I don't expect that when it is commercially possible to release a HD DVD with HD non-lossy multichannel sound, it will be done. There just is not (nor will there likely be) the demand for the HD non-lossy multichannel sound.

The available data space on the disk will be used for more features and bonus stuff (i.e. gimmicks) to get the average consumer (including teenyboppers) to part with his or her $$$.

Generally, when I watch a DVD movie with multichannel sound, I do not hold the sound to the same standards of quality as I do when I am playing a vinyl disk, SACD disk or CD disk. If I did, I would just be setting myself up for a letdown.

There is one good thing about having exceedinly low standards or expectations: you are rarely disappointed. So I try not to set my standards too high unless I have just cause to expect the higher standards to be met.

Paul

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 12, 2003).]

Thanks, Soundhound!!!

I'll use you demo file to illustrate to friends that the differences between lo-res lossy compressed formats and high(er) res.

Paul

Soundhound,

Thanks for taking the time to lay out this demo for us. I was suprised by the ammount of discarded material. Again very interesting.

There are lots of ways to compress, so I'm not completely sure what you mean here. There is the old dynamic range compression, lossless data compression and lossy data compression. The first is generally not desirable, the second is not an issue. Lossy compression is a tricky thing - and even DTS reduces the data stream (while cooking the sonics at the same time - yeck) by a lot. I suspect a lossy compression scheme with the 'brains' of DD or better and much greater bandwidth (although still packed) would yield acceptable results.

FWIW my DTS vs. DD impressions are ditto yours - hard for me to really pick a winner, with the caveat that I must admit, I like either pretty well.

A good DVD-Audio setup that can also play the DD/DTS version would be a close approximation, yes?

This question may be out of place on this forum...

SH - Have you tried encoding your own personal masters with Dolby? In other words, is all of the sound getting "lost" at just the Dolby stage or is it a complilation of that plus what happened at other parts in the mastering chain?

I think you even mention this at one point in your post. It would be a really cool comparison if you could encode your files in dolby and then also encode them in DTS. It would give you a really nice comparison point between the two formats.

Ideally, yes. However there can never be any certainty that all versions were handled and processed identically. In the comparison we did listening to the DVD tracks of the movies we watched, there were very marked differences between the DD and DTS tracks that could not possibly have been due to the differences in their compression alone. Also, from a cynical marketing perspective, if people couldn't hear some difference for the money they spent, they would question the expensive of the format.

In the instance of the comparisons to the master I have, I know with absolute certainty how the files were handled - I did the mixing and mastering myself.

[This message has been edited by soundhound (edited February 10, 2003).]

At some point I am going to invest in Dolby Digital mastering software to use with my ProTools, but it is a big expense I want to avoid until I have the need for it. I only prepare the master recordings, the compression is done by the people who do the final assembly and authoring of the DVDs. I usually don't give much thought to the effects of DD and DTS: I just hold my nose, look away, and accept the loss in the consumer format.

Having the ability to encode 'in house' might let you figure out how to mix things such that loss is less noticable. At the very least it would be educational, at best you might be able to create a better final product by predicting what the mashers are going to do to you.