How do you feel about these new audio formats?

[davidtwotrees]

I was totally underwhelmed by the new codecs. Blu Ray is all about the video for me. I also took a look at my sacd dvda collection............I don't listen to them anymore....sometimes I get out my Al Green DVD A for reference listening..........but my 25 disc hi rez collection isn't being used. Want to buy it anyone?

 

[jostenmeat]

There is more to consider that just how much space it takes up. With the data compressed, a speck of dust or a defect will obscure a larger piece of time of compressed data than uncompressed data. Does anyone have any information on this matter? How robust are these formats when it comes to real world problems?

I will let you know when a speck of dust discernably ruins my video and/or audio, if only even for a moment. So far I've logged over 600 hours on my projector, and nothing like that yet. If it happens five years now, forgive me if I forget to notify you.

Frankly, I wish they had come out with a disc that holds more data, and does not compress either the audio or the video. Didn't anybody learn from the DVD format that there are compression artifacts that may degrade the picture?

The technology is available.

Of course, we all know that Dolby and dts would have had a fit over just having multichannel uncompressed PCM, as they would not be getting a share of the profits that way. Owning a format is great, because you then get to collect money without doing anything more.

If there was no need for them, they wouldn't exist. Think about it. And, maybe one day they no longer will. Let's see. You think the studios WANT to pay for unnecessary features. Uh, I highly doubt it.

But having a bunch of different sound options, unless they are different mixes (or audio commentary, etc.), is a total waste of space, not to mention simply confusing for the average buyer.

AGAIN, for the Nth time, MA requires only one track that will work for anything, any connection, no audio selection or menu even required. The only time that you would need to add another track is for foreign languages.

Capiche?

Then as far as different mixes on the same disc.... I don't know if you keep implying lossy + lossless (where MA is BOTH), or that you mean when a disc has more than one lossless version. The only BD I can think of with more than one lossless version is Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and a big part of that is because Spielberg demanded that MA be included. I don't why he demanded it, as lossless was going to be implemented anyhow, but he wanted it. This is the only disc that has more than one lossless track in English that I think I own.

Hopefully, the next format will be done right, but I rather doubt it.

Please enjoy your standard definition recorded in 480.

 

[lsiberian]

7.1 LPCM straight is the best quality by far IMO. The other formats are nice improvement, but it's the straight LPCMs that have the biggest difference to me. Blu-ray does have a better SQ than DVD and I could tell that on my old sony HTIB.

 

[Pyrrho]

...
If there was no need for them, they wouldn't exist. Think about it. And, maybe one day they no longer will. Let's see. You think the studios WANT to pay for unnecessary features. Uh, I highly doubt it.

That does not fit with your next comments (though it isn't the studios who are paying for a player's or a receiver's ability to decode extra formats):

AGAIN, for the Nth time, MA requires only one track that will work for anything, any connection, no audio selection or menu even required. The only time that you would need to add another track is for foreign languages. ...

You say, one format would be best, and yet you said above that they wouldn't have a variety of formats if they were not necessary. I agree with this part, it isn't necessary to have a variety of formats, and disagree with your previous claim that they wouldn't have more formats than they need to have.

They have the variety of formats because of competing interests, where different people want different formats on the disc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with optimizing the sound on the disc, it has to do with business interests. All lossless audio tracks should sound the same (if they were the same mix), so there is no need for more than one format of them to ever be allowed on the discs. Yet there is more than one.

Now, of course, since they have decided to let numerous competing audio formats on Blu-Ray, one needs to have the ability to decode them all if one wishes to be able to listen to every disc made. But if they had picked only one, then this would not be necessary.

 

[jostenmeat]

That does not fit with your next comments

I find this dialogue to be confusing, as I do with a decent portion of this thread. If I understand you correctly, I believe I was trying to say that I preferred MA if there was only one codec to be chosen as some sort of standard. I was stating my preference for this codec. Like I said already, TrueHD gives me fits sometimes. And as far as ease of use for J6P, MA is simply the easiest. Again, no audio selection required. No need for additional legacy tracks either.

(though it isn't the studios who are paying for a player's or a receiver's ability to decode extra formats):

I hope you are not serious in thinking that this is a considerable cost. Firstly, there is nothing to decode. The codecs are simply unpacked. Or unzipped, just like a computer file. Would you prefer all of your DL'd material to be uncompressed when transferring to your computer? You wouldn't say that the costs of being able to unzip the file would be a considerable negative. Of course not. Such, um, decoders in a player, or receiver for that matter, can be completely software based. Maybe you noted when the PS3 received FW to be able to unpack the MA extension stream.

You say, one format would be best, and yet you said above that they wouldn't have a variety of formats if they were not necessary. I agree with this part, it isn't necessary to have a variety of formats, and disagree with your previous claim that they wouldn't have more formats than they need to have.

I believe I said that if there was a universal standard, that my vote would heartily go towards MA. I think I've pointed out the pros and cons to the codecs and PCM. As for having more than one codec available, I don't think that having competition is necessarily a bad thing. One company will make a contract with one studio, and the other with another. If there was only one company/brand, perhaps their monetary demands would increase.

They have the variety of formats because of competing interests, where different people want different formats on the disc. This has nothing whatsoever to do with optimizing the sound on the disc, it has to do with business interests. All lossless audio tracks should sound the same (if they were the same mix), so there is no need for more than one format of them to ever be allowed on the discs. Yet there is more than one.

Well, sure it's business. Is that inherently a bad thing? Would you prefer that there was only one speaker brand? One receiver brand?

Now, of course, since they have decided to let numerous competing audio formats on Blu-Ray, one needs to have the ability to decode them all if one wishes to be able to listen to every disc made. But if they had picked only one, then this would not be necessary.

Sure, but it's really not that big of a deal. Eeesh. Like I said, the extra price for decoding is not THAT much. Even software can do it.