HD DVD and Blu-ray seems like a "transitional" format.

[dobyblue]

Although of course there's no discernable difference between 96kHz and 192 kHz it doesn't really matter for movies, because no movies are recorded above 24/48 anyway.

What impressed me the most about Blu-ray discs is that they consistently offer more quality audio tracks on their releases. Take the recent release of Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds live from Radio City Music Hall.

The DVD has 16/48 2.0 PCM and a 5.1 Dolby Digital track on it.
Because this was a music show it was recorded at 24/96.
The Blu-ray disc has a lossless 5.1 24/96 Dolby TrueHD track on it and it is hands down a stunningly massive improvement over the DVD.

Buena Vista's 24/48 PCM 5.1 tracks on Pirates of the Caribbean 1 and 2 are also massive improvements over the DTS tracks on the DVD's (well, only comparing them to the DTS track on the first movie) - the tracks are matching the studio master bit for bit

I bought into DVD-Audio and SACD because I wanted better fidelity than the CD has to offer and also because I love surround music when done right. So too do I want better fidelity with my movies. That's why I support only Blu-ray as they have more than three times as many movies out with lossless audio tracks on them than HD DVD does.

I'm sure in 2017 or 2016 another format will launch that people with 100" + screens will benefit from, like Quad HDTV which there are already prototype sets for:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/quad-full-high-definition-display-3840x2160-of-ultrahd-goodness-156777.php

But who knows, that format may just still be Blu-ray but a more advanced Blu-ray. They use 50GB now for 1080p, but Hitachi just announced that they will have a 100GB disc that will work with CURRENT Blu-ray players with just a firmware upgrade. With TDK already announcing a 6 layer 200GB Blu-ray Disc (33.5GB/layer) it would be easy to see a 2160p format on Blu-ray2 or something like that with all the same CE companies still supporting it.

(And Toshiba of course who cannot sustain this format war past January 2009 even with Microsoft's help as all the studios will be releasing on Blu-ray by then and Sony, Disney and Fox will still be Blu-ray exclusive - when you can get all studio's releases on one format a format war will no longer exist)

 

[mpompey]

Although of course there's no discernable difference between 96kHz and 192 kHz it doesn't really matter for movies, because no movies are recorded above 24/48 anyway...

Buena Vista's 24/48 PCM 5.1 tracks on Pirates of the Caribbean 1 and 2 are also massive improvements over the DTS tracks on the DVD's (well, only comparing them to the DTS track on the first movie) - the tracks are matching the studio master bit for bit...

Don't want to be offensive here, but do you have access to the studio master? How do you "know" it matches the studio master bit for bit? My guess is that the engineers are going to remix movies for home dvd different than they did for theatrical movie houses. Again, not the format of the disc but the mix that gets put on it.

This brings up another point, if High-Def discs offer true losses audio, why two different formats of lossless? Isn't lossless lossless? How will one format differ from the other?

 

[avaserfi]

This brings up another point, if High-Def discs offer true losses audio, why two different formats of lossless? Isn't lossless lossless? How will one format differ from the other?

The end result is the same or theoretically should be, but the difference comes from the compression methods used to achieve this lossless sound quality. On a Blu-ray you will often times see a PCM soundtrack and possibly some Dolby or DTS ones. The PCM track is completely uncompressed and will take up more room on the disc as well as require more bandwidth to transfer while the Dolby/DTS tracks have compression algorithms that require less room on the disc and less bandwidth but in the end have the same audible results after being decoded.

The reason for multiple options as far as lossless audio goes are a few. One Dolby and DTS are still trying to duke it out as both companies want to stay around although now it seems that one will be going soon likely DTS due to poor development process since they couldn't decide on standards. The other reason I see for alternative audio sources is a gimmick. More is better isn't it?

 

[dobyblue]

Don't want to be offensive here, but do you have access to the studio master? How do you "know" it matches the studio master bit for bit? My guess is that the engineers are going to remix movies for home dvd different than they did for theatrical movie houses. Again, not the format of the disc but the mix that gets put on it.

This brings up another point, if High-Def discs offer true losses audio, why two different formats of lossless? Isn't lossless lossless? How will one format differ from the other?

It's pretty common knowledge that most movies over the last few years have transitioned to 24/48 from 16/48

I also speak with an engineer from Sony Pictures for example who has mentioned that whilst Spider-man was a 16/48 master, both Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 were mastered at 24-bit/48kHz and as a result they are using the master mix presented in Dolby TrueHD lossless 24/48, which is bit for bit identical to the studio master.

As for lossless being lossless - you're right it is, but losslessly compressed codecs such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio take up less bandwidth and less room on the disc allowing for a higher bitrate devoted to the picture and/or a longer running movie on the disc. In the case of Blu-ray though where the maximum video bitrate is 40 Mbps and the total transfer rate is limited to 48 Mbps, you can have lossless uncompressed PCM 24/48 5.1 PCM (6.9 Mbps) and the mandatory Dolby Digital track and still have maximum bandwidth available for the picture.

YOu can guess away, but I'll take the word of the engineers.

 

[mpompey]

... I also speak with an engineer from Sony Pictures for example who has mentioned that whilst Spider-man was a 16/48 master, both Spider-man 2 and Spider-man 3 were mastered at 24-bit/48kHz and as a result they are using the master mix presented in Dolby TrueHD lossless 24/48, which is bit for bit identical to the studio master...

YOu can guess away, but I'll take the word of the engineers.

I'll take the word of the engineers that mix the the sound of the DVD if I have access to them. So according to your Sony engineer contacts, the audio mix on the Blu-Ray Spiderman 2 & 3 is the exact same as the studio master? They didn't roll the highs down because of the differences between home and theatrical cinemas?

 

[dobyblue]

I'll take the word of the engineers that mix the the sound of the DVD if I have access to them. So according to your Sony engineer contacts, the audio mix on the Blu-Ray Spiderman 2 & 3 is the exact same as the studio master? They didn't roll the highs down because of the differences between home and theatrical cinemas?

They are 24/48 masters that match the studio master bit for bit.
If there are some things you would like clarified you can ask said engineer who posts on the Blu-ray forums as "paidgeek" in the insider's thread.

 

[Sheep]

I'll take the word of the engineers that mix the the sound of the DVD if I have access to them. So according to your Sony engineer contacts, the audio mix on the Blu-Ray Spiderman 2 & 3 is the exact same as the studio master? They didn't roll the highs down because of the differences between home and theatrical cinemas?

Wouldn't that be done on sight? Not every cinema is the same..

SheepStar