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

[Arkadin]

they might always "double-dip" later with lossless.
I know it sounds ludicrous, but it could happen.
they have re-released a few titles that only had DD at first and added lossless.

[davcole]

I so agree with the original poster, any kind of lossy compromise is unacceptable. There's no tangible reason for it at all. Not even VHS got that kind of disrespect.

I honestly do believe Warner's shift from lossy to lossless on their theatrical releases is due to threads like this where people have let it be known that a compromise is not acceptable.

[PRO-630HD]

Nothing sends a larger signal than voting with your dollars. I agree though, It's a Wonderful Life was just released with 192 kbps lossy audio. Ridiculous for a bluray release. I have no problem with 2.0 channel True HD and Warner has used it to good effect.

[Rob J in WNY]

C'mon, Warner... Please re-release Speed Racer with a lossless track! Please, just do it.

Seriously, such amazing PQ accompanied by a lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 track is one of the largest travesties in the format. Warner did a re-release of Superman Returns with not only Dolby TrueHD, but also PCM 5.1 as well. Speed Racer really needs this a similar treatment. Yes, I would re-purchase it with a lossless track - audio to match the picture!

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

C'mon, Warner... Please re-release Speed Racer with a lossless track! Please, just do it.

Hehe, I was checking my Speed Racer Blu-ray to see if had lossless or not, for some reason that was the first thing I thought of while reading through today's posts in this thread...

Rik

[BozQ]

I'll bet you guys won't be complaining if it was in lossy DTS.

[bfellow]

If there is an original mono or stereo track please leave it there like those TrueHD/PCM 2.0 films. Don't convert into a weak 5.1 DD mix with no back channels.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

C'mon, Warner... Please re-release Speed Racer with a lossless track! Please, just do it.

Seriously, such amazing PQ accompanied by a lossy Dolby Digital 5.1 track is one of the largest travesties in the format. Warner did a re-release of Superman Returns with not only Dolby TrueHD, but also PCM 5.1 as well. Speed Racer really needs this a similar treatment. Yes, I would re-purchase it with a lossless track - audio to match the picture!

I think Jeff Kleist said a while back the only reason Superman Returns got TrueHD was because Onkyo paid them to as they were packaging it with theit players.

[PRO-630HD]

This title came with the Pioneer BDP-94FD player as well.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

I think Jeff Kleist said a while back the only reason Superman Returns got TrueHD was because Onkyo paid them to as they were packaging it with theit players.

Then I have Pioneer to thank for putting one of the best audio tracks ever for one of my favorite movies in lossless form on Blu-Ray. I don't care who's responsible, the important thing is it happened.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

I think Jeff Kleist said a while back the only reason Superman Returns got TrueHD was because Onkyo paid them to as they were packaging it with theit players.

It was Pioneer, not Onkyo.

Onkyo did have one of the first TrueHD/DTS-HD MA capable receivers on the market, but it was Pioneer who bundled it with their BD player that was one of the first capable of internally decoding TrueHD to PCM.

That said, lossless is the goal, but titles like Grinch or Peanuts or even Clone Wars are mixed for TV speakers and the quality jump from lossy to lossless will be minimal. Titles like Speed Racer are a different story.

[DaViD Boulet]

That said, lossless is the goal, but titles like Grinch or Peanuts or even Clone Wars are mixed for TV speakers and the quality jump from lossy to lossless will be minimal. Titles like Speed Racer are a different story.

This is a MYTH, and this isn't a DTS-DD debate, it's a basic principle that governs all audio signals.

Any signal... mixed for "TV speakers" or not... sounds clearly better lossless than with lossy compression. Even if it's a dynamic range/frequency restricted signal.

That's because the things lossy compression does to a signal are things that have nothing to do with that. Lossy drops out audible resolution and detail, and shocking as it may be, even dated 1960s and 70s "made for TV" analog mixes have lots of resolution in the midrange that gets filtered away when you go lossy.

I have the LP soundtrack the animated "The Hobbit" which is basically the soundtrack of the cartoon dropped onto a multi-disc LP set. I gave it a spin one day on my friend's high-end turntable. We were both completely floored... this dynamic-range restricted, limited-frequency response mono recorded was so packed with resolution and detail we could hardly believe it. We were hearing all sorts of things that we're told "you're not going to hear" in cheezy made-for-TV mixes... we heard orchestral decays, separation of strings, all sorts of definition and air around vocals and dialog that was loaded with inner-detail. All of that nuance is eradicated with lossy compression on the DD DVD.

The bottom line is that since BD can accommodate lossless in these (and all) cases, it SHOULD. If you personally don't think you can appreciate a difference or that the improvement to your own ears isn't that significant, then what's the problem? Other consumers who DO hear and appreciate the difference can enjoy the fact that their HD media has been mastered to optimal standards for both video and audio quality. Win-Win.

These notions that somehow lossless has to be warranted by big-budget audio mixes is a myth that's been perpetuated since the advent of lossy audio on DVD. Even many audio engineers are clueless about many key issues like this that affect audio quality... especially mixing engineers who grew up with the philosophy of "this dial goes to eleven". Those of use who enjoyed PCM on laserdisc for years before DVD was even a concept know how all program material... regardless of vintage or sonic perfection, sounds better in lossless than in lossy Dolby Digital.

This shouldn't be a "in house" debate among BD enthusiasts. Just like we all agree that we should have 1080p artifact-free mastering with no visible degredation from EE and DNR, we should all have no problem with agreeing that lossless audio should be the standard on all releases.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

This shouldn't be a "in house" debate among BD enthusiasts. Just like we all agree that we should have 1080p artifact-free mastering with no visible degredation from EE and DNR, we should all have no problem with agreeing that lossless audio should be the standard on all releases.

I definitely can't argue against anything you said above, especially this last part.

[aramis109]

Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's gospel and that everyone else is wrong. There are hills to die on as my wife often says, and I just don't see raising the crusade flag for an old TV show that was mixed for TV. I was disappointed when Fringe was released without lossless but truth be told I think it's one of the best of the TV releases that I've heard. I don't disagree that it should be the standard, but to get yourself all worked up for it seems a bit silly to me.

Sometimes the PCM track isn't readily available or is potentially in bad shape as compared to a recent made-for-DVD lossy track. I don't know if that's the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[DaViD Boulet]

Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's gospel and that everyone else is wrong. There are hills to die on as my wife often says, and I just don't see raising the crusade flag for an old TV show that was mixed for TV. I was disappointed when Fringe was released without lossless but truth be told I think it's one of the best of the TV releases that I've heard. I don't disagree that it should be the standard, but to get yourself all worked up for it seems a bit silly to me.

You yourself just said that you were disappointed that a title you bought didn't have lossless audio. So by some of us getting worked up and letting Warner know, that means you're more likely to get TV BDs in the future that don't disappoint you. Would you think that WB would change it's habits if no one ever did or said anything?

Sometimes the PCM track isn't readily available or is potentially in bad shape as compared to a recent made-for-DVD lossy track. I don't know if that's the case here, but it wouldn't surprise me.

The PCM track is always available. It's what gets produced when the sound is transfered to digital and it's what is archived and saved. There are many flavors of lossy compression and many bit-rates and options to choose from, so the PCM original is always kept so at any time any new encode... lossless or lossy, can be made.

[BozQ]

I'm just wondering, would you guys accept a higher quality lossy format?
I'm of course referring to Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution.

[DaViD Boulet]

Even the 640 DD pales in comparison to true lossless... a test that anyone can make easily by listening to the core DD on any of their TrueHD Blu-rays. 640 DD isn't "bad", but it's not as good as lossless. So since we CAN have lossless, why shouldn't we?

[coolmilo]

There is no reason, it's because of pure laziness.

[banned user105]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I'm just wondering, would you guys accept a higher quality lossy format?

What would be the point of that when we could just get lossless?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I have the LP soundtrack the animated "The Hobbit" which is basically the soundtrack of the cartoon dropped onto a multi-disc LP set. I gave it a spin one day on my friend's high-end turntable. We were both completely floored... this dynamic-range restricted, limited-frequency response mono recorded was so packed with resolution and detail we could hardly believe it. We were hearing all sorts of things that we're told "you're not going to hear" in cheezy made-for-TV mixes... we heard orchestral decays, separation of strings, all sorts of definition and air around vocals and dialog that was loaded with inner-detail. All of that nuance is eradicated with lossy compression on the DD DVD.

That comparison doesn't mean anything. The fact that the LP would have a completely different audio master is one thing, the other is that the TV mix would be even more compressed for 1970's TV audio (less than FM radio performance). Which do you think they used for the DVD version?

The real test would be to compare a lossy encode of that LP, say DD @192kbps.

Those of use who enjoyed PCM on laserdisc for years before DVD was even a concept know how all program material... regardless of vintage or sonic perfection, sounds better in lossless than in lossy Dolby Digital.

And there's a placebo effect going on there: you think you're missing something so you "hear" it. Funny story: early issues of Widescreen Review would say the same thing you do, but a few titles were misprinted PCM when they were actually DD 2.0 (example: the first version of Mystery Science Theater 3000, The Silence of the Lambs, and a few other Image Entertainment titles) where then Reber would say it sounded exactly the same as their LD counterparts. He thought he was listening to PCM, but he wasn't. On titles he knew to be DD 2.0 they automatically got a lower score.

This HUGE difference you hear is pure hyperbole. A well mastered lossy track in either DD or DTS will sound very very close to their uncompressed masters.

THAT said, I agree that all titles should have lossless audio tracks, but these "horrible" descriptions of lossy audio just isn't true.