Are Lossless Actually Audibly Superior to Compress DD and DTS?

Hide sidebar Show sidebar
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
I see many recommendations on this forum that the new lossless codecs available on the BluRay format are superior to the old compressed Dolby Digital and DTS formats. I would agree that they are better in a technological sense: I understand that they can carry a greater number of channels, at greater data widths and at higher sampling rates.

First, if we consider that most movies only have 5.1 sound, we can for the moment ignore any greater number of channels.

Second, let's allow ourselves to believe that a higher sampling rate, per Nyquist, is meaningless since we can accurately reconstruct 20-20kHz with a 44.1 sampling rate.

Finally, let's also assume that greater data widths (16 bit vs 24 bit, etc), are also relatively unimportant. While I do believe that a bit width of 24 is indeed better than 16 due to its increased dynamic range, I, at the same time, believe we can get by very well with 16 bits of data per sample.

I think that generally leaves us with the DD or DTS compression algorithms against the MLP lossless scheme used in Dolby True HD and whatever is used in the DTS lossless scheme.

On these Audioholics forums, I so very frequently see blatant dismissal of any non-blind claim for improved results in one's system. That is, to claim that any CD player sounds any different than any other is quickly dismissed, and with attitude! Amps? As longs as they're within their operating parameters and properly designed, they all sound the same. Similarly, there have been endless discussions on how medium- and high-bit-rate mp3s are indistinguishable from the CD original, with exceptions made for only the most special cases.

So, I'm curious as to why it's widely accepted that Dolby True HD and lossless DTS are freely claimed to be better than DD or DTS. Technically they are better, but who has engaged in blind listening tests, and under what conditions? Is this stuff really, truly better (and by what margin?!?!) than its predecessor? If so, how has it been measured and where are the DBT results?
 
ParadigmDawg

ParadigmDawg

Audioholic Overlord
I think it mainly come down to how it was produced. I have watched DD movies that were recorded better than lossless tracks so they sounded better. When both the lossless DVD and compressed DVD are recorded well, I don't think I can hear a difference.
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
ParadigmDawg said:
I think it mainly come down to how it was produced. I have watched DD movies that were recorded better than lossless tracks so they sounded better. When both the lossless DVD and compressed DVD are recorded well, I don't think I can hear a difference.
Click to expand...
Sure, that goes for anything, right? A good master on 8-track might sound better than a horrible master on CD, I suppose. Both your comments go against simply saying that the lossless stuff is better, which might be my position as well.
 
Soundman

Soundman

Audioholic Field Marshall
This could be an interesting discussion. I've never had a side by side comparison, but certain BR discs I've heard sound fantastic. On the other hand, if the original master was recorded well, the DVD version might sound just as good. This would be interesting to research some more.
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
I highly doubt you will find an Audioholic who has done a DBT with this stuff. At least at this point in time, but just a guess.

I only did sighted, very brief, comparisons. I couldn't tell the difference.

I think, by far, the biggest beneficiary of bluray video PLUS AUDIO, will be music discs. Stuff like opera, or the stuff I have, namely, Pyongyang concert w/ NY Phil, Brandenburg concertos, and Dave Matthews concert.

I'm sure I couldn't tell the difference between it and SACD/DVDA (which I've never heard properly in mch), but we get the video as well here.
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
jostenmeat said:
I highly doubt you will find an Audioholic who has done a DBT with this stuff.
Click to expand...
Right. Shouldn't anyone making a blanket claim that the new lossless codecs are better be given the official Audioholics smackdown then? :D
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
OttoMatic said:
Right. Shouldn't anyone making a blanket claim that the new lossless codecs are better be given the official Audioholics smackdown then? :D
Click to expand...
I don't know about smack-down. I do understand that are many here who believe in the scientific approach, and will surely dismiss any type of subjective review. However, I myself have found subjective reviews to be quite helpful at times, and I also often offer my own in helping others.

Also, I'm sure it always depends on the actual disc chosen. Will Brittany Spears sounds much different if recorded in lossless? I doubt it. A nice orchestral recording could be different . . .

I've said repeatedly here that few were more excited for the lossless codecs than I was during my anticipation. It was a bit of a letdown, perhaps outside of my small collection of music BDs. Oh well!

OTOH, room treatments and room correction were very, very eye-opening. Or maybe I should say ear-opening. :p
 
S

sploo

Full Audioholic
I read an article a few weeks ago, where someone visited both the labs of Dolby and DTS, and got to listen to both uncompressed and compressed (TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio) tracks, as well as some Dolby and DTS tracks. Obviously this was uncompressed and TrueHD at Dolby, and uncompressed and DTS-HD at DTS (so no TrueHD vs DTS-HD was performed).

I can't remember the location of the web page (please link if you know) but I believe the conclusion was that there was a tiny difference "in presence" between the original and compressed HD versions, though the author noted that the systems and listening environment in use were excellent, and that the differences were so small it required side by side comparisons to tell them apart.

The Dolby and DTS algorithms used on DVD were noted to be more audible (in terms of difference), but I think they noted just how good they were anyway.

In short - you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference between lossy compressed and uncompressed (or lossless compressed) HD audio.
 
Last edited:
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
jostenmeat said:
I don't know about smack-down.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was just kidding, but that's how it so frequently goes around here...

sploo said:
I can't remember the location of the web page (please link if you know) but I believe the conclusion was that there was a tiny different "in presence" between the original and compressed HD versions, though the author noted that the systems and listening environment in use were excellent, and that the differences were so small it required side by side comparisons to tell them apart.

The Dolby and DTS algorithms used on DVD were noted to be more audible (in terms of difference), but I think they noted just how good they were anyway.

In short - you're probably not going to be able to tell the difference between lossy compressed and uncompressed (or lossless compressed) HD audio.
Click to expand...
That's what I figured the answer would be, if it's distinguishable at all. It makes me feel OK about not going with the new audio formats, though.
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
OttoMatic said:
That's what I figured the answer would be, if it's distinguishable at all. It makes me feel OK about not going with the new audio formats, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if you're not like many of us who need the latest and greatest, I'd sit tight for sure. There are many ways to more effectively spend on SQ, imo. Whether treatments, correction, beefy amp (if headroom is needed for tough speakers), etc. Let alone speakers and subs.

And I'll tell you what, there appears to be a lot more headaches with these new formats and their implementation than good ol SPDIF.
 
ParadigmDawg

ParadigmDawg

Audioholic Overlord
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter....if you are a true Audioholic, you will have the newest codecs....
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
jostenmeat said:
Yeah, if you're not like many of us who need the latest and greatest, I'd sit tight for sure. There are many ways to more effectively spend on SQ, imo. Whether treatments, correction, beefy amp (if headroom is needed for tough speakers), etc. Let alone speakers and subs.

And I'll tell you what, there appears to be a lot more headaches with these new formats and their implementation than good ol SPDIF.
Click to expand...
Man, I couldn't agree more! I'm very happy with my system, and I'm not considering going to HDMI for audio, though I do use it for video connections. I've had some trouble with using HDMI for video from my HTPC. I considered sidestepping to the Integra DTC-9.8, but I've read of all kinds of other problems with various preamps and such (quirks, firmware problems, etc).

I didn't really think that there would really be that much difference between the old stuff and the new (the codecs). My system is somewhat high resolution, and it sounds great with DVD and BluRay as it is. I'll be happy to keep it as-is.
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
ParadigmDawg said:
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter....if you are a true Audioholic, you will have the newest codecs....
Click to expand...
Haha. I see what you're saying, but I disagree -- I think that the point of Audioholics when it's thinking straight is to NOT jump on the upgrade bandwagon if it's not really worth it, right?
 
ParadigmDawg

ParadigmDawg

Audioholic Overlord
Naw man, it is about having all the latest cool stuff and early adopting:D
OttoMatic said:
Haha. I see what you're saying, but I disagree -- I think that the point of Audioholics when it's thinking straight is to NOT jump on the upgrade bandwagon if it's not really worth it, right?
Click to expand...
 
croseiv

croseiv

Audioholic Samurai
I can tell a difference. Is it huge? Not really. I have compared DD vs True HD tracks on a few disks. It was not a blinded test, Iron Man and The Dark Knight stand out as having what I thought were obvious sonic improvements with the HD sound. Mainly in the LFE presentation. I think the bass seemed to have more "impact". Not necessarily louder, but more dynamic. Also, the front sound stage seems more defined and detailed (more realistic) with the high res tracks. I think there is a wider dynamic range with the lossless tracks (seem less compressed). I still think the DTSMA/HD tracks seem hotter than Dolby true HD like it used to be with DD vs DTS. Have I actually measured this? No. These are only psycho-acoustical ramblings on my part... :)
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
I remember "Black Hawk Down" and "Kung Fu Hustle" blu-ray having significant differences between PCM vs Compressed sounds when I saw them on my PS3 a year ago.
 
OttoMatic

OttoMatic

Senior Audioholic
Thanks guys, but can you really be sure you heard a difference if it wasn't blind? I mean, you expected there to be an improvement with the lossless audio, right? Even in a non-blind test, did you level match? I would expect that each algorithm could have a different overall output level, even if there were no other audible differences.
 
croseiv

croseiv

Audioholic Samurai
OttoMatic said:
Thanks guys, but can you really be sure you heard a difference if it wasn't blind? I mean, you expected there to be an improvement with the lossless audio, right? Even in a non-blind test, did you level match? I would expect that each algorithm could have a different overall output level, even if there were no other audible differences.
Click to expand...
Either you want it or not. If you are going to be watching blu-ray, then the HD audio is a nice addition. With the Dark Knight, I'm fairly certain I'd be able to tell a difference. Kung Fu Panda yes. But that's really sort of splitting hairs IMO. I have a player that gives me a high-res picture with high-res audio. I like it.:) Kung Fu Panda True HD is stellar, one of the best sound tracks I've heard.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
OttoMatic said:
I see many recommendations on this forum that the new lossless codecs available on the BluRay format are superior to the old compressed Dolby Digital and DTS formats. I would agree that they are better in a technological sense: I understand that they can carry a greater number of channels, at greater data widths and at higher sampling rates.

First, if we consider that most movies only have 5.1 sound, we can for the moment ignore any greater number of channels.

Second, let's allow ourselves to believe that a higher sampling rate, per Nyquist, is meaningless since we can accurately reconstruct 20-20kHz with a 44.1 sampling rate.

Finally, let's also assume that greater data widths (16 bit vs 24 bit, etc), are also relatively unimportant. While I do believe that a bit width of 24 is indeed better than 16 due to its increased dynamic range, I, at the same time, believe we can get by very well with 16 bits of data per sample.

I think that generally leaves us with the DD or DTS compression algorithms against the MLP lossless scheme used in Dolby True HD and whatever is used in the DTS lossless scheme.

On these Audioholics forums, I so very frequently see blatant dismissal of any non-blind claim for improved results in one's system. That is, to claim that any CD player sounds any different than any other is quickly dismissed, and with attitude! Amps? As longs as they're within their operating parameters and properly designed, they all sound the same. Similarly, there have been endless discussions on how medium- and high-bit-rate mp3s are indistinguishable from the CD original, with exceptions made for only the most special cases.

So, I'm curious as to why it's widely accepted that Dolby True HD and lossless DTS are freely claimed to be better than DD or DTS. Technically they are better, but who has engaged in blind listening tests, and under what conditions? Is this stuff really, truly better (and by what margin?!?!) than its predecessor? If so, how has it been measured and where are the DBT results?
Click to expand...
Even if someone were to do blind listening in their home, and even if they took the trouble to try to level match two soundtracks, they still could not be sure that there were no differences in the mixing process, so they would still not be in a position to properly judge the matter. This applies to claims about dts versus Dolby Digital as well. Very often, different versions of the soundtrack are used (i.e., different levels in mixing, different EQing, etc.), so there is no way for someone who is just looking at the finished product to make any reasonable judgment about the relative merits of each format. One might, of course, judge one version of the soundtrack to be better than the other, but this could be due to different EQ or mixing applied to it that makes it more pleasing, and have nothing whatever to do with the format involved. Yet most people make judgments about the formats anyway.

In the case of DD versus a lossless format, there is a theoretical improvement in the lossless format. At its best, a "lossy" (a different word from "lousy") format will sound as good as one that has had nothing thrown away. It will not improve the sound, though it could, if done properly, be audibly indistinguishable from the lossless version. But if not done properly, then the lossless version will sound better. Certainly, from an archival point of view, lossless is the way to go. And certainly, all else being equal, a lossless format will not sound worse than a "lossy" one. So there is good reason to prefer a lossless format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis

Sitemap

Sitemap

Site Information

Site Information

HTML

audio forum
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • instagram
  • rss
Top