Why bother with PCM? Takes away space from the video :( - Blu-ray Forum

stofferdk · 08-01-2007, 10:03 AM

Hi there,

I just watched a few movies in a row, and checked out the audio and video details - and it seems that PCM audio is just a bloody waste on BD-50.

AFAIK, true uncompressed 1080p video would fit in on BD-50 for 2 seconds or something. Now - with PCM audio taking of precious space, whytf not compress it usin Dolby True HD or the DTS like.

Furthermore, with all that HD VMD crap out, with several layers (I think 8), whytf isent BD-200 or BD-500 out already?

Now - I always prefer better sound over picture, but PCM is just a pure waste.

Should I be wrong in any of this, please enlighten me!

lgans316 · 08-01-2007, 10:33 AM

Come on dude !!! The entire BD camp including few in the HD DVD camp wants uncompressed PCM and you are talking the opposite ? Re-think buddy.

GreenMotion · 08-01-2007, 11:09 AM

Why even bother with DD or DTS .. what's wrong with Stereo ?

Darth-Blu · 08-01-2007, 11:12 AM

If you think PCM is a waste ....... I was just wondering if you have a surround system, and have heard PCM? Not a bash, but once you hear true PCM, you'll understand why it's on there. It's like experiencing surround again for the first time. (Day-dreaming now, and remembering my experience last night with 300 ......... Aaahhhhh ....... )

stofferdk · 08-01-2007, 11:29 AM

Lol mates, you cant hear the difference in PCM and Dolby True HD.

PCM can easily be compressed without loss, EASILY.

I got my surround already, and PCM is really a waste. ESPECIALLY, since guys - PCM is not always good, it depends on the stream quality AFAIK. SO - Dolby Trtue HD and the like, compressed lossless codecs could very well be much better!

its a bloody waste.

Footloose301 · 08-01-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stofferdk

Lol mates, you cant hear the difference in PCM and Dolby True HD.

PCM can easily be compressed without loss, EASILY.

I got my surround already, and PCM is really a waste. ESPECIALLY, since guys - PCM is not always good, it depends on the stream quality AFAIK. SO - Dolby Trtue HD and the like, compressed lossless codecs could very well be much better!

its a bloody waste.

Listen!

I'm going to have to go ahead and sorta disagree with you on that one.

dazbug · 08-01-2007, 11:40 AM

This is obviously a prank thread isnt it fromt eh OP?

HD DVD would kill for PCM. with 50GB, I'll take PCM anyday, doesnt get any better

Footloose301 · 08-01-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazbug

This is obviously a prank thread isnt it fromt eh OP?

HD DVD would kill for PCM. with 50GB, I'll take PCM anyday, doesnt get any better

Sounds like a troll.

MatrixS2000 · 08-01-2007, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stofferdk

I just watched a few movies in a row, and checked out the audio and video details - and it seems that PCM audio is just a bloody waste on BD-50.

It's not a waste of space if the space if there to be used...the only waste of space is when a BD50 is not fully used.

matthewrounds · 08-01-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Footloose301

Sounds like a troll.

umm yeah, if you could just do that for me, great!

That is the funniest Avatar yet!

statikcat · 08-01-2007, 12:59 PM

I would not completely disagree with the OP. I do audio for a living. Video compression is more sensative to our eyes than audio is to ears in this case - because it is easier to compress audio. So technically video could possibly make more use of space than audio. However, I am not totally familiar with what compression rates HD DVD or DVDs use but there are plenty of GREAT and even lossless audio compression codecs out there. Most people can't tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a cd of the same song for example (not even lossless). I think it is possible, with a good audio compressor, for the extra space to be more worth it on video quality. Audio does take up a lot of space..especially at high sample rates and when you add language tracks, etc.

Reguardless though, it is good that BD uses uncompressed just for the fact that HD DVD does not and it is something on the "one up list" and it sounds impressive anyway.

Does anyone with a hi-fi audio system compare same movie on BD and HD DVD? Also, anyone know what compression HD DVD uses?

Blu4ever · 08-01-2007, 01:39 PM

I am just waiting for the next response to be "I can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p, couldn't all that wasted video space be used for more special features?"

statikcat · 08-01-2007, 01:40 PM

Well that would obviously be much more ridiculous.

Lord_Stewie · 08-01-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stofferdk

Hi there,

I just watched a few movies in a row, and checked out the audio and video details - and it seems that PCM audio is just a bloody waste on BD-50.

AFAIK, true uncompressed 1080p video would fit in on BD-50 for 2 seconds or something. Now - with PCM audio taking of precious space, whytf not compress it usin Dolby True HD or the DTS like.

Furthermore, with all that HD VMD crap out, with several layers (I think 8), whytf isent BD-200 or BD-500 out already?

Now - I always prefer better sound over picture, but PCM is just a pure waste.

Should I be wrong in any of this, please enlighten me!

if you think PCM is a waste go for HDDUD. you don't belong here. don't take it wrong. but i find it offensive. what you are saying in other words WHY BOTHER WITH BD.

statikcat · 08-01-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadblz

if you think PCM is a waste go for HDDUD. you don't belong here. don't take it wrong. but i find it offensive. what you are saying in other words WHY BOTHER WITH BD.

He is suggesting that if you save space with compressed audio you have MORE room for higher video quality. This is not an anti-BD statement. Either way its an advantage over HD DVD because HD DVD doesnt have any room even AFTER compressed audio. So NO he is not saying "why bother with bd". Putting words in other peoples mouth.. and it is your fault if his statement offends you. I cant believe you actually just wrote that!

JTK · 08-01-2007, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Footloose301

Sounds like a troll.

Naw...say it ain't so!

Lord_Stewie · 08-01-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by statikcat

He is suggesting that if you save space with compressed audio you have MORE room for higher video quality. Either way its an advantage over HD DVD because HD DVD doesnt have any room even AFTER compressed audio. So NO he is not saying "why bother with bd". Putting words in other peoples mouth.. and it is your fault if his statement offends you.

I didn't mean to be ignorant about it. But a full enjoyment of a film involves both Video and sound. Video quality on BD is already excellent, and sound nothing better than PCM.

its nothing but an opinion. I see its great you stand up for him, and thats fine. but if you think you don't want a flawless sound mixed with the picture then it is a waste.

statikcat · 08-01-2007, 02:09 PM

You are right it is an opinion.. I am not saying I want compressed audio on my BD at all. But I am saying I understand where he is coming from and I think it is an interesting observation. It is kind of a lose one thing gain another. I dont think he should be bashed or told to go buy HD DVD. That is treating him like a jerk. Let's not be so negative ok..We are likely all BD supporters here

jermwhl · 08-01-2007, 02:35 PM

Let's take 300 for example! Excellent PQ! No compalints there, PLUS it has Dolby TrueHD AND PCM! So there!!!!

GoldenRedux · 08-01-2007, 02:36 PM

Let's not go accusing people of being trolls the minute they post something we don't agree with, okay everyone?

FWIW, ladies and gentlemen, the OP has a point, IMO. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lossless compression as it is bit-for-bit identical to the PCM source upon decompression - hence the term 'lossless'. It's like a .zip file, only for audio. PCM is, in fact, a bandwidth and space hog. Now, assuming no dialogue-normalization is used (I'm looking at you Dolby) I would prefer that studios used a lossless codec like DTS-HD MA or even TrueHD, even using said codec was going to save space and/or bandwidth that would otherwise be used for optimising the PQ. All one has to do is look at the awful PQ of bit-starved HD-DVDs (we can see this on the ported over from HD-DVD Warner smoothies) as evidence. Fortunately for Blu-ray, it is much more capable of handling these things before those sorts of limits are reached, but as good as Blu-ray is, even it has limits.

I know that around these parts, the very mention of TrueHD evokes immediate suspicion, but do keep in mind that TrueHD is not platform specific.

08-01-2007, 10:03 AM	#1
stofferdk Active Member Member since:May 2007	Why bother with PCM? Takes away space from the video :( Hi there, I just watched a few movies in a row, and checked out the audio and video details - and it seems that PCM audio is just a bloody waste on BD-50. AFAIK, true uncompressed 1080p video would fit in on BD-50 for 2 seconds or something. Now - with PCM audio taking of precious space, whytf not compress it usin Dolby True HD or the DTS like. Furthermore, with all that HD VMD crap out, with several layers (I think 8), whytf isent BD-200 or BD-500 out already? Now - I always prefer better sound over picture, but PCM is just a pure waste. Should I be wrong in any of this, please enlighten me!

08-01-2007, 12:59 PM	#11
statikcat Blu-ray Guru Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Washington, DC Blu-ray collection:67	I would not completely disagree with the OP. I do audio for a living. Video compression is more sensative to our eyes than audio is to ears in this case - because it is easier to compress audio. So technically video could possibly make more use of space than audio. However, I am not totally familiar with what compression rates HD DVD or DVDs use but there are plenty of GREAT and even lossless audio compression codecs out there. Most people can't tell the difference between a 320kbps mp3 and a cd of the same song for example (not even lossless). I think it is possible, with a good audio compressor, for the extra space to be more worth it on video quality. Audio does take up a lot of space..especially at high sample rates and when you add language tracks, etc. Reguardless though, it is good that BD uses uncompressed just for the fact that HD DVD does not and it is something on the "one up list" and it sounds impressive anyway. Does anyone with a hi-fi audio system compare same movie on BD and HD DVD? Also, anyone know what compression HD DVD uses? Last edited by statikcat; 08-01-2007 at 01:04 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Things in movies that bother you	Movies	RockChalk	589	03-21-2025 01:18 AM
Why do studios bother with some releases...	Blu-ray Movies - North America	uk-guy	52	07-05-2008 11:38 PM
Should i even bother?	Audio Theory and Discussion	ceckitti	5	03-30-2008 02:57 AM
5 min wait---Does that bother you.	General Chat	Moefiz	24	01-21-2008 05:33 PM
HD DVD does not have enough space for PCM	General Chat	Canada	79	09-23-2007 05:16 AM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-01-2007, 10:33 AM	#2
lgans316 Blu-ray Baron Member since:Jul 2007 Location:RM16, United Kingdom Blu-ray reviews:17 Trading Score:498	Come on dude !!! The entire BD camp including few in the HD DVD camp wants uncompressed PCM and you are talking the opposite ? Re-think buddy.

08-01-2007, 11:09 AM	#3
GreenMotion Special Member Member since:Apr 2007 4K collection:82 Blu-ray collection:1064 Trading Score:10	Why even bother with DD or DTS .. what's wrong with Stereo ?

08-01-2007, 11:12 AM	#4
Darth-Blu Member Member since:Jan 2007	If you think PCM is a waste ....... I was just wondering if you have a surround system, and have heard PCM? Not a bash, but once you hear true PCM, you'll understand why it's on there. It's like experiencing surround again for the first time. (Day-dreaming now, and remembering my experience last night with 300 ......... Aaahhhhh ....... )

08-01-2007, 11:29 AM	#5
stofferdk Active Member Member since:May 2007	Lol mates, you cant hear the difference in PCM and Dolby True HD. PCM can easily be compressed without loss, EASILY. I got my surround already, and PCM is really a waste. ESPECIALLY, since guys - PCM is not always good, it depends on the stream quality AFAIK. SO - Dolby Trtue HD and the like, compressed lossless codecs could very well be much better! its a bloody waste.

08-01-2007, 11:40 AM	#7
dazbug Member Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Aus 4K collection:89 Blu-ray collection:126 Blu-ray reviews:8	This is obviously a prank thread isnt it fromt eh OP? HD DVD would kill for PCM. with 50GB, I'll take PCM anyday, doesnt get any better

08-01-2007, 01:39 PM	#12
Blu4ever Active Member Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Winnipeg 4K collection:8 Blu-ray collection:32	I am just waiting for the next response to be "I can't tell the difference between 480p and 1080p, couldn't all that wasted video space be used for more special features?"

08-01-2007, 01:40 PM	#13
statikcat Blu-ray Guru Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Washington, DC Blu-ray collection:67	Well that would obviously be much more ridiculous.

08-01-2007, 02:09 PM	#18
statikcat Blu-ray Guru Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Washington, DC Blu-ray collection:67	You are right it is an opinion.. I am not saying I want compressed audio on my BD at all. But I am saying I understand where he is coming from and I think it is an interesting observation. It is kind of a lose one thing gain another. I dont think he should be bashed or told to go buy HD DVD. That is treating him like a jerk. Let's not be so negative ok..We are likely all BD supporters here

08-01-2007, 02:35 PM	#19
jermwhl Special Member Member since:Jan 2007 Location:Virginia	Let's take 300 for example! Excellent PQ! No compalints there, PLUS it has Dolby TrueHD AND PCM! So there!!!!

08-01-2007, 02:36 PM	#20
GoldenRedux Power Member Member since:Sep 2006 Blu-ray reviews:1	Let's not go accusing people of being trolls the minute they post something we don't agree with, okay everyone? FWIW, ladies and gentlemen, the OP has a point, IMO. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lossless compression as it is bit-for-bit identical to the PCM source upon decompression - hence the term 'lossless'. It's like a .zip file, only for audio. PCM is, in fact, a bandwidth and space hog. Now, assuming no dialogue-normalization is used (I'm looking at you Dolby) I would prefer that studios used a lossless codec like DTS-HD MA or even TrueHD, even using said codec was going to save space and/or bandwidth that would otherwise be used for optimising the PQ. All one has to do is look at the awful PQ of bit-starved HD-DVDs (we can see this on the ported over from HD-DVD Warner smoothies) as evidence. Fortunately for Blu-ray, it is much more capable of handling these things before those sorts of limits are reached, but as good as Blu-ray is, even it has limits. I know that around these parts, the very mention of TrueHD evokes immediate suspicion, but do keep in mind that TrueHD is not platform specific.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals