Lord of the Rings and Warner audio discussion (split from LotR megathread)

[Intamin]

Originally Posted by davcole

There is no mention of codec so i'm not sure what joke you are implying??

However what I am saying is that instead of 24bit, we'll get 16bit. Please advise where i'm comparing codecs?

I think when you said "master" he thought you were trying to make a joke that it would be dthd instead of dts-hdma

[ghebert]

Originally Posted by AintNoSin

Why does everyone assume that Warner is going to half-ass the LOTR Blu-rays like they do ordinary movies? Doesn't Peter Jackson have a lot more to say about it than the average producer and director?

Because since taking over New Line Catalog...any New Line release on Blu lately has been DolbyTHD 5.1 rather than DTS-MA 7.1 which is what New Line was using prior to WB taking over. I wish WB would never have gotten their grips on New Line. I much prefer the DTS-MA 7.1 tracks over the DolbyTHD 5.1.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Intamin

I think when you said "master" he thought you were trying to make a joke that it would be dthd instead of dts-hdma

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Perhaps my original post was a bit vague.

Personally i'd love to see them come out with a 24bit TrueHD mix, being Warner it's safe to bet the 16bit. I have no issue with it being TRUEHD. The only thing i'd ask is that the dedicated DD be a hidden track so the player defaults to the TRUEHD.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by davcole

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Perhaps my original post was a bit vague.

Personally i'd love to see them come out with a 24bit TrueHD mix, being Warner it's safe to bet the 16bit. I have no issue with it being TRUEHD. The only thing i'd ask is that the dedicated DD be a hidden track so the player defaults to the TRUEHD.

That's not how Warner rolls, so don't expect to see anything but lossy DD 5.1 or DTS as default.

[HeManster03]

honestly, i dont think people will ever be satisfied with warner releases. i remember reading this site and hearing people piss and moan about warner not including lossy audio when all the other studios were doing it. now they are pissing and moaning that they arent using 24 bit and are using only 16 bit. as a poster said before, if you were able to do a double blind test of the exact same scene of the exact same movie at the exact same volume but have 1 24 bit and 1 16 bit track, i would challenge anyone to pick out the difference. if you can, then my hat goes off to you,but you would be in the minority. and to be honest, i dont think 5.1 dthd/dtsmahd should be allowed anymore on discs, as all movies should have some form of 6.1/7.1 lossless mix, since the equipment is obviously there and movies like Waiting can have it, so why not Transformers/Iron Man/ LOTR/ Dark Knight/etc? the only studio that "has it right" is Lionsgate, because thats really all they release is 7.1 lossless. sorry to rant, but leave warner alone. they took a big enough kick in the nuts by choosin hd dvd first, so give them a break. i guarantee LOTR will be done right, and then people can move onto the next big movie for warner that they are afraid that they will fudge up.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by HeManster03

honestly, i dont think people will ever be satisfied with warner releases. i remember reading this site and hearing people piss and moan about warner not including lossy audio when all the other studios were doing it. now they are pissing and moaning that they arent using 24 bit and are using only 16 bit. as a poster said before, if you were able to do a double blind test of the exact same scene of the exact same movie at the exact same volume but have 1 24 bit and 1 16 bit track, i would challenge anyone to pick out the difference. if you can, then my hat goes off to you,but you would be in the minority. and to be honest, i dont think 5.1 dthd/dtsmahd should be allowed anymore on discs, as all movies should have some form of 6.1/7.1 lossless mix, since the equipment is obviously there and movies like Waiting can have it, so why not Transformers/Iron Man/ LOTR/ Dark Knight/etc? the only studio that "has it right" is Lionsgate, because thats really all they release is 7.1 lossless. sorry to rant, but leave warner alone. they took a big enough kick in the nuts by choosin hd dvd first, so give them a break. i guarantee LOTR will be done right, and then people can move onto the next big movie for warner that they are afraid that they will fudge up.

I agree with you on everything but including 6.1/7.1 tracks on everything. It would require many to have to completely remaster them or change policies. It'd certainly be nice, but not something I worry about.

[saprano]

As i said plenty of times in the LOTR threads, with warner handling everything expect an ok transfer. its not going to be a pefect picture, it will have problems just like every other warner release. i just dont get that studio.

As for the audio, its not going to have a DTS 7.1 soundtrack. it will be DTHD 5.1 16 bit. this movie deserves a 7.1 track. and who cares if we cant hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit, bluray can handle it so use it. this is what im talking about when i say warner always half @sses everything.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by ghebert

Because since taking over New Line Catalog...any New Line release on Blu lately has been DolbyTHD 5.1 rather than DTS-MA 7.1 which is what New Line was using prior to WB taking over. I wish WB would never have gotten their grips on New Line. I much prefer the DTS-MA 7.1 tracks over the DolbyTHD 5.1.

those 7.1 tracks from new line wernt even real 7.1. New line was using a matrix process almost identical to what your receiver does when it turns a 5.1 track into a 7.1 track.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Good joke. Of course we all know that lossless is lossless and the codec is not what makes the sound, right?

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.
Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.
No the codec doesn't make the sound but it isn't crazy to think that one encoding could be superior to another. I believe that DTS-HD MA uses less compression than TrueHD. Dolby claims there encoder is more "efficient" than DTS's. I am of the opinion less is more when it comes to compression.
As far as LOTR films go Warner wont see my money until I get DTS-HD MA or LPCM period. I can keep my special extended cut with DTS-ES 6.1 for now. BTW IMO the DTS-ES tracks sound way better than the Dolby tracks on the dvd's same real world situation.
Just my opinion and worth just what you paid to hear it.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by saprano

As i said plenty of times in the LOTR threads, with warner handling everything expect an ok transfer. its not going to be a pefect picture, it will have problems just like every other warner release. i just dont get that studio.

As for the audio, its not going to have a DTS 7.1 soundtrack. it will be DTHD 5.1 16 bit. this movie deserves a 7.1 track. and who cares if we cant hear the difference between 16 and 24 bit, bluray can handle it so use it. this is what im talking about when i say warner always half @sses everything.

So you think that along with a high-bitrate 3+ hour movie a 50gb disc is going to be able to handle a 24bit soundtrack? See Akira for reasons why eventually, regardless of BD, you simply run out of space. They could just barely get in what they got in.

I'll also disagree that Warner botches every movie as well. Matrix trilogy, Troy, TMNT, Corpse Bride, LA Confidential, I Am Legend, The Dark Knight, Body of Lies, Blade Runner, The 300 and 2001: A Space Odyssey all are pretty top-notch in my book and I can personally speak on their quality both in audio and video.

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.
Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.
No the codec doesn't make the sound but it isn't crazy to think that one encoding could be superior to another. I believe that DTS-HD MA uses less compression than TrueHD. Dolby claims there encoder is more "efficient" than DTS's. I am of the opinion less is more when it comes to compression.
As far as LOTR films go Warner wont see my money until I get DTS-HD MA or LPCM period. I can keep my special extended cut with DTS-ES 6.1 for now. BTW IMO the DTS-ES tracks sound way better than the Dolby tracks on the dvd's same real world situation.
Just my opinion and worth just what you paid to hear it.

Ugh, why do we keep having to go here? I'd love to do a double-blind test with Spidey 3 with you. They're all lossless, and as much as you'd like to discount it, level matching does make a difference. There's no difference in quality. There may be (and I'm going outside of what I believe here) a slight difference in playback of some frequency ranges which equates to "quality" to you. This is the same reason that some people like "bright" speakers and some appreciate "warm" or "rich" ones more- it's all down to what the speakers (or in this case the codecs) accentuate.

I'll agree, I'm not purchasing this set as I only want the EE's, but it's funny how people are so quick to crucify a release that's not even been released yet.

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

If lossless is lossless then why does spidey 3's LPCM track sound better than the Dolby TrueHD? And don't try the whole level matching, and "hot" DTS soundtracks blah, blah. You can argue about those points all you want but this isn't about loudness it's about overall sound quality. In the real world on my system that is calibrated, with the volume at the same level, switching between the tracks. IMO the LPCM track has more detail and better defined bass and well it just sounds better overall.
Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.
No the codec doesn't make the sound but it isn't crazy to think that one encoding could be superior to another. I believe that DTS-HD MA uses less compression than TrueHD. Dolby claims there encoder is more "efficient" than DTS's. I am of the opinion less is more when it comes to compression.
As far as LOTR films go Warner wont see my money until I get DTS-HD MA or LPCM period. I can keep my special extended cut with DTS-ES 6.1 for now. BTW IMO the DTS-ES tracks sound way better than the Dolby tracks on the dvd's same real world situation.
Just my opinion and worth just what you paid to hear it.

Really? So if what you're saying is true (it is proven that it is not), then would using WinRAR vs. Winzip result in better results in the end result? Or what about a quality USB cable with gold plated connections for better signal transfer? What about high-quality HDMI cables that make your 0's and 1's razor sharp. All a codec is a compression software (except in the case of Uncompressed PCM). In any case, it is the mixes that vary. The codecs do not. The codecs are codecs. Nothing more. In the end, it is all the same exact information. It is not DTS vs. DD and which sounds better. There, the compression factor played a roll in sound (still not that big of a difference anyways). We do not have that issue with lossless. It may be compressed, but it is still lossless. Lossless is lossless. If you still do not agree, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Otherwise, there are also countless threads about this and articles written about this "issue".

[Driver_King]

Originally Posted by aramis109

I'll also disagree that Warner botches every movie as well. Matrix trilogy, Troy, TMNT, Corpse Bride, LA Confidential, I Am Legend, The Dark Knight, Body of Lies, Blade Runner, The 300 and 2001: A Space Odyssey all are pretty top-notch in my book and I can personally speak on their quality both in audio and video.

Another underrated soundtrack from Warner Bros. was Twister. Simply amazing when level matched and is easily reference material.

[Driver_King]

By the way victorvondoom88, you wouldn't happen to have DRC on, would you? That should always be off...

[Uniquely]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Good joke. Of course we all know that lossless is lossless and the codec is not what makes the sound, right?

I've read that repeatedly, and I am sure that going by specs alone it is quite true... but IME DTS-HDMA tracks almost always sound better than Dolby TrueHD tracks. Maybe the studios who choose HDMA do a better job of remastering their audio than studios who choose TrueHD. Maybe the PS3 handles the two formats differently. I truly have no idea why there is a difference, but for me there definitely is a difference.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

By the way victorvondoom88, you wouldn't happen to have DRC on, would you? That should always be off...

No I don't use DRC.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by Driver_King

Really? So if what you're saying is true (it is proven that it is not), then would using WinRAR vs. Winzip result in better results in the end result? Or what about a quality USB cable with gold plated connections for better signal transfer? What about high-quality HDMI cables that make your 0's and 1's razor sharp. All a codec is a compression software (except in the case of Uncompressed PCM). In any case, it is the mixes that vary. The codecs do not. The codecs are codecs. Nothing more. In the end, it is all the same exact information. It is not DTS vs. DD and which sounds better. There, the compression factor played a roll in sound (still not that big of a difference anyways). We do not have that issue with lossless. It may be compressed, but it is still lossless. Lossless is lossless. If you still do not agree, you are entitled to your wrong opinion. Otherwise, there are also countless threads about this and articles written about this "issue".

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.
As far as winrar vs winzip all I can say is I have seen several movie clips compressed with winrar where the audio is no longer in sync with the video.
But as far as documents go who cares as long as you can read the document?
So what your saying is I can encode a song with three different mp3 encoders like windows media player, iTunes and Exact audio copy with Lame and if they are all at the same bit rate they will be the same.
If you actually try it you will find the the wmp version to be the worst while iTunes is better the EAC w/Lame will sound the best of the three. They will all be somewhat close but there is a difference. Granted these are considered "lossy". Example:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/308mp3cd/

Basically, if you want true CD quality from the files on your iPod or music server, you must use WAV or AIF encoding or FLAC, ALC, or WMA Lossless. Both MP3 and AAC introduce fairly large changes in the measured spectra, even at the highest rate of 320kbps. There seems little point in spending large sums of money on superbly specified audio equipment if you are going to play sonically compromised, lossy-compressed music on it.

It is true that there are better-performing MP3 codecs than the basic Fraunhöfer—many audiophiles recommend the LAME encoder—but the AAC codec used by iTunes has better resolution than MP3 at the same bit rate (if a little noisier at the top of the audioband). If you want the maximum number of files on your iPod, therefore, you take less of a quality hit if you use AAC encoding than if you use MP3. But "CD quality"? Yeah, right!

That being said there is a reason for mp3's popularity I can take 11,000 songs in my pocket. I'm willing to compromise in order to do it.

I don't feel we as HT enthusiast's should have to settle. Everyone has there preference. There is no reason why they can't have both the TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks many discs including "300" have both PCM and TrueHD. I understand the reason PCM isn't used as much anymore but why shouldn't we have the choice of DTS-HD MA and TrueHD?

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Compression is compression. You can't compress anything with out losing something. It just isn't possible however slight it may be. If one compresses more than another then it is giving up more information. There is no way around it.

If you start with that belief, you will come to all sorts of wild, conclusions. With lossless, every bit that comes out during compression is put back during decompression. The end result is identical to the original. If it isn't, then it isn't lossless.

[aramis109]

Your comparison of lossless audio codecs using lossy MP3's and other highly-compressed audio formats is completely invalid. Lossy is going by nature to be missing some audio data; lossless by definition is losing nothing.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Sadly I wish I had a movie that had all three LPCM, DTS-HD MA, & DTrueHD on it.

Red Cliff and Red Cliff II have all three audio tracks on them.

[LembasBread]

Originally Posted by robinandtami

IME DTS-HDMA tracks almost always sound better than Dolby TrueHD tracks.

Which BD's have both options that you've been able to compare the two? Unless a BD has both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA derived from the same mix (the amount of which I can count on one hand) it's once again an apples to apples comparison.