Originally Posted by superklye
I don't get it...that is how the vast majority of idiot BD fans act. They go on and on about how BD is superior simply because it has almost twice the space of HD DVD, yet until recently, BD releases have sucked compared to their HD DVD counterparts.
They may have more space, but it is so mismanaged there's no point to it.
Ever heard of dialogue normalization problems on the Dolby TrueHD audio tracks on HD DVD's released by WB so far? Most agree this is why WB's HD DVD TrueHD releases have sounded inferior to the LPCM tracks on Blu-ray. You should ask Ruined about that before you let his long post convince you too much of the lack of difference between HD DVD's rendition of Dolby TrueHD and the Blu-ray usage of LPCM.
Kinda surprised he didn't bring it up. Why would that be, Ruin?
Of course, Sony's upcoming usage of Dolby TrueHD will lack this problem according to paidgeek (Sony insider) on AVS. They already knew better.
Anyway, one would think the fact that macroblocking is now being detected in HD DVD releases would lead one to question whether the bitrates being used for HD DVD are sufficient, but hey... I guess if your display is small enough, you won't notice it...
Hell, macroblocking on mpeg2 on BD25's at least made sense. Macroblocking on high-end HD DVD 30gigers using VC1?
But do yourself a favor and really research what the difference is. I wouldn't trust anyone who didn't explain why most who have both formats agree LPCM is superior (even if only by a smidgen) to TrueHD. If he didn't bother to mention that, then what ELSE doesn't he mention?
Or maybe he didn't know. I guess that's possible.
Sure, you can argue that's just a choice by WB and not indicative of the format, but ...it's indicative of all TrueHD on the format so far. So it might as well be for the moment.
I challenge anyone to find audio as good as The Prestige's 24bit LPCM on HD DVD. You won't.