Can you tell the difference between Lossless and compressed?

[Jimmy Bro]

Can you actually tell the difference between the DTS-HD/Dolby TrueHD/LPCM and the normal DTS and Dolby compressed formats?

Is it a huge difference?

[Franchot]

I can tell the difference.

I think a lot depends on the quality of your speakers and headphones. Lossless sounds more open with a natural timbre and a "you are there quality" whereas compressed sounds tinny, artificial, and as the name implies "compressed"--everything squished together with less separation between the different instruments, voices, noises, etc.

Compressed soundtracks also tend to be louder and more one-note than the more open lossless soundtracks.

[mywhitenoise]

I honestly can't tell the difference when it's a film, and I have the equipment to showcase it. I can hear a difference between vinyl (or SACD/DVD-A) between CD, and I can hear a difference between CD and high quality mp3s, though.

[pentatonic]

I can on pretty much all BDs, but have to play it fairly loud to really appreciate the difference. The biggest difference I find is the dynamic range that lossless has. Mind you it's not night and day but there is a nice jump in AQ for me.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by mywhitenoise

I honestly can't tell the difference when it's a film, and I have the equipment to showcase it. I can hear a difference between vinyl (or SACD/DVD-A) between CD, and I can hear a difference between CD and high quality mp3s, though.

Never heard of such a thing haha. MP3's are such bad quality....

[Johnny Vinyl]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

Never heard of such a thing haha. MP3's are such bad quality....

MP3 is available at various levels, such as 64, 128, 256 and 320. Many people can't tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a flac file. This is not unlike the difference between what the OP described.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

MP3 is available at various levels, such as 64, 128, 256 and 320. Many people can't tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a flac file. This is not unlike the difference between what the OP described.

Exactly and let's be honest, the difference between a well encoded 320 mp3 and a flac file (or DD and lossless) will not be evident on all playback devices. But when I use my headphones for example, there is a difference. How much though is where I think the debate lies.

[Pelican170]

Originally Posted by Johnny Vinyl

MP3 is available at various levels, such as 64, 128, 256 and 320. Many people can't tell the difference between a 320 MP3 and a flac file. This is not unlike the difference between what the OP described.

Well, I convert my mp3's to higher levels myself, and CD's still sound far better IMO... I just think MP3's are very convenient but dont sound good at all...

[mywhitenoise]

Originally Posted by Pelican170

Never heard of such a thing haha. MP3's are such bad quality....

That's my point. I can tell the difference between CDs and "high quality" v0 rips.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Yup. HUGE difference between them... on the proper equipment of course.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bro

Can you actually tell the difference between the DTS-HD/Dolby TrueHD/LPCM and the normal DTS and Dolby compressed formats?

Is it a huge difference?

I like to think I can tell the difference but the only times I'm really sure are when the lossy track is really poor. Interview with the Vampire comes to mind.

But for the most part, I don't usually hear night and day differences between lossless tracks and reasonably good lossy tracks.

[blu-ray_girl_fan]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Bro

Can you actually tell the difference between the DTS-HD/Dolby TrueHD/LPCM and the normal DTS and Dolby compressed formats?

Is it a huge difference?

Lemme say this.

The Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks on DVDs are better quality than the audio tracks that are used in movie theaters.

How many people can hear the difference, especially if they're not looking at the front panel display of their A/V receivers?



Also, loudness doesn't = quality. When the audio is just loud, many effects and the music just get distorted.

The best test is with soft music and quiet ambient effects.

[Goat1]

I can't even believe there is a debate on lossy very lossless formats.
How can you not tell? Everything is smoother,more detailed,bass is punchier,the surrounds are more active. Are there a few stand out titles in lossy format that excel,yes,but most,if you have a decent setup aren't in the same league as lossless,at least to me anyhow. Everything is just clearer and has that in the room feel to it.
Going from music like 320k to Flac is another matter..

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Goat1

I can't even believe there is a debate on lossy very lossless formats.
How can you not tell?

How can you tell? Have you done any blind, level matched tests? If not, then you really do not know. You only *think* that you know because you want to believe.

I could present you with two tracks -- one lossy, one lossless -- with a slight level difference in between them. And I could tell you that the lossy one is lossless (and vice versa). If you could reliably tell them apart, you would almost certainly say that the "lossless" one sounded superior simply because of the mental suggestion that it was lossless.

Folks, unless you are at least an advanced amateur with some experience in audio and/or electrical engineering, you cannot make these comparisons at home. Your unmatched, sighted comparisons do not mean jack squat.

AJ

[Goat1]

Originally Posted by WiWavelength

How can you tell? Have you done any blind, level matched tests? If not, then you really do not know. You only *think* that you know because you want to believe.

I could present you with two tracks -- one lossy, one lossless -- with a slight level difference in between them. And I could tell you that the lossy one is lossless (and vice versa). If you could reliably tell them apart, you would almost certainly say that the "lossless" one sounded superior simply because of the mental suggestion that it was lossless.

Folks, unless you are at least an advanced amateur with some experience in audio and/or electrical engineering, you cannot make these comparisons at home. Your unmatched, sighted comparisons do not mean jack squat.

AJ

AJ... Please,what part of this did you not read? Are there a few stand out titles in lossy format that excel,yes,but most,if you have a decent setup aren't in the same league as lossless,at least to me anyhow.
I have excellent hearing,I can easily tell the diff from DD Plus from regular DD. I can easily tell the diff from DD to True HD.. Bring on your blind sound test! Because most,not all,but most are going to sound better with True HD or DTS MA.. Do you absolutely need lossless,no. Throw in any Star Wars Episodes 1-3 with DD then throw the BD counter parts in with DTS MA and tell me there is no difference..

[sonic_debauchery]

Originally Posted by goat1

aj... Please,what part of this did you not read? Are there a few stand out titles in lossy format that excel,yes,but most,if you have a decent setup aren't in the same league as lossless,at least to me anyhow.
i have excellent hearing,i can easily tell the diff from dd plus from regular dd. I can easily tell the diff from dd to true hd.. Bring on your blind sound test! Because most,not all,but most are going to sound better with true hd or dts ma.. Do you absolutely need lossless,no. Throw in any star wars episodes 1-3 with dd then throw the bd counter parts in with dts ma and tell me there is no difference..

+1

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Goat1

I have excellent hearing,I can easily tell the diff from DD Plus from regular DD. I can easily tell the diff from DD to True HD..

So, you claim. But you have shown no proof thus far. Your repeated assertions mean absolutely squat, scientifically.

Originally Posted by Goat1

Bring on your blind sound test!

That is your responsibility, as you are the one making the claims that you can hear differences. If you do not have the wherewithal to conduct blind, level matched tests, then do make assertions about differences because you simply do not know. You just look foolish like the audiophile press that waxes poetic about clearly audible differences among components, codecs, etc., but refuses to hold itself to any scientific accountability.

AJ

[Redneck9]

Anyway, I think DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code sounds better than DVD.

read this topic.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=213543

[WiWavelength]

Originally Posted by Redneck9

Anyway, I think DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code sounds better than DVD.

There is no such format as "DOLBY DIGITAL Pulse Code." That is a simply a name that you have made up as part of your incomplete understanding.

AJ

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

I think he was referring to your players settings as in how it handles decoding/bitstreaming... and quite a few early blu releases do have a seperate lossy track despite the cores for those with systems unable to handle the lossless codecs.. and in many cases the default is the lossy track.

In the very early days before players and receivers had lossless decoders, BDs would often have both 5.1 PCM and DD 5.1 tracks. These days very few discs have PCM tracks. The vast majority only have a dts-MA track, which includes a lossy core for backwards compatibility with older equipment. Those with TrueHD tracks include hidden DD 5.1 encodes for backwards compatibility.

You will only find one English track on most discs. If you have equipment capable of lossless processing, then you will have go to some lengths to hear the lossy version associated with the single lossless track. One way is to use an optical connection between player and receiver.