Is Universal giving up on lossless audio for HD-DVD?

[ganthc]

I was checking the releases for the next 13 movies from Universal that have specs on them. Only one (Alpha Dog) has lossless audio on it. Is Universal giving up on lossless audio for their movies? That would be a disappointment, because I think lossless audio is one of the strong selling points for the highdef format. Does anyone have any information on this?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I was checking the releases for the next 13 movies from Universal that have specs on them. Only one (Alpha Dog) has lossless audio on it. Is Universal giving up on lossless audio for their movies? That would be a disappointment, because I think lossless audio is one of the strong selling points for the highdef format. Does anyone have any information on this?

They never really started lossless audio (they only experimented with it on a few releases here and there), so they aren't "giving up." Most lossless tracks are 16bit/48khz on Blu-Ray (PCM) and HD DVD (TrueHD). Universal believes that 24bit/48khz lossy DD+ @ 1.5mbps is a superior option to lossless 16bit. Of course, it also gives Universal the ability to release a super-special edition in the future

[ganthc]

Do you think that dd+ is superior to truehd? I can't say, because I haven't heard the tracks to compare. What I do know is that LPCM has blown me away with the quality of sound. I'd hate to see that fall by the wayside for a lossy audio codec.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Do you think that dd+ is superior to truehd? I can't say, because I haven't heard the tracks to compare. What I do know is that LPCM has blown me away with the quality of sound. I'd hate to see that fall by the wayside for a lossy audio codec.

DD+ sounds pretty awesome at 24bit/48khz. I'd say its a very real possibility that DD+ 24bit/48khz @ 1.5mbps sounds superior to lossless PCM/TrueHD 16bit/48khz. The increased bit resolution of the former gives you a very real and measurable signal to noise ratio improvement, however going from a high bitrate lossy to lossless may not give you any audible improvement as lossy codecs are designed to sound transparent at high bitrates; even at low bitrates, though, audiophiles have great difficulty telling the difference between a 192kbps lossy WMA or AAC file and a CD. In addition, the master will not have to undergo a 24bit -> 16bit downconversion that happens for most PCM/TrueHD tracks.

So yeah, Universal may be right - 24bit/48khz DD+ @ 1.5mbps may sound better than lossless 16bit/48khz PCM/TrueHD - and we know for a fact that the former is capable of a higher SNR. Universal has access to the masters so their testing may have indicated this.

The theoretical maximum SNR of a 16bit signal is 96db while the theoretical maximum SNR of a 24bit signal is 144db. So right there you can see one area where lossy 1.5mbps 24bit DD+ may be superior to lossless 16bit PCM/TrueHD as found on most releases with lossless sound.

[snipsnapsappy]

I can tell you that Universal's titles always sound really good. But as good as titles in LPCM? I don't know. Nothing has taken me back quite like when I first listened to Stealth in LPCM. But it is impossible to compare soundtracks of different movies.

One thing I have always found odd is that, with Sleepy Hollow HD-DVD, the DD+ track has almost no surround activity while the DTS track has almost wall to wall surround action, including score bleed. So there is always the question of how much the codec can change the quality of the sound, not just the amount of bits.

Ugh, I just want an exact translation of the way the sound mixers heard it.

[ganthc]

And that's what I was wondering. Do the amount of bits really make any difference...or just make it louder? Lossy codecs would mean that there is lost sound in the soundtrack, right? So there should be noticeable differences in tracks that have lossless versus dolby digital. I know that Derb has commented that there are and rated as such. I really can't say on the hd-dvd side, because I don't have it. I just don't know how a lossy codec would trump a lossless one.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

And that's what I was wondering. Do the amount of bits really make any difference...or just make it louder? Lossy codecs would mean that there is lost sound in the soundtrack, right? So there should be noticeable differences in tracks that have lossless versus dolby digital. I know that Derb has commented that there are and rated as such. I really can't say on the hd-dvd side, because I don't have it. I just don't know how a lossy codec would trump a lossless one.

I’ll be the first to say that without relatively good speakers and a discerning ear, some might find it hard to tell the difference between a high bit DD+ track and a TrueHD track. There are huge differences, IMO, from DD to DD+, though. The Lossless tracks, at least the ones I’ve heard do have noticeable improvements, but they are subtle.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by piratehunter

I’ll be the first to say that without relatively good speakers and a discerning ear, some might find it hard to tell the difference between a high bit DD+ track and a TrueHD track. There are huge differences, IMO, from DD to DD+, though. The Lossless tracks, at least the ones I’ve heard do have noticeable improvements, but they are subtle.

Okay, so you're saying that the DD+ soundtracks are just as good as lossless?

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Okay, so you're saying that the DD+ soundtracks are just as good as lossless?

No. I'm saying that the differences between the two in my experience have not been drastic. The lossless tracks offer better imaging, clearer dialogue and more ambience than the DD+ tracks. I would always prefer a lossless track if possible, but DD+ rarely disappoints.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

And that's what I was wondering. Do the amount of bits really make any difference...or just make it louder? Lossy codecs would mean that there is lost sound in the soundtrack, right? So there should be noticeable differences in tracks that have lossless versus dolby digital. I know that Derb has commented that there are and rated as such. I really can't say on the hd-dvd side, because I don't have it. I just don't know how a lossy codec would trump a lossless one.

"Lossy" simply means that the audible frequency range may have been altered or artifacts may have been introduced in the process of encoding. It is implied that if one used multiple "lossy" encodings on a signal, each iteration has the possibility of sounding worse than the last.

"Lossless" means that the audible frequency range should be identical to that of the original source. This does not mean the entire signal will actually be identical - for instance some lossless codecs will throw away everything over 19KHz because humans can't hear over 19KHz; so you will lose 19KHz - 24KHz, but it is still considered "lossless" because you can't hear those frequencies anyway. "Lossless" is also a relative term. It does not mean that the digital file is identical to the master - it just means it is encoded in an audibly identical fashion. Remember, when we are talking lossy vs. lossless we are simply referring to the encoding method - not that the output is necessarily identical to the original master. It is implied that if one used multiple lossless encodings, each iteration should sound identical to the original.

A "Lossy" codec could trump a "Lossless" one in the way I outlined above. While you are using more compression and more is being thrown away or combined in a "lossy" codec, if the most important parts of the signal (the ones you can easily hear) are superior to that of those same parts in the lossless signal then it is very possible the lossy version will sound better.

So, if you took a movie and encoded it with 24-bit DD+ lossy, the movie's audio would have a theoretical maximum Signal-to-Noise Ratio of 144db. Take the same movie and encode it with 16-bit PCM/DD+ Lossless as found on most HD DVD/BD releases, and your maximum Signal-to-Noise Ratio drops to 96db. While the 16-bit Lossless version is delivering an identical audible signal, it is delivering a signal with lower maximum quality identical audible signal than the 24-bit lossy version.

Here is an analogy that is extreme, but might get you thinking on the right track. Say you want to have a digital scan of a your photograph on your hard drive. Would you rather have a 256-color lossless TIFF, or a lossy JPG with a maximum of 16.7 million colors? While the TIFF is a lossless representation of the picture, it has significantly less maximum colors than the lossy JPG and hence looks worse.

This is similar to what may happen with 24-bit DD+ versus 16-bit PCM/DDTrueHD. Remember, lossless does not mean that the signal is identical to the master; it just means it is audibly identical to whatever quality the master is digitized at. If you took a 24-bit master and downconverted it to 8-bit audio (telephone quality) and then used TrueHD encoding or PCM encoding, it would still be considered lossless encoding even though it sounds horrible!

[ganthc]

Thanks, that is extremely helpful!

[Taxi]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Thanks, that is extremely helpful!

Um, actually, I don't think it is.

Lossy vs. lossless simply refers to the encoding algorithm used on the digital data. Lossless WILL give you the exact same bits back when you do the decode, when compared with the bits that you started with before the encode. If you've ever used a .zip file, then you're familiar with lossless encoding/decoding.

Ruined's examples seem a little too far-fetched to me. What he's essentially saying is that if you encoded a VHS tape with lossless, it would probably sound worse than if you encoded a CD with lossy. I don't really see how this is helpful, since I think you can at least assume that whoever is going to encode a soundtrack onto a digital disc is going to be using the same source material.

So, in real world examples, the only thing that you lose with lossless vs. lossy is storage space: lossless enconding simply makes larger encoded files. (In fact, in some cases, lossless encoding might make the file bigger.) But if space is no object, then lossless will always give you better output, assuming identical source files are used. (Whether or not the listener can percieve that better output is a matter for a different discussion. )


More info can be found here: Audio_data_compression^Wiki.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Um, actually, I don't think it is.

Lossy vs. lossless simply refers to the encoding algorithm used on the digital data. Lossless WILL give you the exact same bits back when you do the decode, when compared with the bits that you started with before the encode. If you've ever used a .zip file, then you're familiar with lossless encoding/decoding.

Ruined's examples seem a little too far-fetched to me. What he's essentially saying is that if you encoded a VHS tape with lossless, it would probably sound worse than if you encoded a CD with lossy. I don't really see how this is helpful, since I think you can at least assume that whoever is going to encode a soundtrack onto a digital disc is going to be using the same source material.

So, in real world examples, the only thing that you lose with lossless vs. lossy is storage space: lossless enconding simply makes larger encoded files. (In fact, in some cases, lossless encoding might make the file bigger.) But if space is no object, then lossless will always give you better output, assuming identical source files are used. (Whether or not the listener can percieve that better output is a matter for a different discussion. )


More info can be found here: Audio_data_compression^Wiki.

Well, the examples were not as useful as the explanation of the bits part. I wasn't sure about that part.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Taxi

Um, actually, I don't think it is.

Lossy vs. lossless simply refers to the encoding algorithm used on the digital data. Lossless WILL give you the exact same bits back when you do the decode, when compared with the bits that you started with before the encode. If you've ever used a .zip file, then you're familiar with lossless encoding/decoding.

That's not true. If you load up many lossless codecs in any sound editor and look at the waveform versus the original file you will find that it does *not* give you back the same bits as the original file. Many "lossless" codecs will actually throw away frequencies above 19khz, for example. ZIP files do not throw away anything, lossless codecs can and do. You can have both perceptual lossless encoding and mathematical lossless encoding, and both are considered lossless.

Ruined's examples seem a little too far-fetched to me. What he's essentially saying is that if you encoded a VHS tape with lossless, it would probably sound worse than if you encoded a CD with lossy. I don't really see how this is helpful, since I think you can at least assume that whoever is going to encode a soundtrack onto a digital disc is going to be using the same source material.

24-bit Lossy DD+ has a 1.5mbps bitrate. 16-bit TrueHD has a 1.5mbps bitrate. 16-bit PCM has a 4.2mbps bitrate. 24-bit TrueHD has a 3.8mbps bitrate. 24-bit PCM is like 8mbps IIRC.

While you may use the same source material, you are not necessarily using the same bit-resolution. You could for instance with the same 24-bit master make a 1.5mbps 24-bit DD+ track and also provide a 16-bit TrueHD track.

So, in real world examples, the only thing that you lose with lossless vs. lossy is storage space: lossless enconding simply makes larger encoded files. (In fact, in some cases, lossless encoding might make the file bigger.) But if space is no object, then lossless will always give you better output, assuming identical source files are used. (Whether or not the listener can percieve that better output is a matter for a different discussion. )

More info can be found here: Audio_data_compression^Wiki.

Not a good statement to make when bit budgets are involved. The fact is, a lossless 24-bit file takes up a crapload more than a 16-bit lossless file in both peak and average bitrate, so most studios are choosing to release 16-bit lossless files. Universal is choosing to release a 24-bit lossy file, which has a higher measurable SNR than aforementioned 16-bit lossless files. This is what I posted above, reread it

[ganthc]

I have to say that Universal has really come through lately on lossless tracks for its movies. A LOT of new releases now seem to have TrueHD tracks as well as the DD+ tracks. I am glad that Universal is starting to embrace lossless audio more frequently.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I have to say that Universal has really come through lately on lossless tracks for its movies. A LOT of new releases now seem to have TrueHD tracks as well as the DD+ tracks. I am glad that Universal is starting to embrace lossless audio more frequently.

I just received 3 catalog titles from them & all (to my surprise) have TrueHD tracks as well.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Derb

I just received 3 catalog titles from them & all (to my surprise) have TrueHD tracks as well.

Yea, it appears they're switching to Dolby TrueHD (Plus as well) on all upcoming titles.

[ganthc]

Really what this shows is that the studios are listening to their customers. Universal probably got a lot of feedback asking for lossless, and now they are responding with it. I know that Fox got a lot of criticism for highpriced movies with no extras on them. But their releases appear to have more features included on them. The security sticker issue has become a non factor, as all the newest movies I have bought only have the one sticker on top that is easy to remove and doesn't leave the nasty residue. I think that studios realize that they can't just skate by on their releases, and they are listening to us.

[Sehnzeleid]

I really don't see a reason not to. The new codecs and players (on both sides) are compatible with legacy equipment. I can see indie studios not using it all the time, but the majors have no excuse not to go lossless every time.