 
|
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 |
65.12.44.92
In Reply to: Nonsense posted by Jack G on April 14, 2007 at 06:56:59:
King Kong is considered a reference for video quality (though I have seen a few posts at AVS pointing out problems with the video), but DD+ is not reference audio. Granted, King Kong is a long movie, but it pretty much maxes out HD DVD's capacity and doesn't allow for a reference quality audio track to go along with the video. What happens when we get into 7.1 channels of audio instead of just 5.1? As it is, most of the Dolby TrueHD lossless tracks -- which there aren't too many of on HD DVD -- are 16/48 (not 20/48 or 24/48), because even the lossless audio codecs push the bitrate of HD DVD into the red zone if other features are included (PiP, commentaries, interactive features, etc) along with the movie.And, yes, I realize that many Blu-ray titles with uncompressed LPCM are 16/48 (mostly Sony, but they will be using Dolby TrueHD in the near future and it will be 20/48 or 24/48 encoded). But at least they are uncompressed, not lossy.
Follow Ups:
I'm not sure HDMI will support it, but maybe a player with good DACs would be suitable.Pat Metheny on Blu-ray was good start: it's got something called a "DTS HD" 5.1 sound track with indeterminate bit rates. Maybe doesn't sound as good as a decent DVD-A or SACD MC track, but full motion HD video is a HUGE plus.
True, its not reerence audio, but Universal titles rarely are. Do you know for a fact they couldn't fit lossless audio on, or just didn't bother? Regardless, with most movies, its a non-issue, they have plenty of room for lossless audio if they wish to use it. Beleive it or not, some studios are all that interested in lossless sound. Universal isn't, and Warner is, but apparently not for BD. I find that amusing.
While you and many people here give Aq a high priority-I appreciate it, but its not as high a priority-I don't think it will be a deal maker or breaker in the long run. Remember, your average smhmoe thinks MP3s sound good.
Back to the original topic, I still think Samsung making a dual player is good for HD in general. They are even willing to make an HD DVd player if there is demand.
Not bad for a dead format.:-)
enjoy,
Jack
Do you know for a fact they couldn't fit lossless audio on, or just didn't bother?"Kong came in at 27.4GB total, so no lossless.
I have to disagree/agree with the "...and Warner is, but apparently not for BD." comment. I disagree that audio quality is a high priority at WB: their use of analog watermarking for DVD-A and insistance on Dolby Digital (instead of DTS) for DVD-V pretty much cements that issue in my opinion.
And as for WB audio on Blu-ray, I agree 100% with you on that one. Several of their 50GB releases have done no better than 640kb/s Dolby Digital, as opposed to an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack or a lossless codec (which we all know would be Dolby TrueHD due to the fact that the two have been in a virtual software/codec 69 suck-off for the last decade... eeewww!). It really makes no sense because providing an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack would cost them absolutely nothing to use! And that same LPCM soundtrack could be used for the Dolby TrueHD encoding for an HD DVD lossless soundtrack. Of course, they'd have to give Dolby some head... er, royalties for using it.
Remember, your average smhmoe thinks MP3s sound good.
Yes, so true and so sad.
Warner does some TrueHD, but not on all movies. Universal does none. It doesn't seem to be a high priority with the HD DVD group. Oddly, I hear Wienstein/Genius does a better job.> > > Kong came in at 27.4GB total, so no lossless. < < <
Well, yes that's ture, and this comes up alot, but according to Amir in the AVS insider's thread :
"The video part is not a fixed number. One can fine tune it more and squeeze it down as needed. Remember that the quality curve for VC-1 is highly exponential and approaches a very horizontal asymptote quickly. So looking at the file size for video doesn’t tell you anything about what else you could put in there.Put another way, when the bit budget is allocated for the various parts of the title, the data rate for video is dialed in and then encoding begins. Any trouble spots are then optimized. Given this process, you can’t say that the file size had to be the number that was picked. A smaller number could be picked with potentially more hand tuning needed without degradation to the movie. "
I don't know if this would work though.
Of course, since its Universal the point is moot.:-(
Jack
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
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 ]
