Dolby vs DTS vs PCM-LPCM?

digitalvideo

With Bluray it seems the studios can choose which audio format they want to be put on the bluray disc. I notice some bluray movies have Dolby, some have DTS and some have PCM-LPCM. Any big differences between these in sound quality?

Also, why does it take so many years for movies to be filmed in 5.1 to 7.1? I do believe it has to do with how much room and spacing is on the 35mm film strip.

kuntasensei

First, lossless is lossless. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-Master Audio are designed to produce the same sound as the uncompressed PCM. Think of it compressing a file into .ZIP format on your computer. It makes it smaller... but after decompression, the file is the same. The same goes here. All things being equal, the container just produces the lossless sound. None of them should sound better than the other, and anyone who tells you they can hear a difference is kidding themselves. LOSSLESS = LOSSLESS.

7.1 is a home theater conceit. Theaters don't need it because they use arrays of speakers on the side and rear walls. The rears are typically fed using Dolby EX. So why do we have 7.1 when the actual audio data is typically 5.1 with a rear channel matrixed into the surrounds? Because single point sources directly behind the listener have a tendency to create a perceived reversal in sound, making them sound like the audio is coming from in front of you instead.

There are several ways around this reversal issue:
1) Stick to 5.1. With proper speaker placement, the matrixed audio in the surround channels will phantom image behind you anyway.

2) Dolby Pro-Logic IIx Music mode on a 6.1 channel setup. DPL-IIx Music creates the rear channel from the matrixed audio in the surrounds in much the same way as Dolby EX does, but during the steering, it leaves part of that rear-channel audio in the left and right surrounds in varying increments. Because of this, the perceived reversal is defeated because the audio is being produced by multiple point sources.

3) Dolby Pro-Logic IIx Movie on 7.1 systems. With two rear speakers, audio placed directly behind the listener doesn't suffer from perceived reversal because the sound is being produced by multiple point sources in equal amounts, making it image directly behind you. For this same reason, DPL-IIx Movie is able to steer audio more precisely across the rear soundstage based on the level and phase of the audio data encoded in the 5.1 bitstream, effectively recreating the sound of an array system.

4) Discrete 7.1 soundtracks. Movies are mixed theatrically for 5.1, with matrixed rears kept in mind since all the mixer has to do is place those sounds equally and in-phase in the surround channels (or out of phase to make them diffuse, in which case EX leaves them in the side surrounds - or in the case of DPL-IIz, can steer that out-of-phase data to the height channels for diffuse ambient playback). Most so-called 7.1 discrete soundtracks are basically created from the 5.1 mix using steering processing (such as DPL-IIx, etc.) to create the rear channel data, then encode fully discrete channels to the bitstream. The end result is essentially the same, which is why 7.1 is so effective if you have the room to properly place the speakers, even when listening to 5.1 tracks and using matrix schemes to create the rear surrounds.

So why aren't movies done in 7.1 in the theater? There's no need to, because the large space and use of speaker arrays makes it unnecessary. Meanwhile, home 7.1 technologies such as DPL-IIx can help to recreate the sound created by a theatrical array system with far fewer speakers, making it easier to get cinema sound in the home.

digitalvideo

kuntasensei have you heard about this? NHK Broadcasting of Japan has been developing the next standard of HD which is Ultra High Definition for broadcast in 22.2 surround sound and in 8k content 7,680 x 4,320 (16:9) which will be available in the next 25 to 30 years from now on broadcast, but possibly tv's will be able to have that technology sooner in the next generation of tv's and on the next generation of CD that replaces bluray. They're testing filming and recording movies and tv shows in 22.2 surround sound with new experimental microphones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surround_sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090422/169150/

http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/...shes_surround/

digitalvideo

Do you think Hollywood studios will film and record movies using this technology "some day" and how would they fit this new technology on the 35mm film strip?

danz1906

Out of the 3 hi-rez audio formats, the Uncompressed seems to sound the best in
term of wildness of sound.It seems to be more discrete,I know Lossless=Lossless.

cnh

I think the day of the Filmstrip are numbered....and Digital projectors will become the norm...no need to fit it on a 35 or even 70mm strip.

Nice discussion by kuntasensei above!

cnh

kevhed72

kuntasensei wrote: »

There are several ways around this reversal issue:
1) Stick to 5.1. With proper speaker placement, the matrixed audio in the surround channels will phantom image behind you anyway.

Couple of questions...is this why you would want a decent bipole/dipole speaker for the rears. Even though my room is pretty large, I keep going back and forth on whether it is 'worth it' to run wire and buy additional speakers for a 7.1 setup.

And knowing what motivates movie corporations, will many movies ever be available w/ 7.1 sound, seeing as I guess it would be an added expense to home movie production...

digitalvideo

cnh wrote: »

I think the day of the Filmstrip are numbered....and Digital projectors will become the norm...no need to fit it on a 35 or even 70mm strip.

Nice discussion by kuntasensei above!

cnh

I agree with part of that. Digital HD cameras will become more popular among Hollywood studios and directors because they are much cheaper to film a movie where as a Panavision and Arri film camera can cost in the millions to film a 2 hour movie to just use their cameras, so it benefits small low budget film makers and amateurs, plus the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was shot using a HD digital camera. But traditionalists and most studios and Steven Speildberg and many other high profile directors say they would never stop using film. IMAX will be used more often and that is a 75mm film camera.

Now when it comes to picture quality once converted over to 1080p in Bluray the debate begins on which format once coverted to 1080p is a better picture when you watch it at home on your display. From everything I read from wikipedia and directors, visual experts, they say that movies filmed using 35mm film and 75mm IMAX film produces a superior image once that film strip is converted over to 1080p Bluray through the MPEG-4 AVC process, it gives it a more natural real theater like image, more life like which the director and cinematographer envisioned. When you shoot an entire movie using an HD digital camera and when they convert that image through the MPEG-4 AVC process onto Bluray 1080p the image looks more robotic, very digital and not life like. Even film that is 80 years old can still be converted better than an HD digital source. Film is superior in picture quality from everything I have read. A movie filmed in 75mm IMAX camera will produce a better picture than any HD digital camera can. I plagiarized everything above from quotes taken from directors and visual artists.

Sources: "Digital versus film photography"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

digitalvideo

For example look at the movies The Godfather, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Master And Commander, No Country For Old Men, Iron Man, all those movies according to the experts at www.blu-ray.com produce the best picture when watched on display in 1080p and all those movies were shot using 35mm film. The movie Batman Dark Knight was filmed partly in 35mm film and 75mm IMAX film and the IMAX action scenes are even more amazing once that film is converted through the Bluray 1080p MPEG-4 AVC process. So HD digital cameras used to shoot movies is too amatuerish for me. Leave the little HD Digital cameras to the high school and college students.

kuntasensei

digitalvideo wrote: »

kuntasensei have you heard about this? NHK Broadcasting of Japan has been developing the next standard of HD which is Ultra High Definition for broadcast in 22.2 surround sound and in 8k content 7,680 x 4,320 (16:9) which will be available in the next 25 to 30 years from now on broadcast, but possibly tv's will be able to have that technology sooner in the next generation of tv's and on the next generation of CD that replaces bluray. They're testing filming and recording movies and tv shows in 22.2 surround sound with new experimental microphones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surround_sound

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_H...finition_Video

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english...090422/169150/

http://broadcastengineering.com/mag/...shes_surround/

I've heard about that for a while now, but the question is whether it's a solution without a problem. I doubt you'll see many theaters jumping to spend the money to go that route, and considering how slow Hollywood is to jump on any new tech, you're not going to see anyone spend the extra money to step up if there's no theatrical support for it anyway. Most end users are happy with the theatrical experience the way it is (though I think we can all agree that $5 for a large drink is basically anal rape).

digitalvideo

kuntasensei wrote: »

I've heard about that for a while now, but the question is whether it's a solution without a problem. I doubt you'll see many theaters jumping to spend the money to go that route, and considering how slow Hollywood is to jump on any new tech, you're not going to see anyone spend the extra money to step up if there's no theatrical support for it anyway. Most end users are happy with the theatrical experience the way it is (though I think we can all agree that $5 for a large drink is basically anal rape).

I agree, most movie theaters in the U.S. and around the world still use projectors instead of digital. It doesn't bother me if theaters all start using digital projectors, I just don't want to see directors stop filming their movies with film. They need to stick to filming movies with 35mm and 75m IMAX film and convert it later on digitally instead of filming movies with digital cameras. Watch the movie Iron Man, Dark Knight, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind on bluray (all filmed using Panavision 35mm film) and compare it to Slumdog Millionaire on bluray (filmed using digital camera) and you'll see what I mean. Also James Cameron's new movie "Avatar" was filmed using IMAX 75mm film in 3D, beats anything a digital camera can do.

When it comes to how slow the Hollywood industry is to change on some things like advancing from 3.1 to 5.1 to 7.1 in sound they tend to drag their knuckles. I do believe the first movie ever filmed in 5.1 was Apocalypse Now in the mid 1970's and the industry has stuck with it for 30+ years while visual image continues to make big strides in advancement. In "motion picture" industry it seems visual technology is always 10 to 20 years ahead of sound recording technology. First ever motion picture movies were filmed with no sound.

kuntasensei

kevhed72 wrote: »

Couple of questions...is this why you would want a decent bipole/dipole speaker for the rears. Even though my room is pretty large, I keep going back and forth on whether it is 'worth it' to run wire and buy additional speakers for a 7.1 setup.

And knowing what motivates movie corporations, will many movies ever be available w/ 7.1 sound, seeing as I guess it would be an added expense to home movie production...

As to whether you should use bipoles in the rear, that's a matter of personal preference. I run 2 RTi28s for my rears, but I could see the appeal of using bipoles in the rear for a larger room because it would basically mimic an array. You would not want to use dipoles behind you because dipoles need to be in-line with your ears on the sides to provide their diffuse sound.

As to whether it's worth it to go 7.1, that's a subject of much discussion as well. Purists will tell you that 5.1 is good enough. Then you'll have people tell you that unless you can set the rear surrounds up exactly per Dolby's prescribed angles, you should just stick with 5.1 instead. In my case, I toyed with multiple placements until I found the best imaging between my side surrounds and rears, which ended up putting my rears kind of half-way between Dolby's prescribed angles and THX's placement of the two rear channels close to each other. In my case, it was definitely worth it (especially for video games) because I get very precise steering across the rear soundstage and it sounds remarkably like I have an array of speakers around me like a theater does. If you already have the AVR for it, I say snag yourself a cheap roll of speaker wire, pick up a pair of Monitor 30s from Newegg for like $90, string the wire across the room and see what you think. At worst, you won't like it and you can sell off the Monitor 30s and only be out a little bit of money. At best, you'll love how it sounds and decide it's worth properly running the wires (in which case you'll likely discover that those Monitor 30s are just fine for rear surround duty anyway).

And as to whether movies will ever be done in 7.1, as I explained before, there's no need. 7.1 is required in the home to properly recreate the 5.1 + matrixed rears of a theater, but this can be achieved through steering methods such as DPL-IIx Movie instead of discrete 7.1 soundtracks. Because the mixers are doing their mixes for theatrical setups, they already place sounds intended to be behind you in both surround channels, so that they'll either phantom image in 5.1 equipped theaters or play back in the rear speaker array in theaters equipped with Dolby EX. In that sense, every mix done today for the theater is being properly done for playback on a 7.1 system in the home. In the home, 7.1 setups strive to recreate the theatrical sound. 6.1 Dolby EX setups in the home suffered from an issue where a single channel behind you can be perceived as coming from in front of you because of the way our ears and brains process single close-proximity sources of audio directly behind us. Putting 2 rear channels and steering the audio in varying increments between the 4 surround speakers eliminates this reversal effect, since audio from multiple point sources in a small space don't have that issue. Let's be clear: 7.1 only exists to provide enough speakers to recreate the large theater sound of multi-speaker arrays in a smaller home theater sized space.

kuntasensei

digitalvideo wrote: »

I agree, most movie theaters in the U.S. and around the world still use projectors instead of digital. It doesn't bother me if theaters all start using digital projectors, I just don't want to see directors stop filming their movies with film. They need to stick to filming movies with 35mm and 75m IMAX film and convert it later on digitally instead of filming movies with digital cameras. Watch the movie Iron Man, Dark Knight, Close Encounters Of The Third Kind on bluray (all filmed using Panavision 35mm film) and compare it to Slumdog Millionaire on bluray (filmed using digital camera) and you'll see what I mean. Also James Cameron's new movie "Avatar" was filmed using IMAX 75mm film in 3D, beats anything a digital camera can do.

When it comes to how slow the Hollywood industry is to change on some things like advancing from 3.1 to 5.1 to 7.1 in sound they tend to drag their knuckles. I do believe the first movie ever filmed in 5.1 was Apocalypse Now in the mid 1970's and the industry has stuck with it for 30+ years while visual image continues to make big strides in advancement. In "motion picture" industry it seems visual technology is always 10 to 20 years ahead of sound recording technology. First ever motion picture movies were filmed with no sound.

Well, digital technology has advanced quite a bit in recent times. In particular, I've found that movies shot with the Red One digital cameras seem to translate pretty damn well to Blu-ray and retain a lot of the characteristics of film. Check out the Blu-ray of KNOWING or the upcoming DISTRICT 9 for good examples. I do agree that film still has its place, but as digital technology and post-processing improves, I think you're going to see the use of film gradually taper off because of the added expense. No sense having a film negative intermediary, only to scan it in to do effects then print it back out to film again.

Cameron's Avatar most certainly DOES NOT use film, and definitely does not use 75mm IMAX. It uses the PACE Fusion 3-D, an all-digital 3D setup designed by Cameron and cinematographer Vince Pace (which has been used for several movies now and is also being used for the upcoming Tron Legacy). Their all-digital system allows them to use a virtual production studio in real-time (developed by visual effects artist Robert Legato), enabling them to see rough backgrounds on the monitor when shooting against green-screen. Basically, it lets them see the pre-viz visuals as they shoot so they can better integrate the live action with the CGI (which is one of the reasons Avatar is so revolutionary and is getting so much attention from other directors).

As for the history of surround in the theater, there have been many attempts at it over time in varying formats, though the movie that standardized digital 5.1 for theaters as we know it today was actually Batman Returns in 1992. When you consider that there haven't been any significant improvements other than Dolby EX, SDDS and DTS-ES in the theater since then, it's obvious that Hollywood and theaters aren't in a rush to improve on what's already a pretty solid system.

digitalvideo

kuntasensei wrote: »

Well, digital technology has advanced quite a bit in recent times. In particular, I've found that movies shot with the Red One digital cameras seem to translate pretty damn well to Blu-ray and retain a lot of the characteristics of film. Check out the Blu-ray of KNOWING or the upcoming DISTRICT 9 for good examples. I do agree that film still has its place, but as digital technology and post-processing improves, I think you're going to see the use of film gradually taper off because of the added expense. No sense having a film negative intermediary, only to scan it in to do effects then print it back out to film again.

Cameron's Avatar most certainly DOES NOT use film, and definitely does not use 75mm IMAX. It uses the PACE Fusion 3-D, an all-digital 3D setup designed by Cameron and cinematographer Vince Pace (which has been used for several movies now and is also being used for the upcoming Tron Legacy). Their all-digital system allows them to use a virtual production studio in real-time (developed by visual effects artist Robert Legato), enabling them to see rough backgrounds on the monitor when shooting against green-screen. Basically, it lets them see the pre-viz visuals as they shoot so they can better integrate the live action with the CGI (which is one of the reasons Avatar is so revolutionary and is getting so much attention from other directors).

As for the history of surround in the theater, there have been many attempts at it over time in varying formats, though the movie that standardized digital 5.1 for theaters as we know it today was actually Batman Returns in 1992. When you consider that there haven't been any significant improvements other than Dolby EX, SDDS and DTS-ES in the theater since then, it's obvious that Hollywood and theaters aren't in a rush to improve on what's already a pretty solid system.

I stand corrected on Avatar, I read that they used IMAX cameras, but I guess they don't.

But when it comes to filming any movie, I prefer film over digital camera, film still produces a better more life like picture once converted through the MPEG-4 AVC process than a digital disc does.

Films and prints, processed and stored in ideal conditions, may remain substantially unchanged for more than 100 years. Gold or platinum toned prints may have a lifespan limited by that of the base material. The archival potential of digital photographs is less well understood because digital media has only existed for 50 years. Three issues are involved for archival storage: physical stability of the recording medium, future readability of the storage medium and future readability of the file formats used for storage. Many types of digital media are not capable of storing data for prolonged periods of time. Magnetic disks and tapes may lose their data after twenty years, flash memory cards even less. Good quality optical media may be the most durable storage media for digital data.

Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people have come to admire, this may be the result of general associations to the time-honoured tradition of motion pictures being shot on film. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.

Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image.

Well-shot, well-lit images from high-end digital cinematography cameras can look almost eerily clean. Some people believe this makes them look "plasticky" or computer-generated, while others find it to be an interesting new look, and argue that film grain can be emulated in post-production if desired.

Since most theatrical exhibition still occurs via film prints, the super-clean look of digital acquisition is often lost before moviegoers get to see it, because of the grain in the film stock of the release print.

digitalvideo

This is off topic but I would hope that more directors do not go down the "Avatar" route and sellout like Cameron did regardless of what type of camera is used. CGi is an intellectually lazy way to make a movie and is fine for teenagers who want to see silly things like comic book characters bounce from one skyscrapper to the next with fake explosions, I prefer more real action like Mad Max The Road Warrior which uses real stunt men and real stunts and real cars and real explosions, but there is nothing intellectual for thinking people as arrogant as that sounds with CGi. It's ok to have "some" movies with CGi but Hollywood needs to get back to making "real" movies because there is a large portion of the population that isn't going to the theaters to see these movies and it's not about price. An example, the most popular shows on tv where people are willing to stay at home and watch tv instead of going to the movies is the popularity of shows like "CSI" and "NCIS" and "Law And Order" "ER" which are the highest rated shows a week according to Neilson ratings. Anywhere from 20 million to 65 million people will watch one eposide of CSI, NCIS, Law And Order, that is more than the amount of people who go to 90% of the movies Hollywood puts out. Most people prefer a very well written, real life, real drama, action show/movie over the teenage CGi nonsense as millions of people still prefer to watch The Godfather for the 500th time on AMC with commercial instead of going to see video games at the movies.

kuntasensei

I agree that a lot of people abuse CGI now, much as they do with any emerging technology. I just don't think Cameron is one of them. Look at the CGI work he used in Titanic. You can hardly call him a "sell-out", because what Cameron does is totally AGAINST the Hollywood system and is always a HUGE risk for the studios.

Avatar is unique in that he was specifically waiting to make this movie until the technology existed to pull it off. Cameron is unique as a filmmaker because with his background in effects, if the technology doesn't exist to do something in his imagination, he develops it. Take a look at what he did with Terminator 2 and The Abyss. Those two movies were revolutionary for their use of CGI to show things they could never have done with practical effects.

In the same way, Cameron continues to innovate with Avatar, which is why so many directors have visited his set. With the systems he and his crew have developed for the movie, he can take a green screen set, shoot it digitally, and see a fairly accurate visualization of the virtual space in real-time. So if his actors are supposed to be in a spaceship, he can run circles around those actors with the camera and the monitor will show the virtual set behind them from any angle he moves the camera. Additionally, they've developed a more advanced infrared method of doing the motion capture for the CGI characters. While you might think that's "intellectually lazy", I think it's what makes James Cameron a genius - the ability and drive to create new technologies to present sights previously unable to be shown in the cinema. The guy doesn't fall back on CGI to do things cheaper - he develops new ways to do CGI so he can achieve the vision he has in his mind. And every time the guy comes up with something new, it becomes widely used by other filmmakers after him, which I expect to happen with the tech developed for Avatar.

cheddar

digitalvideo wrote: »

I stand corrected on Avatar, I read that they used IMAX cameras, but I guess they don't.

But when it comes to filming any movie, I prefer film over digital camera, film still produces a better more life like picture once converted through the MPEG-4 AVC process than a digital disc does.

Films and prints, processed and stored in ideal conditions, may remain substantially unchanged for more than 100 years. Gold or platinum toned prints may have a lifespan limited by that of the base material. The archival potential of digital photographs is less well understood because digital media has only existed for 50 years. Three issues are involved for archival storage: physical stability of the recording medium, future readability of the storage medium and future readability of the file formats used for storage. Many types of digital media are not capable of storing data for prolonged periods of time. Magnetic disks and tapes may lose their data after twenty years, flash memory cards even less. Good quality optical media may be the most durable storage media for digital data.

Film has a characteristic grain structure, which many people have come to admire, this may be the result of general associations to the time-honoured tradition of motion pictures being shot on film. Different film stocks have different grain, and cinematographers may use this for artistic effect.

Digitally acquired footage lacks this grain structure. Electronic noise is sometimes visible in digitally acquired footage, particularly in dark areas of an image or when footage was shot in low lighting conditions and gain was used. Some people believe such noise is a workable aesthetic substitute for film grain, while others believe it has a harsher look that detracts from the image.

Well-shot, well-lit images from high-end digital cinematography cameras can look almost eerily clean. Some people believe this makes them look "plasticky" or computer-generated, while others find it to be an interesting new look, and argue that film grain can be emulated in post-production if desired.

Since most theatrical exhibition still occurs via film prints, the super-clean look of digital acquisition is often lost before moviegoers get to see it, because of the grain in the film stock of the release print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

You know, if all you're going to do is cut and paste whole sections of wikipedia, the least you could do is post a link or quote the source instead of trying to pass it off as an actual discussion you're trying to have...

kuntasensei

Ouch... good catch, cheddar.

digitalvideo

cheddar wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

You know, if all you're going to do is cut and paste whole sections of wikipedia, the least you could do is post a link or quote the source instead of trying to pass it off as an actual discussion you're trying to have...

Read the last sentence of my paragraph:

digitalvideo wrote: »

I agree with part of that. Digital HD cameras will become more popular among Hollywood studios and directors because they are much cheaper to film a movie where as a Panavision and Arri film camera can cost in the millions to film a 2 hour movie to just use their cameras, so it benefits small low budget film makers and amateurs, plus the movie "Slumdog Millionaire" was shot using a HD digital camera. But traditionalists and most studios and Steven Speildberg and many other high profile directors say they would never stop using film. IMAX will be used more often and that is a 75mm film camera.

Now when it comes to picture quality once converted over to 1080p in Bluray the debate begins on which format once coverted to 1080p is a better picture when you watch it at home on your display. From everything I read from wikipedia and directors, visual experts, they say that movies filmed using 35mm film and 75mm IMAX film produces a superior image once that film strip is converted over to 1080p Bluray through the MPEG-4 AVC process, it gives it a more natural real theater like image, more life like which the director and cinematographer envisioned. When you shoot an entire movie using an HD digital camera and when they convert that image through the MPEG-4 AVC process onto Bluray 1080p the image looks more robotic, very digital and not life like. Even film that is 80 years old can still be converted better than an HD digital source. Film is superior in picture quality from everything I have read. A movie filmed in 75mm IMAX camera will produce a better picture than any HD digital camera can. I plagiarized everything above from quotes taken from directors and visual artists.

Sources: "Digital versus film photography"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

digitalvideo

kuntasensei thanks for the info, I learned a lot. I'll give Avatar a try and check it out at the theaters even though it doesn't look like my type of movie. Will I be able to see it in 3D at home on my current plasma if I get 3D glasses?

cheddar

digitalvideo wrote: »

I plagiarized everything above from quotes taken from directors and visual artists.

Sources: "Digital versus film photography"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

Should have said you were going to plagiarize above, below, and anywhere else you couldn't think of anything intelligent to say in response to kuntasensei's posts. In grown up discussions, people expect that people say what they are thinking. Not just creating almost an entire thread out of cutting and pasting random sections of wikipedia. If it's some bizarre game you get off on. Carry on. I'm not really interested in anything more you have to say.

jso

wow, interesting thread. Thanks kuntasensei for sharing!

I don't have BluRay, and I'm new to HT. I'll only add that for 2-channel sources (cable TV, PCM, FM radio, etc) I much prefer 5-channel stereo mode over Dolby Pro Logic II or DTS Neo. Granted, I only have mains and a center, so take it for what it's worth, but I strongly suspect if I ever get rears I'd still prefer full stereo. The other modes keep too much of the sound in the center which sounds quite inferior to me, for both music and TV/movies.

For 5.1 TV/movie sources I use THX mode as it sounds a little better than Dolby Digital mode. And definitely better than full stereo. But for music DVDs with both PCM and 5.1, I find that I prefer PCM in full stereo mode, even compared to DTS. (I recently tried all 3 on the remastered "Song Remains the Same" DVD).

digitalvideo

cheddar wrote: »

Should have said you were going to plagiarize above, below, and anywhere else you couldn't think of anything intelligent to say in response to kuntasensei's posts. In grown up discussions, people expect that people say what they are thinking. Not just creating almost an entire thread out of cutting and pasting random sections of wikipedia. If it's some bizarre game you get off on. Carry on. I'm not really interested in anything more you have to say.

I hope the mods shut this thread down so cheddar doesn't ruin this one and turn it into 8 pages of back and forth **** for tat who can get the last word juvenile nonsense. So mods please do your thing!

Bernal

kuntasensei wrote: »

First, lossless is lossless. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-Master Audio are designed to produce the same sound as the uncompressed PCM. Think of it compressing a file into .ZIP format on your computer. It makes it smaller... but after decompression, the file is the same. The same goes here. All things being equal, the container just produces the lossless sound. None of them should sound better than the other, and anyone who tells you they can hear a difference is kidding themselves. LOSSLESS = LOSSLESS.

7.1 is a home theater conceit. Theaters don't need it because they use arrays of speakers on the side and rear walls. The rears are typically fed using Dolby EX. So why do we have 7.1 when the actual audio data is typically 5.1 with a rear channel matrixed into the surrounds? Because single point sources directly behind the listener have a tendency to create a perceived reversal in sound, making them sound like the audio is coming from in front of you instead.

There are several ways around this reversal issue:
1) Stick to 5.1. With proper speaker placement, the matrixed audio in the surround channels will phantom image behind you anyway.

2) Dolby Pro-Logic IIx Music mode on a 6.1 channel setup. DPL-IIx Music creates the rear channel from the matrixed audio in the surrounds in much the same way as Dolby EX does, but during the steering, it leaves part of that rear-channel audio in the left and right surrounds in varying increments. Because of this, the perceived reversal is defeated because the audio is being produced by multiple point sources.

3) Dolby Pro-Logic IIx Movie on 7.1 systems. With two rear speakers, audio placed directly behind the listener doesn't suffer from perceived reversal because the sound is being produced by multiple point sources in equal amounts, making it image directly behind you. For this same reason, DPL-IIx Movie is able to steer audio more precisely across the rear soundstage based on the level and phase of the audio data encoded in the 5.1 bitstream, effectively recreating the sound of an array system.

4) Discrete 7.1 soundtracks. Movies are mixed theatrically for 5.1, with matrixed rears kept in mind since all the mixer has to do is place those sounds equally and in-phase in the surround channels (or out of phase to make them diffuse, in which case EX leaves them in the side surrounds - or in the case of DPL-IIz, can steer that out-of-phase data to the height channels for diffuse ambient playback). Most so-called 7.1 discrete soundtracks are basically created from the 5.1 mix using steering processing (such as DPL-IIx, etc.) to create the rear channel data, then encode fully discrete channels to the bitstream. The end result is essentially the same, which is why 7.1 is so effective if you have the room to properly place the speakers, even when listening to 5.1 tracks and using matrix schemes to create the rear surrounds.

So why aren't movies done in 7.1 in the theater? There's no need to, because the large space and use of speaker arrays makes it unnecessary. Meanwhile, home 7.1 technologies such as DPL-IIx can help to recreate the sound created by a theatrical array system with far fewer speakers, making it easier to get cinema sound in the home.

Excellent information

cheddar

digitalvideo wrote: »

I hope the mods shut this thread down so cheddar doesn't ruin this one and turn it into 8 pages of back and forth **** for tat who can get the last word juvenile nonsense. So mods please do your thing!

You mean like when you act like this?

digitalvideo wrote: »

Well I'm heading out to get something to eat, so all the hermit trolls in here feel free to respond to the post I created and the chaos I created on this thread as the joke is on you. I bet if any of you knew how old I was you'd feel pretty stupid knowing you're arguing with someone who's most likely more than half your ages. lol But feel free to post on my wonderful beautiful thread I created here. lol haha

digitalvideo wrote: »

Actually let me rephrase that, I bet anything that I'm "not even half your ages" lol toodles

I was only trying to get you to stop playing cut and paste games and actually use your own words when you post. I have no problem if the mods shut down your threads for your juvenile actions...:rolleyes:

cheddar

Bernal wrote: »

Excellent information

Agreed, kuntasensei had some good contributions. The alphabet soup of HT audio formats can be very difficult to navigate these days.

digitalvideo

cheddar wrote: »

You mean like when you act like this?





I was only trying to get you to stop playing cut and paste games and actually use your own words when you post. I have no problem if the mods shut down your threads for your juvenile actions...:rolleyes:

ahhh you're not going to stop me from doing anything here as you don't own this site and it's not up to you to do anything and I'll stay on this site as long as I want. Now you can waste your time and go searching through this website for every quote of mine and re-post them all you want, I'll still come on here and post to other members, you can follow me around like a shadow and harp on all my posts, says more about you than anything and your obsessive creepy stalker routine around here. I've gotten some members already sending me Instant Messages telling me that you pull this nonsense herer as you turned one of my other threads into 8 pages as all I did on my thread was respond back to your attacks.

digitalvideo

POLK FORUM ALERT:

I just want to give all Polk members a heads up, I think cheddar is going to turn my thread I created to discuss the differences on Dolby, DTS, LPCM audio into another multiple page **** for tat back and forth nonsense of who can get the last word because for some reason this forum to him is very important and it's his life and takes this very seriously. If he wants to jump on my thread and try to prove some point or think he'll run me out of here he's wrong. So just a heads up. Now everyone watch cheddar respond with some sort of over intellectual post trying to make himself out to be a victim and why he feels the need to be the chat police, just watch.

And Yes I did plagiarize and I will continue to copy and paste and there is nothing you can do about it.

vc69

LoL... why don't you two get a room? It's obvious you are destined to be together. I know love when I see it.

digitalvideo

kuntasensei my question now is if "lossless is lossless" then why do the studios label the audio differently in different format names if they're all the same sound? I notice that Sony's releases on Bluray are released in a uncompressed PCM 5.1 sound, while many of the other studios released their blurays using Dolby TrueHD or DTS MA.

I think I remember seeing a video on YouTube of someome showing the difference in sound between the Dolby and DTS on the 'War Of The World's' disc by switching between the two formats. The DTS sounded louder and more aggressive.

digitalvideo

ok, thanks for the info, I put cheddar on my ignore list so I can't see his posts anymore.