When did Dolby Digital 5.1 suddenly become HD ?

[LoogieXX]

Latest batch of Blu-Ray movies

Lethal Weapon
The Fugitive

Both of them with impressive stickers..

"See and hear the difference with amazing high definition picture and sound"

However both movies only sports Dolby Digital 5.1 with regular bitrate (448 Kb/s and 640 Kb/s)

Does this mean that most of my old DVD collection already have HD Audio ?

[Knyght_byte]

bit like the Sky HD Experience then.....how is it a HD experience when the sound is at best bog standard DD?...lol

[blue73]

Originally Posted by Knyght_byte

bit like the Sky HD Experience then.....how is it a HD experience when the sound is at best bog standard DD?...lol

If at all HD! Two questions to you guys regarding the differences between DD and dts. Is dts higher def than DD purely because its full bandwidth to the main speakers whereas DD is compressed and when watchin an HD movie with a DD sountrack is it really HD even though the movie maybe fed in 720/1080 i or p. If the audio is only DD 5.1 is it really HD?

[LoogieXX]

To answer your question yes... The word Higher Definition means anything better than Standard Definition. The big question is what is defined as the latter ?.... DVD for both ?... VHS and CD ?....
The highest bit rate I know of is Vinyl... So I guess you can sell them as Super High Definition.

[blue73]

Originally Posted by LoogieXX

To answer your question yes... The word Higher Definition means anything better than Standard Definition. The big question is what is defined as the latter ?.... DVD for both ?... VHS and CD ?....
The highest bit rate I know of is Vinyl... So I guess you can sell them as Super High Definition.

It's crazy what with all the rubbish that the industry fight each other over, Beta versus VHS, CD versus what ever download format is better or trendy, DVD-A versus SACD, Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD and yet after all that money and hard work all we want is anything that sounds half as good as vinyl!! If only they'd listen. I guess you could call that a pun hey..

[Nic Rhodes]

DD on BD at 640bps is good quality, much higher than DD on DVDs which are generally 384, 448 rates, and the same as DD+ on HD DVD at the same 640 rate. Not sure about the vinyl comment as it doesn't use any bits or sampling rates, it is just analogue.

[HeweyBoy101]

Originally Posted by blue73

If at all HD! Two questions to you guys regarding the differences between DD and dts. Is dts higher def than DD purely because its full bandwidth to the main speakers whereas DD is compressed and when watchin an HD movie with a DD sountrack is it really HD even though the movie maybe fed in 720/1080 i or p. If the audio is only DD 5.1 is it really HD?

I have never heard that one before - dts being full bandwidth to the main 2 channels?

DD / dts - they both have lossy compression on ALL speakers. DD+ is also lossy, it is just better sounding (more advanced codec and higher bitrate).

As far as I am aware the only lossless formats are Dolby TrueHD, dtsHD, original PCM (as on certain BD titles.

[blue73]

I understand the difference between analogue and digital content but it still seems a bit odd that after all the techy stuff and in fighting that the big time companys do, all that most of us want is a sound like or even close to vinyl. It's a shame considering the amount of kids, not just kids mind, out there with i-pods and the like that have only ever heard music one way or another, they've never heard it as it was inteneded. All compressed and lifeless. Maybe thats just me bein a snob or an old fart but I dont think we will ever lose vinyl. I honestly think it will be around forever. Now if Dolby or the boy and girls at dts can come up with something as broad as vinyl then I'm right behind them.

[blue73]

Originally Posted by HeweyBoy101

I have never heard that one before - dts being full bandwidth to the main 2 channels?

DD / dts - they both have lossy compression on ALL speakers. DD+ is also lossy, it is just better sounding (more advanced codec and higher bitrate).

As far as I am aware the only lossless formats are Dolby TrueHD, dtsHD, original PCM (as on certain BD titles.

I didnt say it was full bandwidth to the two main channels. Sorry if I got my whatsits wrong I didnt mean it like that.

[Nic Rhodes]

Many of us a big vinyl fans but I am not sure what relevance it has in a thread about DD!

[HeweyBoy101]

Originally Posted by Nic Rhodes

DD on BD at 640bps is good quality, much higher than DD on DVDs which are generally 384, 448 rates, and the same as DD+ on HD DVD at the same 640 rate. Not sure about the vinyl comment as it doesn't use any bits or sampling rates, it is just analogue.

Yes, but the DD codec is limited to a maximum bitrate of 640. DD+ is a new advanced codec that can go to 3000 (I believe). Universal use 1500 bitrate regularly on their HD-DVD'S.

So, begs the question why is BD happy to stick with the older audio codecs? Is it cheaper ($ony). I don't have BD yet, but I do find it interesting everytime I read that DD @ 640 sounds the same as DD+ @ 640. I keep hearing myself say "Yeah right !".

[Nic Rhodes]

Originally Posted by LoogieXX

However both movies only sports Dolby Digital 5.1 with regular bitrate (448 Kb/s and 640 Kb/s)

I suspect you have two rates here because many chips used to have serious compatibility issues wit the 640 rate in existing 'legacy' receivers, hence a new high rate and one that we know works with everything. Just look at the Pulse DVD also with the 640 soundtrack. Many can't access it due to limitation in their DD decoding, which is why they also included a low rate alternative for 'compatibility'. Hence one of the reasons why it was never more fully exploited in DVDs. Dtheatre did use 574 rate and was better than DVD but not as good as these new DD and DD+ rates at 640 rate.

[Nic Rhodes]

Originally Posted by HeweyBoy101

Yes, but the DD codec is limited to a maximum bitrate of 640. DD+ is a new advanced codec that can go to 3000 (I believe). Universal use 1500 bitrate regularly on their HD-DVD'S.

So, begs the question why is BD happy to stick with the older audio codecs? Is it cheaper ($ony). I don't have BD yet, but I do find it interesting everytime I read that DD @ 640 sounds the same as DD+ @ 640. I keep hearing myself say "Yeah right !".

There is NO 'sound quality' difference between 640 DD (BD) and 640 DD+ (HD DVD) [Dolby will and have confirmed this], the differences are only apparent at LOW bit rates. In fact you have to be careful here as HD DVD and BD actually work differently here wrt DD / DD+ and I believe DD+ is a special from Dolby on HD DVD in order to be able to deal with funny packet size HD DVD has. BD does not have this restriction. The ultimate rate DD+ can go to changes between formats as well, and there are also core / extension issues as well!! TrueHD is also different between the formats despite what some specualtion may say. Comparisons between the numbers in the formats are at best 'un wise' and really are more like comparing two different varieties of apples. DTS is much more consistent across the formats.

Edit:

http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech...whitepaper.pdf

a useful read.

[LoogieXX]

Originally Posted by Nic Rhodes

DD on BD at 640bps is good quality, much higher than DD on DVDs which are generally 384, 448 rates, and the same as DD+ on HD DVD at the same 640 rate. Not sure about the vinyl comment as it doesn't use any bits or sampling rates, it is just analogue.

Just so I get this right. DVD can do 448.. Most are running 384. However a Blu-Ray movie running 448 should be considered "amazing" in the Audio aspect ?

Sorry I don't buy that. The package wrapping is misleading at best. Unless we get a concensus that DVD running 448 has amazing audio/ HD audio, the Blu-Ray wrapping is wrong.

[Nic Rhodes]

Originally Posted by LoogieXX

Just so I get this right. DVD can do 448.. Most are running 384. However a Blu-Ray movie running 448 should be considered "amazing" in the Audio aspect ?

Sorry I don't buy that. The package wrapping is misleading at best. Unless we get a concensus that DVD running 448 has amazing audio/ HD audio, the Blu-Ray wrapping is wrong.

No you miss understand what I has been said. 448 is there for 'compatibility reasons' as it is the lowest common denominator for 'legacy' DD receivers / processor to understand. (Toshiba HD DVD players use DTS for this but same reasoning). 640 is the better quality bit. This might be decoded by the player or better receivers / processors but unfortunately not all hence 448 as well. Anything more than 640 will fall into 'DD+ category' and will need modern methods of decoding, either in the player or out via HDMI 1.3. They will also be new encodes. If a BD just has 448 then it is wasting everyones time and money but I know of no disc that does this (doesn't mean they don't exist however, anything is possible with BD ). Just '640' I find to be of very acceptable quality and certainly a jump up from where we were with DVD.