phreek Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 In a recent thread about BD some were touting the sound quality of the lossless formats that are supposed to make BD the obvious better choice... Here's a thought... we all know that plain old CDs are far superior to the best lossy encoded MP3 from a technical viewpoint... And yet the world is going the way of compressed formats and the consumer is making a choice with their dollars to go this way. Why then is there a view that the lossless audio on BD which the studios appear to be limiting now to DD 5.1ch (as noted in another thread) should be a sufficient drawcard to BD? I personally said that DD and DTS are entirely enough for my needs. Even Dolby engineers agree. Roger Dressler of Dolby labs says there is not much of a difference between 448kbs standard definition Dolby and uncompressed 96KHz 24 bit PCM. If we are to believe what Mr. Dressler states as true, then its one more excellent reason to stick with SD compressed! Again if it was at the same price point... there's no question that most would get the lossless even if they didn't have a 7.1 setup. As it stands though... SD appears to be clearly favoured by the consumer, leaving BD as really a niche product in perpetuity it appears.
Thornton Melon Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 In a recent thread about BD some were touting the sound quality of the lossless formats that are supposed to make BD the obvious better choice...Here's a thought... we all know that plain old CDs are far superior to the best lossy encoded MP3 from a technical viewpoint... And yet the world is going the way of compressed formats and the consumer is making a choice with their dollars to go this way. Why then is there a view that the lossless audio on BD which the studios appear to be limiting now to DD 5.1ch (as noted in another thread) should be a sufficient drawcard to BD? I personally said that DD and DTS are entirely enough for my needs. Even Dolby engineers agree. Roger Dressler of Dolby labs says there is not much of a difference between 448kbs standard definition Dolby and uncompressed 96KHz 24 bit PCM. If we are to believe what Mr. Dressler states as true, then its one more excellent reason to stick with SD compressed! Again if it was at the same price point... there's no question that most would get the lossless even if they didn't have a 7.1 setup. As it stands though... SD appears to be clearly favoured by the consumer, leaving BD as really a niche product in perpetuity it appears. Sure Phreek,but that does not address the shi- PQ that you are stuck with on DVD,compared to HD free to air TV programmes
Mr.Bitey Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Whats the point of this phreek? - nothing but trolling again. Ohh hangon, theres a question: Why then is there a view that the lossless audio on BD which the studios appear to be limiting now to DD 5.1ch (as noted in another thread) should be a sufficient drawcard to BD? Youve allready stated DVD is good enough for you (without even considering the audio side) - your not saying anything different here, yet seem to think you need to start a new thread when you could have easily responded to the MANY responses in your other bridges threads raising this issue. Stop building bridges - its obvious, pointless (other than to troll) and a waste of forum resources. :Barou: General Bitey
momaw Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 There are many many many threads on this a basic search would have revealed. A new one with nothing to say is unnecessary.
SDL Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 More rubbish. Would you like to find the quote by Dressler to support that? Dressler, as far as I am aware, has only ever said there is a more noticeable difference between DD and DD+ than DD+ and Dolby True HD. Of course if you can supply the article by Dressler that says differently I would be interested.
Chill Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 In a recent thread about BD some were touting the sound quality of the lossless formats that are supposed to make BD the obvious better choice...Here's a thought... we all know that plain old CDs are far superior to the best lossy encoded MP3 from a technical viewpoint... And yet the world is going the way of compressed formats and the consumer is making a choice with their dollars to go this way. Why then is there a view that the lossless audio on BD which the studios appear to be limiting now to DD 5.1ch (as noted in another thread) should be a sufficient drawcard to BD? I personally said that DD and DTS are entirely enough for my needs. Even Dolby engineers agree. Roger Dressler of Dolby labs says there is not much of a difference between 448kbs standard definition Dolby and uncompressed 96KHz 24 bit PCM. If we are to believe what Mr. Dressler states as true, then its one more excellent reason to stick with SD compressed! Again if it was at the same price point... there's no question that most would get the lossless even if they didn't have a 7.1 setup. As it stands though... SD appears to be clearly favoured by the consumer, leaving BD as really a niche product in perpetuity it appears. If you must stir, then at least do it with some style and talent. :wacko: :wacko: there is no logic in the above
John_Melbourne Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Why have milk when you can have cream Phreek?
phreek Posted November 8, 2008 Author Posted November 8, 2008 Why have milk when you can have cream Phreek? That reminds me of Mary Antoinette asking why people don't eat cake if they have no bread...
hazzad Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 They arent limiting to DD 5.1 at all. Some studio's(namely Warner) are taking the easy way out and just using what i would presume to be the DVD audio track. Why? Maybe they are looking to doubledip or maybe they just cant be arsed. Most other studio's are using TrueHD or DTS HD MA.
SDL Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 That reminds me of Mary Antoinette asking why people don't eat cake if they have no bread... So answer the questions Phreek. Your original post is actually non factual and misleading, the difference between HD audio and SD audio is clearly audible,
Thornton Melon Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 They arent limiting to DD 5.1 at all. Some studio's(namely Warner) are taking the easy way out and just using what i would presume to be the DVD audio track. Why? Maybe they are looking to doubledip or maybe they just cant be arsed. Most other studio's are using TrueHD or DTS HD MA. Why not boycott Warner titles.Don't buy,rent only.
hazzad Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Why not boycott Warner titles.Don't buy,rent only. I dont buy warner titles.
ekkieTHUMP Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 They arent limiting to DD 5.1 at all. Some studio's(namely Warner) are taking the easy way out and just using what i would presume to be the DVD audio track. Why? Maybe they are looking to doubledip or maybe they just cant be arsed. Most other studio's are using TrueHD or DTS HD MA. I would be more concerned if Warner was offering a title like Amadeus without an uncompressed track.Get Smart,really i couldn't give a toss about trash like that.We are getting Dark Knight with Dolby TrueHD 5.1 and Hellboy II: The Golden Army with DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 so home theater junkies surely have little to moan about in the next 4 weeks .
dazzarama Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 (edited) SD appears to be clearly favoured by the consumer, leaving BD as really a niche product in perpetuity it appears. YAWN Don't you have anything better to do with your time? You've already made it abundantly clear you are not enamored with BD. Most of us here disagree. Your thinly veiled disdain for the format is tired and old. Please move on. Why don't you go and find the nearest Miley Cyrus fan forum and bait someone closer to your age? Dazza Edited November 8, 2008 by dazzarama
mfedley Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 Why don't you go and find the nearest Miley Cyrus fan forum and bait someone closer to your age? The above can easily be described as statement of the week. Onto the topic at hand (hopefully I don't get baited too often). I can grab any of my SD and HD/BLU titles of the same name and check it in and see the difference in sound. I own about 7-8 titles and both Blu and DVD, and for each title I can definately notice a SUBSTANTIAL difference.
Thornton Melon Posted November 8, 2008 Posted November 8, 2008 I dont buy warner titles. I won't either,unless they carry full HD soundtracks
MLXXX Posted November 9, 2008 Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) Phreek, Allow me to clarify some of the items you used as 'facts' in your opening post, and to make some comments. To some extent I will repeat what others have said. Cheers, MLXXX In a recent thread about BD some were touting the sound quality of the lossless formats that are supposed to make BD the obvious better choice... Here's a thought... we all know that plain old CDs are far superior to the best lossy encoded MP3 from a technical viewpoint... Actually it depends on the sample rate. A high sample rate mp3 can be indistinguishable for many listeners from an uncompressed version. And yet the world is going the way of compressed formats and the consumer is making a choice with their dollars to go this way. Certainly portable players have embraced mp3 technology. Why then is there a view that the lossless audio on BD which the studios appear to be limiting now to DD 5.1ch (as noted in another thread - noted erroneously in that thread; very few BDs are transfers from conventional Dolby 5.1) should be a sufficient drawcard to BD? I personally said that DD and DTS are entirely enough for my needs. Even Dolby engineers agree. Roger Dressler of Dolby labs says there is not much of a difference between 448kbs standard definition Dolby and uncompressed 96KHz 24 bit PCM. If we are to believe what Mr. Dressler states as true, then its one more excellent reason to stick with SD compressed! It really depends on how fussy a person is about their audio, and whether the movie is say a comedy, or a drama with a full orchestra for setting the mood. I think the principal drawcard of Bluray is the PQ. Anyone with good vision can see the difference, provided they are not far from a modern video display setup. But many people will not really notice the difference in the audio, unless using good quality speakers; and perhaps even then, only with AB comparisons. As others have mentioned, there is a much more noticeable difference between conventional Dolby 5.1 and Dolby Digital Plus, than the further improvement to be had by encoding in a lossless format. Again if it was at the same price point... there's no question that most would get the lossless even if they didn't have a 7.1 setup. As it stands though... SD appears to be clearly favoured by the consumer, leaving BD as really a niche product in perpetuity it appears. As more consumers get larger screens, they will become more frustrated with DVD quality, and more aware of the improvement to be enjoyed with BD. I would agree that the price differential is currently too high in relation to the players, and the recorded Bluray discs. The price of BD technology will need to drop considerably, before the majority of consumers will decide to upgrade. But the prices for this relatively new technology will drop. It's surely just a matter of time. Edited November 9, 2008 by MLXXX
Recommended Posts