it made the decision to choose and back SACD that much harder. Now this would also be a good argument for releasing more music on BR or HDDVD. Don't the people in the industry read up on what the consumers are clamoring for?

Not all DVD-A titles used the LFE channel. I would say you probably didn't get a large enough sample to even fairly compare SACD and DVD-A if you are talking just a few disc. The LFE in music only applications is unnecessary, because there are no musical instruments with enough low bass at high enough levels to max out the main channels. With movies soundtracks that is not the case. Since most people use a sub/sat system anyway, all the bass is direct to a sub, including the LFE, so how do you know which bass is contributing to what.

Well if the PS3 can do it, then maybe it's not that hard or expensive to do. Then again, does the PS3 even have 5.1 analog outs? If not, does it play SACDs? In stereo? I know it's not HDMI 1.3 compliant, so how does this work?

You KNOW the PS3 is not 1.3 compliant? So much for what you know, it is 1.3 compliant, and always has been. What planet have you been living on? It does't have analog outs, it does play SACD in multichannel and in stereo. If it wasn't compliant then why offer the feature? Duh!

These sound issues, especially the lack of HDMI 1.3 support, are telling me to wait until some of them can be addressed. In the case of HDDVD, the sound issues are pretty damning, but until HDMI 1.3 BR players start appearing, I am definitely going to wait this one out.

You are entitled to make your own decisions, even if they are born out of ignorance. Funny how you have turned this from an innocent like inquiry, to another dig on the HD players and format. Aren't you tired of this kind of idiocrasy?

You sound like you are trying to justify why YOU don't want to get into the HD on disc formats. Some people may not want to wait, and are well aware of what they are getting into.

[kelsci]

The following is a link to a recent article on the High Definition Digest discussing the whole audio "shebang". This whole audio thingy with high defintion should get the Pee Wee Herman MR. BUNGLE AWARD imho.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The following is a link to a recent article on the High Definition Digest discussing the whole audio "shebang". This whole audio thingy with high defintion should get the Pee Wee Herman MR. BUNGLE AWARD imho.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Well Josh does a decent job of explaining the new formats. Though he isn't entirely correct on quite a few points.

Perhaps I should have just posted this link instead of trying to carefully answer questions from a poster that really did not want the answers, but just wanted another opportunity to diss both formats.

Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing.

[kelsci]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

Personally, I cannot afford to delve into the high def. world at this time and really do not care. I have gone through some odd-ball mental changes in the past eight years or so that does not leave me with the interest that I would have had once upon a time. What little mental energy I have will for the next year go into transferring of my videos, many made in linear stereo onto a dvd-r while my linear stereo portable vhs machines are still operating to make the transfers. Again, it is good to see you back.

[L.J.]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

I agree with that. Screw the extras or put 'em on a separate disc.

[kexodusc]

I agree with that. Screw the extras or put 'em on a separate disc.

I'd even pay $1-$2 extra for the better soundtracks.
In my DVD collection, I'm guessing there are fewer than a dozen discs for which I've actually bothered checking the special features - Star Wars, the Godfathers, Lost, Donnie Darko, 24, and maybe one or two others.
99% I think it is the biggest waste of storage space...grrr...would love to see DTS on there.

I went down to my favorite Music store today - they're stocking HD-DVD and BluRay - I was shocked at how few actually contained anything other than the Dolby Digital, DD Plus and maybe the True HD or PCM stuff every now and then. Most either didn't have any DTS or just didn't have the label on them. Granted I may have only looked at 60 or so titles, but it would seem more goofy special features, and undoubtedly more advertisements, are occupying storage space at the expense of the better audio formats.

This reminds me of what they did with the DualDisc format - instead of using it as a DVD-A hi-rez outfit, they added a bunch of video/graphic stuff....booo!

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

[PeruvianSkies]

"Kel,
I don't really think its an audio format thing that is so confusing. I think the HDMI thing is what is making everything so confusing"

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

Personally, I cannot afford to delve into the high def. world at this time and really do not care. I have gone through some odd-ball mental changes in the past eight years or so that does not leave me with the interest that I would have had once upon a time. What little mental energy I have will for the next year go into transferring of my videos, many made in linear stereo onto a dvd-r while my linear stereo portable vhs machines are still operating to make the transfers. Again, it is good to see you back.

HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!

This is so true especially when both HD parties were trying to convince us early on that the advantage of the HD formats would be the best audio, the best video, and storage, which means we could get high quality performance and still have extras that DVD could never deliver....

So I see already the studios are skimping out on performance and tacking on extras, which they think they can sneak in there blindly without anyone noticing. There needs to be standards, which DVD never got right either. All HD discs should be done with True HD, DTS-HD, and optimal 1080p. Then worry about the extras! No compression, no compromises!

[PeruvianSkies]

I

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

Actually Universal starting issuing in 1998 DTS seperate DVD's in their catalog, which most of which were full-bit rate and you had to pay premium to get them when they first came out, some of the titles included:

THE JACKAL
OUT OF SIGHT
THE SHADOW
THE BOXER
MERCURY RISING
DANTE'S PEAK
etc etc

These were issued on Laserdisc as well in DTS and were stunning! Stunning I say!

[L.J.]

I'd even pay $1-$2 extra for the better soundtracks.
In my DVD collection, I'm guessing there are fewer than a dozen discs for which I've actually bothered checking the special features - Star Wars, the Godfathers, Lost, Donnie Darko, 24, and maybe one or two others.
99% I think it is the biggest waste of storage space...grrr...would love to see DTS on there.

I went down to my favorite Music store today - they're stocking HD-DVD and BluRay - I was shocked at how few actually contained anything other than the Dolby Digital, DD Plus and maybe the True HD or PCM stuff every now and then. Most either didn't have any DTS or just didn't have the label on them. Granted I may have only looked at 60 or so titles, but it would seem more goofy special features, and undoubtedly more advertisements, are occupying storage space at the expense of the better audio formats.

This reminds me of what they did with the DualDisc format - instead of using it as a DVD-A hi-rez outfit, they added a bunch of video/graphic stuff....booo!

I don't remember, but I assume DTS didn't start appearing on DVD's until a few years into the product life cycle, and I know a lot of DVD's didn't even have the DD 5.1 track early on. Maybe that's all this is - I think the lack of a/v receivers with built in decoders might have something to do with it, hopefully they'll roll out more audio friendly versions of these titles in the future.

Yeah, I'd pay a couple extra bucks as well.

Most new releases I have seen for BR have either PCM or TrueHD. DTSMA usually from fox. BR seems to be going in the right direction. I'm even seeing BR disc with 2 HD audio tracks. Spider man 3 for example, with a PCM & True HD track. Seems like a waste, but I guess if you have the extra space, why not.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1042/spiderman3.html

[bobsticks]

Not for nothing but the Transformers HD-DVD is sold out in this town; I mean I can't find the thing anywhere. Hopefully that is a good sign for the format. One could argue that perhaps the area was shorted, but in a city that regularly serves as a test market I find this hard to believe.

[kexodusc]

Actually Universal starting issuing in 1998 DTS seperate DVD's in their catalog, which most of which were full-bit rate and you had to pay premium to get them when they first came out, some of the titles included:

THE JACKAL
OUT OF SIGHT
THE SHADOW
THE BOXER
MERCURY RISING
DANTE'S PEAK
etc etc

These were issued on Laserdisc as well in DTS and were stunning! Stunning I say!

So there was a lag between the first DVD's appearing in stores and DTS appearing as well.
i'm one of the few that got burned pretty bad by Laserdisc - I only had a few compared to some, maybe 30 or so..but I didn't have the decoder to process any DTS, if they even had it. Don't remember.
I always felt Laserdisc had some titles that looked and sounded better than some DVD's I ended up replacing - Apollo 13 comes to mind...

[PeruvianSkies]

So there was a lag between the first DVD's appearing in stores and DTS appearing as well.
i'm one of the few that got burned pretty bad by Laserdisc - I only had a few compared to some, maybe 30 or so..but I didn't have the decoder to process any DTS, if they even had it. Don't remember.
I always felt Laserdisc had some titles that looked and sounded better than some DVD's I ended up replacing - Apollo 13 comes to mind...

Kex,

The majority (and I do mean majority) of early DVD's were recycled Laserdisc transfers, but where LD was superior was in the lack of compression that some DVD's had. The DTS on those LD's were stunning! RONIN and BLADE come to mind as two Laserdiscs that have yet to be beat on DVD and we will see what happens with the HD formats. The DTS DVD's were not too far behind the initial DVD's, but the studios were too mixed on releasing DTS as a standard feature. Warner never really got on board with DTS, MGM was not doing DTS except in some rare cases (HANNIBAL), and Paramount NEVER did a DTS DVD, at least not until late in the game with the Jack Ryan films. Fox and Universal did DTS more frequently, Columbia started doing some titles, mostly Superbit, and Disney was here and there as well. With that type of inconsistency it's no wonder few people still to this day know about the advantages of DTS. I am glad to see better support on the HD formats, but I think it should be standard!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Kex,

The majority (and I do mean majority) of early DVD's were recycled Laserdisc transfers, but where LD was superior was in the lack of compression that some DVD's had.

This is not accurate at all. Some DVD titles had ported transfers from Laserdisc, not the majority. And where laserdisc lacked compression, it had much more video noise, and was generally softer than their digital video counterparts. DVD has more lines of resolution than Laserdisc (500 for DVD and 425 for laserdisc). When you letterbox, laserdisc drops down to 380 lines of resolution

The DTS DVD's were not too far behind the initial DVD's, but the studios were too mixed on releasing DTS as a standard feature.

Actually this is not the reason you didn't see many Dts soundtracks. The reason had to do with bit budget and disc space. You have to compress video much more aggressively when you had a 754kbps Dts soundtrack along with a 448kbps DD track. If you had running commentary along with both formats, you had to dig into the video bit budget. As MPEG encoders got better and more efficient, you were able to add both without aggressive compression.

Warner never really got on board with DTS

Lethal Weapon and Twister special editions had full bitrate Dts and full bitrate DD sound.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not for nothing but the Transformers HD-DVD is sold out in this town; I mean I can't find the thing anywhere. Hopefully that is a good sign for the format. One could argue that perhaps the area was shorted, but in a city that regularly serves as a test market I find this hard to believe.

Bob,
Paramount had a hard time getting their allotments out to retail stores. The larger sellers got the most, and the lesser the least. According to my sources at Paramount(I used to work their) they were only able to get out about 65% of what they plan to ship.

[PeruvianSkies]

This is not accurate at all. Some DVD titles had ported transfers from Laserdisc, not the majority. And where laserdisc lacked compression, it had much more video noise, and was generally softer than their digital video counterparts. DVD has more lines of resolution than Laserdisc (500 for DVD and 425 for laserdisc). When you letterbox, laserdisc drops down to 380 lines of resolution




Actually this is not the reason you didn't see many Dts soundtracks. The reason had to do with bit budget and disc space. You have to compress video much more aggressively when you had a 754kbps Dts soundtrack along with a 448kbps DD track. If you had running commentary along with both formats, you had to dig into the video bit budget. As MPEG encoders got better and more efficient, you were able to add both without aggressive compression.




Lethal Weapon and Twister special editions had full bitrate Dts and full bitrate DD sound.

Yeah, LETHAL WEAPON and TWiSTER...hardly what I would call "getting on board".

Your rationalization of my comments sound just like the same pathetic excuses that studios keep using and making for their mistakes and that is why so many DVD's are still poor in performance and probably the reason why some of the HD discs are already problematic.

When I was talking about compression I was referring more to the soundtracks, which is why the Criterion Ed. of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is still superior to any DVD edition of the film, it's thicker, richer, and sounds good for an older mix.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your Lordship; I would say it is a combination of both. For instance, In reading Josh's article, I did not know that Dolby HD-Master did not feature a "core" such as DTS-HD master. To me it is a "MR BUNGLE" all the way around. For example, on HI-DEF DIGEST, the review of TRANSFORMERS has only a D.D. plus audio track because there was not enough capacity on the disc with some kind of features or whatever to have a Dolby Hi-Def audio master track. Why this was not a two-disc set is beyond me. I am the kind of person who believes in the best audio/video transfer be done FIRST, then determine what and where the extras should go next.

The HD DVD format uses short packet sizes for DD that is why you have DD+ in the first place. It wasn't a Dolby thing, it was a design flaw in the way HD DVD handles audio.


Part of the problem with Transformers wasn't just disc space. It was bandwidth as well.
Most of the extra's are on the second disc, however paramount chose to use HDi, with pip, and commentary, so bandwidth was quickly used up.

They could have gone back and re-compressed the video, but it would have paid a price in artifacting, and still you could not have fit a DTHD soundtrack. I guess this puts away the notion that 30GB is enough space on disc for the next generation video format. Unfortunately no current player can play the new TL51 HD DVD disc, so it will not see the light of day. If HD DVD wins the format war, you will get alot of compromises and cut corners unfortunately. However, if HD DVD forgoes the emphasis on interactivity, then you could get a Lossless soundtrack on these major releases. That is not going to happen though.

From what I heard, they had planned a 16bit PCM track along with a 24bit Dolby TrueHD track along with commentary and extra's on a single BD50 bluray disc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah, LETHAL WEAPON and TWiSTER...hardly what I would call "getting on board".

Your rationalization of my comments sound just like the same pathetic excuses that studios keep using and making for their mistakes and that is why so many DVD's are still poor in performance and probably the reason why some of the HD discs are already problematic.

When I was talking about compression I was referring more to the soundtracks, which is why the Criterion Ed. of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is still superior to any DVD edition of the film, it's thicker, richer, and sounds good for an older mix.

PS,
It is clear you have no understanding of disc capacity, and format bandwidth. You only have a peak of 10mbps bandwidth for audio, video, and commentary. DD takes up 448kbps of that bandwidth, Dts 754kbps, and the commentary 192kbps all running at the same time. This leaves less than 9mbps for video peaks. The lower your average bitrate, the more artifact prone you video becomes. Movies with alot of motion require that the bandwidth stay relatively high to keep motion artifacting down, and to keep mosquito noise and various other digital artifact from creeping into your picture. This will push the video more towards the peak video rate, and it is limited to 8.5mbps, then you are leaving yourself open to alot of video problems. Dealing with the DVD format has always evolved balancing compromises. Most studios know alot more about transferring films to DVD than you ever will, so it seems ironic that you would be questioning their decisions.

Have you ever compressed video? Probably not, so you don't understand what issues can crop up. It is easy to pass judgement when you are on the outside looking in.

[PeruvianSkies]

PS,
It is clear you have no understanding of disc capacity, and format bandwidth. You only have a peak of 10mbps bandwidth for audio, video, and commentary. DD takes up 448kbps of that bandwidth, Dts 754kbps, and the commentary 192kbps all running at the same time. This leaves less than 9mbps for video peaks. The lower your average bitrate, the more artifact prone you video becomes. Movies with alot of motion require that the bandwidth stay relatively high to keep motion artifacting down, and to keep mosquito noise and various other digital artifact from creeping into your picture. This will push the video more towards the peak video rate, and it is limited to 8.5mbps, then you are leaving yourself open to alot of video problems. Dealing with the DVD format has always evolved balancing compromises. Most studios know alot more about transferring films to DVD than you ever will, so it seems ironic that you would be questioning their decisions.

Have you ever compressed video? Probably not, so you don't understand what issues can crop up. It is easy to pass judgement when you are on the outside looking in.

I do video production on a daily basis, I understand compression and use it all the time when I have to, otherwise I use uncompressed video if I can depending on storage. I use Final Cut Pro and export my files with H.264 compression or uncompressed at 10-bit 42.

Maybe you are just surprised that someone else around here knows just as much if not more than you do regarding formats and you try and knit pick every little thing you can in order to try and make yourself seem better.


Have you heard the RONIN DTS Laser? Or BLADE DTS laser? What about import versions of those films on DVD that include DTS that the Region 1 does not include? Hmmmm? I suppose that there is a reason why Disney does DTS on Region 3 DVD's for titles like MONSTERS INC and THE LION KING, but do not include it on the Region 1 discs...they have the exact same features, just not DTS.

[PeruvianSkies]

SirT, I have a new nickname for you.... Nick Naylor, I am sure you understand why.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I do video production on a daily basis, I understand compression and use it all the time when I have to, otherwise I use uncompressed video if I can depending on storage. I use Final Cut Pro and export my files with H.264 compression or uncompressed at 10-bit 42.

Anyone can say this, but can they transfer this in a coherent explaination? So far not. There is currently no format that can pass uncompressed video let alone store it. Uncompressed video would need a bitrate that far surpassed what even bluray could do. So just what does anyone do with uncompressed video with nothing to show it on?

Maybe you are just surprised that someone else around here knows just as much if not more than you do regarding formats and you try and knit pick every little thing you can in order to try and make yourself seem better.

If you know so much, then why even mention uncompressed video? How come you don't seem to understand the balance of audio and video bitrates on the DVD format? How do you make this statement;

All HD discs should be done with True HD, DTS-HD, and optimal 1080p. Then worry about the extras! No compression, no compromises!

and not worry about you bit bandwidth or disc capacity. You have to take the length of the movie into consideration as well, especially with HD DVD.

Have you heard the RONIN DTS Laser? Or BLADE DTS laser? What about import versions of those films on DVD that include DTS that the Region 1 does not include?

I own both laserdiscs. Have you compared the video quality of the region 3 versus the region 1? That will tell you alot.

Hmmmm? I suppose that there is a reason why Disney does DTS on Region 3 DVD's for titles like MONSTERS INC and THE LION KING, but do not include it on the Region 1 discs...they have the exact same features, just not DTS.

This I can tell you for sure. Disney didn't do the compression for region 3, a local post house did it. If you compared the video quality of both, you will find the region 3 quite a bit more "digital" looking with more edge enhancement to hide the fact the picture was a bit softer and noiser. If you look at the average screen size of region three consumers versus region 1, you would find region 1 consumer uses vastly larger display sizes. Blow up that region 3 picture to region 1 sizes, and it becomes easier to see why they get Dts, and we don't.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

SirT, I have a new nickname for you.... Nick Naylor, I am sure you understand why.

We are discussing audio and video. Why is it that you cannot resist bringing personalities into these conversations. I am not really interested in your personality comparisons. You don't even know me! Analyze yourself, and leave the personality mentions out of the equation.

[PeruvianSkies]

[QUOTE]

Anyone can say this, but can they transfer this in a coherent explaination? So far not. There is currently no format that can pass uncompressed video let alone store it. Uncompressed video would need a bitrate that far surpassed what even bluray could do. So just what does anyone do with uncompressed video with nothing to show it on?

and not worry about you bit bandwidth or disc capacity. You have to take the length of the movie into consideration as well, especially with HD DVD.

There is no reason why extras couldn't be put onto a second disc in order to keep things performance-wise top notch on the movie-only disc. There are always excuses to diminish quality it would seem, just another poor attempt for the studio to release another special edition in a few months.

I own both laserdiscs. Have you compared the video quality of the region 3 versus the region 1? That will tell you alot.

Anyone can say THIS too.

This I can tell you for sure. Disney didn't do the compression for region 3, a local post house did it. If you compared the video quality of both, you will find the region 3 quite a bit more "digital" looking with more edge enhancement to hide the fact the picture was a bit softer and noiser. If you look at the average screen size of region three consumers versus region 1, you would find region 1 consumer uses vastly larger display sizes. Blow up that region 3 picture to region 1 sizes, and it becomes easier to see why they get Dts, and we don't.

The different in picture quality is not that much different and certainly not worth cutting out the DTS audio track, which outperforms the DD on those titles.

[PeruvianSkies]

We are discussing audio and video. Why is it that you cannot resist bringing personalities into these conversations. I am not really interested in your personality comparisons. You don't even know me! Analyze yourself, and leave the personality mentions out of the equation.

Whatever you say Mr. Naylor.