Are Lossless Actually Audibly Superior to Compress DD and DTS?

[Halon451]

Interesting discussion here - I have not yet worked my system up to be able to enjoy the lossless formats, but I have heard them in other places, and with such limited perspective and non-ideal settings, have to take the side of the argument that there was no perceptible difference.

However with that said, it may very well be an un-quantifiable level of difference, to the effect that other variables are added outside of equipment specifications (room treatments, listener's own personal hearing thresholds, etc.). I have heard people claim that Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA formats on BD discs don't necessarily "sound" better, but like someone mentioned, have more of a "presence", and smoother transitioning across channels as in the case of panning sound effects, what have you. They say that it seems to add more of a sense of realism, and reduces localization, etc. This is entirely subjective mind you, and coming from those who have already adopted - so of course they will want to stand behind their purchases.

A DBT? I'd say let's put it out to Clint and the boys here at AH to whip something up, sounds like it's the most appropriate group to handle such a questionable issue. I'd surely love to read the resulting article!

 

[croseiv]

One area I can definitely tell a difference is in The Dark Knight, when Bruce Wayne is running the ballistics test on the bullet he pulled out of the wall using the computer gun. The true HD track sounds much better with more impact. More realistic (less compressed, better dynamics). Also, the opening voices of the crooks in the Suburban sound more natural. I know I could distinguish the two tracks blinded. Also, the bass of the Hospital explosion sounds more muddled and boomy on the DD track.

 

[no. 5]

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.

A few years ago, Sound & Vision magazine wanted to try a comparison of Dolby Digital and DTS, but even with cooperation from the studios, a test was never made. It was too hard to ensure that the only difference between two soundtracks was the codec.

 

[croseiv]

Let's put it this way, in theory, they (True HD and DTSMA-HD) are supposed to be the best sound tracks available currently.

 

[sploo]

In post #8, I referenced an article detailing a test of DTS and Dolby tracks. I've now found it, and you can read it here:http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM?page=0,0

Incidentally, my memory was obviously suffering from post Xmas booze - the TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio codecs are of course lossless, so will sound identical to PCM. It was actually the 'lesser' lossless HD codecs and earlier Dolby and DTS codecs on which differences were noted (albeit very minor).

The end of the article warns against performing these comparisons on a purchased disk, as you can't be sure that the different audio tracks actually come from the same master (hence they may sound completely different from one another, regardless of the codec being used). This appears to have been mentioned by some posters on this thread already.

 

[croseiv]

In post #8, I referenced an article detailing a test of DTS and Dolby tracks. I've now found it, and you can read it here:http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM?page=0,0

Incidentally, my memory was obviously suffering from post Xmas booze - the TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio codecs are of course lossless, so will sound identical to PCM. It was actually the 'lesser' lossless HD codecs and earlier Dolby and DTS codecs on which differences were noted (albeit very minor).

The end of the article warns against performing these comparisons on a purchased disk, as you can't be sure that the different audio tracks actually come from the same master (hence they may sound completely different from one another, regardless of the codec being used). This appears to have been mentioned by some posters on this thread already.

Rubbish! You think I'm going to worry about this???

I've read this article before. But even "if" the two tracks on a disk aren't from the same master, and "if" True HD/DTS MA track sounds better, then I'm going to listen to it. I can tell a difference between some of the tracks, I've heard so far.

 

[croseiv]

Also, how many of us will ever be able to hear the original master? How many of us will ever be able to go to a mixing studio to make a comparison? I will make my judgments based on what I have in hand.


Oh, and even if the True HD/DTSMA don't sound better, I'm still going to listen to them, because they are the latest thing, and because I'm an audioholic...

 

[OttoMatic]

Good points all! I will have to review that article. I understand and respect the desire to want the latest codecs -- no problem there, and I certainly don't fault anyone for wanting that or believing it's the best. Indeed, it should be the best the best because it's lossless, but it just depends on how well the lossy version is executed to say what's worth what. While I believe that I probably can't hear the difference between 320 kbps mp3s and the original .wav file, I still prefer the .wav file (actually, it's a FLAC file), because it's better.

 

[sploo]

I've read this article before. But even "if" the two tracks on a disk aren't from the same master, and "if" True HD/DTS MA track sounds better, then I'm going to listen to it. I can tell a difference between some of the tracks, I've heard so far.

I agree absolutely - if one sounds better to your ears, then that's the one to go for. The point is that the different tracks may not have come from exactly the same source before being compressed, so the differences may have more to do with the source than the codec.

As for being able to hear the original master, it depends if the original has ever been released in any form. If it's been put on the disk as PCM, TrueHD or DTS-MA, then it's probably stored in a form that's as close to perfection as any human ear is ever going to need.

Indeed, it should be the best the best because it's lossless, but it just depends on how well the lossy version is executed to say what's worth what. While I believe that I probably can't hear the difference between 320 kbps mp3s and the original .wav file, I still prefer the .wav file (actually, it's a FLAC file), because it's better.

Yes, agreed. Human perception (and our ability to fool ourselves) is a big problem. I've done a few double blind tests, some of which comparing things that must be audible in comparison to one another... and then you find that no person can spot the difference.

Of course, I still want the 'best' one at the end of day, because after all, it must be better! Just because I'm a scientist doesn't mean I'm not susceptible to the usual human flaws!

BTW If you wanted to have a go at comparing FLAC and MP3s in a controlled manner, then you could try this: http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/

 

[OttoMatic]

BTW If you wanted to have a go at comparing FLAC and MP3s in a controlled manner, then you could try this: http://www.kikeg.arrakis.es/winabx/

Thanks! I've been meaning to do some testing of both mp3 vs. FLAC as well as my "good" system vs. my old Denon receiver in the garage. I just get so busy... But Winabx seems to be pretty cool for comparing formats.

Thanks again!

 

[mtrycrafts]

.

Good to see you back again

 

[Pyrrho]

Good to see you back again

Thanks. I do many different things, only some of which are online. There simply are not enough hours in a day to do all of the time wasting things I want to do!

 

[itschris]

Just reading through all this... why is it that no one is willing to trust their ears? I mean why is there blind rejection to any notion that isn't scientifically proven?

I have Iron Man both on Blu-Ray and on DVD. There's a difference. I don't need to go through some big study to determine that.

To me, it seems the difference is not in clarity but in imaging. Just like a good disc can have really fantastic imaging, it seems the lossless surround gets better placed. Panning is better... bullets seem to actually wiz by.

 

[OttoMatic]

Just reading through all this... why is it that no one is willing to trust their ears? I mean why is there blind rejection to any notion that isn't scientifically proven?

Well, isn't that the Audioholics way? Every time there's some discussion on this or that, there's tons of specs and numbers thrown around, and all listening or subjective tests are wholly discounted. Sometimes all the spec worship seems like buying a car based on its gas mileage or its turning radius alone! Heaven forbid you might actually want to drive that car to see how it "feels"!

I personally don't care either way. Some of this discussion was to try to understand why posters on this forum blindly accept that the lossless codecs are better than the "old" DD codecs, but will trash anyone asking about if this amp is better than that one because, as long as they're all running within the normal parameters, shouldn't they all sound the same? Just buy which ever one's cheapest! Or perhaps someone asks about bi-wiring or bi-amping -- SMACK DOWN! Snake oil, I tell you! Or perhaps there's a discussion about mp3 vs. CD sound quality -- and the end result is that they pretty much sound identical in 99+% of cases, and you can then reject the file size and lack of features in that .wav file! Why not reject lossless audio for the same reasons?

So why is everyone so accepting of this one particular thing without a DBT? I mean, isn't that what's always thrown in our faces when any type of comparison is in the works?

Again, I personally don't care either way. I'm NOT using HDMI for audio, and I'm more than happy that way. I have put money into other aspects that I think offer more sonic improvement than the difference between the lossy and lossless codecs. Similarly, I don't care if this guy or that guy wants to "upgrade" in order to have HDMI for whatever reason.

One thing I might note about your comment, though (as others have alluded) -- comparing a DD track on a DVD to a TrueHD track on BluRay isn't fair -- you'd at least have to compare the DD track on the BluRay to the lossless track on the BluRay, since the mix between the two different discs could be quite different. I'm just sayin'. And like others have said, there are too many variables between the different discs to do a fair comparison.

I agree that you can trust your ears to a point, but we all know that personal bias plays a huge factor when trying to figure out what's "better" or what's "different".

 

[Pyrrho]

Just reading through all this... why is it that no one is willing to trust their ears? I mean why is there blind rejection to any notion that isn't scientifically proven?

I have Iron Man both on Blu-Ray and on DVD. There's a difference. I don't need to go through some big study to determine that.

To me, it seems the difference is not in clarity but in imaging. Just like a good disc can have really fantastic imaging, it seems the lossless surround gets better placed. Panning is better... bullets seem to actually wiz by.

If you are serious about "trusting your ears", then you should always insist on "blind" listening. After all, one hears with one's ears, not one's eyes. Yet many of the people who chant the mantra, "trust your ears" insist on only listening when they already know what it is they are hearing because they can see it!

Additionally, with the listening that you are doing with the two discs, the two can be at a different level, and that can make one sound better than the other. The reason for this is the fact that human hearing is non-linear. When you turn down the volume, the bass and treble subjectively appear to diminish more rapidly than the midrange. This is why most vintage receivers have "loudness compensation" switches on them, so that they can boost the bass and treble for low volume listening to compensate for this aspect of human hearing. Additionally, of course, if two sources are very slightly different only in volume, not only is there a subjective tonal difference (just described above in this paragraph), one also naturally can hear more detail in the one that is slightly louder, because, obviously, being slightly louder, the soft parts are now louder and can be more easily heard. So, getting the volumes nearly perfectly matched is essential for one's subjective preference to have any significance whatsoever.

As I stated above in this thread:

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.

So, with your listening, you have decided that you prefer one mix over another. That does not tell us about the relative merits of the different formats. You would have to know absolutely that the two had precisely the same mix to be able to compare them in a manner to accurately judge the formats.

 

[Pyrrho]

...
One thing I might note about your comment, though (as others have alluded) -- comparing a DD track on a DVD to a TrueHD track on BluRay isn't fair -- you'd at least have to compare the DD track on the BluRay to the lossless track on the BluRay, since the mix between the two different discs could be quite different. I'm just sayin'. And like others have said, there are too many variables between the different discs to do a fair comparison.

I agree that you can trust your ears to a point, but we all know that personal bias plays a huge factor when trying to figure out what's "better" or what's "different".

Using different tracks on the same disc will not make the listening test fair. The tracks are independent of each other, and may very well be made from different mixes. Indeed, having different mixes is sometimes the point, as in the case of an old mono movie with the original mono soundtrack and a new DD 5.1 one. But even with two different multichannel soundtracks, there is no reason to believe that the two will be precisely the same mix. They may have been mastered at a different time by different engineers with different taste in how it should sound.

 

[OttoMatic]

Using different tracks on the same disc will not make the listening test fair. The tracks are independent of each other, and may very well be made from different mixes. Indeed, having different mixes is sometimes the point, as in the case of an old mono movie with the original mono soundtrack and a new DD 5.1 one. But even with two different multichannel soundtracks, there is no reason to believe that the two will be precisely the same mix. They may have been mastered at a different time by different engineers with different taste in how it should sound.

Oh, yeah, that's all true. I was just saying that it would be at least somewhat more similar to compare the two tracks from the same disc. Of course, it's possible that the DD track from the DVD is more close to the TrueHD track from the BluRay because of mastering, mixing, etc. In the end, it may be impossible to do a fair comparison because we can't remove those types of variables.

 

[itschris]

If you are serious about "trusting your ears", then you should always insist on "blind" listening. After all, one hears with one's ears, not one's eyes. Yet many of the people who chant the mantra, "trust your ears" insist on only listening when they already know what it is they are hearing because they can see it!

Additionally, with the listening that you are doing with the two discs, the two can be at a different level, and that can make one sound better than the other. The reason for this is the fact that human hearing is non-linear. When you turn down the volume, the bass and treble subjectively appear to diminish more rapidly than the midrange. This is why most vintage receivers have "loudness compensation" switches on them, so that they can boost the bass and treble for low volume listening to compensate for this aspect of human hearing. Additionally, of course, if two sources are very slightly different only in volume, not only is there a subjective tonal difference (just described above in this paragraph), one also naturally can hear more detail in the one that is slightly louder, because, obviously, being slightly louder, the soft parts are now louder and can be more easily heard. So, getting the volumes nearly perfectly matched is essential for one's subjective preference to have any significance whatsoever.

As I stated above in this thread:



So, with your listening, you have decided that you prefer one mix over another. That does not tell us about the relative merits of the different formats. You would have to know absolutely that the two had precisely the same mix to be able to compare them in a manner to accurately judge the formats.

Oh Jesus whatever. In the end who really cares? Fine... if they mix the blu-ray discs better... then you know what... blu-ray is still better. I don't need a room full of experts and testing equipment to know that the original CD sounds better than what you burn from ITunes. Why is it so hard to believe that lossless surround would/should/could sound better or at least different?

 

[Pyrrho]

Oh Jesus whatever. In the end who really cares? Fine... if they mix the blu-ray discs better... then you know what... blu-ray is still better. I don't need a room full of experts and testing equipment to know that the original CD sounds better than what you burn from ITunes. Why is it so hard to believe that lossless surround would/should/could sound better or at least different?

If you had bothered to read my first post in this thread, you would see that I have no trouble at all believing that a lossless format might sound different from (and better than) a "lossy" one:

...

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.

As for who cares, there are many of us who do care about being accurate. But so many people make broad statements, "x sounds better than y", when they quite literally do not know what they are talking about. I don't care about people having different opinions from me, but I do care about people not knowing what they are talking about but still spewing forth their unfounded comments as if they were true or should be taken seriously. It is an unfortunate fact that idiots and fools sometimes convince others of their errors, and that is something to be regretted, as we end up living in a world filled with idiocy and foolishness.

Now, if we are comparing two soundtracks on a disc, and we are deciding which one to use for watching the film, you are absolutely right that one should pick the one that one prefers, regardless of whether the preference is a consequence of one format being superior or simply one mix being superior. But when one does that, one should not believe one is doing some great and important test of the formats involved. One should not be fooled into believing that the only possible difference is the format involved. Again, it is being fooled into false beliefs that is the problem, not whatever preference one might have for a particular soundtrack.

 

[Pyrrho]

Unfortunately, I waited too long to add this, as I can no longer edit my post.

For a more full discussion of the issues involved, see The Ethics of Belief by William Kingdon Clifford.