Why are companies moving away from Uncompressed PCM - Blu-ray Forum

Canada · 02-11-2008, 06:18 AM

I have noticed a lot recently that studios have been moving away from Uncompressed PCM. I know it takes up a hell of a lot more room than DD True HD, or DTS MA. I am not blind to that fact. To me Uncompressed PCM sounds a lot better than lossless codecs. I would rather have better audio than more special features, that's just me. I know it may cost a little more money but they could add a second disk like they did on the Pirates movies if they want to add more special features.

For people who say uncompressed PCM takes up to much space on a disk look at this. Lost: S3 has 5 eps per disc at about 45 minutes each so 225 minutes (3hrs 45 minutes) of gorgeous video and Uncompressed PCM as well. And Hellboy had 3 Uncompressed PCM tracks.

With the new video codecs like avc, and VC1 companies should put a original audio language PCM track on the disks.

supersix4 · 02-11-2008, 06:29 AM

I havent really noticed it but I hope this isnt true PCM is my fav

Icemage · 02-11-2008, 07:06 AM

Lossless is lossless. Aside from weird things like Dynamic Range Control or Dialog Normalization, neither TrueHD nor DTS-HD MA mess with the original PCM signal; what goes in is what comes out.

If you think one is audibly better than another, assuming you have the capability to decode the codecs in question, then you're probably suffering from placebo effect unless you've got the sharpest ears on the planet.

Personally I don't mind the lossless codecs; while there's no audible difference, there's definitely bandwidth conservation and space conservation, which means there's more available for main video, extra features, etc.

view_it · 02-11-2008, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

I have noticed a lot recently that studios have been moving away from Uncompressed PCM. I know it takes up a hell of a lot more room than DD True HD, or DTS MA. I am not blind to that fact. To me Uncompressed PCM sounds a lot better than lossless codecs. I would rather have better audio than more special features, that's just me. I know it may cost a little more money but they could add a second disk like they did on the Pirates movies if they want to add more special features.

For people who say uncompressed PCM takes up to much space on a disk look at this. Lost: S3 has 5 eps per disc at about 45 minutes each so 225 minutes (3hrs 45 minutes) of gorgeous video and Uncompressed PCM as well. And Hellboy had 3 Uncompressed PCM tracks.

With the new video codecs like avc, and VC1 companies should put a original audio language PCM track on the disks.

SIMLPE answer - TO MUCH SPACE

from 50 GB

per audiotrack (if more than 1 language on the disc!!!)

work in last 15 years in cinema industry ...

--- have more DTS-MA on Sony releases "Blu area" !!!

bootman · 02-11-2008, 12:00 PM

PCM was only a stop gap until the CE's caught up with providing HD audio in their audio line up of products.
Now that just about everyone offers a HD audio receiver, why add a PCM track?
A new receiver would go great with that new blu player!

MOONPHASE · 02-11-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by view_it

SIMLPE answer - TO MUCH SPACE

from 50 GB

per audiotrack (if more than 1 language on the disc!!!)

work in last 15 years in cinema industry ...

--- have more DTS-MA on Sony releases "Blu area" !!!

well look at the newer Harry Potter movies

Yeha-Noha · 02-11-2008, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

I have noticed a lot recently that studios have been moving away from Uncompressed PCM. I know it takes up a hell of a lot more room than DD True HD, or DTS MA. I am not blind to that fact. To me Uncompressed PCM sounds a lot better than lossless codecs. I would rather have better audio than more special features, that's just me. I know it may cost a little more money but they could add a second disk like they did on the Pirates movies if they want to add more special features.

I have noticed this trend too

I could careless for the bloated BD java extras when it's at the expense of getting rid of LPCM tracks. I barely have enough spare time just to view the movies let alone watch another couple hours of special features. Does WB, Sony, and et al think we're couch potatoes?

I think the LPCM 5.1 tracks really

What more could we want? More special features to watch on BDs? To hell with that, I say

SBrooks1 · 02-11-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bootman

PCM was only a stop gap until the CE's caught up with providing HD audio in their audio line up of products.

Exactly. I know we all love PCM soundtracks but it wasn't put on there for us audio enthusiasts. It was put there until more receivers supported TrueHD and DTSHD-MA. PCM is nice but we honestly can get the same sounding audio with less spaced used on the disc.

greekjgg · 02-11-2008, 02:56 PM

The truth to this is that as small as the Hi Def media market is, about only a tenth of that market can even take advantage of pcm or truehd or whatever format other then DD 5.1.

EVERYBODY can watch the bonus content although I agree it just fills up space. But you have to spend another $1k to get to pcm 7.1 and that market is VERY small compared to the small hi def market already.

HeavyHitter · 02-11-2008, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBrooks1

Exactly. I know we all love PCM soundtracks but it wasn't put on there for us audio enthusiasts. It was put there until more receivers supported TrueHD and DTSHD-MA. PCM is nice but we honestly can get the same sounding audio with less spaced used on the disc.

Agreed.

tron3 · 02-11-2008, 03:10 PM

The look and sound of... We thought we had enough space.

Uxi · 02-11-2008, 03:31 PM

It's only SPHE that appears to be moving away from it. Lionsgate continues to deliver awesome 7.1 PCM tracks and Buena Vista has always been a stalwart. Warner has always been hit or miss (and unfortunately usually miss), though hopefully they'll get more consistent once the shed the HDDUD dead weight and it's handicaps. Wish I had more tracks like the PCM on 300.

MatrixS2000 · 02-11-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greekjgg

EVERYBODY can watch the bonus content although I agree it just fills up space. But you have to spend another $1k to get to pcm 7.1 and that market is VERY small compared to the small hi def market already.

Actually you need to spend that money anyway to get the new lossless codecs anyway....

ryoohki · 02-11-2008, 03:54 PM

DTS HD MA sound dawm good IMHO and TrueHD too. Off course i use bitstream to my Receiver so i get the goodies done inside my receiver!

One of my demo disc is actually Shoot'em up...

WickyWoo · 02-11-2008, 04:01 PM

It's so they can fit more dub tracks in lossless on the disc

Frankly, I say let dublovers eat compression. If they're too lazy to read subtitles, have no problem compromising original intent and are willing to put up with abomidble acting then they deserve their fate

greekjgg · 02-11-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Actually you need to spend that money anyway to get the new lossless codecs anyway....

My point is that Average Joe Six Pack will be satisfied with just plain old DD 5.1.

Paying for blu ray makes sense if you have a Hi Def TV and watch movies. If you already have DD 5.1, this would mean replacing something that still works which most people wont do.

Don't get me wrong, I've heard 7.1 and I want it and will get it, but the AJSP won't.

dialog_gvf · 02-11-2008, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canada

I have noticed a lot recently that studios have been moving away from Uncompressed PCM.

I think one possible reason is that the studios would like to get back to using BD25 for short/basic titles. Lossless audio allows them to do that without risking (or perceived to be risking) the PQ.

Another possible reason is the international nature of the studio's production runs. They do one run for then entire world. Going lossless allows them the bandwidth for another top-end track, or a bunch more dubs. The economics of Blu-ray production for a world market are probably extremely compelling.

Gary

aristotles · 02-11-2008, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I think one possible reason is that the studios would like to get back to using BD25 for short/basic titles. Lossless audio allows them to do that without risking (or perceived to be risking) the PQ.

Another possible reason is the international nature of the studio's production runs. They do one run for then entire world. Going lossless allows them the bandwidth for another top-end track, or a bunch more dubs. The economics of Blu-ray production for a world market are probably extremely compelling.

Gary

+1
I think you have that one nailed. With regions being optional and no worries about NTSC/PAL/SECAM, studios might opt to release some catalogue titles worldwide in the future once the format war ends.

dialog_gvf · 02-11-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aristotles

+1
I think you have that one nailed. With regions being optional and no worries about NTSC/PAL/SECAM, studios might opt to release some catalogue titles worldwide in the future once the format war ends.

How important is that for foreign cinema?! Wow, stuff we'd have no hope in seeing for years has a chance of coming out as side effect of domestic release plans. Soooo cool.

I think we are already seeing a lot of this with Japanese anime already.

Gary

Carmien · 02-11-2008, 04:19 PM

I LURVED 7.1 PCM on WAR and 3.10 to Yuma.

If you think 5.1 PCM kicks ass just wait til you get a load of 7.1PCM through a full setup.

However, when I listen to DTS HDMA 5.1 or 6.1 I don't notice any big difference. My preference is for HDMA over TrueHD, but TrueHD is still solid.

My question - if you're going to go HDMA or TrueHD go all the way. HDMA 5.1 just saddens me. It sounds good, but why did you opt to NOT give the two rear speakers the LURVE!

In the end, I'm not concerned about losing PCM so long as HDMA or TrueHD is 7.1 sound. As has been pointed out the theory dictates there's no difference - Lossless is lossless. It's all about the bias of perception at that point.

When it comes to the number of speakers we're talking definite facts, not perception!

02-11-2008, 06:18 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	Why are companies moving away from Uncompressed PCM I have noticed a lot recently that studios have been moving away from Uncompressed PCM. I know it takes up a hell of a lot more room than DD True HD, or DTS MA. I am not blind to that fact. To me Uncompressed PCM sounds a lot better than lossless codecs. I would rather have better audio than more special features, that's just me. I know it may cost a little more money but they could add a second disk like they did on the Pirates movies if they want to add more special features. For people who say uncompressed PCM takes up to much space on a disk look at this. Lost: S3 has 5 eps per disc at about 45 minutes each so 225 minutes (3hrs 45 minutes) of gorgeous video and Uncompressed PCM as well. And Hellboy had 3 Uncompressed PCM tracks. With the new video codecs like avc, and VC1 companies should put a original audio language PCM track on the disks. Last edited by Canada; 02-11-2008 at 06:26 AM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
What's compressed or uncompressed PCM ??	Audio Theory and Discussion	Opips2	0	12-30-2008 06:49 AM
Uncompressed PCM Question	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	CRMA	5	02-03-2008 11:37 PM
Am I getting pcm and or uncompressed	Home Theater General Discussion	mdtulp	2	01-13-2008 10:22 PM
Uncompressed PCM... huh?!	Newbie Discussion	Shawn1080p	24	01-08-2008 03:57 PM
uncompressed PCM 5.1 surround	Blu-ray Technology and Future Technology	mainman	1	07-18-2006 11:03 PM

02-11-2008, 06:29 AM	#2
supersix4 Blu-ray Archduke Top contributor Member since:Mar 2007 Blu-ray collection:572 Blu-ray reviews: 53 Trading Score:3	I havent really noticed it but I hope this isnt true PCM is my fav

02-11-2008, 07:06 AM	#3
Icemage Blu-ray Ninja Top contributor Member since:Jul 2007	Lossless is lossless. Aside from weird things like Dynamic Range Control or Dialog Normalization, neither TrueHD nor DTS-HD MA mess with the original PCM signal; what goes in is what comes out. If you think one is audibly better than another, assuming you have the capability to decode the codecs in question, then you're probably suffering from placebo effect unless you've got the sharpest ears on the planet. Personally I don't mind the lossless codecs; while there's no audible difference, there's definitely bandwidth conservation and space conservation, which means there's more available for main video, extra features, etc.

02-11-2008, 12:00 PM	#5
bootman Special Member Member since:Sep 2007 Location:The Burghs	PCM was only a stop gap until the CE's caught up with providing HD audio in their audio line up of products. Now that just about everyone offers a HD audio receiver, why add a PCM track? A new receiver would go great with that new blu player!

02-11-2008, 02:56 PM	#9
greekjgg Expert Member Member since:Jun 2007 Trading Score:1	The truth to this is that as small as the Hi Def media market is, about only a tenth of that market can even take advantage of pcm or truehd or whatever format other then DD 5.1. EVERYBODY can watch the bonus content although I agree it just fills up space. But you have to spend another $1k to get to pcm 7.1 and that market is VERY small compared to the small hi def market already.

02-11-2008, 03:10 PM	#11
tron3 Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Aug 2004 Location:New Jersey Blu-ray reviews:3	The look and sound of... We thought we had enough space.

02-11-2008, 03:31 PM	#12
Uxi Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2007 Location:Southern California 4K collection:14 Blu-ray collection:191 Blu-ray reviews:9	It's only SPHE that appears to be moving away from it. Lionsgate continues to deliver awesome 7.1 PCM tracks and Buena Vista has always been a stalwart. Warner has always been hit or miss (and unfortunately usually miss), though hopefully they'll get more consistent once the shed the HDDUD dead weight and it's handicaps. Wish I had more tracks like the PCM on 300.

02-11-2008, 03:54 PM	#14
ryoohki Blu-ray Samurai Member since:May 2007 Home Theater Gallery:6 Blu-ray collection:6 Blu-ray reviews:8 Trading Score:5	DTS HD MA sound dawm good IMHO and TrueHD too. Off course i use bitstream to my Receiver so i get the goodies done inside my receiver! One of my demo disc is actually Shoot'em up...

02-11-2008, 04:01 PM	#15
WickyWoo Blu-ray Champion Member since:May 2007 Trading Score:2	It's so they can fit more dub tracks in lossless on the disc Frankly, I say let dublovers eat compression. If they're too lazy to read subtitles, have no problem compromising original intent and are willing to put up with abomidble acting then they deserve their fate

02-11-2008, 04:19 PM	#20
Carmien Member Member since:Dec 2007	I LURVED 7.1 PCM on WAR and 3.10 to Yuma. If you think 5.1 PCM kicks ass just wait til you get a load of 7.1PCM through a full setup. However, when I listen to DTS HDMA 5.1 or 6.1 I don't notice any big difference. My preference is for HDMA over TrueHD, but TrueHD is still solid. My question - if you're going to go HDMA or TrueHD go all the way. HDMA 5.1 just saddens me. It sounds good, but why did you opt to NOT give the two rear speakers the LURVE! In the end, I'm not concerned about losing PCM so long as HDMA or TrueHD is 7.1 sound. As has been pointed out the theory dictates there's no difference - Lossless is lossless. It's all about the bias of perception at that point. When it comes to the number of speakers we're talking definite facts, not perception!

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals