In Reply to: Re: no lossless or uncompressed pcm posted by Jack G on April 14, 2007 at 17:00:42:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- audio quality - Joe Murphy Jr 18:06:09 04/14/07 (1)
- We are basically in agreement. - Jack G 08:46:02 04/15/07 (0)