Are the HD codecs noticably better?

[Johnny Vinyl]

Thought I'd post this CNET article and see what your reaction would be to it.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-9998346-47.html

[crackinhedz]

well, I don't know how to take this article...no mention of blind testing being conducted...and the reviewer's are more elderly fella's who may or may not have good hearing to begin with?

[Collectors Set]

There is no difference I am surprised at how many Blu Ray movies on the market do not have the HD codecs and just plain old Dolby Digital like Goodfellas, Ocean's trilogy, etc. I have been waiting because the last thing I want to do is have to double dip on a Blu Ray movie

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

well, I don't know how to take this article...no mention of blind testing being conducted...and the reviewer's are more elderly fella's who may or may not have good hearing to begin with?

That's too funny 'crackinhedz"! But who knows, maybe! I suppose a lot of it comes down to the quality of equipment. Unless I subconsciously "wish" to hear a difference, I can tell you the HD codecs sound better, cleaner, sharper on my system.

[Driver_King]

This is what one user said there, "Actually, I think Dolby and DTS sound better than the new formats. I dislike new technology in general, as sound quality suffers. Look at iPods!"

Nobody there knows what they're talking about.

[Driver_King]

It's funny to see that he doesn't notice much of a difference between regular codecs and HD codecs. He's always making fun of regular MP3 compared to lossless for the iPod.

[Mr.Sparkle]

that's just a bunch of old people rambling about things they don't know about.

[copjosh1977]

Anyone know where I can go to listen to hear the new lossless audio formats. BB here in Arkansas has no Magnolia rooms, and I haven't been to Suck-it City in forever... I'm in central AR, about 20 mi outside of L.R.

Would love to do some good blind?? A/B comparisons of DTS and DD vs TrueHD and DTS-HD and Master. Thanks.

[JadedRaverLA]

Does that really qualify as an article? No data whatsoever, "were hard pressed to hear significant differences..." What constitutes a significant difference? If the difference was night and day, then Dolby and DTS failed MISERABLY in creating their standard codecs over a decade ago, and should be ashamed. The difference isn't night and day (obviously), but it does exist.

And, of course, they are auditioning modern material mastered for DTS and DD theatrical presentation. DVD had god-awful sound once you went back to "old" movies with mono or stereo sourced from analog soundtracks. "Encoded in Dolby Digital 1.0" became the surest sign of awful audio since 64kbps mp3.

Between those older titles, and music titles where any compression is a serious detriment to the source material, there's more than enough reason to justify being able to handle the best the format has to offer.