mrdenn1s Posted November 27, 2008 Posted November 27, 2008 (edited) I want to know if this thought process is flawed: 1) DTS works by having a core as central to its scalability up to DTS - EX and DTS HD MA 2) The DTS core is a lossy standard 3) Therefore, DTS HD -MA by definition uses the DTS core (lossy) and adds bits to it to upgrade the sound quality My question is how can DTS claim to have lossless audio when the nature of the beast is that the DTS core is lossy? ...or are my facts wrong? Edited November 27, 2008 by mrdenn1s
50mxe20 Posted November 27, 2008 Posted November 27, 2008 I guess the bottom line is, can you hear the difference.
mrdenn1s Posted November 27, 2008 Author Posted November 27, 2008 (edited) Lyle, That's not the issue at play Pick up the back of any BD and the marketing departments are flogging "lossless" audio. Given that the DTS core is lossy, then surely this is a scam. What has me even more bemused is why DTS and Dolby even come out with a lossless standard, when PCM is the base. Why take a signal, change it to DD or DTS and then have it play the same as PCM anyway? Given the extra steps in the processing chain, then DTS and DD HD standards are most likely deviations of the lossless track. Therefore, are my contentions that DTS HD MA is a scam and that PCM is the only real lossless standard incorrect in logic? Edited November 27, 2008 by mrdenn1s
aztec Posted November 27, 2008 Posted November 27, 2008 I guess the bottom line is, can you hear the difference. I think the bottom line would be do you have to pay extra for something that you aren't getting?
mrdenn1s Posted November 27, 2008 Author Posted November 27, 2008 I think the bottom line would be do you have to pay extra for something that you aren't getting? Now we are talking! Dont get me wrong...I love my BD and asscoiated PQ and AQ But I dont like being lied to about the facts of what I am getting (if in fact it is a lie...i may be just plain wrong)
Guest 1081P Posted November 27, 2008 Posted November 27, 2008 Now we are talking!Dont get me wrong...I love my BD and asscoiated PQ and AQ But I dont like being lied to about the facts of what I am getting (if in fact it is a lie...i may be just plain wrong) A simple search on google about the technology behind lossless audio will reveal what you are after. You're not getting ripped off.... According to DTS-HD White Paper, the DTS-HD Master Audio contains 2 data streams, the original DTS core stream and the additional "residual" stream, which contains the "difference" between the original signal and the lossy compression DTS core stream. The audio signal is split into two paths at the input to the encoder. One path goes to the core encoder for backwards compatibility and is then decoded. The other path compares the original audio to the decoded core signal and generates residuals, which are data over and above what the core contains that is needed to restore the original audio as bit-for-bit identical to the original. The residual data is then encoded by a lossless encoder and packed together with the core. The decoding process is simply the reverse. Notice that Lossless audio coding is always variable bit rate.
MCE1503559581 Posted November 27, 2008 Posted November 27, 2008 Why take a signal, change it to DD or DTS and then have it play the same as PCM anyway? To make the audio stream smaller.
peterjcat Posted November 28, 2008 Posted November 28, 2008 I want to know if this thought process is flawed:1) DTS works by having a core as central to its scalability up to DTS - EX and DTS HD MA 2) The DTS core is a lossy standard 3) Therefore, DTS HD -MA by definition uses the DTS core (lossy) and adds bits to it to upgrade the sound quality My question is how can DTS claim to have lossless audio when the nature of the beast is that the DTS core is lossy? ...or are my facts wrong? Your facts are right but your conclusion is wrong. My understanding is this. You can mathematically (losslessly) compress a full PCM master down to an encoded data stream of X bits per second (variable). Sometimes the X will be less than 1536k, so for those portions of the soundtrack the DTS core is mathematically identical to the master. But sometimes it'll take more than 1536k, so you can't fit the master into the core. Lossy systems use psychoacoustic modelling to remove the parts of the audio that you're less likely to hear. The DTS-HD MA extension puts those parts back in. It doesn't just upgrade the sound quality, it restores exactly what was lost from the DTS core and results in losslessness. And as others have said, they use lossless codecs instead of PCM because they're typically about 1/3 the size (a PCM track can easily run to 8GB). DTS-HD MA is quite clever because the same track includes both legacy DTS and full lossless audio for broad compatibility with the fewest tracks.
xrcist007 Posted December 3, 2008 Posted December 3, 2008 (edited) interesting read here about HD sound: http://www.hifi-writer.com/he/misc/newsound.htm Edited December 3, 2008 by xrcist007
cwt Posted December 4, 2008 Posted December 4, 2008 A good read xrcist and accurate about the main facts ; I did find a few dts hdhr bluray discs but ; Josh Zyber mentioned Basic Instinct and Total Recall ; Resevoir Dogs is another . All catalogue titles though..
tonyjg Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 just wondering if anyone had read this article...... ? http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueH...ncompressed_PCM I've recently updated from a Yamaha 5.1 DD/DTS amp to a Yamaha 7.1 with all the latest codes. Running a few HDDVDs with Dolby TrueHD on the XE1 I must say that I've been slightly UNIMPRESSED with these soundtracks. To quote from the article : The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth. Quite a remarkable result, I thought, and I was highly impressed with how much fidelity can be packed into such a relatively small amount of bitspace. If I was doing actual scoring My system comprises of the Yamaha amp - B&W series 6 speakers and Bose surrounds. I appreciate everything is subjective - but..... I'm really not hearing that much of a difference. Any other opinions ???
SDL Posted December 17, 2008 Posted December 17, 2008 just wondering if anyone had read this article...... ?http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueH...ncompressed_PCM I've recently updated from a Yamaha 5.1 DD/DTS amp to a Yamaha 7.1 with all the latest codes. Running a few HDDVDs with Dolby TrueHD on the XE1 I must say that I've been slightly UNIMPRESSED with these soundtracks. To quote from the article : My system comprises of the Yamaha amp - B&W series 6 speakers and Bose surrounds. I appreciate everything is subjective - but..... I'm really not hearing that much of a difference. Any other opinions ??? Yes I think I linked to that article somewhere else on the forum. In any case I think the lossless v lossy HD soundtracks depends a lot on how the lossy is edited and managed. I think, and have said even when some Blu-Ray supporters were suggesting HD DVD mostly didn't have PCM tracks so it wasn't as good, that the difference is difficult to tell at the best of times - if as I say it is done well. The difference between Lossy HD and SD sound is much easier to hear.
BD2009 Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) in my opinion, if it has to be "done well" to notice any difference, then it is a waste of money... I have a 7.1 Pioneer receiver that cost me $1,000 about 18 months ago (pre HDMI model) and my speakers cost me $1,400 for all 7, and my subby was $700 also. that's a $3,100 receiver + speaker package... so in my opinion, it is not exactly crap quality... now, since I got my PS3 last year, I initially was spewing about not having at least HDMI, so I could get at lease PCM uncompressed... I could always go out and buy a Blu-Ray player and hook up the 5.1 analogs... this is something I have ummed and ahhed about all year really... but when I read comments like those last 2 in this thread, and that article - I am not even going to bother with any of the new formats... 640kb DD and 1.5mbit dts sound awesome to me... and like I said at the start of this post, if it has to be "done well" to notice any difference, then it is a waste of money... to get the benefits out of Blu-Ray 1080p PQ, all one has to do is buy a 1080i TV at minimum... or a 1080p TV at best... spending $1000 on a HDTV gets you a MASSIVE upgrade in PQ, but to say you need to get a mid-range (or better) receiver (which means $2k or up) and then get an equivalent speaker pack, just to begin to notice a difference... it's all a big scam if you ask me... Edited December 18, 2008 by kobeson
AndrewW Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 it's all a big scam if you ask me... why is it a scam? I can clearly hear the difference between DTS HD MA tracks and DD or 1.5Mb DTS core on my low-mid range yamaha/krix setup (worth about $4K if it matters).
50mxe20 Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 I can clearly hear the difference between DTS HD MA tracks and DD or 1.5Mb DTS core on my low-mid range yamaha/krix setup (worth about $4K if it matters).I agree. Gotta love it.
djOS Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 (edited) why is it a scam?I can clearly hear the difference between DTS HD MA tracks and DD or 1.5Mb DTS core on my low-mid range yamaha/krix setup (worth about $4K if it matters). I must confess that some of the DD+ tracks on HD-DVD's like Batman Begins are so good I can barely tell the difference when switching over to the TrueHD tracks as it is so subtle. My system is comprised of a Marantz AVR + Krix Speakers and is worth about $10k. Edited December 18, 2008 by djOS
SDL Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 in my opinion, if it has to be "done well" to notice any difference, then it is a waste of money... Why a waste of money? It costs no more for a lossless track vs a lossy track for the consumer. But a well done DD+ vs a DolbyTRUEHD can be hard to tell apart, but will always depend on what is left out. On something that is very dinamic it is probably more noticeable than something less so.
50mxe20 Posted December 18, 2008 Posted December 18, 2008 1. I have a 7.1 Pioneer receiver that cost me $1,000 about 18 months ago (pre HDMI model) and my speakers cost me $1,400 for all 7, and my subby was $700 also.that's a $3,100 receiver + speaker package... so in my opinion, it is not exactly crap quality... 2. now, since I got my PS3 last year, I initially was spewing about not having at least HDMI, so I could get at lease PCM uncompressed... I could always go out and buy a Blu-Ray player and hook up the 5.1 analogs... this is something I have ummed and ahhed about all year really... 3. to get the benefits out of Blu-Ray 1080p PQ, all one has to do is buy a 1080i TV at minimum... or a 1080p TV at best... spending $1000 on a HDTV gets you a MASSIVE upgrade in PQ, but to say you need to get a mid-range (or better) receiver (which means $2k or up) and then get an equivalent speaker pack, just to begin to notice a difference... it's all a big scam if you ask me... 1. By some peoples standards here, that is not a lot of money and probably near the bottom end of many HT set-ups. I don't want to sound condescending but many here have good AVR's worth more than that as pre-amps and with power amp that make those numbers look like an introductory system. 2. With all due respect, until you try either HDMI or 5.1 analogue I personally don't believe you are in a position to comment or put down other peoples systems or claim it is a scam. 3. The real scam is the suggestion of need for a FULL HD display at the distances most people sit from it. I dispute there is a MASSIVE upgrade in PQ. Unless you are sitting with your nose against the screen. IMHO.
tonyjg Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 3. The real scam is the suggestion of need for a FULL HD display at the distances most people sit from it. I dispute there is a MASSIVE upgrade in PQ. Unless you are sitting with your nose against the screen.IMHO. I do SOMEWHAT agree with this last one (I was watching TRANSFORMERS HDDVD last nite - sitting 4mtrs away from a FULL HD 50in Plasma. Sure the pic is nice and clear / clean - but so was a SD of HAIRSPRAY. Reading about people sitting 1.5mtrs away from ANY SCREEN is a tad worrying AWAY... sound.... I'll retry BATMAN BEGINS and BLADE RUNNER this weekend - testing DD+ and TRUEHD and 'see' if I can hear any differences
50mxe20 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I do SOMEWHAT agree with this last one (I was watching TRANSFORMERS HDDVD last nite - sitting 4mtrs away from a FULL HD 50in Plasma. Sure the pic is nice and clear / clean - but so was a SD of HAIRSPRAY. Reading about people sitting 1.5mtrs away from ANY SCREEN is a tad worrying I love it when the 19 year old son has all his mates over to play on the Xbox360 and they pull both couches forward to form an arc about 1.5-metres from the screen, Even then I don't hear ANY of them complain about it NOT being a full HD display. The 1080 source into a HD is fine for them. How people can say there is MASSIVE difference just gets me going! As to the sound, hearing is such a subjective variable thing. Maybe (??) there's a valid argument. But I just know I love it.
ajm1503559545 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 How people can say there is MASSIVE difference just gets me going! But then MASSIVE is just a relative term. What might seem massive to us might be considered puny to other, judgemental people who have no regards for the hurtful things they're saying and after all it's not our fault this is what we were given and it's not the size of the dog in the fight that matters ...... umm... now what were we talking about
myrantz Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 The 1080 source into a HD is fine for them. How people can say there is MASSIVE difference just gets me going! For me I think higher resolution is important only when displaying a desktop or static image... And at that 1080p isn't enough, QuadHD might be better... As to the sound, hearing is such a subjective variable thing. Maybe (??) there's a valid argument.But I just know I love it. On the subject on sound, I am very new to this BD camp... Is the PCM track on BD movies supposed to be high resolution? What's the bit rate and sampling interval of the PCM track for typical movies.. If say DTS HD MA is bit for bit the same as the PCM track, what's the point of the latter?
50mxe20 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 For me I think higher resolution is important only when displaying a desktop or static image... And at that 1080p isn't enough, QuadHD might be better...On the subject on sound, I am very new to this BD camp... Is the PCM track on BD movies supposed to be high resolution? What's the bit rate and sampling interval of the PCM track for typical movies.. If say DTS HD MA is bit for bit the same as the PCM track, what's the point of the latter? I was responding to post #14 so read that for the context. I believe posts 6 and 9 answer your queries --------- And ajm, "MASSIVE" means huge, enormous, gigantic, colossal, very big All of these do not apply, IMHO.
myrantz Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 I was responding to post #14 so read that for the context.I believe posts 6 and 9 answer your queries Doesn't really.. Storing a PCM track is kind of redundant (unless the PCM tracks are of a lower encoding quality). Gives me the impression they are trying to fill up space when they don't really have to (looking at the bit rates and sampling frequency of the sticky regarding some titles).
50mxe20 Posted December 19, 2008 Posted December 19, 2008 Doesn't really.. Storing a PCM track is kind of redundant (unless the PCM tracks are of a lower encoding quality). Gives me the impression they are trying to fill up space when they don't really have to (looking at the bit rates and sampling frequency of the sticky regarding some titles).What do your ears tell you?
Recommended Posts