Why is WB *STILL* releasing BDs with LOSSY Audio?

[DaViD Boulet]

Kryptonic,

Sources like Amir were pushing for that "inaudible difference" with DD+ when TrueHD didn't have room to fit on HD DVD. Now that we have space, why should we trust the word of industry sources who's goal was to discount the need for the added space available on the BD format?

I take an guilty-until-proven innocent view on lossy codecs, as it's in the best interests of groups like Dolby to promote their compression as "transparent", whether or not those statements are true. I remember in the days of DVD Dolby making claims that "most listeners wouldn't be able to hear the difference between the Dolby Digital and the uncompressed audio masters". Well, now that we've got lossless, it's pretty obvious that even on a $199 receiver, you and your grandmother can hear the difference between 448 kbps Dolby and lossless. In some cases I can hear the difference between and lossless even by accident... like the night I put in Across the Universe and wondered "why doesn't it sound 'alive' like it did the last time I watched?" and 10 minutes into the film realized that player had defaulted to the standard 640 DD core. Switched to lossless, and the "life" returned to the mix.

I haven't had the chance to test my wits against DD+, but honestly, WHY BOTHER when even it *I* can't hear a difference, another audiophile very well might be able to? Just DO LOSSLESS as it's 100% transparent to the master for all listeners... period.

There's little audible difference once you go past 1.5 mbps unless you have top of the line equipment, which most don't have. DTS-HR can handle bitrates of up to 6 mbps, which is pretty much the same as DTS-HD MA. DD+ was capable of 3 mbps on HD-DVD and can offer 1.7 mbps on Blu-Ray. It's good enough and certainly better than "true" lossless.

I too am confused by your last statement. By definition, an approximation can never be "better" than the complete data-set.