Uncompressed vs. Lossless Audio, Z style

[saprano]

i found a artical on these sound formats, he talks about them sounding the same, and its really a persons opinion when the say this or that one sounds better. check it out- http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...ess_Audio/1233

[saprano]

- All this sounds like someone trying to justify HDdvd lack thereof
Wether or not the difference is minimal it's still a difference. Do you know there's speakers that cost $20,000 and more. Why would someone buy these expensive speakers if they can get the same sound on bose, right? Come on now with the right equipment theirs a difference, space shouldn't be a factor and that's where blu ray wins. Both formats are equal but the space is where blu ray has the upperhand. Just like those people that pay all that money for their equipment to get every bit of sound and video as possible. You all brokeazz thinks that the world revolves around you it doesn't. People that went out and bought those $1000 bluray players to get 1080p deserve to get top sound and video. They could of easily went with HDdvd and got 1080i for $600. That's you xbots excuse- 1080i looks as good as 1080p, uncompressed sounds as good as PCM...those are excuses nothing more. I want true HD1080p and uncompressed sound, DTSHD, DDHD, PCM. I want the format that offers more without comprise to win, not the inferior format.

[Durentis]

Read the article again. It has nothing to do with promoting one format over the other. Nor does it suggest buying better speakers to hear a difference between different audio formats. It simply states that both lossless and uncompressed audio formats from the same source produce the same sound when played on the same setup at the same volume.

Your initial post was correct and your second post insulting and way off base.

That said, uncompressed audio is a lossless audio format (trivially, given that it can be said to be compressed 0%).

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same? Whether a movie is placed on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, it is preferable to have a lossless compressed audio format so that the rest of the space can be used for maximum video quality (and perhaps special features). The lossless compressed audio track will take up the same amount of space on HD-DVD and Blu-ray but, as you point out, there will be more space left over on Blu-ray for additional video, features, and/or other audio tracks.

But the fact of Blu-ray having more space left than HD-DVD after the audio track is factored in has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Personally, I want to see lossless compressed audio on all Blu-rays with few special features and the remaining space filled with the movie for the best quality possible. Even if the remaining space in time becomes hundreds of gigs.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Read the article again. It has nothing to do with promoting one format over the other. Nor does it suggest buying better speakers to hear a difference between different audio formats. It simply states that both lossless and uncompressed audio formats from the same source produce the same sound when played on the same setup at the same volume.

Your initial post was correct and your second post insulting and way off base.

That said, uncompressed audio is a lossless audio format (trivially, given that it can be said to be compressed 0%).

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same? Whether a movie is placed on HD-DVD or Blu-ray, it is preferable to have a lossless compressed audio format so that the rest of the space can be used for maximum video quality (and perhaps special features). The lossless compressed audio track will take up the same amount of space on HD-DVD and Blu-ray but, as you point out, there will be more space left over on Blu-ray for additional video, features, and/or other audio tracks.

But the fact of Blu-ray having more space left than HD-DVD after the audio track is factored in has nothing to do with the article whatsoever.

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Personally, I want to see lossless compressed audio on all Blu-rays with few special features and the remaining space filled with the movie for the best quality possible. Even if the remaining space in time becomes hundreds of gigs.

yea i guess i got a little carried away there i just love my blu's.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Now, would you rather have a sound format take up a lot of space or a little bit leaving additional room for better video quality if both formats sound exactly the same?

My preferences:

1 - encode the video to the best PQ possible.
2 - space permitting - 24bit/48K PCM
3 - space not permitting - DTHD or DTS-MA
4 - extras

Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

Only unused space = wasted space. Just because a PCM track uses up more space does not mean that it was wasted. It clearly wasn't because the PCM track used it.

I understand that you are saying that a compressed track would have been the same, yet less space. But if the PCM track would have fit, there is no wasted space. The bonus with PCM is that every player can make use of it...not the same with the compressed tracks.

[Swede]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Only unused space = wasted space. Just because a PCM track uses up more space does not mean that it was wasted. It clearly wasn't because the PCM track used it.

I understand that you are saying that a compressed track would have been the same, yet less space. But if the PCM track would have fit, there is no wasted space. The bonus with PCM is that every player can make use of it...not the same with the compressed tracks.

Exactly.

[Durentis]

Perhaps you don't realize that movies are considerably compressed even on blu-ray. Blu-ray doesn't have nearly enough space to store uncompressed full-length movies. Roughly a Terabyte for a 2h 24fps 1920x1080 movie at 24bit/pixel, I think, if I did the math right? Of course, blu-rays probably aren't 24bit/pixel. Anyhow, think of video compression like animated jpegs - the more you compress a jpeg the lower the quality. Video compression (at least what's used on blu-rays) is lossy!

Thus, the more space available to the video the better the video quality if it's all used. And you can simply adjust the amount of compression to do this.

Since PCM is identical in quality to the lossless compressed formats but takes more space, that extra space that PCM takes is space that should be used for better quality video. PCM therefore wastes that space in the same way as completely unused space is wasted.

Now, the only reason I can think of to put PCM on a blu-ray is that it can be heard by a larger number of people. The PS3, for example, can neither decode (at the moment) nor bitstream the lossless compressed formats but they can read PCM tracks. Even those without an HDMI-audio capable receiver can hear 2.0ch PCM over optical if they wish.

However, lossless sound is really an audiophile thing; audiophiles who are most likely (soon to be) able to hear the lossless compressed formats. Non-audiophiles will most likely be content with the 5.1 compressed formats. In other words, PCM may be good from a sales/marketing perspective but not so much in the ideal sense. And it is the ideal sense that I care about - give me the lossless compressed audio and better video quality instead of the identically sounding PCM audio and lesser video quality.

By not putting PCM on a blu-ray and then utilizing all of the available space, your video quality gets better. You do want maximal video quality, right? It doesn't matter if the 200GB discs were to be released tomorrow as I'd still want the lossless compressed audio used and the rest of the space filled with less-compressed video.

[Durentis]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

1 - encode the video to the best PQ possible.
2 - space permitting - 24bit/48K PCM
3 - space not permitting - DTHD or DTS-MA
4 - extras

Based on your ordering, I can see your confusion. You seem to think that blu-rays are sufficiently large that you can have perfect video and have some space left over (how much depending on movie length).

BUT! Encoding video to the best PQ possible would eat up the entire blu-ray disc. You would never get to step 2/3/4. It would eat up an entire 200 GB blu-ray disc and you would never get to step 2/3/4. No audio PCM, DTHD/DT-MS, or otherwise. No extras.

You have to factor in audio and extras first, and then fit the video into the remaining space. The quality of the video increases with available space, so a lossless compressed audio format will always be desired over PCM uncompressed audio in order to satisfy your step 1.

Hope that's more clear.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Based on your ordering, I can see your confusion. You seem to think that blu-rays are sufficiently large that you can have perfect video and have some space left over (how much depending on movie length).

BUT! Encoding video to the best PQ possible would eat up the entire blu-ray disc. You would never get to step 2/3/4. It would eat up an entire 200 GB blu-ray disc and you would never get to step 2/3/4. No audio PCM, DTHD/DT-MS, or otherwise. No extras.

You have to factor in audio and extras first, and then fit the video into the remaining space. The quality of the video increases with available space, so a lossless compressed audio format will always be desired over PCM uncompressed audio in order to satisfy your step 1.

Hope that's more clear.

Ummm, there is NO consumer product that will allow uncompressed video. Until then, BR is the best we can get. There IS a consumer product that does support uncompressed audio - PCM. BR also has separate bandwidth for audio and video, unlike HD DVD which has shared audio/video bandwidth.

I hope that clears up your confusion...

[Durentis]

Originally Posted by MatrixS2000

Ummm, there is NO consumer product that will allow uncompressed video. Until then, BR is the best we can get.

Sigh. You miss my point completely and I'm not repeating stuff again.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Sigh. You miss my point completely and I'm not repeating stuff again.

No I didn't....

Try reading my response again.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Perhaps you don't realize that movies are considerably compressed even on blu-ray. Blu-ray doesn't have nearly enough space to store uncompressed full-length movies. Roughly a Terabyte for a 2h 24fps 1920x1080 movie at 24bit/pixel, I think, if I did the math right? Of course, blu-rays probably aren't 24bit/pixel. Anyhow, think of video compression like animated jpegs - the more you compress a jpeg the lower the quality. Video compression (at least what's used on blu-rays) is lossy!

Thus, the more space available to the video the better the video quality if it's all used. And you can simply adjust the amount of compression to do this.

Since PCM is identical in quality to the lossless compressed formats but takes more space, that extra space that PCM takes is space that should be used for better quality video. PCM therefore wastes that space in the same way as completely unused space is wasted.

Now, the only reason I can think of to put PCM on a blu-ray is that it can be heard by a larger number of people. The PS3, for example, can neither decode (at the moment) nor bitstream the lossless compressed formats but they can read PCM tracks. Even those without an HDMI-audio capable receiver can hear 2.0ch PCM over optical if they wish.

However, lossless sound is really an audiophile thing; audiophiles who are most likely (soon to be) able to hear the lossless compressed formats. Non-audiophiles will most likely be content with the 5.1 compressed formats. In other words, PCM may be good from a sales/marketing perspective but not so much in the ideal sense. And it is the ideal sense that I care about - give me the lossless compressed audio and better video quality instead of the identically sounding PCM audio and lesser video quality.

By not putting PCM on a blu-ray and then utilizing all of the available space, your video quality gets better. You do want maximal video quality, right? It doesn't matter if the 200GB discs were to be released tomorrow as I'd still want the lossless compressed audio used and the rest of the space filled with less-compressed video.

i had no idea movies were compressed wow 1 terabyte? in fact sound and vision had an artical on the blade runner remaster coming to blu-ray http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/fea...-page2.htmland they say that a finished film takes up 12 terabytes, and raw footage uses 1 petabyte. at least we know blu-ray will have the space (200 gigs) to get have of that, thats another thing hd-dvd will fall behind on( as it always has) in the future. another thing, I knew uncompressed sound was better, but can somone explain to me how is video better uncompressed?.

[saprano]

well?

[Ben]

Originally Posted by Durentis

You seem to believe that PCM Uncompressed is the way to go and that you need Blu-ray for this format when in fact you should be looking for lossless compressed formats on Blu-ray. Uncompressed audio is wasted space - just because Blu-ray has more space than HD-DVD doesn't mean studios should be wasteful.

I can't believe this PCM argument is still taking place.

You might be of the opinion that PCM is inherently wasteful where space is concerned, but so-far, it hasn't been a problem for either Sony or Disney to include PCM as well as TrueHD on the same disc while still delivering superior PQ. Take a look at the latest HD DVD release, Battlestar Galactica. It actually has a TrueHD track (a rarity on HD DVD) and the consequences of that track being included are startling with abyssymal bit-starved PQ and a laughable 384 kbps Dolby Digital track.

When the technology is limited, as is the case with HD DVD, then this kind of argument holds water. HD DVD just doesn't have the bandwidth or space to handle lossless and reference PQ at the same time. This keeps being proven again and again...

[Durentis]

Originally Posted by saprano

I knew uncompressed sound was better, but can someone explain to me how is video better uncompressed?.

As much as I hate to quote Microsoft (/cry) there's a decent explanation here.

I just skimmed through this but it has some pretty pictures and more information on video compression effects.

Really though, my point was not that the current PQ is bad, but that allowed to grow into more space can only make it even better. We have uncompressed audio now (if you ignore the fact that recording at any sample rate is still a compression of live audio) and uncompressed video (same caveat) will surely come in the future. But I see no reason not to push the media we have available now and PCM just doesn't push as hard as lossless compressed audio.

And thanks for that S&V Mag link, btw.

Originally Posted by Ben

I can't believe this PCM argument is still taking place.

Maybe because the web is a sea of (often buried) (mis)information and it's a complicated topic to begin with.

Originally Posted by Ben

You might be of the opinion that PCM is inherently wasteful where space is concerned, but so-far, it hasn't been a problem for either Sony or Disney to include PCM as well as TrueHD on the same disc while still delivering superior PQ.

Very true. Indeed the picture quality is incredible. My point simply rests squarely on 'superior PQ'. Do you stop increasing picture quality as soon as you surpass all competing formats and consider it good enough? All I meant to show was that using lossless compressed audio sacrifices nothing and allows room for slightly better than simply superior PQ.

Originally Posted by Ben

Take a look at the latest HD DVD release, Battlestar Galactica. It actually has a TrueHD track (a rarity on HD DVD) and the consequences of that track being included are startling with abyssymal bit-starved PQ and a laughable 384 kbps Dolby Digital track.

Which illustrates only that with less space, video takes a hit. Maybe it won't be as perceptible on Blu-ray given the already incredible PQ, but more space for video can do nothing but improve it.

Originally Posted by Ben

When the technology is limited, as is the case with HD DVD, then this kind of argument holds water. HD DVD just doesn't have the bandwidth or space to handle lossless and reference PQ at the same time. This keeps being proven again and again...

This argument was never about putting one storage media over the other or showing where HD DVD fails. In fact, my point is storage media independent. It began merely as a response to Saprano's interpretation of the posted article and my opinion on what audio format is best. Unfortunately, my comments started becoming misinterpreted and irrelevant format war arguments crept in.

Given that Saprano (the OP) has learned something, I'd say the topic was well worth creating and my posts well worth the effort and firing squad.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Durentis

Thus, the more space available to the video the better the video quality if it's all used. And you can simply adjust the amount of compression to do this.

Since PCM is identical in quality to the lossless compressed formats but takes more space, that extra space that PCM takes is space that should be used for better quality video. PCM therefore wastes that space in the same way as completely unused space is wasted.

That's incorrect - Blu-ray has 8 Mbps above the video designated for audio, so you could easily fit a 24-bit/48kHz 5.1 track (6.9 Mbps) with enough room left over for the mandatory Dolby 640 track still having the 40 Mbps left over for the video, thus never infringing on the maximum available video rate for peaks.

HD DVD has 29 Mbps for video and only 1 Mbps on top for audio.

Originally Posted by Durentis

Very true. Indeed the picture quality is incredible. My point simply rests squarely on 'superior PQ'. Do you stop increasing picture quality as soon as you surpass all competing formats and consider it good enough? All I meant to show was that using lossless compressed audio sacrifices nothing and allows room for slightly better than simply superior PQ.

Again, if your audio doesn't exceed 8 Mbps then you have not infringed on the video at all.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Durentis

The PS3, for example, can neither decode (at the moment) nor bitstream the lossless compressed formats

That's incorrect - the PS3 can decode TrueHD and output it as PCM. It has been able to do this since day one.

[MatrixS2000]

Originally Posted by Durentis

My point simply rests squarely on 'superior PQ'. Do you stop increasing picture quality as soon as you surpass all competing formats and consider it good enough? All I meant to show was that using lossless compressed audio sacrifices nothing and allows room for slightly better than simply superior PQ.

You still seem to be missing the point...there are NO consumer products that will allow for lossless video. So BR will give you the best possible PQ when encoded to it's maximum potential which is 40Mb/s. This is also bandwidth that is completely dedicated to video. Once you max that out...there is nothing more you can do or buy (at the consumer level) that will get you better PQ.

Audio has separate BW. So once again:

1 - encode the video to the best PQ possible. <--- this means as close to 40Mb/s as necessary.
2 - space permitting - 24bit/48K PCM <--- since all current players can decode this and less processing the better.
3 - space not permitting - DTHD or DTS-MA <---- better than lossy track.
4 - extras <---- usually junk so many don't care for it especially when it could cost PQ or AQ.

[The Guardian]

... and hopefully DTS HD MA at some point.......

[Durentis]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

That's incorrect - Blu-ray has 8 Mbps above the video designated for audio [...] with enough room left over for the mandatory Dolby 640 track still having the 40 Mbps left over for the video

'40 Mbps' implies to me a maximum read speed for video content. Meaning you can just fit a silent movie (no audio tracks) lasting about 2.8h encoded at 40 Mbps onto a 50gb disc if the 8 Mbps bandwidth reserved for audio is still unaccessible even for a silent movie. Add an 8 Mbps audio track that takes about 10gb for 2.8h, and you suddenly have to back the 'silent' movie off to about 32 Mbps. The long 8Mbps audio track would eat into the space available to the video and forces it to a lesser quality encoding. (All assuming no overhead on the 50gb.)

For short movies this isn't a problem. A 2h movie at 48 Mbps (including both video and audio bandwidth used fully) takes 42gb of storage giving you best possible video and audio on a 1x blu-ray player with room for special features and other languages.

The problem is on movies that are over 2.5 hours. A 2.5h movie at 40 Mbps takes just shy of 46gb. It's probably going to be backed off of the max 40 Mbps bandwidth cap to make room for audio which, at 8 Mbps, would take about 9gb and exceed the disc space. In this case, using lossless compressed audio uses less space (<8 Mbps = less disc space and still within the bandwidth limitation), leaving more space for the video without the video ever exceeding the 40 Mbps bandwidth cap. (If we were to get a 2x blu-ray player at some point in the future, the bandwidth would suddenly jump and my point would be valid even for shorter movies which could be put on cheaper-to-manufacture 25/50gb discs at >40 Mbps.)

@MatrixS2000:
Separate bandwidth doesn't necessarily translate to fixed disc space. If that's the case, then you're probably right. Otherwise, as long as you stay within the limits there is a fair bit of flexibility.

If your ordering is followed strictly top to bottom (and that's how I read it), it works for short movies and not for long movies as described above because sufficiently long movies would leave no room for even compressed audio within the separate bandwidth allotments. You would simply never get to the audio part of your steps on a long movie because 'best PQ possible' would fill the disc but still be under the 40 Mbps limitation. Of course you would put lossless compressed on in that case and back off the video to <40 Mbps, but you'd have to swap your steps around and my point is just keep them that way and put PCM on if you really want it afterwards (as an extra in step 4) on short movies that have the space.

But you are right that a short movie will hit the 40 Mbps cap and result in enough room for PCM. You're welcome to the opinion that it's worth throwing on the disc over other features or multiple lossless language tracks, I just disagree and I'm equally entitled to that opinion.

I can't see a static physical chunk of the disc being set aside for video and audio - the bandwidth suggests dynamic storage sizes based on movie length and would result in unused space in many cases. I would consider fixed partitions bad design. But maybe I'm wrong and there are static partition sizes aside from the max read speed (bandwidth) in which case by all means fill it with PCM.

All this chat, and I'm learning too.. worth it. I never considered bandwidth and should have - I was using other numbers to reach roughly the same conclusions but without the cap that results in the ~2.5h long movie on a 50gb disc thing.

I think the central issue as far as I'm concerned lies on whether a blu-ray disc has fixed partitions or a max read bandwidth (at 1x read speed) of 48 Mbps of which 8 Mbps is reserved (by specification) for audio tracks taking up space proportional to movie length. If the latter is true, I stand by my 'no PCM' opinion and comments for all movies over about 2.5h in length; on shorter movies, toss on PCM but the video should be at 40 Mbps throughout. If the former is true, go ahead and fill the audio partition with PCM but you're doing it at the expense of other lossless languages which I'd prefer to have.

Oh, and trust me.. I'm well aware there are no consumer products allowing lossless video for movies. Not sure how you picked that up.