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

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I think he meant "it wouldn't be close enough.


Ok. How exactly do we want WB to change?
To re-release all previous lossy titles with lossless like Superman Returns or to just release future titles (especially TV series) in lossless?

By the way, I know I'm being extremely lazy to check now, but has other studios released their TV series in lossless audio?

I think FOX, HBO, DISNEY did their shows in lossless., but I can be wrong..

well first thing can be, that thay WILL START tu PUT LOSSLESS on each movies or show, and later if there will be demand they can do a re-release

Marek

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by MarekM

I think FOX, HBO, DISNEY did their shows in lossless., but I can be wrong..

BoB, True Blood, John Adams, and Generation Kill are all lossless....but I'm pretty sure they're all distributed by WB, too.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

right



wrong

DTS-HR and DD+ are not lossless, and are not transparent to all listeners.

There's little audible difference once you go past 1.5 mbps unless you have top of the line equipment, which most don't have. DTS-HR can handle bitrates of up to 6 mbps, which is pretty much the same as DTS-HD MA. DD+ was capable of 3 mbps on HD-DVD and can offer 1.7 mbps on Blu-Ray. It's good enough.

[SeanMF]

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.

That is correct. They never committed to hd audio for television content. I believe all movie content has had hd audio since they said that (with the exception of those already in production at the time).

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by seanfarley2

That is correct. They never committed to hd audio for television content. I believe all movie content has had hd audio since they said that (with the exception of those already in production at the time).

Was that before or after Speed Racer?

[Hep]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

There's little audible difference once you go past 1.5 mbps unless you have top of the line equipment, which most don't have. DTS-HR can handle bitrates of up to 6 mbps, which is pretty much the same as DTS-HD MA. DD+ was capable of 3 mbps on HD-DVD and can offer 1.7 mbps on Blu-Ray. It's good enough and certainly better than "true" lossless.

You might want to re-think that last sentence; it makes no sense because lossy is never better than lossless.

The whole point of this thread is ask the question: why not put a lossless track on the disc, if cost and space isn't an issue? "Because it's good enough" isn't a good enough reason for some of us. That is the complacency that gave birth to all this frustration.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Hep

You might want to re-think that last sentence; it makes no sense because lossy is never better than lossless.

The whole point of this thread is ask the question: why not put a lossless track on the disc, if cost and space isn't an issue? "Because it's good enough" isn't a good enough reason for some of us. That is the complacency that gave birth to all this frustration.

Did you read the rest of my post? The bitrates between DTS-HD and DTS-HR are practically identical. They're both high resolution audio. Most of the differences are in name only between a lot of these codecs. The audible difference is not really there with regularly priced equipment. I'm simply saying that both DD+ and DTS-HR would be better than standard DD.

I agree that all titles should have lossless where necessary. I don't think anyone's arguing against lossless. But there's little to no audible difference between DTS-HR and DTS-HD, as well as just about anything past 1.5 mbps. It'd be interesting for someone to do a comparison between the Twister DTS DVD (1.5 mbps) and the TrueHD BD.

[DaViD Boulet]

Kryptonic,

Sources like Amir were pushing for that "inaudible difference" with DD+ when TrueHD didn't have room to fit on HD DVD. Now that we have space, why should we trust the word of industry sources who's goal was to discount the need for the added space available on the BD format?

I take an guilty-until-proven innocent view on lossy codecs, as it's in the best interests of groups like Dolby to promote their compression as "transparent", whether or not those statements are true. I remember in the days of DVD Dolby making claims that "most listeners wouldn't be able to hear the difference between the Dolby Digital and the uncompressed audio masters". Well, now that we've got lossless, it's pretty obvious that even on a $199 receiver, you and your grandmother can hear the difference between 448 kbps Dolby and lossless. In some cases I can hear the difference between and lossless even by accident... like the night I put in Across the Universe and wondered "why doesn't it sound 'alive' like it did the last time I watched?" and 10 minutes into the film realized that player had defaulted to the standard 640 DD core. Switched to lossless, and the "life" returned to the mix.

I haven't had the chance to test my wits against DD+, but honestly, WHY BOTHER when even it *I* can't hear a difference, another audiophile very well might be able to? Just DO LOSSLESS as it's 100% transparent to the master for all listeners... period.

There's little audible difference once you go past 1.5 mbps unless you have top of the line equipment, which most don't have. DTS-HR can handle bitrates of up to 6 mbps, which is pretty much the same as DTS-HD MA. DD+ was capable of 3 mbps on HD-DVD and can offer 1.7 mbps on Blu-Ray. It's good enough and certainly better than "true" lossless.

I too am confused by your last statement. By definition, an approximation can never be "better" than the complete data-set.

[SeanMF]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Was that before or after Speed Racer?

After.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Did you read the rest of my post? The bitrates between DTS-HD and DTS-HR are practically identical. They're both high resolution audio. Most of the differences are in name only between a lot of these codecs. The audible difference is not really there with regularly priced equipment. I'm simply saying that both DD+ and DTS-HR would be better than standard DD.

I agree that all titles should have lossless where necessary. I don't think anyone's arguing against lossless. But there's little to no audible difference between DTS-HR and DTS-HD, as well as just about anything past 1.5 mbps. It'd be interesting for someone to do a comparison between the Twister DTS DVD (1.5 mbps) and the TrueHD BD.

Of course I read the rest of your post, and I understood it all, and I agree with some of it. I'm merely suggesting you review the last sentence since you are suggesting that something less than lossless is better than lossless, and I doubt you meant to say that.

As for this post, when you say "lossless where necessary", are you the judge of that? Am I? If someone is a big fan of a show, they want the best possible product. If lossless isn't available for one reason or another, fine, but all other things being equal, lossless should be the default standard for Blu-ray.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Did you read the rest of my post? The bitrates between DTS-HD and DTS-HR are practically identical.

That's not true. DTS-HD can go up to 24mps. It will go as high as needed to be lossless. I've never seen it go that high, but the spec allows it if necessary.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

They're both high resolution audio. Most of the differences are in name only between a lot of these codecs. The audible difference is not really there with regularly priced equipment.

I think most of the argument in this isn't about whether everyone can hear a difference. It's simply a matter of 'why the hell not?' When there is no reason not to include a lossless track, the fact that they don't doesn't make any sense... There's just no excuse for that.

There's people that can't tell the difference between Blu-ray and up-scaled DVD. If it's 'good enough', why bother with HD video discs at all? Hell, I can barely tell the difference between MP3s (at a decent bitrate) and CD, (sometimes I can't tell at all) but I will never buy an MP3 album. If the album is not released on a regular CD, I will never buy it. Just because I may not be able to hear any difference doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get the best option available.

Rik

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

In some cases I can hear the difference between and lossless even by accident... like the night I put in Across the Universe and wondered "why doesn't it sound 'alive' like it did the last time I watched?" and 10 minutes into the film realized that player had defaulted to the standard 640 DD core. Switched to lossless, and the "life" returned to the mix.

Of course the different audio levels had nothing to do with this...

[DaViD Boulet]

Honestly Peter.

Do you think that anybody can hear anything, ever???

If I told you that I could tell the difference between 5.1 and 1.0, would you tell me I needed to do a double-blind level-matched test or else my hearing can't be trusted?


Sure, people can imagine things. Placebo can affect image perception as well as audio. But that doesn't mean that *sometimes* people can, actually, hear what they hear. Just like sometimes they can see what they see.

Just because Gary Reber can't tell the difference between 2.0 DD at 192 and linear PCM doesn't mean the rest of us are just as deaf... or just as willing to match our perceptions with our expectations. In fact, for many of us, we find that we're *surprised* to hear what we hear... including times that things run contrary to what we expect (like my Across the Universe example earlier). When those perceptions are then supported by discovery and data, that tends to uphold that the individual can, in fact, hear what they say that they hear. Quoting an anecdote about Gary Reber's lack of reviewing skills says nothing about my own listening experience.

Another good example of a "surprise" that my hearing showed me was when I fully expected the 5.1 DD on the Hello Dolly DVD to sound superior to the lower-bit-rate AC-3 on the laserdisc which was prepared very early in the life of Dolby Digital (lossy compared to lossy here). To the contrary, it sounded dull and lifeless, and I knew I hadn't remembered the AC-3 on the LD that way. This, by definition, it not "placebo". Pulled out the LD and wa-la... the audio on the DVD had been noise-filtered which had removed all of the musical high frequencies (similar to the horrid audio on the new Mary Poppins DVD). In both of these cases, from memory of what the previous audio-experience had been like my ears tipped me off that something was wrong, and both times it was something I wasn't expecting at all, and in both of these instances investigation bore out the reason why I was hearing what I heard. That's a whole like more scientific than just making baseless claims that someone who posts on a forum can't actually hear what they say they hear. What evidence do you have that I didn't actually hear what I heard?


If you have difficulty trusting your own ears or don't perceive any differences yourself, that's fine. That doesn't mean that others are unable to hear meaningful differences that they aren't imagining.

Of course the different audio levels had nothing to do with this...

This statement makes no sense in the example I gave.

I put on the Blu-ray. Listened for 10 minutes, and adjusted the volume to my normal listening level as I always do, since the volume knob isn't glued in one place in my system. And constantly during the 10 minutes I kept wondering "what's wrong?" because the "life" just wasn't in the music. That's not a level thing... not when you're turning the volume up and down and it makes no difference to this perception.

Switched to TrueHD after I figured out what was wrong, and REGARDLESS OF VOLUME that missing layer of the musical score was back just as I had remembered.

I'm not sure why you're so at odds with people being able to hear the improvement with lossless encoding???

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

There's little audible difference once you go past 1.5 mbps unless you have top of the line equipment, which most don't have. DTS-HR can handle bitrates of up to 6 mbps, which is pretty much the same as DTS-HD MA. DD+ was capable of 3 mbps on HD-DVD and can offer 1.7 mbps on Blu-Ray. It's good enough and certainly better than "true" lossless.

"Good enough" is dangerous words 'round these parts (and your "better than 'true' lossless" comment is WAY off, unless you mean in regards to disc economy), but I'd be inclined to side with you that it would be truthfully transparent to the source material at that high of a bitrate. Double blind scientific study would probably even show a large selection of peoples unable to tell the difference between DD/DTS and lossless.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

as well as just about anything past 1.5 mbps.

Yeah, it's a real shame then that each individual channel on a DTS track gets an EVEN CUT of that 1.5 mb/s, so the total bitrate never truly shines.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Now that we have space, why should we trust the word of industry sources who's goal was to discount the need for the added space available on the BD format?

Yeah, we have the space for it, so it should be done, but that doesn't mean it's WHOLLY necessary. It's something we want, not something we need to get the same level of quality. Like, ok, look at Pixar's release of Wall-E. Picture looks perfect, right? Completely transparent to the source material, right?

But it is encoded in a lossy compression. It looks perfect in spite of technically not being perfect. This is the goal of lossy compression, and it is not entirely necessary for media to be losslessly compressed for it to be transparent to the source material. Yes, we have the disc capacity to allow for complete ensured transparency in audio and it should be done for this reason, but lossless compression isn't the only way to reproduce source material without visible loss.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

If I told you that I could tell the difference between 5.1 and 1.0, would you tell me I needed to do a double-blind level-matched test or else my hearing can't be trusted?

Science knows that our two ears allow us to understand spatial location of sound. The precision of this ability varies and isn't tied down, but at the very least, we know that we can tell the difference between a sound behind us and to the left than to a sound which is behind us and to the right. Any person with two functional ears should be able to perceive the difference between a sound in front of them and one behind them. Notice that this ability we have is similar to our ability to see in 3D, the disparity between the two sensory organs help us to understand depth and spatial relations within the world.

That said, I have yet to see any scientific evidence of the limitations of a person's hearing in regards to one's ability to hear the objective difference between a uncompressed sound and a high quality lossy compression. If I had to guess, I'd say that lossy compression on BDs is enough for the average person, and things like DD+ or DTS HR is enough for a person with especially sharp hearing, assuming a proper sound system and not built-in TV speakers or something. That's not to say that lossless shouldn't be used though, because there is certainly disc space to spare.

If you have difficulty trusting your own ears or don't perceive any differences yourself, that's fine. That doesn't mean that others are unable to hear meaningful differences that they aren't imagining.

The limitations of human hearing don't vary that much usually. So long as a person doesn't suffer from an aural problem of some kind, their hearing is likely pretty indicative of the capacity for hearing we all have. Some are more sensitive to pitch (that is, musicians who are familiar with it, usually), and some do have a wider gamut of perceivable frequencies (see: mosquito noise, a sound which is usually only audible to persons under 25), but this is something else. This is about resolution of the sound and the ability to pick out pieces of the audio which are lost in compression. Show someone a 50 kb/s MP3 and they can probably tell you that parts of the sound are missing, but show them a 300 kb/s copy of the same and they almost definitely will not TRULY be able to hear where things are dropped out. Anyone claiming differently is likely under the placebo effect.

Try showing someone a FLAC sometime and tell them its a MP3 and ask if they can hear where the sound is dropped out in compression. Try showing someone a MP3 and tell them its a FLAC, then ask them how they're enjoying the lossless quality FLAC affords. You might be surprised by how people respond.

After all, there are people who swear up and down that there is a difference in quality between Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA. Some even say there is a difference between the aforementioned lossless compression and PCM.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Hep

Of course I read the rest of your post, and I understood it all, and I agree with some of it. I'm merely suggesting you review the last sentence since you are suggesting that something less than lossless is better than lossless, and I doubt you meant to say that.

No, that's not what I meant. That would make no sense. I'm just saying that if WB doesn't want to put TrueHD on their television releases, DD+ would at least be a compromise and provide better audio than standard DD.

As for this post, when you say "lossless where necessary", are you the judge of that? Am I? If someone is a big fan of a show, they want the best possible product. If lossless isn't available for one reason or another, fine, but all other things being equal, lossless should be the default standard for Blu-ray.

No, I'm not the judge. I was referring to Warner's haphazard selection of which movies get lossless. Risky Business gets TrueHD, but Speed Racer is stuck with an anemic DD track. Makes no sense. Clearly, Speed Racer, being the type of film it is, would benefit from the TrueHD track more than a quarter century old dialogue driven film like Risky Business. That's what I meant. Yes, all films should have lossless, but some benefit from the upgrade more than others.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

That's not true. DTS-HD can go up to 24mps. It will go as high as needed to be lossless. I've never seen it go that high, but the spec allows it if necessary.

Since it'll never go up that high because of space limitations at the moment, what's the point? They both run around 4-6 mbps.

I think most of the argument in this isn't about whether everyone can hear a difference. It's simply a matter of 'why the hell not?' When there is no reason not to include a lossless track, the fact that they don't doesn't make any sense... There's just no excuse for that.

I agree, I'm just talking about a compromise.

There's people that can't tell the difference between Blu-ray and up-scaled DVD. If it's 'good enough', why bother with HD video discs at all? Hell, I can barely tell the difference between MP3s (at a decent bitrate) and CD, (sometimes I can't tell at all) but I will never buy an MP3 album. If the album is not released on a regular CD, I will never buy it. Just because I may not be able to hear any difference doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to get the best option available.

Rik

Then those people shouldn't buy Blu-Ray. Many people are still happy with DVD and don't need to upgrade and that's their choice and that's totally cool. DVD's still look and sound great. If the difference isn't that big to them, then so be it. There's a lot of things to consider, such as eyesight and hearing, with the upgrade Blu-Ray.

I can definitely tell the difference between MP3 and CD's though.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

"Good enough" is dangerous words 'round these parts (and your "better than 'true' lossless" comment is WAY off, unless you mean in regards to disc economy), but I'd be inclined to side with you that it would be truthfully transparent to the source material at that high of a bitrate. Double blind scientific study would probably even show a large selection of peoples unable to tell the difference between DD/DTS and lossless.

I really don't remember typing that and it makes no sense for my argument. Weird.

Yeah, it's a real shame then that each individual channel on a DTS track gets an EVEN CUT of that 1.5 mb/s, so the total bitrate never truly shines.

Not this shit again...

Yeah, we have the space for it, so it should be done, but that doesn't mean it's WHOLLY necessary. It's something we want, not something we need to get the same level of quality. Like, ok, look at Pixar's release of Wall-E. Picture looks perfect, right? Completely transparent to the source material, right?

But it is encoded in a lossy compression. It looks perfect in spite of technically not being perfect. This is the goal of lossy compression, and it is not entirely necessary for media to be losslessly compressed for it to be transparent to the source material. Yes, we have the disc capacity to allow for complete ensured transparency in audio and it should be done for this reason, but lossless compression isn't the only way to reproduce source material without visible loss.


Science knows that our two ears allow us to understand spatial location of sound. The precision of this ability varies and isn't tied down, but at the very least, we know that we can tell the difference between a sound behind us and to the left than to a sound which is behind us and to the right. Any person with two functional ears should be able to perceive the difference between a sound in front of them and one behind them. Notice that this ability we have is similar to our ability to see in 3D, the disparity between the two sensory organs help us to understand depth and spatial relations within the world.

That said, I have yet to see any scientific evidence of the limitations of a person's hearing in regards to one's ability to hear the objective difference between a uncompressed sound and a high quality lossy compression. If I had to guess, I'd say that lossy compression on BDs is enough for the average person, and things like DD+ or DTS HR is enough for a person with especially sharp hearing, assuming a proper sound system and not built-in TV speakers or something. That's not to say that lossless shouldn't be used though, because there is certainly disc space to spare.


The limitations of human hearing don't vary that much usually. So long as a person doesn't suffer from an aural problem of some kind, their hearing is likely pretty indicative of the capacity for hearing we all have. Some are more sensitive to pitch (that is, musicians who are familiar with it, usually), and some do have a wider gamut of perceivable frequencies (see: mosquito noise, a sound which is usually only audible to persons under 25), but this is something else. This is about resolution of the sound and the ability to pick out pieces of the audio which are lost in compression. Show someone a 50 kb/s MP3 and they can probably tell you that parts of the sound are missing, but show them a 300 kb/s copy of the same and they almost definitely will not TRULY be able to hear where things are dropped out. Anyone claiming differently is likely under the placebo effect.

Try showing someone a FLAC sometime and tell them its a MP3 and ask if they can hear where the sound is dropped out in compression. Try showing someone a MP3 and tell them its a FLAC, then ask them how they're enjoying the lossless quality FLAC affords. You might be surprised by how people respond.

Why are you arguing for lossy audio? I understand what you're saying, but...the space is there...use it.

After all, there are people who swear up and down that there is a difference in quality between Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA. Some even say there is a difference between the aforementioned lossless compression and PCM.

I'd be happier if everything was just a straight uncompressed PCM track. If only for the fact that we wouldn't have to deal with this DD vs. DTS debate on another format, again.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Why are you arguing for lossy audio? I understand what you're saying, but...the space is there...use it.

I'm not really arguing against it exactly. Like you said, the space is there, so it should be used for it. That's something all of us can agree I on, I think.

All I'm saying is that lossless and uncompressed media is not the only way to provide quality. Too often people act like if its not lossless or uncompressed it is complete garbage. In reality, a good lossy compression can still provide top-notch quality, as evidenced by my example of video on Blu-ray. If lossy compression in video can still provide an excellent experience, then logically, audio too could be compressed without visible quality loss. It'd just need to be the right amount of compression such that it can be done without sacrificing quality.

[Kryptonic]

I agree that standard DD and DTS still provide excellent quality and that they shouldn't just be tossed aside. Heck my favorite demo is still the Jurassic Park DTS DVD. Lossy audio is fine...for DVD. But this is high definition. There should be HD video and audio. That said, a lack of a lossless option on a disc isn't going to stop me from buying a movie I want. I own many and will continue too given the price and importance of the movie to me.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Since it'll never go up that high because of space limitations at the moment, what's the point? They both run around 4-6 mbps.

Yes it will, if it has to. Maybe you missed the point there- the encoder (i.e., the person encoding the audio) has _ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL_ over the bitrate of lossless audio. If it has to go up to 24mps to be lossless, it _WILL_. There's nothing you can do about it. You will then have to encode your video to fit on the disc with the lossless audio. There's no 'space limitations at the moment', it will be as big as it has to be. The max total bitrate for Blu-ray is 44mbps, so that still leaves you with 20 for the video (which is higher than some movies are released at).

Also keep in mind, lossless is a variable bitrate audio codec. It could peak at 24, but it's probably not going to stay there.

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Then those people shouldn't buy Blu-Ray. Many people are still happy with DVD and don't need to upgrade and that's their choice and that's totally cool. DVD's still look and sound great. If the difference isn't that big to them, then so be it. There's a lot of things to consider, such as eyesight and hearing, with the upgrade Blu-Ray.

So, based on your logic, if the person can't see the difference in picture (something I assume you can), then they just shouldn't buy the product. But if someone _CAN_ hear the difference between lossless and lossy (something apparently you can't), then they should just accept a compromise?

How about this for a compromise: Put SD video and lossy audio on DVD, HD video and lossless audio on HD. Is there _ANYONE_ that would not be happy with that arrangement? No arguments for or against what you can hear or see... Would you be happy if that was the arrangement? Would anyone actually be upset of that was the arrangement?

Rik