How would you rate the WOW factor for HD Audio?

[DTS]

Been having bad thoughts, again. When I bought my 55" Plasma, I told myself, SD dvd's look good enough, no need to go down that High Def DVD road. Then that, "man this looks pretty darn good, becomes, I wonder what if..." Well that was a PS3 and a A2 ago. So now, I am totally happy with the addition of my new to me JBL S312's and S36's for my all JBL sound field, and of course my wickedly awesome SVS Ultra, I say to myself, how much better can it get. Then that little voice starts taunting you, "HD Audio, HD Audio, HD Audio"...

So my question is, what is the WOW factor {using 7.1} for upgrading from DD and DTS to the HD Audio formats, and lets compare it to SD DVD to HD DVD.

For example:

SD DVD to HD DVD=

{= 1 WOW...10 WOW's is the WOWiest}

SD AUDIO to HD AUDIO= ???

Thanks for your input...gotta go research receivers now!

 

[MinusTheBear]

??? = Never listened to any HD audio format. Has there been any blind testing on standard Dolby Digital/DTS vs HD audio formats, did they notice a difference? It will be interesting to see the average results of the happy grins.

 

[adwilk]

Its certainly an upgrade, I can tell a difference.. Most of my buddies that actually care and listen can tell. The wow factor is not so much that the buddies "not in the know" never comment.

 

[jamie2112]

I can tell a difference but not enough to buy a bunch of HD components. My wife can't tell the difference and she is used to hearing my mixes from studio projects all the time. I don't even really like SACD's myself. Most sound "over produced" to me.

 

[PeterWhite]

Its certainly an upgrade, I can tell a difference.. Most of my buddies that actually care and listen can tell. The wow factor is not so much that the buddies "not in the know" never comment.

An extensive double blind test, comparing SACD and DVD-A vs Redbook CD demonstrates that there's no difference in sound, audible to humans, between high resolution playback and 44khz playback. See the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9) for all the details. The test entailed comparing the 2 channel output of the two high-rez formats with the same music downsampled to 44khz. So it wasn't a comparison of surround sound and two channel, it was a pure comparison of high-rez and standard 44khz Redbook.

Surround sound should, and I believe clearly does sound much better than two channel stereo. But the higher sampling can't make any difference, because our ears don't have the sensitivity at higher frequencies to hear it.

 

[fmw]

It might be possible for some people to hear a difference but tests show that almost everyone cannot. Those that say they can are doing sighted tests or tests without level matching or just wishing and hoping. On a scale of 1 to 10 I would say it is about 1/2 of 1. About as important to watching movies as the rear surrounds.

 

[jostenmeat]

I think I might subjectively, with a certain viewpoint involved, vote either or

I was excited as anyone over the anticipation of hi def audio. Its not as big as I hoped.

I think I might believe in some diminishing returns with increasing bitrate. For example, I found the greatest difference in AQ as the improvement from Dolby 5.1 to DTS 5.1/6.1 on dvd's. What is that, like 448 -> 768 kbps? I have heard VERY few impressive Dolby tracks. Maybe just one. DTS there are a lot of good ones.

But the difference between DTS and Dolby Dig Plus, or from Plus to T-HD/MA/PCM seems to be a lot smaller. Diminishing returns is my guess. The biggest benefit, perhaps for me, is that I no longer have to listen to legacy Dolby 5.1 anymore. I think too much was being asked of that low of a bitrate? Dunno.

And lastly, its all about the master. A good master+transfer in 480p still looks better than a poor master+transfer in 1080p. Lossless just means you get what they did . . . and if they just made crap . . . well that means you get what they did!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My thoughts.

Of course, it really depends on the quality of the source.

And pure personal preference.

On 5.1 SACD, DVD-A, & DTS-CD vs. 2.0 CD:

For example, I much prefer the 2.0 CD of "Eagles Hell Freezes Over" over the 5.1 DTS-CD of the same title.

But I much prefer the Dires Straight Brothers in Arms 5.1 SACD over the 2.0 CD of the same title.

On TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, & LPCM HD Audio vs. DD & DTS:

When the HD Audio sounds awesome, so does the non-HD Audio.

Example: "Day After Tomorrow" BD DTS-HD MA sounds awesome, and the plain DTS sounds just as awesome in every way.

And when the non-HD Audio sounds like crap, so does the HD Audio.

Example: "Die Hard 2" BD plain DTS sounds like crap, and the DTS-HD MA sounds just as horrible.

My conclusion: if the sound source is truly awesome, it will sound truly awesome regardless of audio codec (HD vs non-HD sound).

I cannot tell the difference between an awesome DD/DTS vs. an awesome TrueHD/DTS-MA/PCM, and I cannot tell the difference between a terrible DD/DTS vs. a terrible TrueHD/DTS-MA/PCM.

 

[adwilk]

An extensive double blind test, comparing SACD and DVD-A vs Redbook CD demonstrates that there's no difference in sound, audible to humans, between high resolution playback and 44khz playback. See the September 2007 issue of the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society (Volume 55, Number 9) for all the details. The test entailed comparing the 2 channel output of the two high-rez formats with the same music downsampled to 44khz. So it wasn't a comparison of surround sound and two channel, it was a pure comparison of high-rez and standard 44khz Redbook.

Surround sound should, and I believe clearly does sound much better than two channel stereo. But the higher sampling can't make any difference, because our ears don't have the sensitivity at higher frequencies to hear it.

This explains why those that know there is a difference, myself included seem to tell a difference... and those that dont know dont care. Let me say this though, I put in "Day after Tomorrow" in both formats. Obviously not a blind test and the HD audio "seemed" to be an improvement in this one area

Center channel dialog felt clearer and bigger. (without measurements i know this is irrelevant. Louder always sounds better)

I'm using the Klipsch Reference Flagship 5.1 setup

 

[WmAx]

It may be possible that certain minor differences exist between the mixes of different format sound tracks.

That being said, I would not even care if a slight audible improvement did exist for movies - since movie sound quality is almost never in the same league in terms of realism as a really good music track.

-Chris

 

[DTS]

So, if your receiver ain't broke, save myself $800-$1200 and get a Wii for now!?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So, if your receiver ain't broke, save myself $800-$1200 and get a Wii for now!?

Whichever is more fun to you.

Looking at a new receiver or playing the Wii?

I'm not a gamer, so I would take the new receiver over the Wii anyday.

 

[fmw]

And lastly, its all about the master. A good master+transfer in 480p still looks better than a poor master+transfer in 1080p. Lossless just means you get what they did . . . and if they just made crap . . . well that means you get what they did!

As the computer have always said GIGO

 

[surferaudio]

I have done testing on movies in the format of dvds vs its blu-ray counterpart. The audible difference is subtle.

One, the sound level at a set volume level on the receiver differs greatly. The blu-ray version is louder which implies more audible headroom in a greater room that requires higher SPL to fill it

Two, the LFE is better in regular dvd in dts. In blu-ray, I seem to run the LFE signal hot to level-match. This was a consistent issue across the board.

Three, garbage in, garbage out is so very true, if it was crap to begin with, then the experiment is for naught. This is why I chose movies whose SQ is known, i.e. Master and Commander, U571, etc.

 

[mike c]

I never noticed the difference. yes, i'm in the wrong hobby

even though I can't hear the improvement, i would not dare call myself an Audioholic if i stuck with yesterday's tech! HDMI AV is in but seriously though, i like the fact that i use one cable for both audio and video + you get better PQ.

the menus on the HD material themselves is worth the price of admission. gone are the days you have to stop the movie just to check out the main menu

 

[fmw]

I have done testing on movies in the format of dvds vs its blu-ray counterpart. The audible difference is subtle.

One, the sound level at a set volume level on the receiver differs greatly. The blu-ray version is louder which implies more audible headroom in a greater room that requires higher SPL to fill it

Two, the LFE is better in regular dvd in dts. In blu-ray, I seem to run the LFE signal hot to level-match. This was a consistent issue across the board.

Three, garbage in, garbage out is so very true, if it was crap to begin with, then the experiment is for naught. This is why I chose movies whose SQ is known, i.e. Master and Commander, U571, etc.

If the HD audio is louder then you can't judge it against regular audio without level matching. So the difference may be subtle or it may be non exitent.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Watching the jungle scenes in Planet Earth on regular DVD, there were times when I almost started swatting at the bugs buzzing past! I don't see how the sound can get any more lifelike than that.

 

[Midcow2]

LOL gaming..

Whichever is more fun to you.

Looking at a new receiver or playing the Wii?

I'm not a gamer, so I would take the new receiver over the Wii anyday.

AcuDefTechGuy, I haven't been a gamer for a long time since the joy stick with a single button, But the Wii sensor takes game play to a whole new level.

I watch my son play the Wii in awe. And I occasionally enjoy the pinball game. Almost as good as the arcade pinball game "Pot of Gold" that I bought dirt cheap and refurbished to new condition. But even that was a long time ago ....

I have seen a lot gaming systems up close (Atari 2600, Atari 800, Amiga 2000, Gameboy, Gameboy advanced, DS, DS Lite, Nintendo 64, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, PS3, Wii) and the Wii is one of the better ones out there. It would be the best, except for the graphics still being lower resolution!

 

[darien87]

I have done testing on movies in the format of dvds vs its blu-ray counterpart. The audible difference is subtle.

One, the sound level at a set volume level on the receiver differs greatly. The blu-ray version is louder which implies more audible headroom in a greater room that requires higher SPL to fill it

Two, the LFE is better in regular dvd in dts. In blu-ray, I seem to run the LFE signal hot to level-match. This was a consistent issue across the board.

Three, garbage in, garbage out is so very true, if it was crap to begin with, then the experiment is for naught. This is why I chose movies whose SQ is known, i.e. Master and Commander, U571, etc.

Wow, I get the EXACT opposite with my BD's. Bass response is ALWAYS better with Blu-ray. Bass sounds cleaner and hits harder, even when switching between the compressed and uncompressed tracks on the same BD. Also mids and highs sound cleaner and more separated to me.

The difference isn't night and day, but it is noticeable. My wife can even tell the difference and she's not a big audio nut. I had her close her eyes and switched back and forth between the compressed and uncompressed audio track of Blackhawk Down, and I'd say about 75% of the time, she chose the uncompressed track as the better sounding one.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

AcuDefTechGuy, I haven't been a gamer for a long time since the joy stick with a single button, But the Wii sensor takes game play to a whole new level.

I watch my son play the Wii in awe. And I occasionally enjoy the pinball game. Almost as good as the arcade pinball game "Pot of Gold" that I bought dirt cheap and refurbished to new condition. But even that was a long time ago ....

I have seen a lot gaming systems up close (Atari 2600, Atari 800, Amiga 2000, Gameboy, Gameboy advanced, DS, DS Lite, Nintendo 64, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, PS3, Wii) and the Wii is one of the better ones out there. It would be the best, except for the graphics still being lower resolution!

You make me feel like running out and buying a Wii ASAP!

I tried playing games on PS3 and it was way too hard for me. That's why I sold it to my brother. But sounds like the Wii is something I can actually play.