Warner's DD = Warners DD+ : Both are 640 Mb/s 5.1

[Matt X]

I've been checking out eproductwars.com for a little while, and posting under a slightly different name - I'm trying to post from time to time to counteract the raging FUD that Mike HD keeps posting there, and stumbled onto a technical question that I'm wondering someone more "codec-savvy" could answer. Mike HD was trying to imply that BR had inferior SQ 'cause some discs feature only Dolby Digital tracks, where apparently DD+ is the standard for HDDVD (implying that this minimum standard gives HDDVD consistently better sound )
I checked the link he provided and sure enough there are several BR titles w/just DD tracks - but I spotted a pattern w/ that, namely all titles (that I saw) w/DD tracks were also VC-1 video encodes. AND they were all warner titles, from what I could tell. My thought was this apparent lower quality on BR was a result of the title being PORTED from the HDDVD version, and I figure it would be easier (cheaper?) for WB to "downgrade" the DD+ tracks to reg. DD, than to "upgrade" to Total HD or something.

Any techies/insiders think this is the case? or am I wrong?

[fronn]

I don't think you're wrong.

Sony, Disney and Fox all give lossless on all their titles. Paramount and Warner titles are the ones that lack it usually... Warner just does HD DVD ports and Paramount seemingly never really caught on about lossless.

Anyone perpetuating that HD DVD is somehow better (on average, or in any way) in SQ is some kind of nuts.

[quexos]

Well first off both formats have the same sound codecs specifications so whatever codecs used are just a choice by studios and not any inferiority by the format. Second, due to so much more space on Bluray discs, you will find PCM which is uncompressed and by definition the best sound coded on Blurays way more often than on hd-dvd. as for lossless true HD and DTS HD MA, it's up to the studios.

So that guy is just Bullshitting his way against Bluray

[Alan Gordon]

While Paramount's HD DVD's Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks were encoded at 1.5 mbps, and their Blu-ray releases were encoded with Dolby Digital at 640k, Warner Bros. HD DVD releases with Dolby Digital Plus are encoded at the same bitrate as their Dolby Digital soundtracks on Blu-ray (640k).

There are a few HD DVD titles released that have Dolby TrueHD on the HD DVD, and standard Dolby Digital (640k) on Blu-ray... to which the HD DVD's audio specs were superior.

~Alan

[JadedRaverLA]

You are correct... the only (major) titles I can think of with DD sound only, would be some by Warner and the previous Paramount titles. Almost all of these had 1.5M DD+ tracks or 640k DD+ tracks on HD DVD -- and in a head to head matchup I doubt ANYONE could hear the difference between the Blu-ray and HD DVD audio on those discs. DD+ is less efficient that DD so 640k DD should sound better than 640k DD+ -- while 1.5M DD+ could be slightly better... on paper -- just not so much in real life.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

You are correct... the only (major) titles I can think of with DD sound only, would be some by Warner and the previous Paramount titles. Almost all of these had 1.5M DD+ tracks or 640k DD+ tracks on HD DVD -- and in a head to head matchup I doubt ANYONE could hear the difference between the Blu-ray and HD DVD audio on those discs. DD+ is less efficient that DD so 640k DD should sound better than 640k DD+ -- while 1.5M DD+ could be slightly better... on paper -- just not so much in real life.

I'm sorry Jaded, but the 1.5 mbps DD+ soundtracks are FAR superior to the 640k Dolby Digital titles on Blu-ray.

Blu-ray has ALOT more titles with lossless audio than HD DVD to be proven the superior choice... there is no reason to belittle the HD DVD releases when it's the fault of Paramount that they chose to give Blu-ray the shaft.

~Alan

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I'm sorry Jaded, but the 1.5 mbps DD+ soundtracks are FAR superior to the 640k Dolby Digital titles on Blu-ray.
~Alan

To each there own, I suppose. There are a lot of factors that potentially go into which lossy sound format will sound better -- and it varies from system to system. Obviously, a 1.5M stream contains more information than a 640k stream, but that doesn't necessarily mean it sounds better. Many surround sound processors can do some pretty amazing DSP on regular DD and DTS streams that will make those preferable to other lossy codecs that need to be decoded in the player and output as analog or PCM to the receiver. Personally, I don't think DD+ should exist... the trade-offs are too great for not nearly enough potential benefit.

They managed to accomplish in 2006 what DTS did over a decade earlier -- only, DTS's solution can be sent over optical and properly handled by most every receiver out there. DD+, not so much.

[jkcheng122]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

To each there own, I suppose. There are a lot of factors that potentially go into which lossy sound format will sound better -- and it varies from system to system. Obviously, a 1.5M stream contains more information than a 640k stream, but that doesn't necessarily mean it sounds better. Many surround sound processors can do some pretty amazing DSP on regular DD and DTS streams that will make those preferable to other lossy codecs that need to be decoded in the player and output as analog or PCM to the receiver. Personally, I don't think DD+ should exist... the trade-offs are too great for not nearly enough potential benefit.

They managed to accomplish in 2006 what DTS did over a decade earlier -- only, DTS's solution can be sent over optical and properly handled by most every receiver out there. DD+, not so much.

1.5DD+ is still superior than 640, saying they can be the same after processing would be like saying the 1080i/720p players are fine since your tv can do the de-interlace. inferior specs is often just that, inferior.

as for DD+ not being necessary, you're right, and it also isn't as compatible as DTS. from what i've gathered it requires hdmi and on some players is downsampled to DTS 1.5mbps b4 being sent to the receiver. it's actually less compatible than DTS.

[sonicbox]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

DD+ is less efficient that DD so 640k DD should sound better than 640k DD+ -- while 1.5M DD+ could be slightly better... on paper -- just not so much in real life.

5.1 DD (AC-3) and DD+ (E-AC-3) audio at the same bitrate will sound identical. So, HD DVD has no sound quality advantage at 640 kbps. Codec efficiency is the same on either side for high-def movie disc use. (There are only significant efficiency gains for DD+ at very low bitrates not used on main features.)

Dolby's current stance is that there is little gain going beyond 640 Kbps for 5.1 content: law of diminishing returns.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by jkcheng122

1.5DD+ is still superior than 640, saying they can be the same after processing would be like saying the 1080i/720p players are fine since your tv can do the de-interlace. inferior specs is often just that, inferior.

On disc, yes, 1.5M DD+ is superior to 640k DD. Played back... that's not nealy that simple. Your analogy is faulty, though. If your receiver (like most) can properly handle and apply appropriate DSP to 640k DD but not to 1.5M DD+, then on many systems you will have superior audio quality on the 640k stream. I would much rather have my receiver processing lossy sound than a cheap HD DVD player. Now, for those who can send DD+ natively to a compatible receiver, I agree... it should sound better. But that is definitely NOT most people. Most people are having the audio processing for DD+ done in the player.

Originally Posted by jkcheng122

as for DD+ not being necessary, you're right, and it also isn't as compatible as DTS. from what i've gathered it requires hdmi and on some players is downsampled to DTS 1.5mbps b4 being sent to the receiver. it's actually less compatible than DTS.

On Gen 1 Toshiba's, it's resampled to DTS, on the newer models... if you don't use HDMI (or analog outputs) then it remixed to 640k DD. Personally, I think the 640k DD that's been profesionally mixed will sound better than the mix created on the fly by the player. Again, DTS has pretty much every advantage of DD+ with none of the (MAJOR) drawbacks. If you want a 1.5M track (why you'd want that over a real lossless track is beyond me), DTS makes far more sense.

Originally Posted by sonicbox

Dolby's current stance is that there is little gain going beyond 640 Kbps for 5.1 content: law of diminishing returns

Indeed my point. DD+ is nothing more than Dolby's attempt to dominate the marketplace completely, by creating a codec nearly identical (in both bitrate and sonic quality) to DTS.

[LynxFX]

What's a shame is that right before Paramount sold their soul they were going to start putting lossless on their Blu-ray releases.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

On Gen 1 Toshiba's, it's resampled to DTS, on the newer models... if you don't use HDMI (or analog outputs) then it remixed to 640k DD. Personally, I think the 640k DD that's been profesionally mixed will sound better than the mix created on the fly by the player. Again, DTS has pretty much every advantage of DD+ with none of the (MAJOR) drawbacks. If you want a 1.5M track (why you'd want that over a real lossless track is beyond me), DTS makes far more sense.

Generation 2 Toshiba's as well, as that's what my Toshiba HD-A2 does.

That being said, my Paramount and Universal HD DVD titles sound much better than my Warner Bros. Blu-ray and HD DVD titles and Paramount Blu-ray movies. You could say it was the movie that made the difference and not the bit rate, but hearing the difference on EVERY single case... No, Paramount crippled the audio on their Blu-ray releases.

~Alan

[Spankey]

Michael P. A...I mean MichaelHDDVD works for MS. Don't expect any kind of reasonable debate from him. He is an HD-DVD propagandist. Some DD+ tracks are encoded at 1.5mbps. About the same rate as a standard def DTS track, no? All of a sudden, Dolby Digital sounds better at a higher bit rate yet DTS doesn't?

Did Transformers have a lossless track? Nope
How many HD-DVD have PCM tracks? None

How many Blu-ray discs have lossless tracks compared to HD-DVD?

Blu-ray inferior..No way..

[jkcheng122]

Originally Posted by Spankey

Michael P. A...I mean MichaelHDDVD works for MS. Don't expect any kind of reasonable debate from him. He is an HD-DVD propagandist. Some DD+ tracks are encoded at 1.5mbps. About the same rate as a standard def DTS track, no? All of a sudden, Dolby Digital sounds better at a higher bit rate yet DTS doesn't?

Did Transformers have a lossless track? Nope
How many HD-DVD have PCM tracks? None

How many Blu-ray discs have lossless tracks compared to HD-DVD?

Blu-ray inferior..No way..

are you sure about him working for MS? that's not an accusation to make lightly. while i know he is a heavy HD DVD supporter, prob not as heavy as rdjam and Lee Stewart over on AVS, he has said some things that are positive for blu-ray. he has also said numerous times the reasons he chose hd dvd over blu-ray (price, region code, finalized specs), and that if he could get a finalized player for $200ish, he would go neutral. i dont think you'd hear such utterings from the likes of rdjam and lee stewart, who likely would run their cars over a ps3 if given to them for free.

[Spankey]

He's just as heavy handed as Lee Stewart. He reiterates every MS talking point when defending HD-DVD. 99.99% sure we are talking about the same person. So yes an MS employee.

[Frode]

How many HD-DVD have PCM tracks? None

3 actually - http://www.hddvdstats.com/index.php?OrderBy=Audio

How many Blu-ray discs have lossless tracks compared to HD-DVD?

61% vs 21%.

[sonicbox]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

Indeed my point. DD+ is nothing more than Dolby's attempt to dominate the marketplace completely, by creating a codec nearly identical (in both bitrate and sonic quality) to DTS.

DD+ exists for other reasons: increased low bit-rate quality (substantial) for broadcast/streaming applications, support for more than 5.1 channels of discrete audio (7.1 and beyond), and (of course) compatibility with HD DVD and it's 3 block frame design. It's just an update to DD.

[jkcheng122]

Originally Posted by Frode

3 actually - http://www.hddvdstats.com/index.php?OrderBy=Audio

61% vs 21%.

do you have those numbers from a exclusive studios only standpoint?

[cajmoyper]

Originally Posted by jkcheng122

do you have those numbers from a exclusive studios only standpoint?

Click on the link, it's quite unbiased.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by cajmoyper

Click on the link, it's quite unbiased.

My copy of Accepted doesn't have TrueHD on it...