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

[DaViD Boulet]

I thought that this was supposed to be a practice that the studio promised to stop. Now we get BDs of classic Peanuts and Dr. Suess cartoons with crappy lossy Dolby Digital?

it's ludicrous. There is plenty of space on these discs for TrueHD or HD-MA. Aren't folks upset? Or do they not care when vintage animation material doesn't get lossless treatment?

Just like all films deserve OAR and proper film transfers and lack of EE and DNR, so do all films deserve lossless audio. Even optical mono tracks from the 1920s sound better in lossless than they do in lossy. There's no reason not to provide it, especially from a studio that has PROMISED to do provide lossless on all titles.

[Sussudio]

Ok, well, this thread won't really change anything (unless ranting makes you feel better ). They're doing what they're doing. If you don't like it, vote with your wallet

[DC_Street]

have faith man! teh more threads they see about this the more they want to change to DTS Master HD audio!

[Sussudio]

Originally Posted by DC_Street

have faith man! teh more threads they see about this the more they want to change to DTS Master HD audio!

Well hey, I'd love for more lossless audio, but I really don't think any multitude of threads on a single internet message board is going to change an entire studio's process.

But, for the record, I do think it would be great if it does

[DetroitSportsFan]

I believe their commitment to lossless audio only applied to film content, not television, which is why other recent WB television releases have been lossy.

[benricci]

Honestly, would A Charlie Brown Christmas *really* sound that much better? I suspect not. I'm all for the best quality possible, but in some cases it's simply not worth getting heated over.

I think this is one of them.

[ryoohki]

It's not a question that would.. it's a question that can. There's no loss of space of anything that prevent them of not offering it. i think the feature is 13gig worth ...

[DaViD Boulet]

Honestly, would A Charlie Brown Christmas *really* sound that much better? I suspect not. I'm all for the best quality possible, but in some cases it's simply not worth getting heated over.

Everything sounds better.

Really.

Take a 100 year old edison phonograph recording and transfer it to 24-bit 96kHz linear PCM. That sounds pretty much identical to the original recording. Now downconvert to lossy Dolby at 192. It sounds anemic by comparison... yes... even when we're talking about a frequency-limited hiss-filled recording.

Since it's no harder, and no more expensive to put lossy on the disc, it should always be there. PERIOD.

It's not a question that would.. it's a question that can. There's no loss of space of anything that prevent them of not offering it. i think the feature is 13gig worth ...

Exactly.

[Blu Titan]

Originally Posted by DetroitSportsFan

I believe their commitment to lossless audio only applied to film content, not television, which is why other recent WB television releases have been lossy.

Good point Detroit. There's a difference.

[aramis109]

Jeff commented on this earlier over in the Digital Bits thread I believe- basically just like where on DVD a lot of "cheap" or "old" animation had just stereo or mono tracks instead of DD or DTS, the same is occurring here, only instead using DD 5.1 instead of TrueHD or DTS-HD MA. Let's be realistic and note that this is Peanuts we're talking about, not War of the Worlds or something else with a little more... life in the audio.

I don't disagree with the OP's argument, but I think that some pragmatism needs to be applied. They're simply not going to put the work into some of these titles that they would a blockbuster.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Since it's no harder, and no more expensive to put lossy on the disc, it should always be there. PERIOD.

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know it's no harder and no more expensive? If a DD track already exists for a catalog title and a lossless one does not, surely it's somewhat harder and more expensive, even if only slightly.

[VenomBrock]

It drives me nuts as well, especially on their TV season releases. But I DO vote with my wallet. No lossless, no purchase.

[Motown Luv]

It's only the peanuts. That type of cartoon doesn't need a lossless track. Now if that was cars or chicken little then you can have a gripe. I don't believe that's the intent of the studio.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I thought that this was supposed to be a practice that the studio promised to stop. Now we get BDs of classic Peanuts and Dr. Suess cartoons with crappy lossy Dolby Digital?

it's ludicrous. There is plenty of space on these discs for TrueHD or HD-MA. Aren't folks upset? Or do they not care when vintage animation material doesn't get lossless treatment?

Just like all films deserve OAR and proper film transfers and lack of EE and DNR, so do all films deserve lossless audio. Even optical mono tracks from the 1920s sound better in lossless than they do in lossy. There's no reason not to provide it, especially from a studio that has PROMISED to do provide lossless on all titles.

Jeff from Digitalbits mentioned earlier That Warner is doing lossless for movies only but Series is not applicable to have a lossless sound.No additional information is available when Warner decides to use lossless for TV series.It seems they are going to continue this strategy unless someone urge them to move correctly.But i agree with you totally and hope Warner see the light of Lossless sound on TV Series.

[DaViD Boulet]

It's only the peanuts. That type of cartoon doesn't need a lossless track. Now if that was cars or chicken little then you can have a gripe. I don't believe that's the intent of the studio.

This isn't true. This is the myth that Dolby Digital wanted propogated when the HD DVD war was on because HD DVD didn't have the bandwidth to deliver lossless audio consistently.

Lossless ALWAYS sounds better. Really. My example of transfering a 100 year old edison phonograph recording is not an exaggeration.

Statements like yours are no different that folks who say things like "Television animation can't really benefit from HD because of limitations of the source". Just like the picture, with all its faults, can look better in HD than in SD, so can the audio sound better in lossless than lossy. Really.

As long as a studio is taking the time and trouble to author a Blu-ray, and consumers are spending the cash to buy it, lossless audio should be part of the package. PERIOD.

If you personally don't appreciate the improvement in audio quality with that particular source or on your system, no harm no foul. But for those who can and do, they get a BD that's authored up to industry standards.

[ClaytonMG]

So if the track was 640kbps monoral, would you still complain about it being lossy? I can't imagine anyone being able to tell the difference between that and a lossless track on Peanuts...

[Clark Kent]

Warner's home video department is a corporate and poorly structured behemoth. The television releases and family releases (which the Peanuts titles fall under) are run by different people than the theatrical film department. It is why WB is so inconsistent from release to release and are the only major studio left releasing anything but lossless audio.

It has cost them sales, as I simply will not buy new Blu-rays with lossy audio. I wait until I can get them on the secondary market, to avoid directly supporting these flawed releases with my money.

Warner's entire vision of the Blu-ray market appears to be very different from the other Hollywood studios. Their releases mostly appear to be just another chance to double-dip on movies they sold repeatedly on dvd, in a slightly new format. Shortsighted cost-cutting maneuvers have made many of their Blu-rays substandard and hurt the brand's reputation.

[DaViD Boulet]

Just to play devil's advocate, how do you know it's no harder and no more expensive? If a DD track already exists for a catalog title and a lossless one does not, surely it's somewhat harder and more expensive, even if only slightly.

Where do "lossy" tracks come from?

They come from lossless PCM masters.

Therefore, for every lossy audio track out there, there's a linear PCM master that was used to make it also on the shelf.

It's as hard as pressing a button to have that LPCM master encoded in TrueHD or DTS-HD. It's even easier just to do stereo or mono LPCM on the BD... which is an option that's 100% legitimate.

[retablo]

Luckily, my hearing sucks, so I can't tell the difference between lossy & lossless. At least that's one thing I don't have to complain about.

[Clark Kent]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Where do "lossy" tracks come from?

They come from lossless PCM masters.

Therefore, for every lossy audio track out there, there's a linear PCM master that was used to make it also on the shelf.

It's as hard as pressing a button to have that LPCM master encoded in TrueHD or DTS-HD. It's even easier just to do stereo or mono LPCM on the BD... which is an option that's 100% legitimate.

That is what is so disturbing about the decision to leave off at the very least PCM audio on these type of releases. A 640 kbps Dolby Digital track means without any doubt that a PCM master exists and could have been used. Every player in existence plays PCM, and in mono form it takes up virtually no added space.

I hope the people responsible for these decisions are fired, much as the HD DVD cabal at Warner was pushed out.