Going from lossy to lossless... is that that noticeable?

[allEars]

I am sorry if this as been asked here before but a search didn't seem to really answer the question. Is it really that noticeable.

In the past many other advances were praised by many but not that noticeable to me? For those that made the switch from lossy receiver to one that supports lossless formats? was the difference very noticeable or was it a marginal improvement?

 

[MDS]

'Lossless' does not necessarily equate to 'great sound'. It simply means that no musical information was removed from the original master and the mixing and mastering steps still ultimately determine how good it sounds.

 

[forkbeard]

'lossy' receiver?!

I have no idea what a 'lossy' receiver is. But it sounds like a bad idea.

'Lossy' and 'lossless' usually refer to digital encoding schemes (CODECS) for music. MP3 is lossy. FLAC is lossless.

My experience is that when I got some better speakers, I noticed a difference between MP3s and FLACs.

 

[GlocksRock]

the real answer is, it depends. But technically speaking lossless should sound better since it's not compressed.

 

[rnatalli]

If you're trying to convert an MP3 into a Lossless format in hopes of hearing better sound quality, you're out-of-luck. You can't replace information that was discarded during the MP3 creation process.

 

[lsiberian]

I am sorry if this as been asked here before but a search didn't seem to really answer the question. Is it really that noticeable.

In the past many other advances were praised by many but not that noticeable to me? For those that made the switch from lossy receiver to one that supports lossless formats? was the difference very noticeable or was it a marginal improvement?

To answer your question your directly the greatest advantage of HDMI is the convenience. The gap from Dolby Digital to Dobly True HD is very small and in double blind testing most folks couldn't tell the difference between the two.

However the new formats tend to have better mastering than older dobly digital tracks. So I see it as a way to ensure you get the best mastered sound. After all a 7.1 LPCM track better be well done or it won't sell.

 

[jliedeka]

I've never done a blind test but I have tried switching between lossless an plain old Dolby Digital (AC3). The lossless version usually was noticeably better. I'm not sure how much of that was in the mastering.

Does anyone know of a BD where the audio was re-mastered for DD as well as Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD-MA? That would be a better comparison. I suspect that a lot of studios just re-use the DD track from the DVD to save costs.

I read of a comparison between SACD and red book CDs using blind testing. It turns out that the mastering was the determining factor, not the number of bits on the disc.

Jim

 

[lsiberian]

I've never done a blind test but I have tried switching between lossless an plain old Dolby Digital (AC3). The lossless version usually was noticeably better. I'm not sure how much of that was in the mastering.

Does anyone know of a BD where the audio was re-mastered for DD as well as Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD-MA? That would be a better comparison. I suspect that a lot of studios just re-use the DD track from the DVD to save costs.

I read of a comparison between SACD and red book CDs using blind testing. It turns out that the mastering was the determining factor, not the number of bits on the disc.

Jim

Remember the losless tracks tend to be louder. That factors into perception too.

It's really hard to compare the two formats in and off themselves. But I see no reason to pass on them. Considering the cost is pretty low on our receivers. I wouldn't be surprised if the processing was actually cheaper on the receiver end.

 

[allEars]

thank you all for all your replies. It seems like the difference is marginal. Most of the music I lessen to is directly ripped from the original CDs and saved to a media server (convenience) . Where I was hoping the difference would be more noticeable is when watching movies on BD.
I can understand the convenience of HDMI. With my current setup and lack of HDMI switch in the receiver I had to run 3 separate HDMI cables through the wall, I have now run out of HDMI plugs (PS3, Blu-ray player and PVR box).
It would be nice to replace all those cables with a 4 plug HDMI receiver.

 

[croseiv]

I can generally tell a difference. Moreso with DD vs True HD, but not as much with DTS vd DTS-MA. Blinded it would be challenging to distinguish them IMO. THe differences are pretty subtle over all. Definitely not as profound as going from Pro Logic to Dolby Digital.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Lossless.

Hi,

Can I also have a green chicklet.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Oh Ya.

Where I was hoping the difference would be more noticeable is when watching movies on BD.

It would be nice to replace all those cables with a 4 plug HDMI receiver.

Yes, it sounds excellent from Blu-ray discs. The audio signal is full with no loss of resolution; very nice, clear, punchy, impressive and just simply great sounding all around (better than straight DD or DTS IMHO).
[Very clear dialog, detailed surrounds, tight bass, very nicely enveloping sound...]

This is the way to go, a receiver with HDMI version 1.3 (5 or 6 HDMI inputs and 2 HDMI outputs), with the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio decoders inside it.

Cheers,

Bob

 

[jostenmeat]

the real answer is, it depends. But technically speaking lossless should sound better since it's not compressed.

Well, TrueHD and DTS-MA are still compressed. If they weren't compressed, there would be absolutely no reason for them to exist.

To answer your question your directly the greatest advantage of HDMI is the convenience. The gap from Dolby Digital to Dobly True HD is very small and in double blind testing most folks couldn't tell the difference between the two.

Yeah, I think for a bus stopping on one of the side surrounds, who cares, and who's gonna notice. For a mch classical music recording, I would beg to differ. So consider the source material.

Does anyone know of a BD where the audio was re-mastered for DD as well as Dolby TrueHD/DTS HD-MA? That would be a better comparison. I suspect that a lot of studios just re-use the DD track from the DVD to save costs.

I would suspect that The Dark Knight must use different masters, because the two tracks sound more differently than any other combo I've heard. However, I've only compared a few, and some movies sound identical to me when comparing. Definitely not so with TDK.

I can generally tell a difference. Moreso with DD vs True HD, but not as much with DTS vd DTS-MA. Blinded it would be challenging to distinguish them IMO. THe differences are pretty subtle over all. Definitely not as profound as going from Pro Logic to Dolby Digital.

I can see that, because DTS and DTS-MA are using the same core track. The only difference is that MA adds a secondary extension bitstream to the "original". TrueHD/DD is a different ball of wax.


Otherwise, I think MDS said all that needed to be said.

 

[croseiv]

I can see that, because DTS and DTS-MA are using the same core track. The only difference is that MA adds a secondary extension bitstream to the "original". TrueHD/DD is a different ball of wax.

Thanks for the technical info there jostenmeat. I'm glad my ears weren't deceiving me.

 

[MatthewB.]

I think the difference is very dramatic and noticable. I had a GTG two years ago when it first came out and all of us in attendance could easily tell the difference. We tested the movie "Superman Returns" and there is a restaraunt scene before the plane comes falling out of the sky. In DD you hear the other patrons mumbling behind the main actors, in lossless audio you could easily make out what the other patrons were saying.

I tell people this when lsitening to lossy vs lossless. In lossy you hear rain falling all around you in a kind of whooshing sound, with lossless you can hear each single raindrop hitting the ground. I was actually watching one of the Harry Potter movies last night (HD-DVD) and when the movie starts it automatiocally starts in DD and you have to select TruHD to get the lossless audio and once you select that (while the intro music is playing) it's like lifting a veil on your hearing.

Now some say they can't tell a difference between Lossless PCM and Bitstreaming the pure signal, but i sure can (between using my PS3 and my Sony 350 Bluray player) I can catch every single nuance of sound and it just draws me right into a movie, (something that DD and DTS could never do).

Now if you didnt already know. Dolby Digital runs at 448kbps, DTS is double that at 760kbps (if the encoding was done right) with DD+ you get 1.5 Mbps, and with all others you get a far increased bitrate and if you have a decent system and have it calibrated well, you should easily be able to tell the difference

 

[septim]

Is it night and day? Not really. It's definitely more dynamic. A good example is TDK. It defaults to Dolby and I can always tell if I forgot to switch to HD just from the sound of the first window being blown out in the first scene.

 

[Lordoftherings]

Otherwise, I think MDS said all that needed to be said.

I should have be the one who said it first, but I was fooling around in the Steam Vent thread.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've tried them all - analog vs digital, PCM vs TrueHD vs DTS-HD MA vs DD vs DTS, etc.

When DTS-HD MA came out, I had to spend $2K on a blu-ray player that could internally decode & bitstream DTS-HD MA.

These are a few of my observations:

1) Within the Same disc (BD) and Same language (English), DTS-HD MA usually sounds exactly like DTS, but the Loudness may differ.

2) Within the Same disc (BD) and Same language (English), Dolby TrueHD usually sounds exactly like DD, but the Loudness may differ.

3) If your receiver cannot decode Dolby TrueHD and the BD only has TrueHD, but does not have DD 5.1, then you will only get DD 2.0, which sucks.

4) Within the Same disc (BD) and Same language, DTS-HD, TrueHD, & LPCM usually sound exactly the same, but the loudness of each may differ.

5) I usually personally prefer DTS-HD MA & DTS over TrueHD & DD just because.

 

[Lordoftherings]

I've tried them all.

I usually personally prefer DTS-HD MA & DTS over TrueHD & DD just because.

Me too, just because it sounds better.

* Multichannel SACD (DSD bitstream: 1-bit with a sampling rate of 2.8224 MHz: megahertz) ain't too shabby either.
So, SACD = 2,822,400 bits per second per channel (versus CD's 705,600 bps).
==> The SBM Direct processor is a one-stage FIR digital filter/noise shaper with 32,639 taps.

** DTS Lossy (compressed) recorded at 1509kbps is better than compressed at 754kbps.
And LossLess Dolby TrueHD sounds pretty good to me, better than staight compressed Lossy DD recorded at only 640kbps (DD+) or at 384kbps on average (448kbps at best) from boring compressed DD straight blend.

 

[skizzerflake]

The words pretty much say it all. You can have bad lossless recordings, great lossy ones, but no power on earth can put back what was lost and all other things being equal, assuming that you have good ears, good equipment and a good listening environment, the lossless one will have more detailed info to work with. The problem in the real world, however, is that "all things" are never equal, so, like a lot of things...it depends.