If most movies are in dolby digital/dts, doesn't your experience get ruined?

[avaserfi]

Gene in his RBH T-30 LSE review had mentioned that he could hear all the compression artifacts in the dolby digital recording.

He mentions this after going from lossless formats such as SACD and DVD-A to regular DVDs during critical listening of course you will notice compression artifacts in that situation especially when listening critically. How many people watch a movie and listen to the sound critically?

For reference from the article:

"It was a difficult transition going from pristine multi-channel DVD-A / SACD recordings to 5.1 Dolby Digital DVD’s. When watching Star Wars Episode III I could hear all of the compression artifacts in the recording. This was especially evident during the massive explosions, which were more unpalatable to me than I previously recalled. After listening to so much uncompressed music on a system truly capable of delivering the dynamics, I was spoiled."

 

[fmw]

Maybe its because our EARS ARE LESS SENSITIVE TO LOW END AND HIGH END SOUNDS WHICH MOVIES ARE KNOWN FOR?

No, we have a harder time with the high frequencies, actually. I was an audiophile once. I cured myself one weekend and started listening to music instead of listening to equipment. You would do well to do the same. You'll enjoy it more. Home theater can be an exciting experience. What would ruin it for me would be listening for digital artifacts.

 

[jcPanny]

AH Reference System

Gene in his RBH T-30 LSE review had mentioned that he could hear all the compression artifacts in the dolby digital recording.

If Gene is not watching movies on HD-DVD or BluRay on his RBH T-30 system than he is not a REAL Audioholic.

Unless you have a RBH T-30 system yourself, then I don't see your point. Dolby and DTS must be compressed due to the limited bandwith available on the stadard DVD formats. The new formats and technologies support lossless audio tracks. If you can hear the compression of Dolby and DTS on your system, then upgrade to an HD player.

 

[mtrycrafts]

If you can hear the compression of Dolby and DTS on your system, then upgrade to an HD player.

That will only help with the new codes on Hi def DVDs not standard ones So, gene has to put up until he totally converts to hi def

 

[avaserfi]

That will only help with the new codes on Hi def DVDs not standard ones So, gene has to put up until he totally converts to hi def

Poor guy...I really feel sorry for him and that system of his. If I were him I would donate it to a loyal reader who also happens to be a college student .

 

[mtrycrafts]

He mentions this after going from lossless formats such as SACD and DVD-A to regular DVDs during critical listening of course you will notice compression artifacts in that situation especially when listening critically. How many people watch a movie and listen to the sound critically?

But, to really know, one must compare the same master recorded in DD and in uncompressed format to know if the perceptual coding is the culprit, or just the recording was poor in the first place. As is, comparing an apple and an orange is not productive.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Poor guy...I really feel sorry for him and that system of his. If I were him I would donate it to a loyal reader who also happens to be a college student .

Or, to someone with some boomboxes

 

[avaserfi]

But, to really know, one must compare the same master recorded in DD and in uncompressed format to know if the perceptual coding is the culprit, or just the recording was poor in the first place. As is, comparing an apple and an orange is not productive.

I generally compare my oranges to apple sauce, thank you very much!

Very true indeed.

Unfortunately, that is hard to do in this situation, but could possibly become easier as more HD is released. I have yet to make this comparison as I haven't bought something I own in SD on HD yet, it will be interesting though too bad you never know if the same master was used.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Unfortunately, that is hard to do in this situation, but could possibly become easier as more HD is released. I have yet to make this comparison as I haven't bought something I own in SD on HD yet, it will be interesting though too bad you never know if the same master was used.

Even if there are more HD stuff out there, how do you know who well the DD original was recorded? RThat is why it is not really a good comparison without knowing the origins of the two.

http://www.swin.edu.au/sbs/radio/papers/AES119.pdf

This at least did some comparisons with others, not HD. On some material the scores are way up there.

 

[HTHOLIC]

Actually the did to a HD comparison

The article mentioned mentions SACD , 24 bit 96khz , DVD-A ,etc as well
as pink floyd's recordings and several others.

Although gene mentioned dolby digital as having artifacts , the posters above may correctly mean that sound could be made up for films (ie sound computerized effects) , not properly mastered, etc.

For instance, gene mentiones that x-men has "no doubt better fidelity because it was recorded in DTS-ES

Since DTS v. dolby is minimal, as mentioned by several articles , and dolby's use of algorithims to save space, as well as the fact that the bitrate of either dolby or dts is sacrificed to save space ,

dts is compressed , so it has to do with the recording and mastering (dts-es just adds another channel).

So the music v. movies debate as to whether or not one pays attention to listening critically for movies as opposed to music maynot always apply,

I hope bandwidth increases so tv programs won't have to be in dolby digital alone.

 

[Hi Ho]

Precisely.

Thus the caveat "do not overanalyze".

Sacd is lossless (and I love it btw), but what is there to compare it to?

Dts is lossy, but what is there to compare it to? If it is well-produced and mastered , who cares? Same with Dolby.

Information never had (or never recorded) is information never lost.

Well, my point was that it's hard not to over analyze now! After I finished watching We Were Soldiers on HD-DVD with the DD-Plus sound track I just sat there is awe. I have never heard a movie with so much impact and realistic sound. I had watched the DVD version of this movie in the past on the same system and it never sounded like that.

I popped in Behind Enemy Lines on DVD after the first movie and comparatively it just didn't sound that good. Now of course it's a completely different mix from a different company from a different time but the deficiencies seem to arise from the compression of the sound.

 

[markw]

Hey, audioholics

An important question that I wanted to bring up and point out is that most movies are in dolby digital and dts and it uses a lot of compression and lossy formats

While this is well known, don't high end speakers ruin your experience because you hear all the flaws and compression artifacts, Im talking about the real detailed speakers such as the high end RBH's , although you may notice it on axion or svsound bookshelfs if you have a critical hearing

With all the talk about compressed MP3's at 128kbps, why are a lot of audiophiles not complaining about these lossy formats. Tom had mentioned in his podcast about dolby being lossy , but dts is just as lossy although to a slightly lesser extent.

Dolby plays at 192 to 448 kbps while dts plays around 700 kbps due to space limitations from its 1.5mbps. Unlike dolby , however dts doesn't use advanced algorithms to reduce its size without sound quality loss.

For example, dolby takes data from the low end and the high end to compress it as our ears are less sensitive to those frequencies.

Everybody talks about how home theater rocks, but what do you find when listening to dts and dolby digital movies?

Is it the same as compressed mp3's that are 192kbps or is it more like a 320kbps mp3 encoded.

With all talk about compression, it is clear that with the exception of new rare lossy dolby and dts formats making their war in last year, most movies have lossy sound, which is compressed.

So does it bother you a lot? Express your opinion

Assuming you've done this, when you're making love to a beautiful woman, do you always look for and focus in on her flaws, or do you revel in the glorious experience?

...assuming said flaws won't prevent you from appreciating it, that is.

 

[Johnd]

Well, my point was that it's hard not to over analyze now!

Well, I think we're talking about the same thing. When I wrote "precisely", I meant you hit the nail on the head. You call it "over analyze" now, I would probably call it "critical listening." Cheers.

 

[Johnd]

Assuming you've done this, when you're making love to a beautiful woman, do you always look for and focus in on her flaws, or do you revel in the glorious experience?

...assuming said flaws won't prevent you from appreciating it, that is.

Haaaaaah!

 

[nova]

This bugs me occasionally (you do not need a T-30 LSE system to notice it). Especially the Star Wars films, I notice the compression artifacts quite often on these films and here and there on other films. For the most part I don't worry about it, but I do notice it now and then.

 

[HTHOLIC]

I wonder how the new yamaha 11.2 would make compression artifacts

Another possibly, Artifacts that you are hearing could be a result of the fact that its 5.1 channel

For example, Clint had said that when using Yamaha's Presence speakers , the soundstage was enlarged without being distracting or artificial.

Maybe dolby is putting a lot of sound into one basket? Then again its still a lossy format.

If you HAVE A CRITICAL EAR, ISN
T IT HARD NOT TO OVERANALYZE?