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

[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.

[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???