Uncompressed or Dolby Digital?

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

this is only true if there is no dialog-normalization post-processing applied to the signal. DN processing is REQUIRED if the flag is set, in which case every bit-value is re-calculated and the amplitude of the waveform is reduced in the digital domain... think of it as down-scaling the audio prior to d/a.

This is one reason I don't like TrueHD as much as DTS MA. Dolby sets the DN flag as a matter of course during encoding... so only a mastering engineer really thinking about things would ever bother to modify the preset value.

Sony has taken great care to avoid DN flags on their TrueHD on BD titles. Sony, therefore, is the only studio releasing TrueHD streams that actually offer bit-for-bit accuracy during playback.

That's true, but I was referring to the compression algorithm itself, not dialnorm. DialNorm is an unfortunate 'feature' that never should have been allowed into a lossless format.

[DaViD Boulet]

yes, but since this "feature" is REQUIRED to be honored on all consumer gear, there's no distinction between this feature's implementation and the algorithm's base bit-for-bit MLP recovery scheme as far as consumer playback is concerned... ie, what is sent to the d/a converters is NOT bit-for-bit recovered data.

Now, if Dolby would allow devices bearing their logo to disable DN processing per a user's choice, that would change this entirely (and solve the problem).

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

yes, but since this "feature" is REQUIRED to be honored on all consumer gear, there's no distinction between this feature's implementation and the algorithm's base bit-for-bit MLP recovery scheme as far as consumer playback is concerned... ie, what is sent to the d/a converters is NOT bit-for-bit recovered data.

I understand what you're saying, believe me, but the algorithm is still bit-for-bit identical and is only not if and when Dialnorm is ever used, that's all I'm saying.

Now, if Dolby would allow devices bearing their logo to disable DN processing per a user's choice, that would change this entirely (and solve the problem).

I would be all for that. Let's start a grassroots movement.

[DaViD Boulet]

I've posted a few things about this in the industry insiders thread at AVS where Roger often posts. I think we all need to keep bringing this up... it's a very EASY thing for them to do to fix the whole DN problem.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I've posted a few things about this in the industry insiders thread at AVS where Roger often posts. I think we all need to keep bringing this up... it's a very EASY thing for them to do to fix the whole DN problem.

I would think so. Is it something that Dolby themselves have to allow the CEs to do, or can CEs take it upon themselves to add a function to disable DN?

[DaViD Boulet]

It's just a matter of Dolby *allowing* it. Right now, in-spec consumer gear is not permitted to enable user-discretion DN defeat. In fact, some early Dolby decocers in the late 1990's actually provided this bypass feature! But by the 2nd or 3rd generation they had removed the feature because Dolby clamped down because it was technically out-of-spec to offer it.

So all Dolby has to do is say the word. Actually enabling the user-bypass is just a mouse-click away. The hold-up seems to be an ego thing with Dolby, because allowing a defeat of the feature, so I assume, would be perceived by them as a passive admittance that it's not a audiophile process. But if they allow for user bypass of compression and other signal modifications, why not one that forces a digital level-change?

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

It's just a matter of Dolby *allowing* it. Right now, in-spec consumer gear is not permitted to enable user-discretion DN defeat. In fact, some early Dolby decocers in the late 1990's actually provided this bypass feature! But by the 2nd or 3rd generation they had removed the feature because Dolby clamped down because it was technically out-of-spec to offer it.

So all Dolby has to do is say the word. Actually enabling the user-bypass is just a mouse-click away. The hold-up seems to be an ego thing with Dolby, because allowing a defeat of the feature, so I assume, would be perceived by them as a passive admittance that it's not a audiophile process.

This is why I have always preferred dts, but they can never get their act together in a timely fashion. DTS-HD MA is definitely the better lossless codec (even though it takes up more space/bandwidth) but, it doesn't allow any of that mucky-muck, it's got the embedded 1.5Mb/s dts 'core', plus it can do 192/24 at 5.1 which TrueHD still doesn't do, if I'm not mistaken.

But if they allow for user bypass of compression and other signal modifications, why not one that forces a digital level-change?

Who knows?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

That's true, but I was referring to the compression algorithm itself, not dialnorm. DialNorm is an unfortunate 'feature' that never should have been allowed into a lossless format.

And that's why DTS adopted it into their HD formats, eh?

This is why I have always preferred dts, but they can never get their act together in a timely fashion. DTS-HD MA is definitely the better lossless codec (even though it takes up more space/bandwidth) but, it doesn't allow any of that mucky-muck, it's got the embedded 1.5Mb/s dts 'core', plus it can do 192/24 at 5.1 which TrueHD still doesn't do, if I'm not mistaken.

As I said, DTS has added DialNorm because the STUDIOS want it. If Dolby tracks have it it's because the studios used it. It's not Dolby's fault. They don't do the encoding, one reason why they're so widely adopted is because they provide the tools and studios can do what they want.

TrueHD can do 192/24, as can MLP (on which it's based). Look at the specs of some DVD-Audio discs and you'll see it's been doing it for a while.
All TrueHD tracks have a 5.1 core either at 448kbps or 640kbps, it's discrete and doesn't muck up the original lossless track. I'm wondering if the DTS method of embedding it contributes to its greater bandwidth and DSP power to extract all that information properly.

Of course all this is academic since DTS can't tell Consumer Electronics makers to build it in hardware to deliver it to the new receivers with the decoders (which already have high power DSPs built in).

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

TrueHD can do 192/24, as can MLP (on which it's based). Look at the specs of some DVD-Audio discs and you'll see it's been doing it for a while.
All TrueHD tracks have a 5.1 core either at 448kbps or 640kbps, it's discrete and doesn't muck up the original lossless track. I'm wondering if the DTS method of embedding it contributes to its greater bandwidth and DSP power to extract all that information properly.

First of all, it doesn't have a Dolby Digital 'core', it has a separate Dolby Digital companion track, there's a difference.

192/24 MLP on DVD-As is stereo only, always was and still is. What I said was, AFAIK, TrueHD does not do 192/24 at 5.1, at least not on BD, or am I wrong? Scratch that, I know I'm not wrong - directly from Dolby's own site:

Supports up to eight full-range channels of 24-bit/96 kHz audio

That's in reference to TrueHD.

I still say DTS-HD MA is better.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

First of all, it doesn't have a Dolby Digital 'core', it has a separate Dolby Digital companion track, there's a difference.

Yes. Still, DD at 640kbps is more than a match for DTS 1.5, and still more efficient as a companion track.

192/24 MLP on DVD-As is stereo only, always was and still is. What I said was, AFAIK, TrueHD does not do 192/24 at 5.1, at least not on BD, or am I wrong? Scratch that, I know I'm not wrong - directly from Dolby's own site:

That's in reference to TrueHD.

Sort of. What you referred to is HD disc spec. The TrueHD codec itself has this:
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech...0925_Final.pdf
What is the sampling frequency and word
length for multichannel Dolby TrueHD?
Dolby TrueHD for next-generation high definition
media delivers sampling frequencies
from 48 to 192 kHz and word lengths from
16 to 24 bits.

I'm pretty sure they're lumping in HD DVD when they refer to HD media spec. Since THD is optional on Blu-ray I don't see what's to prevent a program provider from encoding it at 192kHz if they wanted to. Besides, do you really think that you or I could tell the difference between a 24 bit PCM track at 96kHz or at 192kHz?

TrueHD also supports the multiple 7.1 configurations DTS has been touting lately.

I still say DTS-HD MA is better.

Why? No one has been able to hear it yet, much less a track encoded in both formats for exact comparison.
Take 2 files. Compress them. Decode them. However, one needs more CPU and takes more space. Plus, it can't be decompressed and no one knows when.
How is this better?
How many empty promises are we supposed to believe? In the CE industry it matters if you can deliver what you said in a reasonable amount of time. A year past launch and we're still waiting.

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes. Still, DD at 640kbps is more than a match for DTS 1.5, and still more efficient as a companion track.

Does the bandwidth of 640 DD + 5.1 TrueHD exceed DTS-HD MA?

In any case, regarding the sound of legacy lossy, I prefer the sound of the 1.5 DTS to 640 DD.

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes. Still, DD at 640kbps is more than a match for DTS 1.5, and still more efficient as a companion track.



Sort of. What you referred to is HD disc spec. The TrueHD codec itself has this:
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech...0925_Final.pdf
What is the sampling frequency and word
length for multichannel Dolby TrueHD?
Dolby TrueHD for next-generation high definition
media delivers sampling frequencies
from 48 to 192 kHz and word lengths from
16 to 24 bits.

I'm pretty sure they're lumping in HD DVD when they refer to HD media spec. Since THD is optional on Blu-ray I don't see what's to prevent a program provider from encoding it at 192kHz if they wanted to. Besides, do you really think that you or I could tell the difference between a 24 bit PCM track at 96kHz or at 192kHz?

I work with audio every day, I can hear the difference between 192/24 and 96/24, but it's not a debate I want to get in to. But, as far as TrueHD supporting 192/24 at 5.1, I have found nothing anywhere to suggest that this is supported in the Blu-ray specification, and that is what we are talking about. AFAIK, TrueHD is only supported up to 96/24 in the Blu-ray spec. For the purposes of this conversation, who cares what it can do outside of the Blu-ray technology? It doesn't matter if it's optional or not, so I don't know why you would even mention that. Optional doesn't mean, anyone can come in and implement it to whatever spec. they want.

TrueHD also supports the multiple 7.1 configurations DTS has been touting lately.

Did someone even mention this?

Plus, it can't be decompressed and no one knows when.

Oh, really? Onkyo seems to know when, because they are shipping receivers right now that decode DTS-HD MA. So, what are you talking about?

A year past launch and we're still waiting.

Really? TX-SR605

[GoldenRedux]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

In any case, regarding the sound of legacy lossy, I prefer the sound of the 1.5 DTS to 640 DD.

I agree. In fact, I prefer the sound of dts at bitrates at even lower than 1.5 to DD - and I don't speak from inexperience. I have encoded in both as well as encoded in MLP (lossless).

[CptGreedle]

I think the real quality difference is found in the speakers. If your speakers aren't that great, your sound won't be either, no matter the compression.
I just bought some fairly nice ones, and I'm hoping I can get them all set up right. I need to calibrate/optimize them still.

[JTK]

Uncompressed for everything all the way, all the time, above all else.

[DaViD Boulet]

I think the real quality difference is found in the speakers. If your speakers aren't that great, your sound won't be either, no matter the compression.

Even on my old pair of $350 speakers I could hear the differences between 16and 20 bit PCM, Lossy and lossless audio, DD and DTS lossy codecs.

For that matter, I can hear the difference between various lossy bit-rates and apple lossless on my iPod played through my car-speakers. For real.

[CptGreedle]

Wow. That's cool. And those are nice speakers. Age usually doesn't matter when the price is that high. Well I won't say that, but my dad's speakers that are as old as I am sounded great till they just suddenly died a few years back. They were ancient but had great sound. I think they were not magnetically protected and it broke our TV, and then they mysteriously stopped working (innocent look).
Granted i know of speakers that are many more digits than that, but mine were only $50 each (So for 4, that's 200, plus the existing yamaha 5.1 system, that is around 500 total for 9, yes 9 speakers plus a subwoofer)

[CptGreedle]

Although I love music and sound effects, etc. I have never really been that good at hearing such differences. Maybe someone just haas to show me what to listen for. I always strive for the best I can afford, but sometimes I wonder if it is worth it. I'm not sure all the time, but I know the best image when i see it. As for sound.... sometimes I am in the dark :P

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by GoldenRedux

For the purposes of this conversation, who cares what it can do outside of the Blu-ray technology? It doesn't matter if it's optional or not, so I don't know why you would even mention that. Optional doesn't mean, anyone can come in and implement it to whatever spec. they want.

And who cares if DTS has it in their spec yet NO releases use it?
A spec is only as useful as actual product.

Oh, really? Onkyo seems to know when, because they are shipping receivers right now that decode DTS-HD MA. So, what are you talking about?

They may be shipping receivers with the decoders, but until the Denon ships, no one can *hear* it.

In any case TrueHD covers just about every film soundtrack yet produced (how many film soundtracks use 24/192? I'm betting close to none). It works, uses less DSP and is supported by the majority of BD players out there.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Does the bandwidth of 640 DD + 5.1 TrueHD exceed DTS-HD MA?

No. It's still less.

In any case, regarding the sound of legacy lossy, I prefer the sound of the 1.5 DTS to 640 DD.

Well, I'm calling you on that.
Which soundtracks have you compared?