Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Currently u cannot stream lossless audio just like a blu-ray from any legal source, so that part of your statement is false for starters.

Where did I say lossless audio?

Let's go through this. Not all Blu-ray movies are lossless. Second, the highest selling Blu-ray player at over 50 million units, the PS3 ,doesn't support lossless audio on 3D BDs. Next, for many, and I would imagine most, the video quality far far outweighs the audio. But do you think currently means it will always be that way?

More on Dolby surround on NetFlix. It is Dolby Digital Plus.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Netf...ate/1287079424

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Where did I say lossless audio?

Let's go through this. Not all Blu-ray movies are lossless. Second, the highest selling Blu-ray player at over 50 million units, the PS3 ,doesn't support lossless audio on 3D BDs. Next, for many, and I would imagine most, the video quality far far outweighs the audio. But do you think currently means it will always be that way?

More on Dolby surround on NetFlix. It is Dolby Digital Plus.

http://www.betanews.com/article/Netf...ate/1287079424

Your exact words were 'u can stream 1080p/5.1 the same as blu-ray from the psn', which in my book translates to u trying to make out that streaming is identical to blu-ray when it's not, as it doesn't offer the consumer lossless 5/7.1 audio, so how is it the same?

U didn't say anything about 3d movies, besides 3d doesn't matter to most people atm and people can still get lossless from their ps3 for 2d blu-ray movies, also only a very small percentage of blu-rays don't come with lossless tracks, so that's not really a great point or argument either. People who invest in blu-ray or want blu-ray quality generally want blu-ray for it's higher quality audio as well, not just for PQ, granted some may not be to concerned with AQ, but most blu-ray users are.

Who gives a s**t if it will always be that way or not, its about here and now, so why bother trying to predict the future. I for 1 will never ever jump on the digital downloading bandwagon, and there are plenty of other people who feel that same way, which is why physical media will never be made obsolete, DD and physical media will most likely coexist forever, and anyone who thinks differently is a moron.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Your exact words were 'u can stream 1080p/5.1 the same as blu-ray from the psn', which in my book translates to u trying to make out that streaming is identical to blu-ray when it's not, as it doesn't offer the consumer lossless 5/7.1 audio, so how is it the same?

U didn't say anything about 3d movies, besides 3d doesn't matter to most people atm so people can still get lossless from their ps3 for 2d blu-ray movies, also only a very small percentage of blu-rays don't come with lossless tracks, so thats not really a great point or argument either.

I was referring to multi-track audio vs Stereo. There have been studies that non-audiophiles can't even tell the difference between 64k and 256k mp3s. I would love to see a study on the latest compression codecs vs lossless and how many could hear a difference and if they could whether they could tell which was which. And you would need to do that with different setups since not everyone has 5.1 setups. That is another study that needs to be done. HDTV and how many are using the TV's sound system vs a sound bar, 2.1, 5.1, etc.. I have 3 HD TVs, none currently have 5.1, mostly because of the room setups that are open and 2 story tall. NetFlix is trying to appease the masses at the moment. They upgraded from stereo to one of the most advanced codecs that most can't tell from lossless. How much is the difference worth and to how many is the question.

But as for the difference, well, lol, not much.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1233

Apprehensions about lossless compression being inferior to an uncompressed version of the same soundtrack are not borne out by the facts. One methodology may have technical advantages over the other in terms of space savings, but the end result is the same whether the disc you buy has an uncompressed soundtrack or a lossless one. They're both equally good, so sit back and enjoy.

If they had a HOF thread, I'd nominate this of yours statement for it: "Who gives a s**t if it will always be that way or not, its about here and now, so why bother trying to predict the future."

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I was referring to multi-track audio vs Stereo. There have been studies that non-audiophiles can't even tell the difference between 64k and 256k mp3s. I would love to see a study on the latest compression codecs vs lossless and how many could hear a difference and if they could whether they could tell which was which. And you would need to do that with different setups since not everyone has 5.1 setups. That is another study that needs to be done. HDTV and how many are using the TV's sound system vs a sound bar, 2.1, 5.1, etc.. I have 3 HD TVs, none currently have 5.1, mostly because of the room setups that are open and 2 story tall. NetFlix is trying to appease the masses at the moment. They upgraded from stereo to one of the most advanced codecs that most can't tell from lossless. How much is the difference worth and to how many is the question.

But as for the difference, well, lol, not much.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1233

Apprehensions about lossless compression being inferior to an uncompressed version of the same soundtrack are not borne out by the facts. One methodology may have technical advantages over the other in terms of space savings, but the end result is the same whether the disc you buy has an uncompressed soundtrack or a lossless one. They're both equally good, so sit back and enjoy.

I saw this argument from u about there being no difference to the human ear coming from a mile away, it's the same old argument that every digital downloading fanboy brings up. It all depends on the quality of 1's gear, someone who buys a cheap sound system for a few hundred dollars is probably not going to hear a difference, but that's not the fault of the codec, that's the fault of the person who was to cheap too spend a bit more so they could benefit from lossless. Go and have a look at some of the HT galleries on this site, and u will see some pretty high end sound equipment, and I can guarantee u that every single member with a higher quality sound setup can and will be able to hear a difference between lossy and lossless.

I don't know a single person who can't hear a difference between lossy and lossless, a mate of mine just got his 1st lossless setup after years of using a lossy system (he got it for free via redemption with a panasonic 3dtv), and he can't believe the difference between lossy and lossless. Imo people who can't hear a difference just don't want to because they don't care enough and because they think with their wallet instead of their brain, and for that reason they convince themselves that they purchased an equally as good lossy system.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

How? 70 million people, not to mention all those people that have read about it and seen reports on tv? Many people who were unsure about downloads at present are certainly not going to be too keen now are they?

So you do not think the PSN thing will have any impact on digital downloads?
Or are you a download fanboy, and if that is the case why are you posting on a Bluray forum?

Um, 99% of them won't even stop using PSN. I'm not a "download fanboy", but let's not grasp at straws here. People drive cars even though there are millions of car accidents each year, millions of people live in areas prone to severe weather or earthquakes, they still use banks even though they've failed innumerable times, and they'll certainly keep using internet services despite the miniscule chance of hackers getting their hands on personal information.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I saw this argument from u about there being no difference to the human ear coming from a mile away, it's the same old argument that every digital downloading fanboy brings up. It all depends on the quality of 1's gear, someone who buys a cheap sound system for a few hundred dollars is probably not going to hear a difference, but that's no fault of the codec, that's the fault of the tight a**ed person who was to cheap to spend a bit more so they could benefit from lossless. Go and have a look at some of the HT galleries on this site, and u will see some pretty high end sound equipment, and I can guarantee u that every single member with a higher quality sound setup can and will be able to hear a difference between lossy and lossless.

So the few people that spent as much as a car on their sound systems can hear a difference? Not much return on investment. What is the terms of your guarantee? And you guarantee that every single one can tell which is the lossless and which isn't?


EDIT: You did see that DD+ is a new, more advanced codec right?

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

So the few people that spent as much as a car on their sound systems can hear a difference? Not much return on investment. What is the terms of your guarantee? And you guarantee that every single one can tell which is the lossless and which isn't?

I wasn't just talking about equipment worth thousands of dollars like some of the setups here, most people will be able to hear the difference with a $500 setup, if u think there is no difference then u should book in an appt asap at your local hearing clinic. I don't know how u can even comment or have an opinion in the 1st place since u don't even own a sound system, so u have got nothing to go off or compare, too me it just sounds like you're just 1 of these typical people who makes their mind up and forms an opinion before experiencing things for yourself, and always runs your mouth and spreads propaganda about things because u don't agree or dislike something.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Imo people who can't hear a difference just don't want to because they don't care enough and because they think with their wallet instead of their brain, and for that reason they convince themselves that they purchased an equally as good lossy system.

There's probably some truth to that but doesn't it cut the other way too?

Don't people who invest heavily in audio gear have a vested interest in hearing night and day differences where they don't always exist?

I'm not suggesting there are no differences between lossy and lossless audio but once you get past moderate bitrates those differences diminish and can be awfully subtle at higher bitrates.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

Go and have a look at some of the HT galleries on this site, and u will see some pretty high end sound equipment, and I can guarantee u that every single member with a higher quality sound setup can and will be able to hear a difference between lossy and lossless.

I don't doubt they'll "think" they hear a major difference. The ears aren't very reliable and will readily hear whatever you want to hear. Now how much of that is placebo is a different question. I believe there's an audible difference, but with relatively high-bitrate compression it's nowhere as apparent as some internet posts may lead you to think.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by octagon

There's probably some truth to that but doesn't it cut the other way too?

Don't people who invest heavily in audio gear have a vested interest in hearing night and day differences where they don't always exist?

I'm not suggesting there are no differences between lossy and lossless audio but once you get past moderate bitrates those differences diminish and can be awfully subtle at higher bitrates.

Originally Posted by 42041

I don't doubt they'll "think" they hear a major difference. The ears aren't very reliable and will readily hear whatever you want to hear. Now how much of that is placebo is a different question. I believe there's an audible difference, but with relatively high-bitrate compression it's nowhere as apparent as some internet posts may lead you to think.

That is why I made reference to a mate of mine who just got his 1st lossless system given to him for free from panasonic (so he's got no reason to be biased as he didn't spend any money on it) and he can hear a big difference between his new lossless panasonic system and his old lossy panasonic system. The truth is there is a difference, and if someone with perfect hearing who claims that they can't hear a difference just lets go of their ignorance for 5 minutes, then the chances are they will hear a difference.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

I wasn't just talking about equipment worth thousands of dollars like some of the setups here, most people will be able to hear the difference with a $500 setup, if u think there is no difference then u should book in an appt asap at your local hearing clinic. I don't know how u can even comment or have an opinion in the 1st place since u don't even own a sound system, so u have got nothing to go off or compare, too me it just sounds like you're just 1 of these typical people who makes their mind up and forms an opinion before experiencing things for yourself, and always runs your mouth and spreads propaganda about things because u don't agree or dislike something.

I don't currently have a 5.1 system. I did in my other home. I do have other sound systems though, external to the one on my TVs. You want to make it personal and see if you go on vacation?

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I don't currently have a 5.1 system. I did in my other home. I do have other sound systems though, external to the one on my TVs. You want to make it personal and see if you go on vacation?

So u can dish it out but u can't take it when it's done back to u

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

So u can dish it out but u can't take it when it's done back to u

You aren't worth being banned over. But you don't seem to care about yourself.

[slick1ru2]

Of course an upgrade in equipment is going produce a difference in what is heard. That was not the issue. The issue was the source on the same equipment, no matter the cost. If there is a difference in advanced compression codecs that can be heard and if it can, can the listener even tell the difference in which is which. The net is full of reports of double blind studies where people can't tell the difference between lossless and higher quality compression codecs at higher bit rates.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

You aren't worth being banned over. But you don't seem to care about yourself.

We haven't taken it far enough to get banned, but if 1 of us does then so should the other, because we both are guilty of insulted the other.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

Of course an upgrade in equipment is going produce a difference in what is heard. That was not the issue. The issue was the source on the same equipment, no matter the cost. If there is a difference in advanced compression codecs that can be heard and if it can, can the listener even tell the difference in which is which. The net is full of reports of double blind studies where people can't tell the difference between lossless and higher quality compression codecs at higher bit rates.

That just goes back to what I said before though which was "people who can't hear a difference just don't want to because they don't care enough and because they think with their wallet instead of their brain, and for that reason they convince themselves that they purchased an equally as good lossy system". So many studies are flawed (they only test such a small amount of people for some studies etc) and certain studies shouldn't even be used for trying to support an opinion.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

We haven't take it far enough to get banned, but if 1 of us does then so should the other, because we both are guilty of insulted the other.

I didn't mean to insult you. I did get a chuckle out of your personal guarantee.

[Cevolution]

Originally Posted by slick1ru2

I didn't mean to insult you. I did get a chuckle out of your personal guarantee.

I'm sorry I insulted u also.

[Steedeel]

In my opinion i think netflix compares to a disposable camera. Convenient but lacking the picture quality and function of a quality camera. Us bluray fans are mostly collectors and we always will be. For a generation of knock off nigels streaming will maybe be enough but when it comes to owning our films leave it to the big boys (bluray)
also a lot of people are only just thinking of upgrading to hdtv. It will take many years (if ever) to convince these people to go near internet services. By the time they do they will be used to hd quality and will probably think there tv has a fault if they watch a streamed film and compare it to hd!
I honestly cant see people being happy with poor quality having adapted to bluray and broadcast hd. It is probably acceptable on a laptop but no way on a larger screen. 3d could also play a part in things. It certainly cannot be ruled out. Full hd 3d would be a step too far for downloads in my opinion, even ten years from now.
I think too many people are starting to believe all the hype about downloads
but are not thinking things through.

[slick1ru2]

Originally Posted by Cevolution

That just goes back to what I said before which was "people who can't hear a difference just don't want to because they don't care enough and because they think with their wallet instead of their brain, and for that reason they convince themselves that they purchased an equally as good lossy system".

I don't think that one has anything to do with the other. Don't think it has to do with wallets or brains or that anyone thinks their TV's sound will be as good as a $3000 set up. Misses the point entirely.

What I am saying is if you take Salt, right now on Dish. Stream it in 1080p/ 5.1 DD+ on a PS3 through a high end 5.1 system. Then put in the Blu-ray of Salt on that same system, I doubt that whoever is listening is going to hear a difference or if they thought there was a difference that it was minor. And I doubt all that those that thought there was a difference could tell which was which. To do that kind of test you would need to do a double blind study where the participants and researchers directly involved wouldn't know which was which during the test, only after. That would eliminate bias on everyone's part.

Now, I might be wrong, but I think if there was a difference it was minor.