Lossy vs new lossless/PCM formats.

[Mikael]

hi rebelman
what is comming in the spring? Is it the new SSP 900 from Classe or is it the new RSP 1099 or What, please help me out

[RebelMan]

Hi Mikael, not to derail this thread but the Classe' SP-900 was shelved. Classe' reversed their decision to incorporate video processing and decided to focus on their core competancy which is audio. The scaled down faternal twin to the SSP-900 is the SSP-800 and is due in March next year. Classe' intends to follow up with the smaller SSP-700 next summer. Both incorporate HDMI 1.3 and video switching only, no processing. I brought the teaser up because of some conversations regarding perceptual codecs that took place with Vancouver in Club Classe' prior to his aquisition of the Rotel RSP-1069.

[Pez]

Hi Mikael, not to derail this thread but the Classe' SP-900 was shelved. Classe' reversed their decision to incorporate video processing and decided to focus on their core competancy which is audio. The scaled down faternal twin to the SSP-900 is the SSP-800 and is due in March next year. Classe' intends to follow up with the smaller SSP-700 next summer. Both incorporate HDMI 1.3 and video switching only, no processing. I brought the teaser up because of some conversations regarding perceptual codecs that took place with Vancouver in Club Classe' prior to his aquisition of the Rotel RSP-1069.

Wouldnt classe be in higher league than the 1069? Assuming yes then I would expect the classe to be fairly more expensive and not an option for people considering the 1069, like myself.

[RebelMan]

Wouldnt classe be in higher league than the 1069? Assuming yes then I would expect the classe to be fairly more expensive and not an option for people considering the 1069, like myself.

True, but Vancouver was inquiring about the performance between lossless codecs with Rotel versus lossy codecs with Classe'. In theory DD at the 640kbps bit rate is completely transparent to the bit-for-bit PCM signals of a non-compressed digital signal. With DVD's the bit rate of DD hits a 448kbps ceiling never quite reaching the theoretical. With high-definition formats like Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, DD is encoded at the full 640kbps bit rate necessary for transparent performance. It was explained that a Classe' SSP-300 will sound better with a DD encoded bit stream than the Rotel RSP-1069 would with an uncompressed PCM signal. Since Vancouver's needs preferred HDMI connectivity it was suggested that he patiently wait for the next generation Classe' processors.

It would be very difficult for anyone to discern the difference with absolute certainty between say a fully encoded DD and DolbyTrueHD soundtrack given the average quality of the sources. Most standard versus high definition audio reviews using the same titles concurr given the negligible to modest improvements the reviewers have mostly eluded to. The point is why throw away all that Classe' has to offer with bass management and other post processing features like THX, not to mention overall superior audio playback, for what maybe "perceived" from Rotel as an improvement in audio resolution but not sound quality?

[Pez]

True, but Vancouver was inquiring about the performance between lossless codecs with Rotel versus lossy codecs with Classe'. In theory DD at the 640kbps bit rate is completely transparent to the bit-for-bit PCM signals of a non-compressed digital signal. With DVD's the bit rate of DD hits a 448kbps ceiling never quite reaching the theoretical. With high-definition formats like Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, DD is encoded at the full 640kbps bit rate necessary for transparent performance. It was explained that a Classe' SSP-300 will sound better with a DD encoded bit stream than the Rotel RSP-1069 would with an uncompressed PCM signal. Since Vancouver's needs preferred HDMI connectivity it was suggested that he patiently wait for the next generation Classe' processors.

It would be very difficult for anyone to discern the difference with absolute certainty between say a fully encoded DD and DolbyTrueHD soundtrack given the average quality of the sources. Most standard versus high definition audio reviews using the same titles concurr given the negligible to modest improvements the reviewers have mostly eluded to. The point is why throw away all that Classe' has to offer with bass management and other post processing features like THX, not to mention overall superior audio playback, for what maybe "perceived" from Rotel as an improvement in audio resolution but not sound quality?

Gottcha.

I would love to get a classe pre/pro but even the 1069 is stretching it a bit for me should I end up getting one. But that is at least a few months away so who knows what will happen.

[apodaca]

True, but Vancouver was inquiring about the performance between lossless codecs with Rotel versus lossy codecs with Classe'. In theory DD at the 640kbps bit rate is completely transparent to the bit-for-bit PCM signals of a non-compressed digital signal. With DVD's the bit rate of DD hits a 448kbps ceiling never quite reaching the theoretical. With high-definition formats like Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD, DD is encoded at the full 640kbps bit rate necessary for transparent performance. It was explained that a Classe' SSP-300 will sound better with a DD encoded bit stream than the Rotel RSP-1069 would with an uncompressed PCM signal. Since Vancouver's needs preferred HDMI connectivity it was suggested that he patiently wait for the next generation Classe' processors.

It would be very difficult for anyone to discern the difference with absolute certainty between say a fully encoded DD and DolbyTrueHD soundtrack given the average quality of the sources. Most standard versus high definition audio reviews using the same titles concurr given the negligible to modest improvements the reviewers have mostly eluded to. The point is why throw away all that Classe' has to offer with bass management and other post processing features like THX, not to mention overall superior audio playback, for what maybe "perceived" from Rotel as an improvement in audio resolution but not sound quality?

Dolby Digital at 640 kbps is not quite transparent to the soure but it is noticably better than the 448 variety. The new lossless codecs are True HD and DTS MA and then there is Dolby Digital plus which is a more efficient lossy codec that is mostly used at 1.5Mbps - it is this version of Dolby Digital that can approach transparency with the lossless codecs (all depends on the quality of the mastering and the bit depth used for each 16 bit, 20 bit 24 etc.)

As for the classe comment at sounding better using optical/coax output only- it is not likely to occur for 448 vs 640 kbps (say comparing DD track of HD DVD/Blu Ray vs a regular DVD ). Some Toshiba players (A1, XA1, A2) transcode True HD and Dolby Digital plus and output at full bandwith DTS which is 1.5 Mbps. Bluray does not have this option so you get standard 640 kbps. Likewise DTS HD encoded disks from Bluray/HD DVD are output with the core DTS track at full bandwith. Both of these offer sound quality that can rival a lossless track considering that the bitrate is 2X that of DTS on DVD. At 1.5 Mbps it is possible for superior producs to sound better than mediocre ones playing lossless (though I dont consider Rotel to fall in this category). Music playback is where most differences are heard, movies are more difficult to use as a measuring tool for sound quality.

[RebelMan]

Dolby Digital at 640 kbps is not quite transparent to the soure but it is noticably better than the 448 variety. The new lossless codecs are True HD and DTS MA and then there is Dolby Digital plus which is a more efficient lossy codec that is mostly used at 1.5Mbps - it is this version of Dolby Digital that can approach transparency with the lossless codecs (all depends on the quality of the mastering and the bit depth used for each 16 bit, 20 bit 24 etc.)

Agreed. As you probably know most mastered soundtracks are rarely high enough caliber to warrant the use of the more advanced codecs like DD+ and the lossless variety. It doesn’t occur in every case but it appears to be the majority of cases. Here is remark I see repeatedly of the 640 kbps DD encoding versus the others…

“The Audio: Rating the Sound

This Blu-ray edition of '2001: A Space Odyssey' features an uncompressed PCM 5.1 surround track (48 kHz/24-Bit/6.9 Mbps and a standard Dolby Digital 5.1 mix (640 kbps). While I didn't notice much of a difference between the two tracks, both sound better than ever and provide a faithful experience that still manages to enhance Kubrick's original vision.”

Research involving psychoacoustics, equal-loudness curves and physiology of the human ear and critical frequency bands, as conducted by Dolby Labs and others, has shown that the 128kbps bit rate per channel (640kbps for all five channels) is the threshold of transparency for the DD codec. While this research does not imply that loss cannot be audibly detected at this bit rate for the DD codec, it does show that it becomes less likely that one could. The reviews like the one above are evidence of this fact.

As for the classe comment at sounding better using optical/coax output only- it is not likely to occur for 448 vs 640 kbps (say comparing DD track of HD DVD/Blu Ray vs a regular DVD ). Some Toshiba players (A1, XA1, A2) transcode True HD and Dolby Digital plus and output at full bandwith DTS which is 1.5 Mbps. Bluray does not have this option so you get standard 640 kbps. Likewise DTS HD encoded disks from Bluray/HD DVD are output with the core DTS track at full bandwith. Both of these offer sound quality that can rival a lossless track considering that the bitrate is 2X that of DTS on DVD. At 1.5 Mbps it is possible for superior producs to sound better than mediocre ones playing lossless (though I dont consider Rotel to fall in this category). Music playback is where most differences are heard, movies are more difficult to use as a measuring tool for sound quality.

Not completely true. I cannot speak of the Toshiba HD-DVD players as I do not have one. But my PS3 clearly shows the output from DVD’s at the 448kbps bit rate for DD and around 768kbps for DTS in most cases. Some DVD’s and all Superbit DVD’s carry the full 1.5mbps DTS bitstream necessary for transparency. On Blu-ray discs of the same title the output has been 640kbps and 1.5mbps respectively. No transcoding is taking place with the sytem that I have described in the posts you refer to.

Rotel equipment performs well for the market for which it was engineered, I should know I owned Rotel equipment. But the Classe’ equipment I own now is exceptional. I agree that music can be more reveling than movies which buttresses the point I have been making from the start about the importance of choosing equipment over codecs, in that the former carries more weight than the latter.

Here is an excerpt from a timely post that further illustrates the message. The full discussion can be found here.

Commentary: Specs vs. Reality

This "specs above all else" mentality has reared its ugly head again recently with the release of 'Transformers' on HD DVD, a title that delivers stunning video and audio, as well as a number of innovative interactive features. What could possibly be the problem here? Well, the soundtrack is only encoded in Dolby Digital Plus format, not a lossless codec such as Dolby TrueHD or an uncompressed one like PCM. In his review of the disc for this site, our Peter Bracke gave the DD+ track a perfect "5" for audio quality and said of it that, "Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff." Nonetheless, in the minds of many, this disc is a huge failure, and its soundtrack a pathetic disgrace for not including a TrueHD or PCM option.

I should mention at this point that at least one working Hollywood sound mixer has voiced his opinion that, when played back on his professional dubbing stage, well-mastered Dolby Digital Plus soundtracks encoded at the high 1509 kb/s bit rate that Paramount uses can be audibly transparent to the studio masters, when tested on movies that he mixed himself and would presumably know better than anyone else. But what use is the informed opinion of an expert in the field when it's easier to just point to the specs list on the back of a disc's packaging to make conclusive statements about matters of quality? In the forum on this site, a number of readers have made proclamations such as, "Compressed audio is just not acceptable these days" and "Whether you can tell the difference or not is irrelevant."

The disc's audio being indistinguishable from its studio master is "irrelevant"? Even with just a Dolby Digital Plus track, the 'Transformers' disc rated the highest score for audio quality that we can give. What more could we demand from it? It's absolutely terrific, but it's just not absolutely terrific enough if the packaging doesn't have a listing for TrueHD or PCM, even when it's likely impossible for human ears to tell the difference? What kind of argument is that?

The lossy compressed audio formats offered by Dolby and DTS use perceptual encoding techniques to filter out data from the studio masters in order to conserve disc space. The intent of perceptual encoding is that the data removed should consist mainly of either frequencies beyond the range of human hearing or frequencies that would normally be masked by other frequencies in the track anyway. With the most heavily compressed formats, including basic Dolby Digital and DTS (the standards on regular DVD), often additional frequencies within the range of hearing are affected, and this has resulted in much variability in sound quality. However, Dolby Digital Plus, especially the 1509 kb/s variety found on a disc like the 'Transformers' HD DVD, uses much more efficient encoding techniques at a very high bit rate. The people who actually make these movie soundtracks have found it pretty impressive, and yet average home listeners seem to believe with absolute certainty that the home theater speakers in their living rooms would be capable of resolving with precision the mathematical difference between a high bit rate Dolby Digital Plus track and a lossless one, and that their golden audiophile ears would also be capable of discerning it. Personally, I would like to put these people to a properly-controlled blind test, where all of the audio levels have been carefully matched to the same volume, and then see how well their hearing fares.

I would not claim that all DD+ tracks are flawless or transparent to their masters; it does take some effort to encode them properly. But to dismiss the format out of hand simply because the soundtrack isn't labeled as lossless or uncompressed demonstrates an ignorance of the technology being used. If the audio codec alone were the only important criteria in sound quality, how could it be that a disc like 'Dinosaur' with a 48 kHz / 24-bit PCM 5.1 track would sound so underwhelming? With specs like those, why isn't that disc a spectacular audio showcase? Somehow I doubt you'll find too many critical listeners who would ever claim that 'Dinosaur' sounds better than 'Transformers', but based on the specs, shouldn't it? Perhaps it's time we all realize that there's more to quality than the specs can tell us.

[apodaca]

What I was getting at in regards to the Toshiba player is that for all tracks via optical (DD+ and True HD )you can get 1.5 Mbps since it transcodes everything to DTS so to me this is good enough 'transparency' considering movie DVDs mostly topped out at 448 or 756 kbps. With my PS3 I have no issue with the DTS core either but the Dolby Digital which is maxed out at 640 kbps is still sometimes lacking. There are exceptions though as your links clearly state so for the most part I am content. As a result of this, I dont feel an urge to upgrade to the 1069 etc. that is until Rotel offers a complete solution to include full 7.1 support.

In regards to your first statement I just disagree on ANYTHING be it Classe, Lexicon, Macintosh, Rotel whatever always sounding better at 448 kbps or 640 kbps - the differences between 448 kps and 1.5 Mbps or higher are just too great to be overcome by sheer hardware quality alone (I dont think many would have a hard time distingushing 128kbps MP3 from the actual source). Most DVDs are simply too low in soundquality for any top processor to do miracles on. So basically I agree that higher end components playing lossy movie codecs can still rival lower ones playing lossless but mainly at bitrates equal to those of full bandwith DTS - 1.5 Mbps and not 448 kbps or 640 kbps. For music I dont agree at all - Rotel playing a DVD Audio for example would trounce Classe or anything else playing the same material encoded in standard Dolby Digital or DTS I dont care how exotic or expensive but there is only a handful of quality music titles available on the next gen formats at the moment (Dave Mathews, Legends of Jazz and Chris Botti) so its not a big deal.....yet

[Redhawk]

Does the better quality sound that next gen players send through HDMI also sound any better than normal when just using the left/right analog outs on the player through a two channel preamp/amp? Is the two channel of higher quality also?

I'm halfway done with my surround sound setup but quality two channel just sounds better to my ears. Plus they've not found a way to fit their video upconverter into the preamp yet, so one more bonus.

[RebelMan]

In regards to your first statement I just disagree on ANYTHING be it Classe, Lexicon, Macintosh, Rotel whatever always sounding better at 448 kbps or 640 kbps - the differences between 448 kps and 1.5 Mbps or higher are just too great to be overcome by sheer hardware quality alone (I dont think many would have a hard time distingushing 128kbps MP3 from the actual source). Most DVDs are simply too low in soundquality for any top processor to do miracles on. So basically I agree that higher end components playing lossy movie codecs can still rival lower ones playing lossless but mainly at bitrates equal to those of full bandwith DTS - 1.5 Mbps and not 448 kbps or 640 kbps. For music I dont agree at all - Rotel playing a DVD Audio for example would trounce Classe or anything else playing the same material encoded in standard Dolby Digital or DTS I dont care how exotic or expensive but there is only a handful of quality music titles available on the next gen formats at the moment (Dave Mathews, Legends of Jazz and Chris Botti) so its not a big deal.....yet

How were you able to make comparisons with equipment from the brands you mentioned? I suspect your conclusions are based on assumptions without actual subjective information to draw from. A thorough understanding of the science behind perceptual coding is required to understand why common misconceptions such as this are perpetuated. Ken Pohlmann dedicates an entire chapter on the subject in his book the Principles of Digital Audio.

Again, Kenneth Brown states in his HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc review of 2001: A Space Odyssey that "I didn't notice much of a difference between the two tracks..." when comparing the 640kbps DD encoding to either the Dolby TrueHD or Uncompressed PCM versions. Perceptive coding theory would have predicted this outcome. Of course the results depended heavily on the quality of the studio master, the encoding process and the perceptions of the listener. Sadly not all transfers will maintain the authenticity of the original master as improper encoding processes may have been employed. Therefore, for whatever reason, differences in sound replay can exist.

However, accepting that neither codec is sufficiently better sounding than the other, as it was demonstrated possible in the preceding case, then the claim that a low bitrate inefficient codec versus a high bitrate efficient codec automatically results in poorer sound quality is misguided thinking. Regardless of any shortcomings the DD encoding process may have versus say a DD+ encoding, simply "believing" that a higher bitrate and more efficient codec automatically implies better performance is an exercise in naiveté according to the theory of perceptual coding techniques. Mr. Brown's practical review, albeit not necessarily definitive of the subject, clearly corroborates the theory.

It is also folly to think that the impact that compression algorithms have on signal integrity is equivalent to the sound quality characteristics of equipment such as Classe’, McIntosh and Rotel, which are all unique and varied. The loss of information will not harm the timbre and tonality of equipment any more than no loss will improve it. I challenge you to make actual comparisons between various codecs and equipment in a contolled manner . In the end I am certain you'll agree with Joshua Zyber when he said... "...technical specs alone simply do not tell the whole story, and over-emphasizing them is a matter of misplaced priorities."

[Jack Van]

"...technical specs alone simply do not tell the whole story, and over-emphasizing them is a matter of misplaced priorities."

I agree, Well put. To postulate that one soundtrack will be better than another based upon a name is wrong. One would have to listen to the actual disc to determine if differences exist. Based upon the mastering job anything is possible. The lossless could have been botched which may allow the DD track sound better. I believe that the incredible variances in mastering almost makes the monikers such as DD, DTS, DD+ etc almost useless until the disc is actually played.

Just my opinion of course

[apodaca]

You are right rebel man I was wrong Classe equipment is of very high quality and so advanced that it brings back lost high frequency information from lossy encodes and makes it sound better than Rotel. I admit it.

I wil now go out and buy a Classe DVD player because its higher quality components will make standard DVDs look better than my $99 Toshiba HD-DVD player and its low cost HD-DVDs. Does Classe make a PS2 ? I bet its better than Sonys PS3.

[Kevin D]

I have split these posts into a separate thread to continue the discussion without clouding up the 1069 thread. We need to keep that clear for the people getting them and having issues.

Now that said, let's keep it civil guys. There's plenty of ways to disagree without being cynical.

Kevin D.

[RebelMan]

You are right rebel man I was wrong Classe equipment is of very high quality and so advanced that it brings back lost high frequency information from lossy encodes and makes it sound better than Rotel. I admit it.

To be blunt, if I am right about anything it would be pointing out your ignorance of perceptual coding theory and the evidence supporting it. Not trying to be insulting. I just didn't see another concise way to put it.

I wil now go out and buy a Classe DVD player because its higher quality components will make standard DVDs look better than my $99 Toshiba HD-DVD player and its low cost HD-DVDs.

That's not a bad idea. You are right in that the Classe' DVD player will make your DVD's look better and sound better than an A2. Maybe you should have purchased the more expensive XA2 for DVD's instead. For your information, HD-DVD's aren't exactly cheap costing anywhere from 2 to 6 times the price of DVD's. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to know that it's the software that makes the hardware. IBM learned about this concept the hard way years ago.

[Andrew M Ward]

I agree, Well put. To postulate that one soundtrack will be better than another based upon a name is wrong. One would have to listen to the actual disc to determine if differences exist. Based upon the mastering job anything is possible. The lossless could have been botched which may allow the DD track sound better. I believe that the incredible variances in mastering almost makes the monikers such as DD, DTS, DD+ etc almost useless until the disc is actually played.

Just my opinion of course

100% Agreed...

Some sound track recordings (just like some album releases) are allocated the appropriate amount of funds and sent to the appropriate facilities to get "recorded - Engineered - Mastered" and all that goes on has a huge effect on the final product...

Story:
I was at a recording studio who were in the middle of "doing what they do" to put together a movie soundtrack...

They had been given the original master tapes of "the Angels" (American Girl Group from the 50's) "My Boyfriends Back" and they we're re-mastering it for a movie sound track...

Well as you can imagine the original recording was a bit of a mess.. and they we're doing all kinds of fascinating things to it - including but not limited to - painstakingly cleaning up each track, isolating them and re-mastering them...fascinating...

Point being: They had some really expensive gear (really expensive) and we're agonizing over every single nano-second of every single track of the song...

8O

So not every movie sound track goes to market at the same quality level...

[littlesaint]

To be blunt, if I am right about anything it would be pointing out your ignorance of perceptual coding theory and the evidence supporting it. Not trying to be insulting. I just didn't see another concise way to put it.

640kbps DD is transparent to 10mbps PCM? Compress something to 6% of it's original and it's just as good? Please. Dolby Labs is good, but not that good. I guess they were stupid to license (purchase?) MLP for TrueHD since they didn't know their own compression was good enough.

On a particular soundtrack, lossy may sound better than lossless because of mastering decisions (or ineptness) or perhaps the studio master was flawed to begin with, but all things being equal, a lossless track is going to sound better than lossy, particularly with regard to dynamic range and noise floor. Also, the more "information" you can feed any DSP the better the resulting audio. So those who use the processing of their AVR or pre/pro are going to better served with lossless PCM. Again I'm talking about in general, and not a particular recording. From a purchasing decision standpoint, the studios has made its choice, and it is a bit shortsighted to dismiss the lossless formats in this regard as they are the formats of choice for HD-DVD and BD. The technical limitations to providing losslessly packed audio are gone, why not embrace it?

[ssabripo]

interesting

[RebelMan]

640kbps DD is transparent to 10mbps PCM? Compress something to 6% of it's original and it's just as good? Please. Dolby Labs is good, but not that good. I guess they were stupid to license (purchase?) MLP for TrueHD since they didn't know their own compression was good enough.

On a particular soundtrack, lossy may sound better than lossless because of mastering decisions (or ineptness) or perhaps the studio master was flawed to begin with, but all things being equal, a lossless track is going to sound better than lossy, particularly with regard to dynamic range and noise floor. Also, the more "information" you can feed any DSP the better the resulting audio. So those who use the processing of their AVR or pre/pro are going to better served with lossless PCM. Again I'm talking about in general, and not a particular recording. From a purchasing decision standpoint, the studios has made its choice, and it is a bit shortsighted to dismiss the lossless formats in this regard as they are the formats of choice for HD-DVD and BD. The technical limitations to providing losslessly packed audio are gone, why not embrace it?

It seems preposterous until you examine the research and the data supporting it. I should clarify that in no way is a lossy encoding technique better than a lossless encoding technique or an uncompressed encoded format. But by the same token, the information stripped away by lossy compression algorithms is for the most part superfluous.

Understanding how lossy codecs achieve transparency requires a thorough understanding of human hearing physiology and mental processing psychology, in short psychoacoustics. I’ll refrain from regurgitation all the juicy details here but the gist of the subject deals in ones ability to detect differences in tones between nearby fundamental frequencies and their various harmonics and ones ability to detect variations in pitch and the sense of loudness (dynamics) at those frequencies.

The aim of perceptual coding techniques is to remove or reduce aural information that cannot otherwise be detected. The degree of sophistication built into the encoding algorithm will determine the threshold of transparency that can be achieved. The developers of the AC-3 codec tested their algorithm at various bitrates using spectrum analyzers, among other objective tools, and critical listening sessions.

For the latter, ABX style testing was involved using a panel of listeners that scored their results on subjective quality scales that graduated from Very Annoying to Imperceptible. In each pass the bitrate was reduced and the results recorded. This process was repeated until the bitrate dipped below 64kbps. The results showed in the case of AC-3 (Dolby Digital) that the program material was in general imperceptible at a bitrate of 128kbps per channel. Other codecs like Apple’s AAC reached an even lower bitrate of 96kbps per channel.

The results prove that in most cases an AC-3 640kbs encoding, which is defined as the threshold for transparency for Dolby Digital, can be indistinguishable to the original master recording. The numerous reviews made available on High Def Digest is real world evidence that substantiates the science and implementation behind Dolby Digital (perceptual) encoded soundtracks. This of course assumes the same quality master was used in the process of making either the lossy or lossless encoded soundtrack.

[littlesaint]

I don't disagree with your perceptual argument, but perceptual studies are subjective and in the ear of the beholder if you will. I'm more of a bits and bytes kind of guy, and in the digital domain, it is always best to work with as little compression as possible. With todays technology of HDMI, MLP compression, and media that can hold gigabytes of information, it just makes sense to use better compression. Though I also concede that lossless compression does not always equal the PCM master anyway. High and low pass filters are often applied, and per channel bitrate dithering is common, but it is still more original information than what DD can provide.

[RebelMan]

No one can argue with your logic. However, how much will those missing bits and pieces really matter? Keep in mind there are other sensory stimulations simultaneously taking place that will reduce acute hearing awareness no matter how competent the listener may be.

Remember, you're not only listening to a movie but you are (should be) experiencing the movie too. Not only will you hear sounds radiating around the room but you'll also feel the impact of those sounds through various effects producing equipment. Also consider that your attention will be drawn to the impact of the action taking place on the screen in front of you. If the movie does its job right then you should find youself completely lost in an engrossing story line. You shouldn't be distracted from the mentally predetermined loss of sound you know to be missing from the media. If you are honest with yourself then you should realize and be able to accept that ignorance (in this case) really can be blissful. Guess what? If you ever enjoyed a cinema production then chances are you were in a blissful state of being.

The subjectivity testing of the DD codec took place with experienced listeners having a critical ear. Unlike us AV enthusiasts that are bombarded with multi-stimuli producing artifacts, they were acutely focused on a single task. Also unlike us, the panelists weren't there for their enjoyment. There were there for a specific pupose. The results of which they produced were repeatable from session to session and panel to panel.

All else being equal it is highly unlikely anyone could discern with ease a lossy DD 640kbps encoding from a lossless encoding from the same studio master under typical home theater conditions. Anyone claiming they could has not subjected themselves to real world examination of the facts and possess nothing more than misguided rationalized thinking.

[ShadowZA]

No one can argue with your logic. However, how much will those missing bits and pieces really matter? Keep in mind there are other sensory stimulations simultaneously taking place that will reduce acute hearing awareness no matter how competent the listener may be.

Remember, you're not only listening to a movie but you are (should be) experiencing the movie too. Not only will you hear sounds radiating around the room but you'll also feel the impact of those sounds through various effects producing equipment. Also consider that your attention will be drawn to the impact of the action taking place on the screen in front of you. If the movie does its job right then you should find youself completely lost in an engrossing story line. You shouldn't be distracted from the mentally predetermined loss of sound you know to be missing from the media. If you are honest with yourself then you should realize and be able to accept that ignorance (in this case) really can be blissful. Guess what? If you ever enjoyed a cinema production then chances are you were in a blissful state of being.

The subjectivity testing of the DD codec took place with experienced listeners having a critical ear. Unlike us AV enthusiasts that are bombarded with multi-stimuli producing artifacts, they were acutely focused on a single task. Also unlike us, the panelists weren't there for their enjoyment. There were there for a specific pupose. The results of which they produced were repeatable from session to session and panel to panel.

All else being equal it is highly unlikely anyone could discern with ease a lossy DD 640kbps encoding from a lossless encoding from the same studio master under typical home theater conditions. Anyone claiming they could has not subjected themselves to real world examination of the facts and possess nothing more than misguided rationalized thinking.

Very well put, RebelMan. :T

From a purely audio perspective, this is the very reason that I separate critical music imbibition on one hand and home theater sound on the other.

[Jack Gilvey]

You shouldn't be distracted from the mentally predetermined loss of sound you know to be missing from the media.

It would have been very interesting had "Transformers" been released with "TrueHD" inaccurately indicated on the box. After all the gushing about the incredible "lossless" sound (and this title's sound has certainly received as much praise as any I can recall, lossy or otherwise), it would have been fun to reveal that it was actually DD+.

It seems people are also expecting the wrong things from lossless, seemingly wanting a new level of bombast from every track instead of the slightly finer, subtle revelation of detail (if anything) that would be in keeping with higher resolution. I've also seen it posted quite a bit that people were expecting TrueHD to be louder, since it's lossless.

[Chris D]

True, Jack, people do seem to think that the end goal of home theater is loud, boomy noise, not crisp, clear sound fidelity.

[littlesaint]

I don't think it is correct to expect high fidelity sound from movie soundtracks regardless of format. Soundtracks are mastered at 24bit/48KHz at best. Hardly high resolution by todays standards, Nyquist aside. However, the technology of lossless compression allows for high fidelity if desired. The compression used in TrueHD is the same as DVD-Audio, allowing for 24bit/192KHz across more channels than ever needed (hopefully ). While lossless shouldn't be considered better because it is perceived as "louder", a better compression, or lossless compression allows for a lower noise floor which in turn allows for quieter "quiets" which in turn allows for louder "louds". To J6P this is interpreted as being "louder" (or "quieter") when it is really just greater dynamic range. Maybe J6P can perceive the difference between TrueHD and DD, maybe not. No different than the Redbook/SACD/DVD-A arguments of old that still persist today, but I ask again, if the technology allows for lossless audio without compromise (not always true), why not utilize it?