Topic: High-Def FAQ: Blu-ray and HD DVD Audio Explained

[pchin]

Another great article from Joshua Zyber. It's very informative esp for those new HD fans that find the audio jargon a bit too complicated & confusing. Or simply anyone who wishes to refresh his memories or learn more on the various audio formats. 

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1064

Some excerpts for HD DVD audios:

Dolby Digital Plus
What it is: DD+ is the base standard audio format for HD DVD. The format can be encoded at bit rates of 640 kb/s (considered equivalent to Blu-ray's use of standard Dolby Digital at that same rate) or 1509 kb/s. However, note that although the latter version of DD+ shares the same bit rate as standard DTS Encore, this does not mean that these two are equivalent to one another. DD+ uses better encoding and more efficient compression to provide improved quality at the same rate. At least one professional Hollywood sound mixer has described Dolby Digital Plus at 1509 kb/s as audibly transparent to the studio master.

Level of support: All players are required to support Dolby Digital Plus.

Examples of discs that use it: Almost all domestic HD DVD releases. Discs from Warner Bros. default to the lower 640 kb/s rate, while those from Universal and Paramount tend to favor the higher 1509 kb/s (with some exceptions).

How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit DD+ in full quality. When using this connection method, the player will decode the DD+ and then transcode it to either standard Dolby Digital AC-3 or sometimes even DTS (depending on player model).
*HDMI - Almost all HD DVD players decode the DD+ track internally to PCM for transmission over HDMI. Some may transmit the DD+ bitstream to a receiver instead (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - In this case, the player decodes the DD+ track and converts it to analog. The quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality.

Dolby TrueHD
What it is: Once decoded, the lossless Dolby TrueHD format is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master.

Level of support: Support for TrueHD up to at least 2 channels is mandatory on all HD DVD players, but the majority will support it all the way to 5.1. Because there are rare cases of disc players that limit TrueHD to 2 channels (such as the LG model BH100), discs with TrueHD tracks must also contain a Dolby Digital Plus track for 5.1 compatibility.

Examples of discs that use it: '300', 'Superman Returns'.

How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit TrueHD in full quality. When using this connection method, the player will decode the TrueHD and then transcode it to either standard Dolby Digital AC-3 or possibly DTS (depending on player model).
*HDMI - Almost all HD DVD players decode the TrueHD track internally to PCM for transmission over HDMI. Some may transmit the TrueHD bitstream to a receiver instead (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - The player will decode the TrueHD track and convert it to analog.

DTS-HD Master Audio
What it is: The other losslessly compressed format, DTS-HD Master Audio is also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master once decoded (and hence identical to Dolby TrueHD). DTS-HD MA works in a core+extension configuration.

Level of support: Since the DTS-HD MA format is optional on HD DVD, players that don't support it will extract the standard DTS core.

Examples of discs that use it: Almost all HD DVDs released by Studio Canal in Europe.

How to get it:
*Toslink or Coaxial SPDIF - SPDIF cannot transmit DTS-HD MA in full quality. The player will extract the standard DTS core for transmission as a bitstream.
*HDMI - If the player does not support DTS-HD MA, it will extract the DTS core. Some players may decode the DTS-HD MA to PCM and transmit it over any version of HDMI. Other players may instead transmit the DTS-HD MA bitstream to a receiver for decoding (HDMI 1.3 required).
*Multi-channel analog - Either the HD DVD player will extract and decode the DTS core, or (on some models) will decode the full DTS-HD MA and convert it to analog.

[chuck427]

Great info Pchin..especially for people like me who are still starting off.. Thanks for the info!!! 

[pchin]

No problem chuck427. 

After reading the article, it does make us feel rushing out to search for the latest HDMI reserver that can decode all those gorgeous lossless audios...if only we had a money tree planted at our back yard.

[vtec3]

Thanks for the info pchin. Now i realize that I need to buy a lot more gears to maximize using this format  Like what you said if only there was a money tree at our backyard 

[MAtZTER]

You dont need the latest HDMI receiver when there is an analog option. As I read in other articles, its still the DVD player that decodes these formats through HDMI, not the receiver. So you are NOT missing the world of HD sound formats if you use analog to your older receiver (or previous versions of HDMI receivers).

No need for that money tree in your backyard. 

Just read the 3rd option available in "how to get it".

You may argue, "but HDMI is direct digital & not converted to analog, ergo better quality". Answer: Ask yourself: "Will you actually hear the difference?" 

[pchin]

True you don't need a HDMI receiver if your HD player is capable of multi-channel analog output & has the required built-in decorder. Also, if your existing receiver is compatible with MPCM

However, as of now NOT all HD players can decode ALL the mentioned audios while some can transmit the audio as bitstream for the receiver to decode.

[pchin]

You may argue, "but HDMI is direct digital & not converted to analog, ergo better quality". Answer: Ask yourself: "Will you actually hear the difference?" 

Yes, I believe there should be no difference. No matter if it's decoded inside the player or receiver, the audio still going tru the digital to analog process at some point & finally for amplification. 

Tho the quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality. But then again as MAtZTER says....can we actually hear the difference? 

[streetsmart]

Yes, I believe there should be no difference. No matter if it's decoded inside the player or receiver, the audio still going tru the digital to analog process at some point & finally for amplification. 

Tho the quality of the DACs in the player will determine the resulting sound quality. But then again as MAtZTER says....can we actually hear the difference? 

What I'm more interested in is if someone can tell me that there is a big difference in HD vs SD audio, based on his actual experience and maybe some kind of A-B test. I guess this would involve listening to the same audio track on HD and then on SD.

I seem to recall reading an article which said that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference ... but I'm not sure.

[pchin]

What I'm more interested in is if someone can tell me that there is a big difference in HD vs SD audio, based on his actual experience and maybe some kind of A-B test. I guess this would involve listening to the same audio track on HD and then on SD.

I seem to recall reading an article which said that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference ... but I'm not sure.

There are two types of HD audio, one that is lossy & the other is lossless. Based on my personal experience, the lossless audio does offer improvement. Music and dialogue will sound more clear and accurate, and greater dynamic punch of action sound effects. However, for the Transformers HD DVD, its lossy Dolby Digital Plus is encoded very well, thus resulting in high rating & can be considered as good as a lossless track (also resulted in never ending debate among fanboys & tech geeks).

The other objective of HD audio is to give better coverage throughout the living room, trying to eliminate any "holes" in the surround sound field esp the multichannel surround 7.1 tho it's not common at this point of time.

IMHO, whether there's a diference in HD vs SD, it will entirely depend on the HD disc source. In certain cases, yes you could hear the difference while in some you couldn't. But then again, you also need to consider the type of HT equipments used, if you have the "golden" or trained ears, room accoustic, etc.    

[streetsmart]

There are two types of HD audio, one that is lossy & the other is lossless. Based on my personal experience, the lossless audio does offer improvement. Music and dialogue will sound more clear and accurate, and greater dynamic punch of action sound effects. However, for the Transformers HD DVD, its lossy Dolby Digital Plus is encoded very well, thus resulting in high rating & can be considered as good as a lossless track (also resulted in never ending debate among fanboys & tech geeks).

The other objective of HD audio is to give better coverage throughout the living room, trying to eliminate any "holes" in the surround sound field esp the multichannel surround 7.1 tho it's not common at this point of time.

IMHO, whether there's a diference in HD vs SD, it will entirely depend on the HD disc source. In certain cases, yes you could hear the difference while in some you couldn't. But then again, you also need to consider the type of HT setup you use, if you have the "golden" or trained ears, etc.     

Since the time I made that post, I have read a lot more and I realize that I was referring to the "Deep Color" aspect of HD. Its highly debatable if anyone will be able to tell the difference between "Deep Color" and ordinary color.

With respect to the new audio formats of HD, particularly the lossless audio, there appears to be a consensus that there is definitely an improvement. I guess it's similar to the difference between ordinary CD and SACD, which is pretty huge.

The way I look at it, however, the only way you will really get the full benefit of lossless audio is if you upgrade both your DVD player and pre-pro:

1) Toshiba HD-A35 or equivalent which can pass lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
2) Denon AVR-2808 or equivalent which can receive lossless audio through HDMI 1.3

The other way to get it is through multi-channel analog but the problem is that, at least in my AVR, this kind of input (similar to SACD) is not processed by the AVR so you can't do any equalization or even bass management.

Bottom-line is that for the full benefit of lossless HD audio, you need an upgrade of around USD1,500. Am I right?

[MAtZTER]

I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.

IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.

Just my thoughts.

[streetsmart]

I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.

IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.

Just my thoughts.

Fully agree. It should be very similar to SACD vs ordinary CD. You need good speakers and power amps to hear the full benefit of SACD. But if you have a good system, the difference is like night and day.

My problem is that with SACD, you need to use the 5-channel analog inputs and when you do this, you can't use the equalization (or room correction) features of the pre-pro. That's a big thing. I'm pretty sure that the same is true with HD audio and that's why it will be best to let the pre-pro, not the player, decode the bitstream. But in order to do this, you need a BIG upgrade of DVD player and pre-pro (AVR). 

[jerix]

I would also add that if there is a difference in sonics, you have to own a really good setup to hear the full potential.

IMHO, I dont think an underpowered entry level receiver (specially future HTiB's w/ the new surround formats) will be capable of bringing out the full dynamics (as this requires power) of lossless tracks.

Just my thoughts.

Bro u r talking as if u dont own one of the best sounding setups here   However, if there are still better sound that you can hear from a "supposed to be" better setup, what quality of sound could that be? in one thread i ask, is there really a difference on the sound of a cracking gun or a crashing glass between, lets say a 100k HT setup and a million worth of HT setup?

[gearhead]

with a simple A-B test between DD and DD+, the problem i think is that we may not be comparing the same material. the DD+ might be re-authored already, or at least re-leveled, resampled, re-sweetened, etc... so it's not really a level playing field.  be that  as it may, if the reprocessing did make for better sonics, then it may be worth a revisit for the same title. still, i think most who will get a movie of the same title from their dvd collection will get it for the HD PQ and not really for DD+ SQ.

[streetsmart]

with a simple A-B test between DD and DD+, the problem i think is that we may not be comparing the same material. the DD+ might be re-authored already, or at lease re-leveled, re-sweetened, etc... so it's not really a level playing field.  be that  as it may, if the reprocessing did make for better sonics, then it may be worth a revisit for the same title. still, i think most who will get a movie of the same title from their dvd collection will get it for the HD PQ and not really for DD+ SQ.

Further to this post, the following article is incredibly interesting:

http://theaudiocritic.com/blog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=41&blogId=1

Basically, it states that a very recent extensive study concluded that SACD was not better than CD! This was in spite of the much higher bit-rate of SACD. As gearhead pointed out, the conclusion was that the apparent differences were due to the recording and production techniques. 

If this is true, then it should also hold true for HD audio.

[gearhead]

........ a very recent extensive study concluded that SACD was not better than CD! This was in spite of the much higher bit-rate of SACD. As gearhead pointed out, the conclusion was that the apparent differences were due to the recording and production techniques. 

If this is true, then it should also hold true for HD audio. 

i was actually about to say that. to quote on the highdefdigest article posted above:

Though it hasn't always panned out that way in actual practice, there is a perception in the DVD marketplace that DTS is the "better" sound option that will provide greater fidelity to the source. Sometimes that's true and sometimes not, but that's a discussion topic for another day. The reality of the situation is that both Dolby Digital and DTS are capable of delivering very good, sometimes even exceptional sound quality on DVD. 

there are DTS tracks that seems to be just slapped in there, just so they can put on the cover the DTS logo. so in practical terms, it's still how the soundtrack was authored which will determine how good the sound will be. all things being equal though, a less compressed material will be better than the more compressed one. but as with the CD and mp3 experience, you hit a wall after a certain bitrate where you will be hard-pressed to hear and say that the other one has higher or lower bitrate than the other.

[MAtZTER]

Bro u r talking as if u dont own one of the best sounding setups here   However, if there are still better sound that you can hear from a "supposed to be" better setup, what quality of sound could that be? in one thread i ask, is there really a difference on the sound of a cracking gun or a crashing glass between, lets say a 100k HT setup and a million worth of HT setup?

LOL, u made me blush  . But before I got to my current setup, I started with the cheapest receiver then constantly upgraded to a mid level ($1k) then a mid level receiver as pre/pro + power amps, then later an acoustically treated room. Also, w/ speakers, I started from Daiichi's & DQ12's to my current THX system. (modestly speaking, just to drive a point). I still retain an entry level setup in my bedroom so I could still differentiate the 2.

And with my journey through these different HT levels (wala pa ako sa high end), I can definitely answer YES there is a difference. from the klings & clangs of the HF to the loose or tight bass of a sub or a dramatic midrange that you could feel on your skin (& its not coming from the sub!) or a distorted gasping midrange. For me, HT is about good dynamics to get you drawn into the action. And to achieve a good level of it you need power. Thus I always promote "the more power, the better".

I would argue though that its easier to achieve to mid level from entry level (price/performance wise), as compared to going high end, as the price difference is too big, but the results arent too far from a mid end system. But thats just me, I havent dabbled in the high end yet admittedly.

More importantly, what I actually aim to point out is that there is no need to make a big fuss & drool over these new formats (and their marketing) that much or buy one immediately, unless of course you can easily afford it or its already the standard (cheap) format. as they need quite an investment, both in TV size & "more revealing audio gear" (as I read in this forum).

A shop owner was telling me about a guy who was boasting to him of his bluray setup. but the guy is using a 32" LCD, so the shop owner was just laughing at the boastful guy since he doubted the bluray difference can be seen on a 32" screen. The analogy is something like this for the audio side. I dont mean to offend anybody here please, just presenting some logical beliefs that may save some people a lot of money. 

[streetsmart]

A shop owner was telling me about a guy who was boasting to him of his bluray setup. but the guy is using a 32" LCD, so the shop owner was just laughing at the boastful guy since he doubted the bluray difference can be seen on a 32" screen. The analogy is something like this for the audio side. I dont mean to offend anybody here please, just presenting some logical beliefs that may save some people a lot of money. 

Nice point, Matt. To quote a relevant article from Home Theater Magazine:

"I've been saying it since the first 1080p displays hit the market: There's no need for 1080p on a screen smaller than 65 inches. Your eye just can't resolve that kind of detail at the distance just about everyone sits from their TV. Resoundingly, no one cared. Where that level of detail is really useful is with projection. With a screen of 90 or 100 inches, you can use every bit of detail you can get."

My bet is that if you've got a 42" screen, 720p is probably good enough and if your screen is 32", 480p may be alright.

Pero back to the topic, that's the reason why I was thinking that if I want to fully appreciate HD audio, I would need to go all the way and get the latest HD player and pre-pro technologies, which would cost a lot of money but might be worth it if you can really hear a big difference. However, as you may note in the latest posts, nagduda ako bigla. Kasi after all that gastos, baka naman wala talaga masyado difference. 

Kaya wait and see na lang muna. 

[pchin]

The way I look at it, however, the only way you will really get the full benefit of lossless audio is if you upgrade both your DVD player and pre-pro:

1) Toshiba HD-A35 or equivalent which can pass lossless audio through HDMI 1.3
2) Denon AVR-2808 or equivalent which can receive lossless audio through HDMI 1.3

I'd say this is certainly based on personal preference & financial resource, i.e. whether you intend/afford to have a high end system or mid-range, etc. It's a two separate matters: To be able to enjoy the lossless audio vs To get the full benefit of lossless audio.

Pero back to the topic, that's the reason why I was thinking that if I want to fully appreciate HD audio, I would need to go all the way and get the latest HD player and pre-pro technologies, which would cost a lot of money but might be worth it if you can really hear a big difference.

Yep if budget permits. I don't own a high-end system. Have neither high-end HD player nor pre-pro hardwares but I'm still able to enjoy the HD audio. However, I certainly would love to own those high-end pre-pro beauties in the not so distant future.

[MAtZTER]

Yep if budget permits. I don't own a high-end system. Have neither high-end HD player nor pre-pro hardwares but I'm still able to enjoy the HD audio. However, I certainly would love to own those high-end pre-pro beauties in the not so distant future.

You own a well powered mid end system Paul, and that is good enough to enjoy HD audio. I actually applaud your choice in going for a good receiver when you were starting your HD upgrades. It was a correct path IMhO to take by upgrading your gears. I am sure there is enough power & processing to reveal the differences of HD audio.

You dont need high end stuff to appreciate HD audio (thats going to extremes of the point being argued), just a well powered system is enough to reveal the dynamics & higher resolution of HDA.

I am just doubtful if the differences will be that obvious in a (future) HD audio enabled htib or a low powered setup. Again, I am not saying this to put down anybody, but to let readers think twice before just jumping to the bandwagon, spend a lot & then not hear a dramatic difference worthy of their investment.

If you got the extra dough then why not, go for it by all means. But if you got the extra dough (and want to hear a difference), think: why not invest more in your HT first?

[pchin]

Thanks Matt, I really appreciate all the advices you given to me in the past years & still have so much to learn pa. I still regret a bit for not getting the speakers suggested earlier due to budget concern. I recall you were saying if my AVR has pre-out then rejoice!

Your advice also included the importance of room/accoustic treatment which could be done within a small budget thus saved me lots of  dough! MAtt is indeed a great AV guru

[Moks007]

You own a well powered mid end system Paul, and that is good enough to enjoy HD audio. I actually applaud your choice in going for a good receiver when you were starting your HD upgrades. It was a correct path IMhO to take by upgrading your gears. I am sure there is enough power & processing to reveal the differences of HD audio.

I second to that, I heard Paul's system and this made me decide to upgrade on speakers and in the future a hdmi receiver..Room acoustics etc. ya they really make a difference. Really appreciate audio more now hehe..Its great we have this forum for a lot of info and lots of help from you guys. The problem lang is "gastos"..Ya these stuff is really putting a hole in my pocket..I can imagine those hi end stuff..If I can afford these and purchase these, my wife might divorce me na...

[streetsmart]

I think I need to explain myself better. It may also be time for a good summary.

Standard-definition DVD's have a limitation in the capacity of their discs. Therefore, the audio had to be compressed.

HD DVD has such a high capacity that it is even capable of storing the original non-compressed audio tracks. The assumption is that this will lead to higher audio quality - maybe broader frequency range, better separation, imaging, detail ... I don't know kasi di ko pa nga naririnig!

In order to hear this kind of difference (which can sometimes be subtle), as Matzter puts it, you will need a good set-up: equipment and acoustic treatment of your room. It doesn't have to be really high-end but definitely not just a typical HTIB.

In addition, in my experience, "room correction" technology (Audyssey, etc.) makes a huge difference as well. This will act as an equalizer to compensate for the specific characteristics of the room (and equipment!).

Here comes the problem - My understanding is that you can get HD audio either through:

1. The 5+1 analog channels feeding from your player to AVR, in which case the processing is done by the player or

2. Your HDMI 1.3 connection from player to AVR (in which case both the player and AVR must support HDMI 1.3, and there are very few of these equipment right now). Here, the player just transmits the bitstream to the AVR, which then does the processing.

What I have found is that when you use the 5+1 analog channels (as in SACD), the room equalization features of the AVR (and a lot of other audio processing features of the AVR) are disabled. I am afraid that without the room equalization feature, the audio may deteriorate, even if the audio tracks are non-compressed.

Therefore, my conclusion is that if your set-up has a room equalization feature, you should not use the analog channels. You have to use HDMI 1.3, in which case you will need the latest players and AVR's. Translation - more than P60,000 in equipment alone. If your AVR doesn't have room equalization or correction, maybe the analog channels will be fine.

All of this, however, is premised on the assumption that the non-compressed audio of HD will be of better quality than the compressed audio of DVD, and that a normal person can actually hear the difference! What really surprises me is the recent comprehensive study (link is posted earlier) which claims that people cannot hear the difference between SACD (very high bit-rate) and ordinary CD (relatively low bit-rate). That seems to be pretty analogous to HD audio vs. SD audio. I guess that unless there is a similar study out there for HD audio, the jury is still out on whether or not HD audio really makes a big difference.

As gearhead put it, there is no doubt that there is a huge difference in pq with HD. With regard to audio, however, I am not yet sure. Maybe ...

[MAtZTER]

YW Paul. Its always pleasure to help & share my experiences. What I enjoy in my setup, I would love others in this hobby to enjoy too. 

The problem lang is "gastos"..Ya these stuff is really putting a hole in my pocket..

I've been having a hole in my pocket since I started this hobby & I cant seem to sew it up..

You just have to keep the "gastos" into perspective to your wife:

1.) you dont need to go to a moviehouse anymore
2.) I believe the THRILL & number of hours you spend on a good, well executed setup is worth its cost. Easy come easy go, others assemble a poorly executed setup & are not captivated in HT or music & they retire early & sell their stuff at the B&S. Unlike a good setup that can really captivate you in HT & music for a long time & mas sulit ROI mo!
3.) You are always at home w/ your family
4.) No more time & specially money to ever think of spending on other vices like women...

I guess #4 is always a good punch line for our wives.

[MAtZTER]

. Translation - more than P60,000 in equipment alone.

 I guess that unless there is a similar study out there for HD audio, the jury is still out on whether or not HD audio really makes a big difference.

Sir naman kayo pa! Kayang kaya nyo yang 60k na yan!

I am sure there will be a difference in sound, whether its big or small, the question for budget conscious people like me is:

Is it worth spending 60k for?  (software not included)

[jerix]

It seems that in the world of audio technical measurements draw most of the conclusions of what is good, better and best. But i think it is correct that most of the time our ears may not even appreciate such differences. The appreciation changes however, when listener learns of the technical representations or the measurements. Thats the influence of the mind  

[streetsmart]

Sir naman kayo pa! Kayang kaya nyo yang 60k na yan!

I am sure there will be a difference in sound, whether its big or small, the question for budget conscious people like me is:

Is it worth spending 60k for?  (software not included)

Matt .. I don't like to throw away money! If I am confident that there will be a discerible improvement, okay lang yun. I note that you say you are sure there will be a difference but that's also what I thought about SACD, which is a much older technology and received huge rave reviews. Yet, the latest findings seem to point out that wala naman pala "discernible" difference ang SACD vs CD when subjected to a blind test. That's why I am not sure anymore.  Meanwhile, wait na muna ako.

Kaya nga tama rin si jerix .. When you are aware that you are listening to an "uncompressed" audio track which is equal to the original master, wow! Yet, baka pareho lang yun sa compressed audio track insofar as actual listening is concerned. 

[MAtZTER]

Yep, analog or digital, compressed or uncompressed, it may all just be marketing gimmicks set to make people drool & most specially part with their hard earned cash, whether they hear the difference or not.

I was actually anal about the whole compressed/uncompressed, digital/analog concept when I was talking to an old fellow member & good friend who knows tons about HT (he started his HT in the 90's) . His response was very simple:

"Will you hear the difference?" (thus I echoed his question here in my first reply in this thread)

I had an epiphany after that & realized it must be the marketing going into my head. 

Who knows? the difference might be staggering.

Will I embrace the whole thing? My answer is Yes... but when they dont cost a 60k upgrade anymore...

As of now I really have no complaints w/ my SD DVDs & compressed analog sound

[streetsmart]

Who knows? the difference might be staggering.

Yup! Except that we will never know that till we actually get the equipment and software upgrades. Chicken and egg. 

Siguro, konting tukso na lang at bibilhin ko na rin para masubukan lang. 

[gearhead]

amen to the gurus.