Sony and PCM audio - Blu-ray Forum

Canada · 12-17-2007, 01:15 AM

I have been noticing lately that Sony has been supporting Uncompressed PCM and Dolby Digital True HD. I was wondering why considering that most PCM tracks are considered better. Just as long as Sony keeps supporting PCM I'll be fine.

JohnGalt · 12-17-2007, 04:55 AM

Wasn't PCM never intended to be released to the public? I think I recall seeing it in print somewhere that it just kind of caught on since there was so much space available on BR discs and they thought, "Why not?"

Clark Kent · 12-17-2007, 05:43 AM

We know why PCM is virtually never on HD DVDs because of the low bandwidth limitations of that format. I'm a little surprised Sony seems to be moving away from PCM to the slightly inferior Dolby TrueHD. I realize it saves space but most Blu-rays are not anywhere near filling up a BD-50. Most of the studio masters are in PCM form if that tells you anything. PCM soundtracks also eliminate any question about added things like dial-norm or the need to have special decoders in either the receiver or the player.

Anthony P · 12-18-2007, 01:03 AM

Quote:

I realize it saves space but most Blu-rays are not anywhere near filling up a BD-50.

it also helps with bandwidth. Using lossless compression over PCM makes more and more sense as you ask for higher quality.

quetzalcoatl · 12-18-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

I have been noticing lately that Sony has been supporting Uncompressed PCM and Dolby Digital True HD. I was wondering why considering that most PCM tracks are considered better. Just as long as Sony keeps supporting PCM I'll be fine.

The parted I bolded is still very much a point of debate.

Brain Sturgeon · 12-18-2007, 01:38 AM

Assuming that the tracks are of identical word length and sampling rates, then the best TrueHD and DTS-HD MA can hope to do is to match the PCM track (which they, theoretically, should). The benefit of using these codecs is the space savings over the PCM track.

The only point of debate would be if a lossless track with a longer word length and/or higher sampling rate would best a PCM track. The question lies in how you came about the lossless track. Was it derived from the identical PCM track and upsampled, or was it derived from a PCM of longer word length and/or higher sampling rate than the one of the BD?

The effect of dialnorm on a TrueHD track also comes into the debate...

There are several threads that go over these arguments on this site.

Why Sony is including both a PCM track and a TrueHD track is not entirely clear to me. Its a bit redundant. I presume they are just experimenting with the lossless codec to get a proper feel for it should they want to use it exclusively for BD's in the future where they need the space.

MatrixS2000 · 12-18-2007, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Assuming that the tracks are of identical word length and sampling rates, then the best TrueHD and DTS-HD MA can hope to do is to match the PCM track (which they, theoretically, should). The benefit of using these codecs is the space savings over the PCM track.

The only point of debate would be if a lossless track with a longer word length and/or higher sampling rate would best a PCM track. The question lies in how you came about the lossless track. Was it derived from the identical PCM track and upsampled, or was it derived from a PCM of longer word length and/or higher sampling rate than the one of the BD?

The effect of dialnorm on a TrueHD track also comes into the debate...

There are several threads that go over these arguments on this site.

Why Sony is including both a PCM track and a TrueHD track is not entirely clear to me. Its a bit redundant. I presume they are just experimenting with the lossless codec to get a proper feel for it should they want to use it exclusively for BD's in the future where they need the space.

Well stated....

JohnGalt · 12-18-2007, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Why Sony is including both a PCM track and a TrueHD track is not entirely clear to me. Its a bit redundant. I presume they are just experimenting with the lossless codec to get a proper feel for it should they want to use it exclusively for BD's in the future where they need the space.

Or where they don't feel like paying Dolby Labs a royalty.

HDJK · 12-18-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Well stated....

+1

12-17-2007, 01:15 AM	#1
Canada Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Mar 2007 Location:Victoria, BC Home Theater Gallery:17 4K collection:305 Blu-ray collection:1201 DVD collection:37 Blu-ray reviews:42	Sony and PCM audio I have been noticing lately that Sony has been supporting Uncompressed PCM and Dolby Digital True HD. I was wondering why considering that most PCM tracks are considered better. Just as long as Sony keeps supporting PCM I'll be fine. Last edited by Canada; 12-17-2007 at 01:24 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
7.1 pcm audio	Home Theater General Discussion	mdtulp	2	01-22-2008 07:47 PM
PCM Vs. True HD audio?	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	aqupunk	27	01-04-2008 05:57 PM
which audio to use PCM or Dolby HD	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	ay221	79	12-18-2007 01:48 AM
PCM 5.1 Audio Processing	Blu-ray Movies - North America	Warrior/Mond	2	10-04-2007 07:06 PM
HD audio format - Lossless audio codecs: PCM vs Dolby True HD vs DTS HD-MA questions	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	i want HD movies	13	01-01-2007 01:32 PM

12-17-2007, 04:55 AM	#2
JohnGalt Senior Member Member since:Sep 2007 Trading Score:4	Wasn't PCM never intended to be released to the public? I think I recall seeing it in print somewhere that it just kind of caught on since there was so much space available on BR discs and they thought, "Why not?"

12-17-2007, 05:43 AM	#3
Clark Kent Blu-ray Prince Top contributor Member since:Oct 2007 Location:Metropolis Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:184	We know why PCM is virtually never on HD DVDs because of the low bandwidth limitations of that format. I'm a little surprised Sony seems to be moving away from PCM to the slightly inferior Dolby TrueHD. I realize it saves space but most Blu-rays are not anywhere near filling up a BD-50. Most of the studio masters are in PCM form if that tells you anything. PCM soundtracks also eliminate any question about added things like dial-norm or the need to have special decoders in either the receiver or the player.

12-18-2007, 01:38 AM	#6
Brain Sturgeon Expert Member Top ranked HT gallery Member since:Sep 2007 Home Theater Gallery:39	Assuming that the tracks are of identical word length and sampling rates, then the best TrueHD and DTS-HD MA can hope to do is to match the PCM track (which they, theoretically, should). The benefit of using these codecs is the space savings over the PCM track. The only point of debate would be if a lossless track with a longer word length and/or higher sampling rate would best a PCM track. The question lies in how you came about the lossless track. Was it derived from the identical PCM track and upsampled, or was it derived from a PCM of longer word length and/or higher sampling rate than the one of the BD? The effect of dialnorm on a TrueHD track also comes into the debate... There are several threads that go over these arguments on this site. Why Sony is including both a PCM track and a TrueHD track is not entirely clear to me. Its a bit redundant. I presume they are just experimenting with the lossless codec to get a proper feel for it should they want to use it exclusively for BD's in the future where they need the space.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals