"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Alan,

I'm kind of with ya here man.

Originally Posted by Esox50

Again, something else is at work here. Either something (equipment, decoding, etc) is not working as it is supposed/claimed to, or there's some sort of other elusive correlation to something else.

I try to stay out of the whole "Dolby TrueHD vs. DTS-HD MA" debate as a whole since I've never actually heard either... and will continue to believe in the OFFICIAL expert opinion that neither is better than the other. Future experience may tell me different, but until that time, I'm sticking to it.
For those who clicked to check who voted for what on the Sony/DTS-HD MA poll, my reasons for clicking YES was strictly due to the 1.5mbps core, and had NOTHING to do with the "lossless" codecs themselves.

I've read enough of PeterTHX's posts over the years to know that he's knowledgeable enough to give me reason to believe him... but my past experiences has made it hard for me to believe this. I had over 30 something HD DVDs, and EVERY one of the 1.5mbps DD+ encodes sounded better than the 640k DD+ soundtracks I had. I'm not saying there wasn't some 640k DD+ releases with better use of individual aspects (surround use, bass, etc...), but EVERY ONE of the 1.5mbps soundtracks sounded more lifelike on my setup. It could be my equipment, it could be my ears... heck, it could be a placebo, but IT WORKS!

~Alan

[Anthony P]

Yes, but they had them, often before their BD counterparts (see "Happy Feet") when BD50 was struggling to gain traction from some studios.

yes but that was for political reasons, and on very few titles. Nickerson seeing that HD DVD was loosing bad tried some stuff to push the numbers in HD DVD's favours, he was hoping by adding DTHD on those titles (happy feet, superman returns) he could convince people with both systems to buy the HD DVD instead of the BD.
In the end the PQ take the hit for adding lossless to those movies. in the end with a max combined bit rate of 30mbps giving one language track 3mbps+ for DTHD and then 2*640kbps means that video bitrate can't go beyond 25.5mbps which is below the average of some BDs.

[Anthony P]

I don't think any Blu-rays have DD+ and for good reason. DD+ decoding is optional in the Blu-ray spec, while it was mandatory in the HD DVD spec.

I don't think it was used on any BDs, but in my opinion even bigger reasons for the different usage was for a few other reasons

1) with BD having 48mbps combined and 40mbps video, there is almost 8mbps for audio, that is enough for a lossless track plus some lossy ones

2) DTHD is dynamic while DD+ (and DD) are not, so a DD+ track can actually take more space then a DTHD track

3) like I pointed out in my previous post lossless tracks take a heavy toll on the available bitrate for video on HD DVD

4) for 16:48 5.1 DD+ is not any better then 640kbps DD.

5) HD DVD was limited to 448kbps for DD, so the only way to offer 640kbps DD was to go to a higher bitrate DD+

[Xorp]

DD+ was used as the audio track for the Picture-in-Picture window bonus feature on the Transformers Blu-ray. Only BD with DD+ so far.

[Anthony P]

it's very possible that I wouldn't notice a difference between DD+ at 1.5mbps and DD at 640k. Yet, all my Universal and Paramount HD DVDs (encoded at 1.5mbps) sounded better than all my WB HD DVDs encoded with Dolby Digital Plus at 640k....

but he did not say there is no difference between DD+@640 and DD+@1.5. he said two things which are true

there is no difference between DD+@1.5 and DD@640 (see no plus in the second one) and that DD@640 is slightly better then DD+@640. so it fully agrees with what he said.

The issue is that with HD DVD you cannot have DD@640, it is limited at 448 that is why almost all o the HD DVDs use DD+ instead of DD while it is not an issue for BD. DD+ has some benefits over DD, like 7.1 or special filters for extreme compressions (i.e. low bandwidth) but at 640mbps DD has 640mbps but the extra over head of DD+ means that you don't quite get the quality of 640mbps DD.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Esox50

I'm kind of with ya here man. While my analytical side says that Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA should be the same, in my experience they are not.
I have tried to level match. Heck, sometimes I watch my Pre-Pro to see what dial norm setting pops up when it locks onto a TrueHD track. If it says -4, I turn up the volume 4db to compensate, etc

Yes, but unless it's the same film, with the same mix, then the exercise is pointless, the same way people use Pixar films to judge the picture quality of Blu-ray vs. a film like The Sand Pebbles.

As I posted yesterday when the poll first went up, I can think of exemplary examples of both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA. So here's what bothers me. Anytime a good number of people post on any forum that DTS is better, those on the other side call it "due to the mix". How come we never hear this go the other way? It just seems like the defacto response is "turn up the volume" or "it's mixed to sound better" whenever DTS-MA is claimed to sound better or more dynamic, etc.

Because it can't be stated enough? People don't seem to get it. They listen to Wall*E in DTS-MA and then something like 13 Going On 30 in TrueHD and attribute the better sound to the codec.

Stacy Spears on his Test Disc took pains to encode in both formats and he said he could not hear a difference between them. This is the person who created it!

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Because it can't be stated enough? People don't seem to get it. They listen to Wall*E in DTS-MA and then something like 13 Going On 30 in TrueHD and attribute the better sound to the codec.

But you've stepped around my point. Why does it rarely go the other way? If I read the above, you'd have me believe then that people think DTS-Ma is mainly for action/adventure movies so we think it sounds better and Dolby is for romantic comedies with less aggressive mixes people see as inferior.. Also, for some reason, it "cannot be stated enough"...but again only one camp seems to be stating it!

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong. It just seems to me something else other than "volume" and/or "mix" is at work here. What that something is, I do not know.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Esox50

But you've stepped around my point.

And you stepped around my point that you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison using the exact same material.

[sharkshark]

everybody's stepping so much, you much have Happy Feet (in lossy, or lossless, depending on format... )

By the way, the conjecture about Warner distinguishing between the two formats is an interesting one, I'd always prefer sources for such claims myself. I'm one of those that as soons as I bought my BD-10 would be anything that was the same specs/extras on BD (knowing/believing full well where the wind would blow in time), and anything that was superior (lossless audio, PIP commentary, etc.) in the "other" format. So, if that was the plan, worked for me!

Anyhoo, you both above bring up two interesting points:

1) There should be no difference, volume matched, between the two lossless audio formats from the same soundtrack

2) Lots of people on forums such as this one often claim DTS HD MA is superior to TrueHD. Some even say that LPCM sounds better than both of them (less losslessy, I guess... *cough*)

Both of these could be true at the same time, naturally. You then have to ask why number two if number one is true? There is the rub methinks, where all kinds of fun (placebo, comparing disparate films, setup issues, lack of volume matching (or lack of -ability- to volume match), etc., etc.)

Do a blind test on the Spears and Munsil and you'd be hard pressed, I'd think, to hear which one was "punchier".

So, yeah... the ugly truth of forum postings confronting the cold hard facts and/or the vagaries of studio mastering that may tweak one release over another.

ps. I've yet to seem him here, but "Filmmixer" over at the forum-that-must-not-be-named is a font of knowledge about such things, fwiw....

pps. I admit it's weird that we're having this civil, informative discussion about this stuff without the direct particiaption of Penton, given that he doesn't want to spoil the vote. I do hope, kind sir, that after the vote closes you'll give us your own insights (from either a technical or politicial point of view) regarding Sony's choice of audio compression format.

ppps. Doesn't DTS or Dolby throw money at studios for such exclusivity? I think =I= should start getting money from these guys for writing this stuff, as should you all... Let's start a petition to get paid to ramble about BD tech, k?

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I also find it more than a bit interesting that Universal heavily used lossy Dolby Digital Plus on many of its HD-DVD offerings whereas their releases on Blu-ray have typically used DTS-HD Master Audio (perhaps on every release, but I'm not sure about that).

Universal annouced last year that all their bluray releases would have dtsma as standard.

As for DD+ on HD-DVD, i thought the reason why most movies on that format had lossy was because space issues?

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Robert Harris

To be clear, I use the P**ton example not as a current example of Fox's output, but specifically toward explaining what has been occurring, and is now occurring presently with releases from a number of studios, inclusive of a recent release of Amadeus from WB. ***ton is old history.

I believe that Fox's fortunes with Blu-ray are now very fortunately tied to the work of Schawn Belston, who will preserve, protect and defend Fox's productions from further granular dismemberment. His work on The Sand Pebbles is superb.

RAH

Very well said. Off the top of my hat Patton is the only really problematic Fox title I can think about (I am not including MGM titles). The Sand Pebbles is indeed a very fine Blu-Ray, as is South Pacific so now I am positive that we can really look forward to other large format productions from Fox to be released on Blu-Ray.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

See my above ‘hawk’ analogy.

Have been out of the loop a few days so please let Grover and Michael know that their efforts are much appreciated - we need more people like these two.

And I don't know if I said that before but the new 70mm print of Lord Jim that was screened at the Berlinale was also very much appreciated and considered to be one of the best prints shown at the festival, so that's another example of Grovers fine work

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by wallendo

Phantom of the Opera was Dolby TrueHD on HD-DVD and DD on Blu-ray.

I suspect that this was because of HD-DVD's greater capacity: 30 GB vs 25 GB for blu-ray.

Warner's desire to avoid BD-50's for all but their most popular movies often meant that the double-layer HD-DVD was superior to the single-layer Blu-ray in audio quality.

Happy Feet: The HD DVD had Dolby TrueHD on a dual-layered disc (30GB). The Blu-ray had Dolby Digital on a single-layered disc (25GB), but less than 15GB is used.

Lady In The Water: The HD DVD had Dolby TrueHD on a dual-layered disc (30GB). The Blu-ray had Dolby Digital on a single-layered disc (25GB), but less than 15GB is used.

Superman Returns: The HD DVD had Dolby TrueHD on a dual-layered disc (30GB). The Blu-ray had Dolby Digital on a dual-layered disc (50GB), but less than 30GB is used.

Training Day: The HD DVD had Dolby TrueHD on a dual-layered disc (30GB). The Blu-ray had Dolby Digital on a single-layered disc (25GB), but less than 18GB is used.

"The Phantom Of The Opera" as mentioned above had Dolby TrueHD, but the BD25 does indeed appear to be maxed out, and I couldn't find specs on "The Wicker Man" which has TrueHD on the HD DVD, but not on the Blu-ray.

~Alan

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

but he did not say there is no difference between DD+@640 and DD+@1.5. he said two things which are true

Which proves I probably shouldn't post on a Wednesday (I generally work late on Tuesdays)...

Since my quoted post was referring to DD+ at 640k, my mind put plusses where there were none.

I have an opinion on 640k DD+/1.5mbps DD+, and 640k DD/1.5mbps dts, but in the case of what Peter said, I understand the logic now that I no longer see the +.

~Alan

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes, but unless it's the same film, with the same mix, then the exercise is pointless, the same way people use Pixar films to judge the picture quality of Blu-ray vs. a film like The Sand Pebbles.

The only BD that comes to mind where this would be possible is Close Encounters. Anybody here A-B these tracks? Although I have the disc, I have never done that back to back. A blinded test might be in order...

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Stacy Spears on his Test Disc took pains to encode in both formats and he said he could not hear a difference between them. This is the person who created it!

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Do a blind test on the Spears and Munsil and you'd be hard pressed, I'd think, to hear which one was "punchier".

The audio on the Spears & Munsil disc does not seem to be optimum material to be comparing the performance of two different lossless codecs. I've not purchased/listened to it yet, but from Josh Zyber's review:

This is not an audio test disc. Only the opening logo, demo montage, and bonus trailers have any audio. The logo and montage can be replayed in your choice of Dolby TrueHD 5.1, DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1, or PCM 5.1 options. All are lossless to the original master and sound identical, though I'm sure that won't end any arguments about one sound format being superior to another. The Dolby and DTS trailers offer up to 7.1 audio.

The demo montage has an understated musical score that sounds perfectly nice. Clarity and fidelity are both strong, but this isn't a whiz-bang action movie soundtrack with slamming bass or zippy surround activity. It's fine for what it is.

Any other material out there that could be used for codec comparison?

At the end of the day, I believe we'd all like to think that all lossless and uncompressed tracks are identical-- we'd just like it shown/heard unequivocally. From my standpoint, I don't really care what's used on BD as long as a lossless or uncompressed track is offered. I would certainly not get bent out of shape if SPE or any studio decided to offer DTS-HD MA exclusively and drop Dolby TrueHD. Or vice versa.

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And you stepped around my point that you're not making an apples-to-apples comparison using the exact same material.

No, I get it Peter. You're missing the point. If there are few instances of being able to test the same material for us consumers, then we can only rely on what we have. But again, if it's "mix" related (or sound design related), then shouldn't we have a roughly 50/50 split between Dolby and DTS?

Again, I have never seen someone post that Dolby TrueHD sounds better only to see someone claim it's mix related. It only goes one way. So I guess DTS studios just mix better...

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

The only BD that comes to mind where this would be possible is Close Encounters. Anybody here A-B these tracks?

I have. The DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD tracks do sound different. The bass levels are noticeably higher in the DTS track. I'm certain this has little if anything to do with the lossless codecs themselves. Dolby's dialnorm feature is the only thing that could possibly be a factor in making anything sound different. I think the mix was tweaked differently for the two sound formats.

This reminds me of the major differences I can hear on a Peter Gabriel music video compilation DVD I own, Play: The Videos. It has a DTS 24/96 5.1 encoded audio track, a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and a DD 2.0 mix. The Dolby 2.0 mix of the songs is an example of the song mixes used on the orignal album releases. The two 5.1 channel tracks differ from the original mix and each other noticeably, almost to the point where they sound like completely different music arrangements.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

This reminds me of the major differences I can hear on a Peter Gabriel music video compilation DVD I own, Play: The Videos. It has a DTS 24/96 5.1 encoded audio track, a Dolby Digital 5.1 track and a DD 2.0 mix. The Dolby 2.0 mix of the songs is an example of the song mixes used on the orignal album releases. The two 5.1 channel tracks differ from the original mix and each other noticeably, almost to the point where they sound like completely different music arrangements.

...plus, the PG Play disc has a DTS mastering error (at least here in NA) that results in a 30db (!) drop in volume with the DTS tracks.

I actually found this that explains it, and includes a way of fixing it (one that, unfortunately, the studio did not do in this case) http://hypercubemx.free.fr/html/play_dvd.html

Without volume matching, there's clearly a lot more punch in the Dolby mix on that one...

As for CE3K, would you put it past Spielberg and co to "sweeten" the DTS track, given his involvement with the company? ENQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

(*cough*)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

1. Also, ever seen a moray under water?

2.Ever dived/dove/diven cold water? Up here, lake diving's a whole 'nother shebang compared to you fancy pants California stuff.......

1. Quite a few actually. One of my best underwater sequences (captured with a Bolex 16mm. camera back in the day) is of two ‘greenies’ poking their heads out from the coral…..side by side.
My favorite though, are the spotted morays.

2. Not really. The coldest I probably ever dove was in the Galapagos Islands with its contribution from the Humboldt current, which aint that cold when you end up adding it to the mix......so, I guess I qualify as 'fancy pants' all the way.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

My predix for days ahead: if we can just finally call 'time' on the crap weather, things'll get as one-sided as a Ducati swing-arm, with a quickness.

Well that’s ^ a first, I’ve never seen that hyphenated before.
Is that a foreign thing or do we just travel in different circles?