HDTV Forum

Continued from viewtopic.php?t=5258

HiDefBob wrote:NBC's broadcast of the Eagles "Farewell I Tour" in HDTV this evening was fabulous.

Great PQ and DD5.1 sound (telecast from Boston & Detroit was prologic, but full Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound from Seattle).

2 hours of great music ...

This concert was recorded in Melbourne, Australia.

Will be released on DVD June 14th ... 3 hours of music!

Yes, it was a great picture, but when you say "great DD5.1" sound, you are getting into oxymoron territory. How many years have we had what is pretty much the same sound quality for movies and music videos? In a world of rapid technological advances, DD5.1 is antiquated. Look at the bit rates. CD's, which are also antiquated and can sound pretty bad, have about 10X the bit rate of DD. Look, just because the music comes out of all five speakers in a nice mix doesn't make it great. I'm not trying to rain on your parade here, it's just that we deserve better and I'm afraid that the promising new HD DVD formats will again short change the sound quality and only concentrate on the picture. I know the answer will be "it sounded great to me," but my reply would be to put on the DVDA version (can't remember the title) of one of the Eagle's releases and compare the sound. That NBC show the other night sounded thin in the midrange, a major problem of DD sound. It's ok (sort of) when you get the wow factor for movies, where LFE's rumble the house and action pans around the surround channels, but music needs and deserves better.

music needs and deserves better

Agreed

I'm afraid that the promising new HD DVD formats will again short change the sound quality

Where did you hear that? I have been reading the exact opposite from Widescreen Review.

Been reading about it in Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. They seem to be very worried that Sony, in order to avoid the costly format battles, will come to an agreement that compromises the best sound that the format can offer. One of the two new offerings (can't remember which right now) can sound a lot better then the other one. More room on the disc. Whatever comes out will certainly sound better then DD, but why the hell can't we have it all?

Why was Dolby Digital chosen for television over DTS? Did DTS come along to late, or are there technical issues involved?

By the way, I did find the DD5.1 mix on the Eagles concert a little strange ... rather than put the viewer in the middle of the audience, we were put in the middle of the band.

In a couple of weeks I will be taking delivery of a Naim DVD5 with the DVD-A board ... and I have a DVD-A copy of Hotel California. I still have the Eagles Farewell concert on my HD PVR, so I can easily make the sound comparison. So, thanks Tombanjo ... you weren't "raining on my parade" ... I appreciate the input.

There will always be a tradeoff of available bits between the video and audio on a DVD. DVD-A doesn't have to devote any bits to video so naturally it will be better. I think that's also the case on the HD DVDs with the new HD versions of DD and DTS.

Videophiles would prefer the extra bits go to video. Audiophiles want better audio. With limited capacity it will always be a tradeoff.

No trade offs needed here. One of the two new formats, I think the HD-DVD one, has more than enough room to carry full 24/96 to all channels and 24/192 to 2ch. The Blu Ray, while not to that lofty standard, is still light years ahead of DD. All this is with the HD video.

Audio for film is maxed out at 96/24 for all channels. Whether DD or DTS there is compression, even with film. My understanding is D-Theater duplicates the original soundtrack bit stream rate. I do not recall the numbers but we take a very significant hit with DVD. There is a palatable difference between a DVD and the D-Theater version. Blu-ray is supposed to duplicate or exceed what D-Theater can do. With MPEG4 or WMVHD encoding there should be plenty of space left for the film version of the audio without further compression.

I guess I also need to catch up on my reading...