Commentary from the Insiders Thread

[Rob Zuber]

From AVS:

Originally Posted by Dave Vaughn

Not to defend Paramount, but just because a mix is TrueHD, doesn't mean it will be "better" than DD+ at 1.5 Mbps. There have been a lot of 1.5 Mbps tracks that sound every bit as good as TrueHD mixes.

You say you're neutral, but all of your posts are defensive of HD-DVD.

Roger Dressler of Dolby said there is "rapidly diminishing returns" with DD+ over 640Kbps and that going over 1Mbps is a waste (for 5.1). But you're the expert I guess.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by Teazle

Well I've waded through all this verbiage re: yield rates, and think I've found where the story is, or is meant to be -- it's in the last sentence of the above quote. The reason why we should pay attention to all these anonymous claims to yields, David says, is that there could be a problem in the future. This is the justification for dragging out the whole laborious business. That's the nub of the story-- not that BD has a problem now, but that it "might later" with BD50s: they might be too expensive and we might have to pay up.

I hate to pour cold water on all this, but there isn't much of a story here at all, because David does not raise a very reasonable concern. There's no advance indication whatever that his scenario will actually occur -- that it will not turn out that in good time, as the number of BD50s pressed increases, so will the yield rate. In fact there are excellent indications to the contrary. For every other major optical medium (CD, DVD variants) yields have improved as manufacturing processes have been refined, and this has not generally occurred too late for the market. There is no reason prima facie to suppose otherwise for BD50. Obviously the BD50 manufacturers themselves are persuaded there will be no problem here. Why should there be any fear, uncertainty or doubt for us?

In some ways there is the face of a good investigative journalist here -- checking numerous sources, defending their right to anonymity and (it appears) being scrupulous enough with the facts as he can get them.
The problem lies in the editorial direction. David raises a worry for the future of BD50 yield rates. Simply put, there is no such worry.

To address this prospective concern in a responsible way, David would have had to have given a specific reason to think that the replicators will not be able to produce BD50s economically in the future, in a way in which there has been no corresponding problem in the past for other optical formats. In the nature of the case this reason would have to be a highly technical one. It would also have to show a degree of foresight in HDM manufacturing which has totally escaped those committed to the BD50 format to the point of having invested very heavily in it.

I strongly suspect that no such reason will be forthcoming.

Excellent post. I said something to the same effect yesterday in a sentence, but you really state it very articulately here.

[4K display]

Originally Posted by Maxpower1987

Dave, I have been researching your 46GB information, I think you are onto something.
It definitely warrants further discussion with your contacts, I will try and find out something on my end.

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

Max...thanks for the vote of confidence. Lets compare notes

Onto something??

Welcome to last year

[jason_grumpy]

Max and David,

Not to rain on any body's parade here, but are you absolutely sure that this is not a simple math problem and not a problem with yields?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but BD50 spec calls for 50,000,000,000 bytes of space. Converted into what we would term "GB" for computer usage it would be 46.5GB. Same for BD25, which would be 25,000,000,000 bytes of space or 23.2GB.

So your source would be correct in stating that BD50 is really 46.5GB, and BD25 is really 23.GB, if he used 1024 and not 1000 as his base for the calculation. In traditional computer speak, we deal with multiples of 1024. This would match exactly what you talk about. Anything over "46.5GB" or 50,000,000,000 bytes of space for BD50 would in fact be over spec and I would expect yield rates to drop dramatically. The same with BD25.

Same with HD-DVD if we go with bytes. HD30 would be really be 27.9GB, and HD15 would be 13.0GB.

Volume size information seems to confirm this as well for both sides of the fence.

An example you can use is buying a new 100GB hard drive. If the manufacture used a base of 1000 for the GB calculation, your OS will actually report it it as a lower amount using the 1024 formula. This has baffled people for many years as to why their Hard Drive space is lower than they thought it would be. It's simply the conversion factor the manufacture is using to calculate the total space.

Here is also a byte converter for those who want to check my math:
http://webdeveloper.earthweb.com/rep...econverter.htm

Edit:
http://www.cdteam.co.uk/blu-ray.htm
The disc manufacturers' definition of GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes (SI) but most computer operating systems including Windows use the 1,073,741,824 byte definition so the actual capacity available to the operating system will be 23.3GB.

This link from Panasonic also states the same thing. 1GB is 1 billion bytes.
http://www.panasonic.com.au/products...contextID=3512
Note the part that says "1 billion bytes. Useable capacity will be less."

[bryaaaant]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

Darin,

Since no plant is working 100% of the time, the yields to make this didn't matter at the time. Lets say they got 50% yields so they had to make 1,000,000 discs to get 500,000 good ones, the actual cost of the material is pennies, time isn't a factor in this because most likely they didn't have other discs lined up to be made at the time. They could take all the time they needed to "get it right". This luxury hopefully won't be there in a couple of years because demand for High Def Media will be so high that efficiency will matter.

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

Here is my reasoning. Lets say tomorrow Universal announces support for Blu-ray, Paramount says they made a mistake and are going to release on Blu-ray only, and Warner throws in the towel as well and all we have is Blu-ray with no competition. The flood gates open and mass adoption comes to fruition during Christmas 2007. Now companies need to ramp up to meet the demand that is in the marketplace.

For some reason, I get the feeling those two statements contradict each other.. Hmm.. Probably the "couple of years" and "Christmas 2007" part. Did you come out with the "Christmas 2007" reasoning part before or after you realized that yields rates really don't matter right now and by the time they do, they'd be much more improved?

[David Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Rob Zuber

From AVS:

You say you're neutral, but all of your posts are defensive of HD-DVD.

Roger Dressler of Dolby said there is "rapidly diminishing returns" with DD+ over 640Kbps and that going over 1Mbps is a waste (for 5.1). But you're the expert I guess.

Rob,

You are going to see whatever you want to see. I wasn't defending anyone. What I stated was my personal opinion. The 1.5 Mbps DD+ mix on We Were Soldiers is one of the best sound mixes I have heard on any format. The guy who did the mix (Filmmixer) over at AVS says it is transparent to the master, which he was the mixer on. That is enough "proof" for me to say that DD+ can handle the mix.

[David Vaughn]

Originally Posted by bryaaaant

For some reason, I get the feeling those two statements contradict each other.. Hmm.. Probably the "couple of years" and "Christmas 2007" part. Did you come out with the "Christmas 2007" reasoning part before or after you realized that yields rates really don't matter right now and by the time they do, they'd be much more improved?

This has the potential to be a problem IF widescale adoption happens and the spin coat process can't be perfected. According to the people on the inside that I have spoken to, it is far from perfected although they are working on it.

[David Vaughn]

I, like you, would love to hear what the explanation is. But, for me, I just cannot harp on the fact given how great I know the encode will sound, and I don't think that anybody should feel the least bit cheated..... this will be a killer title, and a very important one for pre-recorded HD content, lossless encode or not.

BTW.. I was really happy with Paramounts DD+ encode on the HD DVD of "We Were Soldiers."

From the actual sound engineer! (for We Were Soldiers)

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

From the actual sound engineer! (for We Were Soldiers)

If that post was from Marc (film mixer), why don't you ask him whether or not he would have preferred that it had lossless sound?

[Teazle]

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t

Not sure if this has ever been discussed here, but has anyone seen the "important notes" on the Toshiba HD DVD press release? Hilarious! (Italics added)

I think they should be required to read out all these terms and conditions, high-speed auctioneer style, at the end of every TV ad they place during Sunday Night Football.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

This has the potential to be a problem IF widescale adoption happens and the spin coat process can't be perfected. According to the people on the inside that I have spoken to, it is far from perfected although they are working on it.

It's a cart before the horse. Blu-ray can't get mass adoption without full studio support. And if replication is an issue, that probably won't happen. So, why even propose what ifs for general/mass adoption scenarios?

I trust you're not leading us down the path to some Paramount conclusion here.

Gary

[David Vaughn]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

If that post was from Marc (film mixer), why don't you ask him whether or not he would have preferred that it had lossless sound?

Rob, someone did and he stated it wasn't necessary. The DD+ mix sounded as good as the master.

[WickyWoo]

Not sure if this has ever been discussed here, but has anyone seen the "important notes" on the Toshiba HD DVD press release? Hilarious! (Italics added)

Not valid in Utah, may cause burning sensation....

[Rob Zuber]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

The guy who did the mix (Filmmixer) over at AVS says it is transparent to the master, which he was the mixer on. That is enough "proof" for me to say that DD+ can handle the mix.

FilmMixer is an HD-DVD booster. Nothing wrong with that, but all of you guys can't keep citing each other as evidence of your opinions.

[Rob Zuber]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

This has the potential to be a problem IF widescale adoption happens and the spin coat process can't be perfected. According to the people on the inside that I have spoken to, it is far from perfected although they are working on it.

Yes, we've heard you repeat this many times over the past week both here and at AVS. So now what? Are we supposed to do something? Buy HD-DVD perhaps? Or are you just going to endlessly repeat this every day on multiple forums in some sort of Karl Rove-like whisper campaign?

[WickyWoo]

If there is a single person out there that tests the limits and needs PCM it's Michael Bay

Yes, we've heard you repeat this many times over the past week both here and at AVS. So now what? Are we supposed to do something? Buy HD-DVD perhaps? Or are you just going to endlessly repeat this every day on multiple forums in some sort of Karl Rove-like whisper campaign?

And that's exactly what it ends up being. Intentional or not this is the cornerstone of FUD. IF IF IF IF IF. Unless there's some reason to think, and 25 years of optical disc replication says there isn't, that there is some inherent flaw in the entire design, which millions of movies and games hitting the racks have proven there isn't, you're simply spinning negative scenarios for the purpose of instilling doubt. So either you're FUDing, or more likely the people you're talking to are.

Remember the job or a reporter is analysis. Not stenography.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Rob Zuber

FilmMixer is an HD-DVD booster. Nothing wrong with that, but all of you guys can't keep citing each other as evidence of your opinions.

Let your ears be the judge. DD+ does not compare to PCM to my ears.

[Rob Tomlin]

Originally Posted by David Vaughn

Rob, someone did and he stated it wasn't necessary. The DD+ mix sounded as good as the master.

Well, I have a lot of respect for Marc, but I will have to disagree with him since my untrained ears can hear a difference between TrueHD (or pcm) and DD+.

Frankly, since there is a difference of opinion on the matter, why not just give us lossless sound every time and be done with it? No more argument. We will know for certain that we are getting the best possible sound. Period.

I see no valid reason not to give us lossless sound. Isn't it supposed to be mandatory on HD-DVD that the players can do TrueHD? Why bother if the studios aren't going to use it? Why aren't they using it? Certainly lack of space can't have anything to do with it, can it?!?!?

[WickyWoo]

Certainly lack of space can't have anything to do with it, can it?!?!?

Lack of bandwidth probably

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin

Well, I have a lot of respect for Marc, but I will have to disagree with him since my untrained ears can hear a difference between TrueHD (or pcm) and DD+.

Frankly, since there is a difference of opinion on the matter, why not just give us lossless sound every time and be done with it? No more argument. We will know for certain that we are getting the best possible sound. Period.

I see no valid reason not to give us lossless sound. Isn't it supposed to be mandatory on HD-DVD that the players can do TrueHD? Why bother if the studios aren't going to use it? Why aren't they using it? Certainly lack of space can't have anything to do with it, can it?!?!?

I think TrueHD 2.0 is mandatory on the players. I don't think that it's taken seriously.