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

[Jeff Kleist]

Not nearly as many HD-DVD releases had lossless or uncompressed audio them. I don't know the exact rundown, but it appeared to me that most HD-DVD titles had lossy Dolby Digital Plus or a mix of older, lossy DD and DTS encodings. Likewise any Blu-ray movie stored on a BD-25 is more likely to be stuck with lossy DD audio rather than lossless Dolby TrueHD.

The HD DVD thing was actually just as much of a bitrate issue as anything else. the 3mbps that lossless needs often couldn't be spared in the bitrate challenged format

Don't forget, Disney did a great disc on Reign of Fire with PCM on a close to 2 hour movie on a bD25

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Not nearly as many HD-DVD releases had lossless or uncompressed audio them.

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

Last format battle, to be sure, but once again, no need to slam the past in order to make the present look better, IMHO.

Plus, let's not even get into the debate about how just because a soundtrack is lossless it's automatically better than a lossy soundtrack (say, TrueHD of The Jerk versus DD+ for Batman Begins, just to pick two random movies without regard to their actual audio specs). As always, the source determines the quality, and an excellent soundtrack that's compressed will satisfy more than a poor soundtrack presented in lossless in this hypothetical example.

Short version: waving a given format flag, be it video compression codec or audio format, without -each and every time- comparing apples to apples, same source to same source, can lead to confusion at best, dogmatic zealotry at worst.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Don't forget, Disney did a great disc on Reign of Fire with PCM on a close to 2 hour movie on a bD25

"So, clearly there must be egregious artifacts on this "bit starved" movie, or they were making the master for the "inferior format" in order to squeeze it in."

Old battles, ones I never fought nor had much interest in. You get my point, I get yours of course, moving on...

ps. Everytime I type "egregious", I think League of Gentlemen. Go figure.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Not nearly as many HD-DVD releases had lossless or uncompressed audio them. I don't know the exact rundown, but it appeared to me that most HD-DVD titles had lossy Dolby Digital Plus or a mix of older, lossy DD and DTS encodings.

The numbers bear out this impression. According to hddvdstats.com, about 25% of HD DVD titles had lossless audio. I'm sure there are a number of factors involved, technical limitations being one of them and also WB's audio ambivalence as one of the highest volume studios for HD DVD releases.

[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).

In that regard, you do get a comparison of lossy versus lossless for the same movie. It's possible for a DD+ track to sound all but identical to the source recording. The lossless track is still giving a bit for bit reproduction of that source recording.

How many movies on Blu-ray have featured DD Plus tracks? I don't have any discs in my collection with such audio.

[SquidPuppet]

Penton,

Please, when it's convenient, pass along my thanks to the correct people at Universal for their expeditious resolution to the defective audio track on the upcoming release of Inside Man. Universal has really been top notch and they should know that we J6P's really appreciate their efforts. Their screensaver that pops up while a movie is paused is another top drawer Uni feature too.

Thank you

[SquidPuppet]

OK...Moto GP

The top four positions in the world championship after 4 races are separated by only 9 points. This is excellent as it ensures super efforts from all the top contenders, and, that the standings will likely change at a more volatile rate in upcoming races.

1. Lorenzo 66
2. Rossi 65
3. Stoner 65
4. Pedrosa 57

And Melandri next in line with 43, means there is less than 1 victories point value between the top 5. A DNF (or a last place like Rossi ) will have a huge impact.

Come on Mugello.

[Bizi Jones]

^
yep and judging the way F1 is heading, I think Moto GP is going to be the sanctuary of many alienated F1 fans

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

OK...Moto GP

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.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

How many movies on Blu-ray have featured DD Plus tracks? I don't have any discs in my collection with such audio.

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. Additionally, for some reason, the technical constraints for DD+ are different on Blu-ray, such that the only advantage over Dolby Digital that it offers is higher fidelity on the rear channels and additional channels available for 6.1 or 7.1. There just isn't much gained over the 640kpbs DD track for Blu-ray, so the studios probably figured, why bother?

Technical Source: wikipedia

[SquidPuppet]

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.

Hmmmmmmmm... Jorge is impressing. If he can stay in the saddle, the vets aint lookin at a cake walk of a season. Pedrobot looked like he actually cared about the race last week.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

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

Someone with disc specs could probably verify this, but I have no interest in looking it up, but if memory serves, there have been multiple titles by WB on Blu-ray that lacked "lossless" audio (when the HD DVD version had it) even when there was room for it. I KNOW they had multiple titles with room after WB stopped releasing to HD DVD, but I believe they did beforehand as well.

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).

EVERY Universal Blu-ray release has had DTS-HD MA.

One note about Dolby Digital Plus on Universal HD DVDs is that they (along with Paramount/DreamWorks) used a 1.5mbps bitrate (on most of their titles) which delivered some FANTASTIC mixes ("Transformers" anyone?). Far superior to the Warner Bros. 640k bitrate Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks... which felt "lifeless" by comparison.

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

How many movies on Blu-ray have featured DD Plus tracks? I don't have any discs in my collection with such audio.

Originally Posted by kefrank

I don't think any Blu-rays have DD+ and for good reason.

Originally Posted by kefrank

There just isn't much gained over the 640kpbs DD track for Blu-ray, so the studios probably figured, why bother?

Aren't there some "niche" titles or foreign (to me) titles with Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks? I knew DD+ was rare, but I could have sworn I heard of one or two titles?

~Alan

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Bizi Jones

^
yep and judging the way F1 is heading, I think Moto GP is going to be the sanctuary of many alienated F1 fans

Man, do I ever feel sorry for true F1 fans. I am a casual observer...but sheesh...it has become a soap opera...a bad soap opera. Drivers badmouthing organizers, budget limits, manufacturers threatening to quit, daily (rediculous) rule changes.....tragic...and the politics...yikes.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

One note about Dolby Digital Plus on Universal HD DVDs is that they (along with Paramount/DreamWorks) used a 1.5mbps bitrate (on most of their titles) which delivered some FANTASTIC mixes ("Transformers" anyone?). Far superior to the Warner Bros. 640k bitrate Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks... which felt "lifeless" by comparison.

Except, and Roger Dressler can back me up on this, DD+ @1536kbps and DD @640kbps for all intents and purposes are identical. Marketing was a consideration with the 1536kbps bitrate, and if you do direct comparisons (level matched naturally) you shouldn't hear a difference between the two.

Standard DD actually has a ever so slight advantage over DD+ @640kbps BTW. DD+ is actually meant to deliver better sound at LOWER bitrates, like AAC and MP3-PRO, as well as overcoming the 5.1 channel max limitation.

[Jeff Kleist]

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 has a contract with DTS, they have to include it on every title (not that i believe they weren't on the lossless train anyway). Pretty much having PiP would torpedo lossless every time on their HD DVDs due to bandwidth issues

Except, and Roger Dressler can back me up on this, DD+ @1536kbps and DD @640kbps for all intents and purposes are identical. Marketing was a consideration with the 1536kbps bitrate, and if you do direct comparisons (level matched naturally) you shouldn't hear a difference between the two.

DTS 1536kbps is a constant bitrate format. Even silence will use up 256kbps. DD is a variable bitrate format, assigning bits where they're needed. Try encoding the same MP3 at VBR and CBR and see the difference in file sizes.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except, and Roger Dressler can back me up on this, DD+ @1536kbps and DD @640kbps for all intents and purposes are identical. Marketing was a consideration with the 1536kbps bitrate, and if you do direct comparisons (level matched naturally) you shouldn't hear a difference between the two. .

I'm an amateur!

Don't get me wrong, I know more about this stuff than your average man on the street I might pass (in my neck of the woods), but still an amateur!

My HDTV is a Sony KDL-46W4100... which is a decent HDTV (that I'm very happy with), but is a lightweight compared to some enthusiasts' ISF calibrated HDTVs/projectors. My AVR is an Onkyo TX-SR503, and my speakers are some Kenwood speakers I got from an HTiB years ago (which sound surprisingly good considering) and some fairly cheap Pioneer bookshelf speakers I added on when I upgraded to 7.1. I don't have a SPL meter, and my speakers aren't exactly in their optimal positions due to the room layout.

It's been said a lot over the last few years, as well as the last couple of days due to Penton's question, but comparing two different sound codecs is useless without hearing both, and even then, there can be subtle differences due to stuff being done to the mixes, and since I haven't had the opportunity to really compare multiple films, 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 again, that's comparing different films, so it means nothing.... not to mention it's possible that Universal and Paramount encoded theirs differently in other ways, resulting in the differences I hear. I tried turning the volume up on WB's, but no matter how loud it got, the Universal and Paramount HD DVDs sounded better.

Personally, I felt the 1.5mbps Dolby Digital Plus track found on the "Transformers" HD DVD was superior to the 640k Dolby Digital core on the "Transformers" Blu-ray, but again, I don't know what differences the track had done to it, and it's possible my equipment does one better than the other...so it's possible that if done the same way, I might not tell the difference...

What I SHOULD HAVE SAID in my quoted portion in your post was:

One note about Dolby Digital Plus on Universal HD DVDs is that they (along with Paramount/DreamWorks) used a 1.5mbps bitrate (on most of their titles) which delivered some FANTASTIC mixes ("Transformers" anyone?). Far superior to the Warner Bros. 640k bitrate Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks that I owned... which felt "lifeless" by comparison.

~Alan

[Xorp]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

DTS 1536kbps is a constant bitrate format. Even silence will use up 256kbps. DD is a variable bitrate format, assigning bits where they're needed. Try encoding the same MP3 at VBR and CBR and see the difference in file sizes.

Both DTS and DD are CBR (as are DD+ and DTS-HR). They will be their set bitrate no matter the activity. DTS will not go down to 256kbps during silence. If the bitrate is 1536kbps then it will be 1536kbps constantly start to finish, that's why it's called CONSTANT bitrate. Neither formats have VBR options for lossy encoding.

[Jeff Kleist]

You missed what I was saying

The total bits used will remain the same, how many bits are going to each channel is where the variable comes in.

256kbps during silence in EACH CHANNEL is what I meant

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

It's been said a lot over the last few years, as well as the last couple of days due to Penton's question, but comparing two different sound codecs is useless without hearing both, and even then, there can be subtle differences due to stuff being done to the mixes, and since I haven't had the opportunity to really compare multiple films, 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 again, that's comparing different films, so it means nothing.... not to mention it's possible that Universal and Paramount encoded theirs differently in other ways, resulting in the differences I hear. I tried turning the volume up on WB's, but no matter how loud it got, the Universal and Paramount HD DVDs sounded better.

Alan,

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

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.

So given the above, and with 3 studios supporting each DTS-MA and Dolby TrueHD respectivey, shouldn't there be a roughly equal number of "Dolby TrueHD sounds better" posts...then the DTS people come in and say, "It's the mix" I simply don't see that happening. Something else is at work here. Is it because certain sound people in Hollywood tend to mix for the studios that support DTS-MA (and we prefer the work of these people) and other sound people work for the studios that support Dolby TrueHD? Is there some sort of correlation to that? I'm serious, but have no time or idea how to prove that.

I really don't get it. I do know that I tend to more often than not be "more impressed" with DTS-MA even after level matching. Again, not to take anything away from Dolby TrueHD as I love that too. As I posted, I am so used to lossless now that listening to lossy is "painful". It really is.

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.

-Esox

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

Someone with disc specs could probably verify this, but I have no interest in looking it up, but if memory serves, there have been multiple titles by WB on Blu-ray that lacked "lossless" audio (when the HD DVD version had it) even when there was room for it. I KNOW they had multiple titles with room after WB stopped releasing to HD DVD, but I believe they did beforehand as well.
...

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.