CurtPalme.com Home Theater Forum

**kal**

We all know that the 30Gb (HD-DVD) vs 50Gb (Blu-Ray) size difference shouldn't make any difference to picture/sound quality as even 30Gb HD-DVD limit should be enough to fit a full movie at a good bitrate with high quality lossless sound on it .... that is until you start to fill the HD-DVD with tons extra features!

The recent transformers HD-DVD is the first example of this.

Paramount (the issuing studio) has been quoted as saying that they did not include high quality lossless audio on the disc because there wasn't enough room due to the amount of special features they wanted to include!

Now, the obvious answer is: Make a second disc for the special features and leave the main disc for the movie. But that would cost them more money, and obviously their marketing people know that most people are perfectly happy with lossy sound with more extra features.

*sigh*

Frankly, this really pisses me off. How many other studios are going to forgo better image/sound quality just to cram on extra features (that frankly I don't care about) just to save a few bucks to not have to produce a second disc?

Sorry, but this on reason why I'm going to favour Blu-Ray. Yes, I know there are 50Gb+ HD-DVD's on the horizon but who knows when they'll come about and how much extra it'll cost to produce...

Here's the scoop from the review:

"When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want. Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff. Even the front soundstage is a stunner -- stereo effects are quite pronounced, and when the sounds ping-pong (as they do just about any time a robot transforms), it's just as cool as the first time you heard that lightsaber effect in 'Star Wars.' If I had had this disc when I was a twelve year-old kid, I don't I would have stopped playing it for months.

Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title. Without a TrueHD or PCM mix to compare this one to, there's no way of telling how much better such a track might have been, but based on the upgrade I've seen with other titles, I'm guessing a high-res mix could well have trounced this one. That's not to take anything away from this truly exceptional mix, but this is one case where I think you truly can improve upon perfection."

Kal

kschmit2 · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject:

Kal, did you listen to this track and compare it to the best soundtrack you know (your choice)?

If you have done so, please explain in detail what the Transformers track is lacking. It should be relatively obvious on a highend sound system in a decent listening environment.

**kal** · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject:

Hi Kai,

I don't have the disc, nor do I have an HD-DVD player. Nor do I have any way of playing lossless tracks from HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs at the moment (my current setup doesn't support it, but will in the [near?] future).

I'm just commenting on the fact that this is the first case where a studio has publicly mentioned that they're chosing extra features over putting a better (lossless) sound quality on a disc. This to me sucks. As as you mention, from what I've read the difference between lossy and lossless is significant on a good highend sound system. There have been numerous reviews on sites describing the differences in the cases where a disc actually has 'regular' DTS or dolby digital and lossless formats. Very easy to toggle back and forth between the two.

Kal

kschmit2 · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:40 pm Post subject:

**kal** · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:50 pm Post subject:

Your example just goes to show that lossless isn't going to make a bad track sound good, it's just not going to limit a good track as much as the lossy versions.

Like I mentioned, I have yet to hear lossless myself on a good system. I take what I read with a grain of salt but have reviewers that I've grown to trust and they all seem to notice a difference. Sometimes significant, but not always. Sometimes the difference is minor.

I do have some full-rate DTS (1.5Mbit) DVD's that I've compared to their DD5.1 (448Kbs) counterparts (exact same movie on 2 different discs) and did notice a big difference.

Kal

kschmit2 · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:25 pm Post subject:

**kal** · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject:

Thanks Kai. Very interesting.

So basically you're saying that high bitrate (~1.5mbit) lossy tracks found in the "DTS MA core" and "DD plus" on HD-DVD and Blu-ray will be noticeable better than low bitrate (~448kbps) DD tracks on DVD, but that the jump from high bit rate lossy to lossless is less of a jump.

Probably. I could see this. Certainly makes sense.

The high bit rate lossy codecs are certainly better than what we have today on DVD at 448 or 768 Kbps.

Kal

kschmit2 · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject:

well, you could even argue that full bitrate DTS (which can be 16-24 bit and up to 96 kHz) will not be noticably different from LPCM during most of a movie when properly level matched (as long as DRC or dialog normalization have been either compensated for or deactivated, and the same source elements have been used).
Naturally this also applies to the DTS core track

Similar things should be true for DDPlus at high bitrates (1.5 Mbps +). The added efficiency at high bitrates brings it into quasi-lossless territory as well.

DDPlus at 640 kbps should be basically identical to DD at 640 kbps (no added efficiency).

kschmit2 · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject:

2 interesting DDPlus tracks:

- the 5.1 track on Chicago / Earth, Wind & Fire Live at the Greek Theater HD DVD is DDPlus at 3024 kbps

- the English 5.1 track on the Japanese Equilibrium HD DVD is DDPlus at 2 Mbps.

erikjohn · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 636 Location: Florida

FWIW
I got the HD-DVD, yesterday and it is two disc's. One with movie and second with features and halfway through the movie I thought what I saw was a layer switch. I also think I recall the sleeve saying that is was HD-PLUS sound. I think my wife said the cost at Target was 30 bucks.

So whats the rub here?

ecrabb · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject:

My house isn't jam-packed because it's too small... my house is full simply because I have too much sh*t for the size of my house.

This really isn't a problem with the size of the medium (or lack thereof), but rather a problem the amount of extra crap they pile on the disc (a surplus thereof). I know that seems obvious and the natural reaction that follows is, "see, the medium needs to be larger." But, then what do you say when they cram even MORE sh*t onto the BD, and can't include lossless audio on THAT format?

I know, instinctually, we want to draw from this that BD will somehow be more likely to include lossless tracks, but I think the reality is that the suits and hopefully maybe even the creative team that produced the movie will be who decides (or dictates) whether more extras will be the priority, or whether high-resolution audio will be the priority.

SC

**kal** · Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject:

That's a good point SC. Though you can fit a lot of that extra's crap on the extra 20gb found on BD - especially when the extras are all in standard definition (not HD).

Though you are right that they'll often consume the space that's there and unfortunately more interest in junk extra content.

erikjohn · Joined: 08 Mar 2006 Posts: 636 Location: Florida

Well I didn't get to see it in full glory at 110" with the Quee due to it being flaky currently but we watched on the 61" Hitachi CRT RPTV unit that sits directly below the screen of the Quee. PQ was awesome and so was sound. I have a pretty sweet sound system and if SQ is inferior I would detect it. I was very happy all around with it. We really enjoyed the flick.

I haven't looked at anything on disc 2 yet.

EJ

greg_mitch · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 5320

You are going to blame HD-DVD for the studio deciding not to include the lossless audio even after you admit your system can't take advantage of it?

This is like a blind person complaining after he finds out the black car someone sold him is actually red!

**kal** · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:16 am Post subject:

Not blaming HD-DVD at all. I'm just annoyed that the studio chose extra content over lossless audio.

Just because I can't take advantage of it today doesn't mean I can't complain as I DO intend on getting lossless audio into my setup soon... I'm in the process of revamping my entire setup and it's expensive so it's one step at a time.

If I never intended to upgrade to lossless then I shouldn't be complaining.

Kal

oliverg · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:53 am Post subject:

I'm now at the point where I only buy HD-DVDs if I really have to. (When somethiing comes out on HD-DVD exclusively - like Heroes or The Matrix). If I have a choice between BR and HD-DVD, I buy BR. Space is fast becoming an issue and the mentality of the studios, I can see that more often than not they would actually take the "extras" over SQ.

As soon as 50Gb HD-DVDs arrive, 100Gb BR will be here. So BR is always going to have the upper hand space wise.

There is so much more coming out (which is worthwhile) on BR. It seems to be around 3:1 "good titles" BR:HD-DVD. My BR collection is about 70% of my high def titles. Even though HD-DVD got that head start, BR has surpassed it. I'm not surprised, with numerically more studios doing BR titles, over any given period, BR wins out by volume alone.

Someone said to me the other day "HD-DVD have more rentals" - that makes sense - HD-DVD is the cheaper alternative so people who are more price conscious buy the cheap players and don't buy their titles - they rent them. People that buy BR often have more disposable income so they buy their titles outright. If overall, more people are renting - then sales figures for BR will be higher and HD-DVD lower - which in turn will eventually contribute to HD-DVDs demise. Rentals only procide the stuidos income on the initial purchase whereas higher sales figures keep contributing to the coffers.

I don't think that HD-DVD will ever "go away". Even if BR emerges as a clear winner in a few years, there are still enough HD-DVD players out there (and XBox 360s!!) to cement HD-DVDs place in history. But then again, Beta didn't die out straight away either. Even in the late 80s, there were still whole countries using Betamax!

I love being format neutral, I can be honest with myself about which format I think will eventually prevail Smile

kschmit2 · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:12 am Post subject:

Oliver has just dragged this thread to the gutter with his unfounded "disposable income" comment.

Thank you very much.

oliverg · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:19 am Post subject:

kschmit2 · Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject:

check the income thread on AVS forum. It is pretty interesting.

greg_mitch · Joined: 03 May 2006 Posts: 5320