Uncompressed vs. Lossless Audio, Z style

[saprano]

i found a artical on these sound formats, he talks about them sounding the same, and its really a persons opinion when the say this or that one sounds better. check it out- http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...ess_Audio/1233

[saprano]

- All this sounds like someone trying to justify HDdvd lack thereof
Wether or not the difference is minimal it's still a difference. Do you know there's speakers that cost $20,000 and more. Why would someone buy these expensive speakers if they can get the same sound on bose, right? Come on now with the right equipment theirs a difference, space shouldn't be a factor and that's where blu ray wins. Both formats are equal but the space is where blu ray has the upperhand. Just like those people that pay all that money for their equipment to get every bit of sound and video as possible. You all brokeazz thinks that the world revolves around you it doesn't. People that went out and bought those $1000 bluray players to get 1080p deserve to get top sound and video. They could of easily went with HDdvd and got 1080i for $600. That's you xbots excuse- 1080i looks as good as 1080p, uncompressed sounds as good as PCM...those are excuses nothing more. I want true HD1080p and uncompressed sound, DTSHD, DDHD, PCM. I want the format that offers more without comprise to win, not the inferior format.

[Durentis]

Read the article again. It has nothing to do with promoting one format over the other. Nor does it suggest buying better speakers to hear a difference between different audio formats. It simply states that both lossless and uncompressed audio formats from the same source produce the same sound when played on the same setup at the same volume.

Your initial post was correct and your second post insulting and way off base.

That said, uncompressed audio is a lossless audio format (trivially, given that it can be said to be compressed 0%).

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same? Whether a movie is placed on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, it is preferable to have a lossless compressed audio format so that the rest of the space can be used for maximum video quality (and perhaps special features). The lossless compressed audio track will take up the same amount of space on HD-DVD and Blu-ray but, as you point out, there will be more space left over on Blu-ray for additional video, features, and/or other audio tracks.

But the fact of Blu-ray having more space left than HD-DVD after the audio track is factored in has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Personally, I want to see lossless compressed audio on all Blu-rays with few special features and the remaining space filled with the movie for the best quality possible. Even if the remaining space in time becomes hundreds of gigs.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Read the article again. It has nothing to do with promoting one format over the other. Nor does it suggest buying better speakers to hear a difference between different audio formats. It simply states that both lossless and uncompressed audio formats from the same source produce the same sound when played on the same setup at the same volume.

Your initial post was correct and your second post insulting and way off base.

That said, uncompressed audio is a lossless audio format (trivially, given that it can be said to be compressed 0%).

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same? Whether a movie is placed on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, it is preferable to have a lossless compressed audio format so that the rest of the space can be used for maximum video quality (and perhaps special features). The lossless compressed audio track will take up the same amount of space on HD-DVD and Blu-ray but, as you point out, there will be more space left over on Blu-ray for additional video, features, and/or other audio tracks.

But the fact of Blu-ray having more space left than HD-DVD after the audio track is factored in has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Personally, I want to see lossless compressed audio on all Blu-rays with few special features and the remaining space filled with the movie for the best quality possible. Even if the remaining space in time becomes hundreds of gigs.

yea i guess i got a little carried away there i just love my blu's.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same?

My preferences:

1 - encode the video to the best PQ possible.
2 - space permitting - 24bit/48K PCM
3 - space not permitting - DTHD or DTS-MA
4 - extras

Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Only unused space = wasted space. Just because a PCM track uses up more space does not mean that it was wasted. It clearly wasn't because the PCM track used it.

I understand that you are saying that a compressed track would have been the same, yet less space. But if the PCM track would have fit, there is no wasted space. The bonus with PCM is that every player can make use of it...not the same with the compressed tracks.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Only unused space = wasted space. Just because a PCM track uses up more space does not mean that it was wasted. It clearly wasn't because the PCM track used it.

I understand that you are saying that a compressed track would have been the same, yet less space. But if the PCM track would have fit, there is no wasted space. The bonus with PCM is that every player can make use of it...not the same with the compressed tracks.

Exactly.

[Durentis]

Perhaps you don't realize that movies are considerably compressed even on blu-ray. Blu-ray doesn't have nearly enough space to store uncompressed full-length movies. Roughly a Terabyte for a 2h 24fps 1920x1080 movie at 24bit/pixel, I think, if I did the math right? Of course, blu-rays probably aren't 24bit/pixel. Anyhow, think of video compression like animated jpegs - the more you compress a jpeg the lower the quality. Video compression (at least what's used on blu-rays) is lossy!

Thus, the more space available to the video the better the video quality if it's all used. And you can simply adjust the amount of compression to do this.

Since PCM is identical in quality to the lossless compressed formats but takes more space, that extra space that PCM takes is space that should be used for better quality video. PCM therefore wastes that space in the same way as completely unused space is wasted.

Now, the only reason I can think of to put PCM on a blu-ray is that it can be heard by a larger number of people. The PS3, for example, can neither decode (at the moment) nor bitstream the lossless compressed formats but they can read PCM tracks. Even those without an HDMI-audio capable receiver can hear 2.0ch PCM over optical if they wish.

However, lossless sound is really an audiophile thing; audiophiles who are most likely (soon to be) able to hear the lossless compressed formats. Non-audiophiles will most likely be content with the 5.1 compressed formats. In other words, PCM may be good from a sales/marketing perspective but not so much in the ideal sense. And it is the ideal sense that I care about - give me the lossless compressed audio and better video quality instead of the identically sounding PCM audio and lesser video quality.

By not putting PCM on a blu-ray and then utilizing all of the available space, your video quality gets better. You do want maximal video quality, right? It doesn't matter if the 200GB discs were to be released tomorrow as I'd still want the lossless compressed audio used and the rest of the space filled with less-compressed video.

[Durentis]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

1 - encode the video to the best PQ possible.
2 - space permitting - 24bit/48K PCM
3 - space not permitting - DTHD or DTS-MA
4 - extras

Based on your ordering, I can see your confusion. You seem to think that blu-rays are sufficiently large that you can have perfect video and have some space left over (how much depending on movie length).

BUT! Encoding video to the best PQ possible would eat up the entire blu-ray disc. You would never get to step 2/3/4. It would eat up an entire 200 GB blu-ray disc and you would never get to step 2/3/4. No audio PCM, DTHD/DT-MS, or otherwise. No extras.

You have to factor in audio and extras first, and then fit the video into the remaining space. The quality of the video increases with available space, so a lossless compressed audio format will always be desired over PCM uncompressed audio in order to satisfy your step 1.

Hope that's more clear.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Based on your ordering, I can see your confusion. You seem to think that blu-rays are sufficiently large that you can have perfect video and have some space left over (how much depending on movie length).

BUT! Encoding video to the best PQ possible would eat up the entire blu-ray disc. You would never get to step 2/3/4. It would eat up an entire 200 GB blu-ray disc and you would never get to step 2/3/4. No audio PCM, DTHD/DT-MS, or otherwise. No extras.

You have to factor in audio and extras first, and then fit the video into the remaining space. The quality of the video increases with available space, so a lossless compressed audio format will always be desired over PCM uncompressed audio in order to satisfy your step 1.

Hope that's more clear.

Ummm, there is NO consumer product that will allow uncompressed video. Until then, BR is the best we can get. There IS a consumer product that does support uncompressed audio - PCM. BR also has separate bandwidth for audio and video, unlike HD DVD which has shared audio/video bandwidth.

I hope that clears up your confusion...

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Durentis

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

I can't believe this PCM argument is still taking place.

You might be of the opinion that PCM is inherently wasteful where space is concerned, but so-far, it hasn't been a problem for either Sony or Disney to include PCM as well as TrueHD on the same disc while still delivering superior PQ. Take a look at the latest HD DVD release, Battlestar Galactica. It actually has a TrueHD track (a rarity on HD DVD) and the consequences of that track being included are startling with abyssymal bit-starved PQ and a laughable 384 kbps Dolby Digital track.

When the technology is limited, as is the case with HD DVD, then this kind of argument holds water. HD DVD just doesn't have the bandwidth or space to handle lossless and reference PQ at the same time. This keeps being proven again and again...