Redundant audio tracks?

[caheaton]

Excuse me if this is a stupid question, but I've observed that many disks (both HD DVD & Blu Ray) offer what appear to be redundant audio tracks. For example, I've seen disks that offer both DD 5.1 & DD TrueHD tracks. If you have a receiver (or a player that decodes) TrueHD, then you certainly have no need for the DD track. And if your player or receiver doesn't decode TrueHD then you will get the DD core from TrueHD...so why include the DD 5.1 track? It seems to me to just be a waste of space. (a disk that illustrates my question is the "Godfather Collection")
Craig

[rm082e]

You should go read here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Of particular note for Blu-ray:

And since TrueHD is not built in a core+extension configuration, Blu-ray discs that contain a TrueHD track are also required to contain a standard Dolby Digital AC-3 track for compatibility with players that don't support TrueHD.

This is why DTS-Master Audio is the all around best audio format for Blu-ray:

The difference between the two is that DTS-HD MA is built in a core+extension configuration (just like DTS-HD HR). Although a DTS-HD MA track takes up more disc space than a TrueHD track, it does not require a secondary standard track for backwards compatibility. Since both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD are lossless, they are both 100% identical in quality to the studio master, and hence identical in quality to each other.

Sadly, few players internally decode DTS-MA at this time. Many will bitstream it out to a reciever that can decode it (such as the PS3), but that means you need a shinny new reciever as well as a BD player. As an extension of this, the new 2.0 players with analog outs are awesome because someone with an older, non HDMI reciever can now get lossless audio all the way around if the software has it.

[holsty101]

Many will bitstream it out to a reciever that can decode it (such as the PS3), but that means you need a shinny new reciever as well as a BD player.

I think you've got that the wrong way round there ... PS3 decodes internally and outputs PCM via HDMI, with no ability to bitstream DTS HDMA/TrueHD.

[nismo604]

You should go read here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Of particular note for Blu-ray:



This is why DTS-Master Audio is the all around best audio format for Blu-ray:



Sadly, few players internally decode DTS-MA at this time. Many will bitstream it out to a reciever that can decode it (such as the PS3), but that means you need a shinny new reciever as well as a BD player. As an extension of this, the new 2.0 players with analog outs are awesome because someone with an older, non HDMI reciever can now get lossless audio all the way around if the software has it.

correct me if I'm wrong but some newer discs such as Ironman the only english audio option is TrueHD, and in those cases a DD 5.1 shadow track is in place if your receiver or player can't decode the TrueHD stream.

[rm082e]

I think you've got that the wrong way round there ... PS3 decodes internally and outputs PCM via HDMI, with no ability to bitstream DTS HDMA/TrueHD.

You are correct. I was wrong. PS3 internally decodes DTS-MA & TrueHD and spits out PCM via HDMI. The result is the same though, because you still need a reciever that can accept PCM audio over HDMI if you want Lossless from your PS3. Where the DTS-MA data is being uncompressed doesn't matter much. And pretty much any reciever that can accept PCM audio over HDMI will also decode TrueHD and DTS-MA.

I misread the press release back with the 2.30 update hit. Sorry for the confusion.

correct me if I'm wrong but some newer discs such as Ironman the only english audio option is TrueHD, and in those cases a DD 5.1 shadow track is in place if your receiver or player can't decode the TrueHD stream.

Yeah, that's what caheaton was asking. Why a TrueHD and DD track? The reason is that TrueHD is not a Core + extension setup. You need a DD track if your setup can't handle TrueHD, such as if you are using an optical cable to an older reciever.

[STR8UP&DOWN]

You should go read here:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...Explained/1064

Of particular note for Blu-ray:



This is why DTS-Master Audio is the all around best audio format for Blu-ray:



Sadly, few players internally decode DTS-MA at this time. Many will bitstream it out to a reciever that can decode it (such as the PS3), but that means you need a shinny new reciever as well as a BD player. As an extension of this, the new 2.0 players with analog outs are awesome because someone with an older, non HDMI reciever can now get lossless audio all the way around if the software has it.

I'm a little confused ...

How can you get lossless (which I thought was digital) audio with analog outs?

That sounds contradictory to me.

P.S. I think I remember a discussion about this some months ago.

[rm082e]

I'm a little confused ...

How can you get lossless (which I thought was digital) audio with analog outs?

That sounds contradictory to me.

P.S. I think I remember a discussion about this some months ago.

Here is my understanding as explained to me by two crazy anal audiophiles I work with. Everything I've read online (which is a fair amount) backs this up:

A player with analog outputs like the new Sony BDP-550 (or similar) will internally decode the audio track to PCM. That means it's stripping the compression and getting the PCM (uncompressed) data. Think of this just like when you unzip a WinZip file on your PC. Then it sends that to the DAC (digital-to-analog) converter inside the machine. The DAC converts the 1s and 0s to frequencies and sends them out the RCA jacks to your reciever.

Now if you are bitstreaming, you are sending the compressed data over HDMI to a reciever, which then does the unpacking and digital to analog conversion. In the case of the PS3, it unpacks the data onboard and then sends the PCM data to the reciever. The reciever takes the PCM data and sends it to the DAC built into the reciever.

Either way, one machine or the other has to take the digital data on the disk and convert that into an electrical signal that gets send to the speakers. The question is, do you care which device is doing that job? "Audiophiles" usually perfer bitstreaming because they are of the opinion that the DAC in a high end reciever, or even a stand alone DAC module, does a better job than the less expensive DAC inside of a Blu-ray player. However, that is just their opinion...

[STR8UP&DOWN]

Here is my understanding as explained to me by two crazy anal audiophiles I work with. Everything I've read online (which is a fair amount) backs this up:

A player with analog outputs like the new Sony BDP-550 (or similar) will internally decode the audio track to PCM. That means it's stripping the compression and getting the PCM (uncompressed) data. Think of this just like when you unzip a WinZip file on your PC. Then it sends that to the DAC (digital-to-analog) converter inside the machine. The DAC converts the 1s and 0s to frequencies and sends them out the RCA jacks to your reciever.

Now if you are bitstreaming, you are sending the compressed data over HDMI to a reciever, which then does the unpacking and digital to analog conversion. In the case of the PS3, it unpacks the data onboard and then sends the PCM data to the reciever. The reciever takes the PCM data and sends it to the DAC built into the reciever.

Either way, one machine or the other has to take the digital data on the disk and convert that into an electrical signal that gets send to the speakers. The question is, do you care which device is doing that job? "Audiophiles" usually perfer bitstreaming because they are of the opinion that the DAC in a high end reciever, or even a stand alone DAC module, does a better job than the less expensive DAC inside of a Blu-ray player. However, that is just their opinion...

Wow. That was pretty thorough!

I know that, in the end, as the signal is traveling along the speaker wires to the speakers, that it is in fact an analog signal.

But, it just seems that as soon as the digital signal hits the analog outs, that it would no longer be lossless. I mean it's in the name ... "analog" outs.

Maybe I'm just identifying "lossless" with being "digital" ... and assuming that once the digital signal becomes analog, it's no longer lossless. But it's more about the compression?

So analog outs are capable of carrying uncompressed audio?

[rm082e]

Wow. That was pretty thorough!

I try to be helpful.

I know that, in the end, as the signal is traveling along the speaker wires to the speakers, that it is in fact an analog signal.

But, it just seems that as soon as the digital signal hits the analog outs, that it would no longer be lossless. I mean it's in the name ... "analog" outs.

Maybe I'm just identifying "lossless" with being "digital" ... and assuming that once the digital signal becomes analog, it's no longer lossless. But it's more about the compression?

The bolded part is the problem. You have to remember that digital technology has always been trying to catch up to what analog has been able to do for years. Most movies have typically been captured on photographic film, and the audio is recorded on analog tape. The process of converting movies into a digital format (such as DVD) typically looses quality.

It's not much different than if you take a sketch you drew out on a piece of paper with a pencil, then photo-copy it. The copy will loose some of the quality and look worse. Now there are certainly instances where analog signals can degrade, like if you make a copy of a copy of a casette tape. But in the case of Blu-ray home theater setups, the loss of quality, if it even exists, is likely undetectable by any reasonable means.

"Lossless" simply means that in the process of taking the audio from the analog master and bringing that to your speakers, no fidelity is lost. The audio track on the disk contains the same frequency set as the studio master. This is an important selling point for Blu-ray because a major complaint among home theater fans for the last decade is that DVD had "lossy" audio. DD and DTS soundtracks can never sound as good as what you hear in the theater, even if you have theater quality equipment in your home. This is because the disk didn't have enough space to house all that audio data, and the compression protocols were not advanced enough. But now they are.

The same is true of AVC-MPEG 4 and VC-1 video encryption. These compression formats are capable of recreating a video image that looks just as good as the master print. This is also known as "reference quality". So gone are the days of people like me saying "That's a movie I need to see in the theater. DVD won't be enough." There is now no difference in quality between the movie theater and your living room if you have the right equipment. In fact, I've seen some movies recently that looked better on HD DVD and Blu-ray than they did in the theater. Zodiac and Cars to be specific.

HD DVD and Blu-ray showed me there is no longer a reason to go to the theater. The last time I went was No Country For Old Men, and I have no interest in going back after dealing with a smelly, dirty theater, and watching a film on a format that comes with audio blips, cigarette burns, and choopy transitions...and paying more for it to boot. Blu-ray is now king, and I honestly don't see any other format killing it for many years to come. A reference quality transfer looks stunning, even on 120" screens. The audio is now lossless if the studio chooses, so in terms of quality, it's not going to get any better.

Sorry to ramble...

So analog outs are capable of carrying uncompressed audio?

That's pretty much the whole point. If you have an older reciever that does not have HDMI, you can only get lossless via analog outs. Players that have analog outs decode the lossless track and send the analog audio out to the reciever. The reciever amplifies that electrical signal and pushes it out to the speakers. It's more cables, but if you are happy with your reciever, it beats dropping cash on a new one.

[STR8UP&DOWN]

I try to be helpful.



The bolded part is the problem. You have to remember that digital technology has always been trying to catch up to what analog has been able to do for years. Most movies have typically been captured on photographic film, and the audio is recorded on analog tape. The process of converting movies into a digital format (such as DVD) typically looses quality.

It's not much different than if you take a sketch you drew out on a piece of paper with a pencil, then photo-copy it. The copy will loose some of the quality and look worse. Now there are certainly instances where analog signals can degrade, like if you make a copy of a copy of a casette tape. But in the case of Blu-ray home theater setups, the loss of quality, if it even exists, is likely undetectable by any reasonable means.

"Lossless" simply means that in the process of taking the audio from the analog master and bringing that to your speakers, no fidelity is lost. The audio track on the disk contains the same frequency set as the studio master. This is an important selling point for Blu-ray because a major complaint among home theater fans for the last decade is that DVD had "lossy" audio. DD and DTS soundtracks can never sound as good as what you hear in the theater, even if you have theater quality equipment in your home. This is because the disk didn't have enough space to house all that audio data, and the compression protocols were not advanced enough. But now they are.

The same is true of AVC-MPEG 4 and VC-1 video encryption. These compression formats are capable of recreating a video image that looks just as good as the master print. This is also known as "reference quality". So gone are the days of people like me saying "That's a movie I need to see in the theater. DVD won't be enough." There is now no difference in quality between the movie theater and your living room if you have the right equipment. In fact, I've seen some movies recently that looked better on HD DVD and Blu-ray than they did in the theater. Zodiac and Cars to be specific.

HD DVD and Blu-ray showed me there is no longer a reason to go to the theater. The last time I went was No Country For Old Men, and I have no interest in going back after dealing with a smelly, dirty theater, and watching a film on a format that comes with audio blips, cigarette burns, and choopy transitions...and paying more for it to boot. Blu-ray is now king, and I honestly don't see any other format killing it for many years to come. A reference quality transfer looks stunning, even on 120" screens. The audio is now lossless if the studio chooses, so in terms of quality, it's not going to get any better.

Sorry to ramble...



That's pretty much the whole point. If you have an older reciever that does not have HDMI, you can only get lossless via analog outs. Players that have analog outs decode the lossless track and send the analog audio out to the reciever. The reciever amplifies that electrical signal and pushes it out to the speakers. It's more cables, but if you are happy with your reciever, it beats dropping cash on a new one.

Gotcha. I get hung up on the whole digital thing sometimes. But I get it.

Let me ask you this question ...

I think I remember someone saying that they have to turn the receiver volume up way more when playing uncompressed audio, but when playing audio, say over optical, they don't have to have the volume up as high.

Is that correct?

Does the compression (that the optical does) somehow increase the output?

P.S. Sorry to kind of hijack the thread ... and go a little off-topic.

[rm082e]

Well I think the OP's question was answered, so it's not like we're purposely steering off topic.

As for the volume thing, it seems to be disk to disk, and user to user. I've heard some people saying they had to turn the volume up a couple notches when listening to lossless because it's more quiet. Others have the opposite issue.

Personally, I always have to adjust the volume disk per disk, no matter what format it's using, what speaker setup I'm using, or any other factors. Lossless, lossy, DD, DTS, whatever: I've never found an equipment setup or settings configuration that allowed me to put my reciever to a specific level and leave it there from disk to disk.

[STR8UP&DOWN]

Well I think the OP's question was answered, so it's not like we're purposely steering off topic.

As for the volume thing, it seems to be disk to disk, and user to user. I've heard some people saying they had to turn the volume up a couple notches when listening to lossless because it's more quiet. Others have the opposite issue.

Personally, I always have to adjust the volume disk per disk, no matter what format it's using, what speaker setup I'm using, or any other factors. Lossless, lossy, DD, DTS, whatever: I've never found an equipment setup or settings configuration that allowed me to put my reciever to a specific level and leave it there from disk to disk.

Ok. Aside from the normal disc-to-disc volume adjusting, the post I read before made it sound like it was symptomatic of lossless to be "quieter" than lossy and needed to be turned way up, but that could have been just one person complaining.

Myself, I haven't had the honor of saying "I'm lossless" yet ... still bitstreaming through optical ... but Black Friday is fast approaching, so that might change soon.

Anyway, thanks for the time and info.

Have a good holiday!