 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.3.11.184
In Reply to: RE: Do you mean "Live at RCMH?" posted by racerguy on October 19, 2007 at 19:55:02
Not so much so with DD+ but anything higher becomes an issue. Heck, they seem to have trouble getting any kind of lossless audio on most movie tracks.Like I suggested, I'll be pleasantly surprised if HD DVD ever comes out with a music video with 5.1 24/96 lossless soundtracks. I'm anxiously awaiting the HD DVD "beef".
Edits: 10/19/07Follow Ups:
But I think your use of "severely" is harsh and exaggerated. On top of that, I wonder if it will make a real difference anytime soon, or if we can chalk it up to another one of your "upside" possibilities for the murky future.We've yet to see a significant number of music video discs in either format. So far most of the ones that have been released don't have much in the way of hi-resolution audio tracks; probably because they were originally intended for DVD release and got "upgraded" to the newer video formats.
As to the dearth of lossless on movies - When I put on my marketing hat and think about what I'd choose for a commercial release if I were in charge of it, it occurs to me that most players and HT receivers currently on the market don't do a very good job of working with the new lossless audio formats, if they even handle them at all. If I'm the marketing guy trying to get mainstream acceptance of my product, why would I put something on the disc that only a handful of my customers can use, especially if it gets in the way of the bonus features J6P says he wants instead? If it costs any extra money to put on the disc, and only a handful of the buyers would ever utilize it, it isn't going on there. Period. Even if there's space and bandwidth galore.
When the hi-def formats fail in the mass market and become the niche products they are destined to be, I'm sure there will be more focus put on the audio tracks, because that's one of the things the niche market will want. Until then, as long as the big studios are putting out the bulk of the discs, we should expect to see the lowest common denominator on most discs, regardless of format - especially the anticipated big sellers.
Having said that, I'll be pleasantly surprised if either format ends up with a significant number of music video discs with 5.1 24/96 lossless for the foreseeable future. Nearly all of the ones on the market that do have lossless (regardless of format) seem to have 24/48 at best. It costs less.
If anything uncompressed PCM saves them the royalty costs of TrueHD and DTS HD MA. And it certainly helps that 8 Mbps available for audio is a "freebie" which has no impact on the available video bitrate for Blu-ray disks (up to 40 mbps). In contrast, HD DVD has to live within 30 mbps which has to be allocated between audio and video. And the lower the allocated video bitrate, the more likely the studio has to put more TLC into the encoding; so guess what ? the studios will opt for a lossy audio track to save on the costs of encodes and maintain video bitrates to minimize compression artifacts. I point to the pitiful percentage of HD DVDs with lossless audio ( <15%) as evidence.The compressionists job becomes much easier when afforded the greater bandwidth/storage available to Blu-ray. I think the studios will eventually figure out this will save them money in the long run.
The sample size is still too small but I expect 24 bit lossless audio for music videos will be more prevalent for Blu-ray than for HD DVD. I also expect only Blu-ray will be able to support 5.1 24/96 for music videos with any kind of decent high def video (re: bandwidth/storage).
...that, when they had the opportunity to put better-quality audio and video on DVDs, frequently chose not to, or charged extra for what they should have done in the first place (i.e. Superbit). Instead, they went with the least-common denominator.
They didn't maximize their utilization of DVD capabilities, because they didn't have to. What makes you think they'll consistently utilize the capabilities of Blu-ray (or even HD DVD)? Again, history shows a clear precedent.
Contrary to the desperate nonsense spouted about me by the resident forum buffoon, I've never denied that Blu-ray has more impressive technical specs, and I agree that the BDA's slideware is way more spectacular than the HD DVD consortium's. Unfortunately, the reality (i.e. the actual products) don't quite match up to the hype yet.
That statement applies more for HD DVD then it does for Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is delivering on PQ/SQ. HD DVD is NOT delivering on the lossless audio for the most part. What's more, lossless audio is a freebie, I don't expect Sony, Disney or Fox to stop delivering stellar PQ/SQ because the format makes it easy to do it. And just as easy than Universal and Warner's indifferent non-efforts to put lossy audio and indifferent video encodes on HD DVD releases.
> > That statement applies more for HD DVD then it does for Blu-Ray. < <
...and this is it. As I've said previously, it's clear to me that HD DVD is much more "baked" than Blu-ray. I don't believe that HD DVD delivers as much as Blu-ray is potentially capable of delivering, but HD DVD works quite well and has fewer issues. That makes it a better consumer format, for now.
> > Blu-Ray is delivering on PQ/SQ. HD DVD is NOT delivering on the lossless audio for the most part. < <
Yes, there are fewer releases on HD DVD with lossless audio tracks, and that may always be the case, given the space and bandwidth constraints relative to Blu-ray. The thing is, I don't listen to or watch specifications - I'm interested in the movie experience. Overall I have not been disappointed with PQ or SQ on HD DVD, and for the most part, neither has anyone else who's tried it.
Yes, HD DVD has a list of negatives, but so does Blu-ray. Again, I'll state that neither is "better," and impressive spec sheets and promises of future greatness won't change that.
Eventually the dust will settle, and one or the other will end up as the niche format of choice. At that point, will any of our posturing really matter? :-)
It has nothing to do with cost: nearly all of today's motion pictures are mastered at 20/48 or 24/48. Until Hollywood moves to 24/96, which I really don't see them having an interest in, that's what you're going to get on High Definition releases. Of course, many older films were mastered at 16/48, so that's why numerous releases weren't 20 or 24-bit.
While some want Hollywood to kick it up a notch to 24/96, I don't believe movie soundtracks will benefit from such an upgrade. However, music videos, concerts, etc on the High Definition releases should always include the highest sample rate and bit depth that's available from the artist.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
