No lossless sound for Xbox 360 Elite system

[Anthony1]

Amir of AVSforums has confirmed my worst fear in regards to the Xbox 360 Elite. No lossless sound when used with the HD-DVD add on unit. For those that have no idea what the hell lossless sound is, it works like this:

When movies are put on DVD, the original audio has to be compressed to fit onto the DVD. Dolby Digital and DTS are two of the known compression routines. They sound incredible, but it's still a known fact that the sound is compressed. With the advent of HD-DVD and Blu Ray, along comes much greater storage capacity and the ability for movies to include the lossless (or uncompressed) soundtrack. As good as Dolby Digital 5.1 might sound, the lossless version of it sounds considerably improved. To get lossless sound from a HD-DVD or Blu Ray player, you need one of two things:


1. HDMI output

or

2. Analog outputs for each channel


It was thought that HD-DVD add-on owners would finally have a way to actually experience the improvement of lossless audio. The Xbox 360 Elite system has a HDMI output. Unfortunately, Amir from AVSforum dashed those dreams. Amir works directly for Microsoft, and was one of the lead people involved with the HD-DVD add-on unit, and explained in a recent post that the HDMI output for the 360 isn't meant for much more than video. Apparently it's some kind of hardware limitation with the 360. It seems that adding the ability to output lossless sound to the Xbox 360 Elite would have required a major re-working of the audio subsystem of the Xbox 360, and that it just wasn't worth it for MS to do that. He explained that the main reason for the HDMI output, was for people with 1080p TV's that lacked a VGA input that accepts 1080p. The Elite allows these people to see 1080p video via HDMI.


As a HD-DVD add-on owner myself, I'm very dissapointed with this bit of news. I'm very interested in hearing lossless sound in movies (and on certain PS3 games). I don't have a receiver that can handle lossless sound yet, but I'm planning on adding one in the very near future. I was hoping I would be able to hear lossless sound for both Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies, as well as certain PS3 games (Resistance, Lair). At this point, I'm thinking maybe I should sell my HD-DVD add on, and pick up a standalone HD-DVD player instead. I've heard some of the HD-DVD standalone players are going to get a pretty big price drop pretty soon. Well, I guess on the bright side, instead of spending unnecessary cash upgrading to the Elite, I can sell my HD-DVD add on, and add some money to that, and just get a standalone when the price drops.

[boatofcar]

So at first you claim: "As good as Dolby Digital 5.1 might sound, the lossless version of it sounds considerably improved."

Then you go on to say:" I'm very interested in hearing lossless sound in movies (and on certain PS3 games). I don't have a receiver that can handle lossless sound yet, but I'm planning on adding one in the very near future."


...which leads me to believe that

1- You've never heard lossless sound before, just taken the word of some "audiophiles" who think that wire color improves sound also.

2- You've heard lossless sound in an uncontrolled environment and have not really had a chance to see if it's better by giving yourself a double blind test with the help of a friend.


Either way, it sounds like you're whining about a feature that absolutely no one cares about, because all those concerned with lossless sound already know that a standalone HD-DVD player will give you better overall results than an add-on for a video game machine.

[Garry Shandling]

Gary Shandling

[BHvrd]

I just hope sound gets back to as good as it used to sound on laserdisc hi-fi.

I've never liked dvd audio. I always said it was too compressed and well, sounds like Gary Shandlin's face looks.

[roushimsx]

So at first you claim...

Well, I spent all of that time reading the OP and you stole my reply. I will say that I enjoy having the option of lossless audio, but with modern lossy compression codecs it's not an issue at all if it's not there. What's next? Are people going to start bitching about wanting uncompressed video because AVC level 5.1 looks like utter shit all of a sudden?

[Garry Shandling]

I just hope

Gary Shandling

[Lil_John]

Gary Shandling

WHAT!?

[GillianSeed]

Well, I spent all of that time reading the OP and you stole my reply. I will say that I enjoy having the option of lossless audio, but with modern lossy compression codecs it's not an issue at all if it's not there. What's next? Are people going to start bitching about wanting uncompressed video because AVC level 5.1 looks like utter shit all of a sudden?

Well the point is that they're marketing the Elite toward the sort of hardcore audio/videophiles who do bitch about stuff like this, even if the average consumer is left scratching their heads.

[Humongous Forum Troll]

nonsense

Do you ever stop making threads, you goon?

[Garry Shandling]

Amir of AVSforums has confirmed

Gary Shandling

[Ralph Wiggum]

Amir of AVSforums has confirmed my worst fear in regards to the Xbox 360 Elite. No lossless sound when used with the HD-DVD add on unit. For those that have no idea what the hell lossless sound is, it works like this:

When movies are put on DVD, the original audio has to be compressed to fit onto the DVD. Dolby Digital and DTS are two of the known compression routines. They sound incredible, but it's still a known fact that the sound is compressed. With the advent of HD-DVD and Blu Ray, along comes much greater storage capacity and the ability for movies to include the lossless (or uncompressed) soundtrack. As good as Dolby Digital 5.1 might sound, the lossless version of it sounds considerably improved. To get lossless sound from a HD-DVD or Blu Ray player, you need one of two things:


1. HDMI output

or

2. Analog outputs for each channel


It was thought that HD-DVD add-on owners would finally have a way to actually experience the improvement of lossless audio. The Xbox 360 Elite system has a HDMI output. Unfortunately, Amir from AVSforum dashed those dreams. Amir works directly for Microsoft, and was one of the lead people involved with the HD-DVD add-on unit, and explained in a recent post that the HDMI output for the 360 isn't meant for much more than video. Apparently it's some kind of hardware limitation with the 360. It seems that adding the ability to output lossless sound to the Xbox 360 Elite would have required a major re-working of the audio subsystem of the Xbox 360, and that it just wasn't worth it for MS to do that. He explained that the main reason for the HDMI output, was for people with 1080p TV's that lacked a VGA input that accepts 1080p. The Elite allows these people to see 1080p video via HDMI.


As a HD-DVD add-on owner myself, I'm very dissapointed with this bit of news. I'm very interested in hearing lossless sound in movies (and on certain PS3 games). I don't have a receiver that can handle lossless sound yet, but I'm planning on adding one in the very near future. I was hoping I would be able to hear lossless sound for both Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies, as well as certain PS3 games (Resistance, Lair). At this point, I'm thinking maybe I should sell my HD-DVD add on, and pick up a standalone HD-DVD player instead. I've heard some of the HD-DVD standalone players are going to get a pretty big price drop pretty soon. Well, I guess on the bright side, instead of spending unnecessary cash upgrading to the Elite, I can sell my HD-DVD add on, and add some money to that, and just get a standalone when the price drops.

Then, the doctor told me that BOTH my eyes were lazy! And that's why it was the best summer ever.

[Jumpman]

What's an X-box?

[Humongous Forum Troll]

What's an X-box?

Only someone as stupid as you, as stupid as that racist Fighter17, would not know.

[Wilford Brimley]

Ungrateful kids today...back in my day, we played with rocks and listened to our crystal sets and we liked it.

[gepeto]

Ungrateful kids today...back in my day, we played with rocks and listened to our crystal sets and we liked it.

Man wilford you have some of the funniest lines. This has made my day for sure:) By the way how is robert blake?

[nebrazca78]

So at first you claim: "As good as Dolby Digital 5.1 might sound, the lossless version of it sounds considerably improved."

Then you go on to say:" I'm very interested in hearing lossless sound in movies (and on certain PS3 games). I don't have a receiver that can handle lossless sound yet, but I'm planning on adding one in the very near future."

...which leads me to believe that

1- You've never heard lossless sound before, just taken the word of some "audiophiles" who think that wire color improves sound also.

2- You've heard lossless sound in an uncontrolled environment and have not really had a chance to see if it's better by giving yourself a double blind test with the help of a friend.


We know WAVs are better than AAC/MP3s. This issue is the same thing. Lossless will be better but boat is right, few will care about this. I mean c'mon, the masses listen to compressed music and don't know the difference (unless it's encoded at a low rate) or don't care.


Well, I spent all of that time reading the OP and you stole my reply. I will say that I enjoy having the option of lossless audio, but with modern lossy compression codecs it's not an issue at all if it's not there. What's next? Are people going to start bitching about wanting uncompressed video because AVC level 5.1 looks like utter shit all of a sudden?

It is an issue to audiophiles. But the percentage of people who belong to this group is low which is why it won't really matter. And yes, I've been bitching about compressed audio and video for a LONG time. I'm just happy they finally make a DVD player for my car that plays WAVs. Fuck off, MP3s.

[Jorpho]

We know WAVs are better than AAC/MP3s.

We do?

[nebrazca78]

We do?

Are you being sarcastic? Wavs are lossless and as far as I know AAC and MP3 are lossy codecs.

[Jorpho]

Are you being sarcastic? Wavs are lossless and as far as I know AAC and MP3 are lossy codecs.

Yes..? And you're telling me that you can always tell the difference between a WAV and a high-bitrate MP3 just by listening?

[jajaja]

Yes..? And you're telling me that you can always tell the difference between a WAV and a high-bitrate MP3 just by listening?

You do need the proper equipemnt for it. If you have like $20 headset or $100 speakers (like i have) you probly wont hear much difference. It also depends on the source of the sound of course. If you convert a mp3 to wav it wont sound better. But when you compress sound, you will always lose some quality. I wonder if its possible to have the exact same quality as the original source if you covert it to some other format, eventho its the same bitrate. I heard that you lose some quality when you convert.

[roushimsx]

But when you compress sound, you will always lose some quality. I wonder if its possible to have the exact same quality as the original source if you covert it to some other format, eventho its the same bitrate. I heard that you lose some quality when you convert.

Unless you use lossless compression! I encode everything to FLAC when I rip CDs because it takes less space than WAV or BIN/CUE and it's easy to transcode to any other format without an additional stage of loss that you'd get if you ripped to OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC/WMA (because it seems like every damn player has a different native format :( ).

That said, Level 10 OGG or a high bitrate AAC is more than adequate for 99.99999% of the people out there (hell, on pretty much anything under a grand or so, you can get away with Level 6 or 7 OGG and never know the difference unless someone tells you) and that extremely rare person that really can tell the difference between between an extremely high bitrate (and properly encoded!) OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC most likely wouldn't be caught dead owning a low end, common man's platform like the Xbox360. Maybe a classic PS1 for audio CDs, but it could only be the most pristine PS1 that's resting on vibration dampeners and modified to support their modular home theater controller. Audiophiles are funny like that.

People that argue about how much lossy compression sucks are typically the people that have negative memories of 96kbps BladeMP3-encoded tracks that they snagged off of Napster back in the 90s. AAC is an amazing compression scheme (as are the other modern lossy compression schemes, for that matter). Mourning the lack of lossless in the Xbox360 is like mourning the lack of hardcore, overly detailed Derek Smart-style space sims on the PS2: Wrong audience, man.

[jajaja]

Unless you use lossless compression!

Well.. if its lossless compression there is no compression hehe ;) (i know you can achive the same bitrate in movies with compression tho, dunno how it is with sound). But i know what you mean, converting to another format. Afaik audio CD got a bitrate on about 1411kbps. I dont know if even MP3 supports that high bitrate. Checked my version of RazorLAME (mp3 encoder) and i can only set it to 320kbps. I dont know about OGG and AAC etc. If its possible to have 1411kbps bitrate on those formats, wont they take just as much space as the .wav file, or almost as much?

[rbudrick]

That said, Level 10 OGG or a high bitrate AAC is more than adequate for 99.99999% of the people out there (hell, on pretty much anything under a grand or so, you can get away with Level 6 or 7 OGG and never know the difference unless someone tells you) and that extremely rare person that really can tell the difference between between an extremely high bitrate (and properly encoded!) OGG/MP3/MPC/AAC most likely wouldn't be caught dead owning a low end, common man's platform like the Xbox360


Well.. if its lossless compression there is no compression

No, that's not true. There ways to compress data while suffering no loss...it usually will atake up more space, than lossy methods, though. Take a zip file, for instance.

-Rob

[jajaja]

No, that's not true. There ways to compress data while suffering no loss...it usually will atake up more space, than lossy methods, though. Take a zip file, for instance.

-Rob

Winzip (and simular packing programs) is a different type of compression. If you have a file thats originally 1MB and you manage to compress it down to 0.5MB you cannot access the file without having 1MB free RAM or HDD space. It decompress the file(s) first before it access it. This kinda compression is for storage only.

When you compress an audio file to i.e MP3, lets say 4MB, that will be the size it uses to play also. It doesnt decompress the file into 50MB (if that was the source file) before playing it. To be honest i have no idea if its possible to maintain 1:1 quality when converting to another format. I guess it depends on the bitrate. If someone know more about this, then speak :)

[njiska]

Winzip (and simular packing programs) is a different type of compression. If you have a file thats originally 1MB and you manage to compress it down to 0.5MB you cannot access the file without having 1MB free RAM or HDD space. It decompress the file(s) first before it access it. This kinda compression is for storage only.

When you compress an audio file to i.e MP3, lets say 4MB, that will be the size it uses to play also. It doesnt decompress the file into 50MB (if that was the source file) before playing it. To be honest i have no idea if its possible to maintain 1:1 quality when converting to another format. I guess it depends on the bitrate. If someone know more about this, then speak :)

That's not true at all. The difference is that an MP3 decodes on the fly. The data is decompressed into a buffer rather then on to the HDD such as with a zip. I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec. Or MLP Meridian Lossless Packing. It's all about the math used. Lossless codecs compress based on math. Lossey compress by math and by cuting audio outside of a certain spectrum.

[skaar]

I'm very happy with my component output and optical 5 channel audio. Life's good for me.

Screw HDMI.

[jajaja]

That's not true at all. The difference is that an MP3 decodes on the fly. The data is decompressed into a buffer rather then on to the HDD such as with a zip. I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec. Or MLP Meridian Lossless Packing. It's all about the math used. Lossless codecs compress based on math. Lossey compress by math and by cuting audio outside of a certain spectrum.

My point was alittle unclear. What i ment was that MP3 doesnt decompress the music like Winzip, if source was 50MB you dont need 50MB free HDD or RAM to play it. When i play a VBR (variable bitrate) MP3 in Winamp it only uses 500KB of RAM. The file still stays 4MB. Ye, all computer stuff is basicly based on math. But tnx for the info on FLAC. Thats what i asked for, if it was possible to maintain a 1:1 ration of quality and compress it. Seems like FLAC does it :)

[roushimsx]

Thats what i asked for, if it was possible to maintain a 1:1 ration of quality and compress it. Seems like FLAC does it :)

And there's a hell of a lot more (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Lossless_comparison) for you to play around with and find which one suits you best :)

[jajaja]

Tnx for the info :) Not something i need to do myself now tho, but its always nice to sit on some info about it just in case i need it or need to help others :) How much is this used in games? Anyone know that? Resistance for PS3 is suppose to have uncompressed audio.

Btw, that was suppose to be 1:1 ratio, not ration hehe. Dunno why i put a "n" at the end there.

[njiska]

Tnx for the info :) Not something i need to do myself now tho, but its always nice to sit on some info about it just in case i need it or need to help others :) How much is this used in games? Anyone know that? Resistance for PS3 is suppose to have uncompressed audio.

Btw, that was suppose to be 1:1 ratio, not ration hehe. Dunno why i put a "n" at the end there.

I don't know about Resistence having uncompressed audio, but i do know lossless is over rated. I've taken 96/24 lossless and made 44.1/24 DTS from it. They sound identical to my ears. Even 48/16 DD sounds pretty much the same.

The only differences i noticed while playing around reencoding audio is that you have to be careful about your codec's settings. DTS for example adds bass gain to the file and DD under powers the rear channels and raises the center +3 db.

Graned these are not codec's you'll be using for ripping CDs, but it's just something to watch for. Personally FLAC worked the best out of all my tests and i was able to keep it 96/24.

[Captain Wrong]

FLAC is lossless, FYI.

[jajaja]

Dont know if Resistance uses losless sound, but i mean i've heard it somewhere, hence the ~17GB size of the game.

[njiska]

FLAC is lossless, FYI.


I suggest you read up on FLAC. it's a lossless audio codec.

Already stated and known and loved. I like using it for ripping my DVD-As because it's 5.1 96/24 and lossless. But that being said the lossey DTS and DD codec's work just as well. Though i prefer to maintain the resolution of 24-bit if i can.

[Nature Boy]

Seems sad to me that we can get excited about spending tonnes of dough on something so that we no longer *lose,* when some of us weren't even aware we were losing it in the first place.

I haven't bought a big HD TV yet because they haven't perfected that technology yet either. Guess I'll wait for lossless sound to be perfected now too.

[njiska]

Seems sad to me that we can get excited about spending tonnes of dough on something so that we no longer *lose,* when some of us weren't even aware we were losing it in the first place.

I haven't bought a big HD TV yet because they haven't perfected that technology yet either. Guess I'll wait for lossless sound to be perfected now too.

Lossless sound is pretty prefected. Dolby True HD is 96/24 or higher MLP wrapped in a Dolby Header. DTS Master Audio i beleive is PPCM with a DTS header and some Blu-Ray Disc just have straight LPCM which is basically raw audio.

Granted recievers that support the formats are a little rare right now, but all HD DVD players are mandated to support decoding Dolby True HD and out puting them over the 6 ch multi out. In short if you have a reciever with a multi-in (most do) you can have proper 6 channel Lossless audio. the only exception is the Xbox 360 which doesn't have 6 CH out.

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

[heybtbm]

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

Hardware requirements? That would really suck. I thought these issues could be fixed via future software patches.

[jajaja]

Oh hey while we're bitching about the next gen of AV, did anyone catch that no current BD player including the PS3 meets the final ratified Blu-Ray spec? What's worse is they don't meet the Hardware requirements. it doesn't mean they're obsolete, but it does mean they won't support all the features of the final BD spec or all of the Blu-Ray java stuff. Thanks for rushing to market before the spec was finallized.

Source to this? You mean the Java APIs?

[njiska]

Source to this? You mean the Java APIs?

I can't find the link as i'm at work right now. here's and AVS thread about it. i can't read it myself.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498172

The wiki is also updated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray#1.1_.28mandatory_November_2007.29

And some more

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/03/27/current-blu-ray-players-obsolete-by-october/

[Anthony1]

I've only heard lossless sound once at a high end audio/video shop. They had the Blu Ray version of Black Hawk Down, and they switched back and forth between the LPCM version and the regular Dolby Digital 5.1 version, and the difference wasn't exactly night and day, but man... with some really good speakers, the LPCM just sent chills down your spine. Again, the speakers and receiver that you have are a huge, huge factor. If you have cheapo Wal-Mart speakers, you won't notice much of any improvement with lossless sound, but if you have some pretty high quality speakers, then the difference is pretty damn enjoyable.

The guys at Factor 5 who are making Lair, are including lossless 7.1 sound (like Resistance), in their game, and they claim that the sound improvement is significant, but they also understand that very small number of people will actually be able to experience it the way it's meant to.

[njiska]

I've only heard lossless sound once at a high end audio/video shop. They had the Blu Ray version of Black Hawk Down, and they switched back and forth between the LPCM version and the regular Dolby Digital 5.1 version, and the difference wasn't exactly night and day, but man... with some really good speakers, the LPCM just sent chills down your spine. Again, the speakers and receiver that you have are a huge, huge factor. If you have cheapo Wal-Mart speakers, you won't notice much of any improvement with lossless sound, but if you have some pretty high quality speakers, then the difference is pretty damn enjoyable.

The guys at Factor 5 who are making Lair, are including lossless 7.1 sound (like Resistance), in their game, and they claim that the sound improvement is significant, but they also understand that very small number of people will actually be able to experience it the way it's meant to.

Keep in mind human psycology makes use hear things differently and keep in mind what i said earlier about Dolby as a codec. If you've ever done Dolby encoding you'll know that it's not quite as simple as just pumping the file into an encoder. It's quite complicated.

I'm still not convinced that most of the differences heard between the difference audio tracks is in the mixes, not the raw codec.

[jajaja]

I can't find the link as i'm at work right now. here's and AVS thread about it. i can't read it myself.

http://www.avforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=498172

The wiki is also updated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray#1.1_.28mandatory_November_2007.29

And some more

http://www.gamerawr.com/2007/03/27/current-blu-ray-players-obsolete-by-october/

Thanks. I just read through some of it now. It says that with PS3 it can most likely be fixed with a firmware upgrade:


Given the nature of the PS3s hardware, it’s reasonable to assume PIP will eventually be supported.

PS3 already got 256MB system RAM. This is only for movie experience, just so thats said, it doesnt effect the games (not like your going to use picture in picture or director's commentary in games hehe). New produced PS3 consoles might also include this support.

It might sux for the people who already payed $1000 for a player, but i dont think its that big a deal. The way i understand it the picture quality and all the sound formats will still be intact. These are the most important things. Personally i never watched a whole movie with directors commentary or have had any use for PIP (picture in picture).

The first players are usualy the worse. In the end, BR players will be as cheap and common as DVD players are today anyway.

[Anthony1]

Keep in mind human psycology makes use hear things differently and keep in mind what i said earlier about Dolby as a codec. If you've ever done Dolby encoding you'll know that it's not quite as simple as just pumping the file into an encoder. It's quite complicated.

I'm still not convinced that most of the differences heard between the difference audio tracks is in the mixes, not the raw codec.


Bottom line, I know what I heard. I'm not in the placebo camp. Lossless on Black Hawk Down definitely sounded better. Again, not the difference between say regular stereo and DD5.1, but still a difference nonetheless. Of course, with different movies, the improvement might be less noticeable. I've only heard Black Hawk Down. I can't comment on how much better Resistance sounds in lossless or anything else.

I'm going to buy a new Receiver with HDMI that can handle the lossless sound, but I'm looking for certain features at the right price. Right now, there isn't anything available that does all the things I want it to, so I have to sit on the sidelines and wonder how much better all these Blu Ray movies that I'm watching would sound.

[roushimsx]

Thanks. I just read through some of it now. It says that with PS3 it can most likely be fixed with a firmware upgrade:

That hope + the low price are what compelled me to buy a PS3 over a stand-alone player.


Bottom line, I know what I heard. I'm not in the placebo camp. Lossless on Black Hawk Down definitely sounded better.

I don't doubt that that's what you heard, but that doesn't make it true. That's the magical thing about the whole placebo camp and by your own admission, you were made aware of when they were switching audio streams. Now if you had done some double blind tests then I'd be more willing to agree that you could actually tell the difference, but as it is it sounds more like you've been *p l a c e b o e f f e c t ' d *.

[ProgrammingAce]

So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...

[jajaja]

Why are so many beliving that Anthony1 didnt hear any big difference? Why would he say he heard any difference if he didnt? Its like looking at 2 LCD TVs, one is much more expencive than the other and the guys who sells it say the expencive one got a much better picture. Does this mean that your eyes change because of these words? You see what you see and you hear what you hear.

If i had been at some demonstration and noticed difference between 2 or several of things and people told me i didnt really notice any difference i would just look at them and tell them to check out the demo for themself before saying something. Now its just assumptions.

I know about the placebo effect, but as said, its just assumptions since people here havnt experienced the same demonstration. Looking at specs inst enough. Reading specs about 2 TVs doesnt always let you know which one is the best. You must see it for yourself.



So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...

I'm pretty sure the reciever also had good support for DTS 5.1. Even if they try to sell you something you will see/hear the difference just because they say it. And who knows what they said, maybe they just wanted to demonstrate the difference, not sure they said what was best. Check it out for yourself before you say if there is any difference or not.

[Anthony1]

So wait... in Anthony's in store demo, they were pumping losless 6 channel sound through a receiver. Then they would switch to DTS 5.1 on the same receiver? And you wonder why there's a sound difference?

Mind you, you were watching a demonstration by the same people who were trying to sell you a new receiver...


Dude, I used to sell audio equipment for a living ok. I think I know how shit sounds. There was an audio/video chain on the West Coast known as "The Good Guys!". I worked there for 3 years and sold receivers and speakers and subwoofers. I'm not a hardcore audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but I was listeing to discrete Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks before you even knew of their existence.

[nebrazca78]

Yes..? And you're telling me that you can always tell the difference between a WAV and a high-bitrate MP3 just by listening?

Always? I'm sure I could make a mistake. But 99% of the time, yes.

Don't forget, the better your audio system, the more apparent these flaws are. If you listen to music through a clock radio MP3s are fine. In my car I have a Clarion head unit (soon to be replaced with a JVC DVD player that plays WAVs, haven't had time to put it in yet) and Infinity Reference Components. In my old car I used to have Infinity Perfect components running off of separate JL Audio amps (with 2 Perfect 10s for subs) and a nice Alpine CD player. Trust, the difference between MP3s and WAVs is rather obvious. And I encoded all my own MP3s at 320 kpbs (some variable, some not).

[Jorpho]

I daresay if you have such a nice stereo system in your car, then it's either being drowned out to the degree that a substantial improvement in quality would be nullified... or everyone else on the road is also enjoying your music.

But then, I know nothing of car stereos.

[nebrazca78]

I daresay if you have such a nice stereo system in your car, then it's either being drowned out to the degree that a substantial improvement in quality would be nullified... or everyone else on the road is also enjoying your music.


Drowned out by what? I don't follow what you're saying here.

But yeah, sometimes people used to put their windows up. As I got older I started turning the stereo lower at stoplights. While the system was built for pristine sound quality, the bass could still be heard long before the car was visible.

I've only ever admitted this to one other person, but the first time I heard Santana III through the Infinity Perfects I cried a little bit. It was that good.

And so yeah I am as die hard a music lover as I am a Sega fan.



But then, I know nothing of car stereos.

If you are a music nut you should check them out. For people that don't have space for a listening room or a great home stereo it's the best you can get (not that I have either of those).

Plus, think about how much you drive. Most people drive for at least 1/2 hour a day. You could be listening to better-than-concert quality sound daily. I'm sure it wouldn't for everyone but it improves my life drastically. For me it is a necessity.

[Jorpho]

If you are a music nut you should check them out. For people that don't have space for a listening room or a great home stereo it's the best you can get (not that I have either of those).

Plus, think about how much you drive. Most people drive for at least 1/2 hour a day. You could be listening to better-than-concert quality sound daily. I'm sure it wouldn't for everyone but it improves my life drastically. For me it is a necessity.

LOL Dude, I don't even have a car. I barely know how to drive.

I am generally content with my lovely pair of expensive headphones.

[Ran]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!

Audiophiles is one of the most stupid group of people. They pay thousands of dollars to get special super-cables, and they spend hundred of hours doing things that in the end doesn't do anything... They keep saying that they can hear the difference, but in every single blind test, they're wrong. And when we tell them that, they either say the test was a scam (Uhm, NO?) or that the test conditions with it's stress makes it hard to judge...
Audiophiles beliefs is pure psuedo science.

[jonjandran]

I've heard lossless sound before and I didn't care for it.

Of course it was my wife yelling at me for an hour.

True HD Surround Lossless Sound :)

[jajaja]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!

320kbps VS 1411kbps, enough said. DVDA (DVD audio) got even higher bitrate. So if no one could tell the difference, why do they keep on improving the audio?


jonjandran: Haha LOL

[Jorpho]

320kbps VS 1411kbps, enough said. DVDA (DVD audio) got even higher bitrate. So if no one could tell the difference, why do they keep on improving the audio?

Whether there's actually a difference or not, people will pay for anything if you can convince them that there's a difference.

[jajaja]

Whether there's actually a difference or not, people will pay for anything if you can convince them that there's a difference.

Do you think there is a market for people who will pay like 10k for a reciever just because the salesman say its better than a 1k reciever? Or that they use millions for reseach and developement on making newer stuff thats better on the paper only and relay on salesmen to sell thing from specs only? No dice :)

[nebrazca78]

Seriously, when will people understand that no single person can hear the difference between CD-quality and a 320 kb/s mp3 file ripped properly?
Every single serious test shows that!


And if you could point us to some solid information on these "tests" that would be great.



Audiophiles is one of the most stupid group of people.


Nice grammar. You are obviously a Harvard graduate.



They pay thousands of dollars to get special super-cables, and they spend hundred of hours doing things that in the end doesn't do anything...


What is it exactly that "they" spend HUNDREDS of hours doing?



They keep saying that they can hear the difference, but in every single blind test, they're wrong. And when we tell them that, they either say the test was a scam (Uhm, NO?) or that the test conditions with it's stress makes it hard to judge...


Again, let's see some hard facts to back up what is almost certainly bullshit.



Audiophiles beliefs is pure psuedo science.

It's more like what you have can pass for pseudo-intelligence.



This just goes to show that you don't really know what audiophiles are. It has little to do with spending money. It has to do with trying to achieve the best sound reproduction possible. Now if you are not wealthy, there are limits, but the object is not to spend money.

From the GZA:

"your lyrics are weak, like clock radio speakers"

[boatofcar]

And if you could point us to some solid information on these "tests" that would be great.





I too would like to see these tests you speak of.

[njiska]

I too would like to see these tests you speak of.

I can tell you all from personal experience that the mind is a terrible thing. When i was doing my DVD-A tests described earlier i thought the MLP sounded best. That is until i blindfolded myself and had someone else randomize the audio. I could tell no difference and in fact the only way i new one was DTS was because i noticed the Bass gain that DTS adds.

Looking at MP3's it's the same way. Most people can't tell the difference without a source next to them for direct comparision and when they do if it's a high quality MP3 it's next to impossible to tell.

Try to keep in mind guys that bit rate is trivial. It only has to do with how data is compressed. What matters is Sampling Rate, Resolution (16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit) and in the case of lossy audio how far into the human hearing specturm it dips.

[jajaja]

Try to keep in mind guys that bit rate is trivial. It only has to do with how data is compressed. What matters is Sampling Rate, Resolution (16-bit, 20-bit, 24-bit) and in the case of lossy audio how far into the human hearing specturm it dips.

Afaik bitrate is calculated out from this. Like Audio CD:

16 bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels (stereo) = ~1411kbps

How does it goes for i.e 320kbps MP3?

[njiska]

Afaik bitrate is calculated out from this. Like Audio CD:

16 bit x 44.1 kHz x 2 channels (stereo) = ~1411kbps

How does it goes for i.e 320kbps MP3?

You have to take compression into account with MP3.

16 x 44.1 x 2 x ? (Compression thingy). The more compressed the lower the bit rate. But it doesn't mean less data. just less data is being read from the file.

For example the Bit rate on LPCM is higher then the Bit Rate on PPCM.

[nebrazca78]

I'd also like to say that doing a blind test on music you've never heard is near useless. Just because one "sounds better" than the other doesn't mean it's better. The point of being an audiophile is to try and reproduce music (and other audio) exactly as it was recorded. Compression is known to "color" the sound.

For instance if the MP3 algorithm cut out some midbass making the lows and highs seem lower and higher, people might say it "sounds better". And you know what? It might! But that is NOT what was originally recorded and to me that is not being true to the artist(s) who made and mixed the program material. If artist "X" wanted it to sound a certain way, that's the way I want to hear it.

So to do a true test, use a CD that you know well. Make sure you've heard it on a decent system. Then make a MP3 from it and perform the blind test (also on a decent system). Personally I think a lot more people than you would expect will know the difference.

I was also wondering, why did they ever come out with SACD if no one could tell the difference? Why is DVD capable of better sound than CD if there is no difference?

[jajaja]

You have to take compression into account with MP3.

16 x 44.1 x 2 x ? (Compression thingy). The more compressed the lower the bit rate. But it doesn't mean less data. just less data is being read from the file.

For example the Bit rate on LPCM is higher then the Bit Rate on PPCM.

Ah.. of course, i didnt think of the compression hehe. But.. 320kbps MP3 VS CD audio? Possible to get the exact same quality? Unfortunatly no.

But one thing uncompressed sound (or data in general) got in advantage is that it doesnt need to use CPU power to decompress it :) Now, exactly how much that its required for decompressing sound i dont know, but its some atleast. When you dont have to decompress you can used this CPU power to other things (thinking of gaming wise) ;)

[njiska]

I was also wondering, why did they ever come out with SACD if no one could tell the difference? Why is DVD capable of better sound than CD if there is no difference?

The answer to that is largely surround sound. The better question is, if those formats truely sound better, why haven't they taken off?


Also i do my audio testing using Hotel California. pretty recognizable song.

[nebrazca78]

The answer to that is largely surround sound. The better question is, if those formats truely sound better, why haven't they taken off?


I think that's obvious. Most people can't tell the difference, making it a niche market, which also makes it much more expensive, and higher cost is prohibitive to most people. I mean, I don't have those technologies, and I am by far the biggest audiophile within my group of friends. If the cost were more reasonable, I would have it.



Also i do my audio testing using Hotel California. pretty recognizable song.

True, but how about if you don't count the people who have only heard it on the radio, cassette tape or vinyl? I've heard that song a million times but I wouldn't trust myself to know it anywhere near well enough to perform a test. I've never heard the CD. I suggest that individuals listen to a CD of their own and then convert the music to MP3 and then back to WAV. Once you are familiar with how it's supposed to sound, then test yourself on a standalone CD player.

And really, if you don't have a decent setup MP3s are fine. I wouldn't say that I could even tell the difference on most DP'ers home systems (including mine).

I would wager to say that unless you've spent $1000 or more (not to say price is always consistent with quality, but as they say, you get what you pay for) on your setup, which few have, all of this is moot anyway.

[njiska]

I think that's obvious. Most people can't tell the difference, making it a niche market, which also makes it much more expensive, and higher cost is prohibitive to most people. I mean, I don't have those technologies, and I am by far the biggest audiophile within my group of friends. If the cost were more reasonable, I would have it.



True, but how about if you don't count the people who have only heard it on the radio, cassette tape or vinyl? I've heard that song a million times but I wouldn't trust myself to know it anywhere near well enough to perform a test. I've never heard the CD. I suggest that individuals listen to a CD of their own and then convert the music to MP3 and then back to WAV. Once you are familiar with how it's supposed to sound, then test yourself on a standalone CD player.

And really, if you don't have a decent setup MP3s are fine. I wouldn't say that I could even tell the difference on most DP'ers home systems (including mine).

I would wager to say that unless you've spent $1000 or more (not to say price is always consistent with quality, but as they say, you get what you pay for) on your setup, which few have, all of this is moot anyway.

$790 Jbl speakers
$400 Sub (not sure of brand)
$1000+ Onkeyo Reciever

It's a pretty good setup. Also using a panasonic 5 disc dvd-a player and using the multi channel outs for MLP. I ripped hotel california to DTS from the MLP and then compared it to the straight DTS tracks on the disc. all three sound the same except that the DTS has a slight bass gain. This is a known effect of the encoder. It's hard to notice though.

I only used myself, my brother and a friend for testing. All of whom are familar with the song.

[Jorpho]

Do you think there is a market for people who will pay like 10k for a reciever just because the salesman say its better than a 1k reciever? Or that they use millions for reseach and developement on making newer stuff thats better on the paper only and relay on salesmen to sell thing from specs only? No dice :)

It is the salesman's job to convince you that the 10k reciever is better than the 1k reciever, and if he can tell you that millions of dollars were spent on research and development for the newer reciever, it may be that much easier to convince you.

This is the case for far more things than just audio equipment.

[jajaja]

It is the salesman's job to convince you that the 10k reciever is better than the 1k reciever, and if he can tell you that millions of dollars were spent on research and development for the newer reciever, it may be that much easier to convince you.

This is the case for far more things than just audio equipment.

Of course, but my point was that the sale were only based on techs on the paper, not by personal experience with the equipment. You dont go into the store and ask to buy a TV, only listen to what the salesman say and base your purchase on that. You will check out the TVs for yourself before buying them, seeing picture quality etc. If the 10k and 1k TV looked exactly the same for every human being, 99% would buy the 1k TV. Then there would be no need to use millions on researching to make better stuff.

[Gillian Seed]

Most of the audiophiles I know have completely missed the boat on music. Spending half of their time purchasing or encoding the same music they listened to 20 years ago in supposedly superior formats. They spend the other half of their time on forums like Hydrogen Audio and conducting blind tests, all the while forgetting why it was they started listening to music in the first place.

[nebrazca78]

$790 Jbl speakers
$400 Sub (not sure of brand)
$1000+ Onkeyo Reciever

It's a pretty good setup. Also using a panasonic 5 disc dvd-a player and using the multi channel outs for MLP. I ripped hotel california to DTS from the MLP and then compared it to the straight DTS tracks on the disc. all three sound the same except that the DTS has a slight bass gain. This is a known effect of the encoder. It's hard to notice though.

I only used myself, my brother and a friend for testing. All of whom are familar with the song.

Why would there be DTS tracks on a music CD? DTS in itself uses compression. And what is MLP?

[njiska]

Why would there be DTS tracks on a music CD? DTS in itself uses compression. And what is MLP?

Show's how much you know about current audio. :P

First of All DTS CDs have been around for many, many years. They conform to all Red Book standards except for how the music is encoded on the disc. I beleive most are 44.1 KHz/24-bit inorder to keep the bitrate the same as the fixes bitrate of a normal Audio CD.

Now that that's out of the way if you look back you'll see that i used the Hotel California DVD-A disc for my testing.

It Contains the Album in full surround in 96/24 MLP, 48/24 DTS and 48/16 DD. There's also a stero 196/24 track that i couldn't test because i don't have a reciever capbable of playing it.

MLP or Meridian Lossless Packing, is a form of lossless compression owned by Dolby Labs that is the standard for DVD-A.

I choose to use DVD-A for my testing because it's already a much higher quality file then a CD.

I ripped the MLP and the DTS tracks off the DVD-A. Then i convered the MLP to 44.1/24 DTS, which is the standard for DTS-CD.

I then made my own DVD-Audio Disc comprising of 1 track with 4 Audio Channels.

1 - 96/24 MLP
2 - DTS 48/24 (Original)
3 - DTS 44.1/24 (DTS-CD)
4 - Dolby Digital 48/16 (Made from MLP Source)

I could not tell a difference between the DTS and MLP tracks aside from the fact that DTS had boosted the Bass, which the encoder is known to do.

The Dobly track was the only one with a notable difference and it wasn't so much in quality as it was the volume levels were off. This is because of mandatory audio level adjustments preformed by the encoder. I tried as much as possible to normalize it, but to little success.

In short in a blind test no one could tell the difference between the MLP and DTS aside from the bass. Both sound equally clear.

Lossless and lossy have no noticable difference to a selection of normal people if the encoding is done right.

If you're interested i used some expensive Surcode encoding programs to do the encoding.

[Jorpho]

Of course, but my point was that the sale were only based on techs on the paper, not by personal experience with the equipment. You dont go into the store and ask to buy a TV, only listen to what the salesman say and base your purchase on that. You will check out the TVs for yourself before buying them, seeing picture quality etc. If the 10k and 1k TV looked exactly the same for every human being, 99% would buy the 1k TV. Then there would be no need to use millions on researching to make better stuff.

And what I'm saying is that the 10k and 1k TV may look exactly the same for every human being until the salesman says that one TV costs 1k and the other TV costs 10k and has millions of dollars of research behind it. I would venture that a substantial number of sales of the proverbial 10k TV are all a result psychology.

[nebrazca78]

Show's how much you know about current audio. :P

First of All DTS CDs have been around for many, many years. They conform to all Red Book standards except for how the music is encoded on the disc. I beleive most are 44.1 KHz/24-bit inorder to keep the bitrate the same as the fixes bitrate of a normal Audio CD.


I'd like to note that these are NOT standard music CDs which is what I thought we were talking about. These are special music CDs encoded is DTS for use with surround systems. Not only are they a total niche market but there are very few titles available. I use a stereo receiver to listen to music so this is useless for me anyway. Moreover, they are still encoded in DTS, thus by default are using compressed data.




Now that that's out of the way if you look back you'll see that i used the Hotel California DVD-A disc for my testing.


You didn't make that clear. You never said you were using a DVD-A disc, although you did reference MLP.



It Contains the Album in full surround in 96/24 MLP, 48/24 DTS and 48/16 DD. There's also a stero 196/24 track that i couldn't test because i don't have a reciever capbable of playing it.


I would be very interested to hear that stereo track...I bet it's phenominal.



MLP or Meridian Lossless Packing, is a form of lossless compression owned by Dolby Labs that is the standard for DVD-A.


Thanks for the info.





I choose to use DVD-A for my testing because it's already a much higher quality file then a CD.

I ripped the MLP and the DTS tracks off the DVD-A. Then i convered the MLP to 44.1/24 DTS, which is the standard for DTS-CD.

I then made my own DVD-Audio Disc comprising of 1 track with 4 Audio Channels.

1 - 96/24 MLP
2 - DTS 48/24 (Original)
3 - DTS 44.1/24 (DTS-CD)
4 - Dolby Digital 48/16 (Made from MLP Source)

I could not tell a difference between the DTS and MLP tracks aside from the fact that DTS had boosted the Bass, which the encoder is known to do.

The Dobly track was the only one with a notable difference and it wasn't so much in quality as it was the volume levels were off. This is because of mandatory audio level adjustments preformed by the encoder. I tried as much as possible to normalize it, but to little success.

In short in a blind test no one could tell the difference between the MLP and DTS aside from the bass. Both sound equally clear.

Lossless and lossy have no noticable difference to a selection of normal people if the encoding is done right.

If you're interested i used some expensive Surcode encoding programs to do the encoding.

I respect your opinion but I still don't agree. As an audiophile just the bass boost alone is enough keep me away. The fact of the matter is that some of the musical data is gone. If you 're telling me it's not possible for anyone to tell the difference I think that's ludicrous.