Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Home Theater A/V

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-07-07, 09:35 AM   #1
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

With this push for the highest resolution audio possible, I don't get what the point of multiple lossless codecs is.

Dobly True HD = losslessly compressed audio
DTS-HD MA = losslessly compressed audio
LPCM = lossless audio

It's all the same audio, right? 24-bit/96Hz or whatever (unless we're up to 32-bit and I never got the memo) and when it's decoded by the players and output as 5.1 LPCM audio...does it really matter? It's all the same audio losslessly compressed with a different codec to make it sound more impressive, correct?

Or am I missing something? Does DTS-HD MA really sound better than Dolby Tue HD and better than LPCM?
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 10:57 AM   #2
Ruined
Registered User
 
Ruined's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,447
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
Originally Posted by superklye
With this push for the highest resolution audio possible, I don't get what the point of multiple lossless codecs is.

Dobly True HD = losslessly compressed audio
DTS-HD MA = losslessly compressed audio
LPCM = lossless audio

It's all the same audio, right? 24-bit/96Hz or whatever (unless we're up to 32-bit and I never got the memo) and when it's decoded by the players and output as 5.1 LPCM audio...does it really matter? It's all the same audio losslessly compressed with a different codec to make it sound more impressive, correct?

Or am I missing something? Does DTS-HD MA really sound better than Dolby Tue HD and better than LPCM?
Okay, here we go. It is a bit confusing. First of all, you have to understand that there are three independent things we are talking about.

First, there is bit depth. This is in reference to your "24-bit" above. The common bit depths used these days are 16-bit, 20-bit, and 24-bit. The higher the bit depth, the higher the Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR). 16-bit is what CD uses and is generally the highest bit-depth people can actually discern a difference from. Meaning, most can tell the difference between 8bit/12bit and 16bit, however it is much harder to notice any difference between 16bit and 20bit/24bit. This is one of the reasons high bit depth formats like DVDAUDIO failed.

Second, there is sampling rate. This is in reference to your "48khz" above. The common sampling rates used these days are 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 88.2khz, and 96KHz. The higher the sampling rate, the higher the frequency range reproduced. If you divide the sampling rate in half, you get the frequency response range. So, a CD which uses 44.1khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 22khz. A DVD which uses 48khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 24khz. And, an HD DVD which uses a 96khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 48khz. But here is the kicker - humans can only hear up to around 18-19khz maximum and most speakers only reproduce up to 20-21khz. Therefore, it is pretty much accepted that sampling rates higher than 48KHz are pretty much a waste since we can't hear those frequencies and most speakers can't reproduce them anyway. Another reason why high sampling rate formats like DVDAUDIO failed.

Finally, there is compression and bitrate. This is where lossy and lossless audio comes in. Lossy compression means part of the original audible signal is thrown away, resulting in differences between the original master and the compressed final result; codecs that are lossy include Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, DTS, and DTS-HD.

Then there is lossless audio. There are two types of lossless audio, perceptual and mathematical. Companies generally do not reveal which type of lossless audio their codec is. Mathematical lossless means that there is no mathematical difference between the master and the compressed final result, if compared in a waveform they look the same. Perceptual lossless audio means that there is no audible difference between the master and the compressed final result, but if compared in a wave form they look different. For instance, if a codec threw away all frequencies above 20khz but kept everything below 20khz perfectly intact, it would be considered perceptually lossless since we cannot physically hear above 19khz. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are examples of lossless audio codecs.

Now here is the confusing part. Lossless does not mean you are necessarily getting the exact original master, because there may be some downconversion of the bit resolution prior to compression. Most movies have masters at 24bit/48khz, however for most lossless audio compressions the bit resolution is downconverted to 16-bit. Though we lose some SNR, generally we cannot tell the difference as mentioned before, and the lossless track ends up taking nearly half the space at 16bit compared to 24bit. All lossless means is that whatever you feed it, it will come out compressed the same. If you feed it crap and encode it losslessly, it will come out like crap because that is what you fed it - and the studio could still claim "lossless". Bitrate is basically the amount of space a soundtrack takes up per second. LPCM (which is not on HD DVD) is a huge bitrate hog taking up 3x as much space as a lossless TrueHD soundtrack at the same bit resolution/sampling rate with no difference in quality. DTS-HDMA is also inefficient compared to TrueHD, and can take up twice as much space as TrueHD with no difference in quality. Of the three lossless techniques, TrueHD takes up the least space by far and sounds identical to an uncompressed signal.

So, when you are talking about soundtracks on an HD DVD, the following are all possibilities:
16bit/48khz lossy (common, used by Warner often with DD+ at 640kbps bitrate)
16bit/48khz lossless (common, used by Warner often with TrueHD at 1.5mbps bitrate)
20bit/48khz lossy (common, used by Paramount with DTS-HD at 1.5mbps bitrate)
24bit/48khz lossy (common, used by Universal often with DD+ at 1.5mbps bitrate)
24bit/48khz lossless (less common, used by Universal with TrueHD at 2.8mbps bitrate)
24bit/96khz lossy (rare, used only by RnB Films on the HD DVD Chronos,


The best is probably the route Warner is going with 16bit/48khz lossless compressed as you get an efficient bitrate (1.5mbps) and one generally can't tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit anyway, so its not worth spending twice the space on a 24bit encode. 16bit/48khz is technically a bit better than CD quality, and for us CD has proved fantastic quality. And finally, compressed lossless is identical to uncompressed so there is no point wasting bitrate with uncompressed LPCM that takes up 3x as much space.

Finally in terms of codecs, in general it goes like this:

Audio quality (higher is better, < means greater/less than,<= means greater/less than or equal to, = means equal to)
DD <= DTS <= DD+ = DTS-HD < TrueHD = DTS-HDMA = LPCM (no compression)

Space taken up (higher is worse, < means greater/less than, <= means greater/less than or equal to, = means equal to)
DD <= DD+ = DTS = DTS-HD <= TrueHD < DTS-HDMA < LPCM (no compression)

So in terms of lossless codecs, TrueHD, DTS-HDMA, and LPCM all should sound identical since lossless implies audibly identical to the master being compressed from. However, though the three sound identical they all take up different amounts of space, with TrueHD being the most efficient, DTS-HDMA being in the middle, and LPCM being the biggest space hog.
__________________
We're all in it together.

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz CPU | Intel G965WH mobo | 8GB (4x2GB) DDR2-667mhz CAS5 RAM (1066MHz FSB) | BFG GeForce 285 GTX OC 1GB | Dell E228WFP 22" DVI-HDCP LCD Monitor | 1TB Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Main Drive | 500GBx2 Western Digital RE3 SATA2 Scratch Drives in RAID0 | Western Digital RE3 1TB SATA2 Media Drive | External 2TB Western Digital MyBook Backup Drive | Adaptec eSATA 3.0gbps PCI-E interface | Sandisk External 12-in-1 Flash Card Reader | LG GGC-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD writer | LG GGW-H20L HD DVD/BD reader, DVD/BD writer | Microsoft E4000 Ergonomic Keyboard | Logitech Trackman Wheel | Antec P182 ATX Case | Thermaltake ToughPower XT 850w modular PSU | KRK RP-8 Rokit Studio Monitors | Windows Vista Ultimate x64
Ruined is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 11:02 AM   #3
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Thanks for the in-depth info.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 11:26 AM   #4
evilchris
 
evilchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,411
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

BL00RAYS AHA sO MnAYA GIGABYETS SPACER hOG doESNT MAtQERR!!!!
__________________
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER][B][CENTER]--Communist Party of America--[/CENTER][/B]
evilchris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 01:53 PM   #5
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

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.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 01:58 PM   #6
evilchris
 
evilchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,411
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
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.
Beavis isn't smart enough to realize when I type like that I am trying to convey the intelligence of the average BD supporter.
__________________
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER][B][CENTER]--Communist Party of America--[/CENTER][/B]
evilchris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 02:31 PM   #7
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilchris
Beavis isn't smart enough to realize when I type like that I am trying to convey the intelligence of the average BD supporter.
Most of the people here don't seem to realize that. That's why I think it's so hilarious because I can't tell you how many conversations I've been in where they BD supporter was basically saying that nonsensical crap, just buying into the hype.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 07:47 PM   #8
CainSyris
This is MY boomstick!
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 179
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
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.
CainSyris is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 06-07-07, 08:39 PM   #9
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Thanks for spreading FUD and completely ignoring what my question was about.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-07, 09:16 PM   #10
evilchris
 
evilchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 4,411
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Could he make his blatant Sony fanboydom any LESS obvious? Hey Cain I challenge you to find ANY LPCM tracks on ANY BD with audio as good as the THD tracks on the Matrix Trilogy. You won't.
__________________
[CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
[/CENTER][B][CENTER]--Communist Party of America--[/CENTER][/B]
evilchris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-07, 06:55 AM   #11
superklye
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: MKE
Posts: 13,629
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthBeavis
Evil, if I have 5.1 speakers will I have any benefit from the advanced codecs?

Receiver: Onkyo 805
BR: PS3
HD DVD: 360 HDMI
Cable: Motorola 6412 III (think it only passes video over HDMI anyways I use optical for audio)
Why wouldn't you benefit?

The advanced codecs just allow for higher quality audio to be stored on disc with a smaller footprint than if they were raw, uncompressed LPCM audio.
superklye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-07, 01:07 PM   #12
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,869
Default Re: I guess I'm a tad confused (regarding lossless audio)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruined
Second, there is sampling rate. This is in reference to your "48khz" above. The common sampling rates used these days are 44.1KHz, 48KHz, 88.2khz, and 96KHz. The higher the sampling rate, the higher the frequency range reproduced. If you divide the sampling rate in half, you get the frequency response range. So, a CD which uses 44.1khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 22khz. A DVD which uses 48khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 24khz. And, an HD DVD which uses a 96khz sampling rate has a frequency response up to 48khz. But here is the kicker - humans can only hear up to around 18-19khz maximum and most speakers only reproduce up to 20-21khz. Therefore, it is pretty much accepted that sampling rates higher than 48KHz are pretty much a waste since we can't hear those frequencies and most speakers can't reproduce them anyway. Another reason why high sampling rate formats like DVDAUDIO failed.
Well, it really depends on the audio. The purpose behind 192khz audio for example, is to ensure that you are going to properly capture most of the crests and valleys of each soundwave. For 48khz to truly reproduce the original sound, (or at least, capture a sound wave that could reproduce the original via sinusoidal interpolation) you would have to work under the assumption that the frequency doesn't change much. For something like opera music (which is what most people consider to be the most pure,) 48khz just fine. But other types of music (e.g. rock, metal) you'll benefit from a higher sample rate. Though admittedly, you probably aren't going to notice a difference with the typical sub $1,000 sound setup that most people have at home.

Super Audio CD (different than DVDA) does the best job at digitally reproducing a proper sound wave, and if you have a proper sound system, you will notice the difference.
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.