[klh]

Will people who have experience with either this or any other digital amp please comment on how they match with the Alphas. Actually... comments on any SS or digital amp would be appreciated.

I have a Nakamichi IA-1z integrated amlifier that I've had for years. I'm sure it would do a fine job at driving the alphas, but it has old technology. I'd like to get the SA-XR70 and DVD -S97 DVD video/audio player, have both of them modded, and use the HDMI link between them. Theoretically I would think the alphas would shine in that situation...

Any comments, thoughts or different opinions?

[azryan]

I think more a question about the effect of the mods vs. other amps which would be a question more for Bolder Cable's forum IMO.

The 'sound' through the Alphas will be the sound of the signal it's sent more than most speakers IMO, and that'll be something you'd probably just have to hear to find what front end you want your Alphas to sound like (if you got the Alphas).

I've personally had 4 diff. digital amps on the Alphas and they all sound diff.
Just like not all tubes or solid state sound the same.

As far as the Alphas and amps in general they just take very little power to run, yet can handle a HUGE amount of power so the distortion level from them at any reasonable level is going to be next to nil esp. in relative terms to other speakers using one of two drivers for bass, mids, and treble.

Digital in general seems to inherently have outstanding control of the bass. Beyond that it all depends on the design as to just how good it gets.
digtial can sound like crap or world class. Same for tubes and solid state IMO.

The price you pay for the better quality seems to be leaning towards digital IMO 'cuz of how far it's come with it being so early as a mainstream amp option.

Heck a few years ago people were arguing that digital (meaning ANY digital amp) was crap only worth using for subwoofers.

Now many seem to be tilting towards it probably taking over solid state soon. We'll see I guess.

Danny swears by Dodd Audio's tube gear, and if this modded XR45 I hope to get back soon doesn't do it for me... Gary Dodd's amps will be on my short list for my Alphas, and no digital amp I've heard sounds like a tube amp and Gary Dodd's a great guy and has some awesome designs for great prices IMO.

Then I'd be back looking at which DAC to get, which preamp to get, cables, etc...

I'm getting burnt out with the complicated nature of it all and would personally like an all in one unit even if it's not world class... but the 'word' is that the modded Pannie IS world class from several who've heard it.

I can say IMO in stock form it sure isn't. Very, very good for $300 though.

"-and use the HDMI link between them.-"

There has been talk about there possibly being a big jitter issue with this connection. I don't know, but you might want to look into it.

Yes you would be able to send DVD-A to the pannie digitally, but it might not sound better than the normal coax dig. cable input for CD's?

'If' the XR70 reclocked the HDMI input data then this should eliminate jitter but I don't know that it does this.

I believe DD and DTS come in as packest of info so they're pretty much immune to cable jitter.

HDMI might be super easy to connect audio and video, but it might not sound better.
A question for the digital engineers to take a crack at I think.

[scooter]

There has been talk about there possibly being a big jitter issue with this connection. I don't know, but you might want to look into it.
 quote]

What is happennning is that with connections like iLink the data stream is fully buffered and the reciever can instruct the sender to speed up or slow down the transfer, this allows it to produce a very stable sound as the clocking is highly stable as a result.

In HDMI so far in the spec there is no allowance for doing this so as a result jitter can be introduced and the clocking rate is more dependant on the source and the cable, at  least that is my limited understanding of it.

In future I think that we will see the problem solved on HDMI and it is my view that this will be the interface for high end audio and video way into the future. We need to get to version 2 of the HDMI spec before this will happen though IMO, maybe another year away.

The iLink in its present form will provide better sound than an equivalent HDMI link. However iLink is doomed to failure IMO as companies adopting it seem to add to the standard so that iLink is not interoperable between manufacturers this negating its usefulness.

HDMI on the other hand is being enforced i.e. They won't let you use it unless you conform to the standard and are interoperable. iLink is also maxed out bandwidth wise so there is no room for any additional growth, HDMI in its present form only uses around 50% of its bandwidth and has plenty of room to add additional features / higher resolution formats.

There are only two issues to be solved / added to the spec to allow HDMI to be a universal interface for high end audio, they are the jitter issue which I believe is solvable (Meridian have committed to supporting HDMI, which means there must be a way to solve it) and the second is for the volume level to be passed along with the other data.

With this in the interface you can then have a pure digital path right to the amplifier, seems a good idea to me. So far the only hitch with HDMI is that SONY has refused to allow it to support SACD.

[azryan]

"-However iLink is doomed to failure IMO as companies adopting it seem to add to the standard so that iLink is not interoperable between manufacturers this negating its usefulness.-"

Just saw a review in Sound and Vision for a new Yamaha Rec. w/ iLink that they said worked with I think a Pioneer universal player. I know it was not a Yamamha player at least and passed both DVD-A and SACD.

I think all this whole thing is a mess. Digital cables/formats.

10 years from now it'll all be digital and a dominant type of cable/copy protection will be the one everyone uses and we won't have to worry about it.

Personally, having waited so long for Hi Def. movies I'm looking forward to a cool new format war where we get screwed for many years after HD moves actually hit stores. yeesh.

Then let's talk about the new dual disc format with CD on one side and DVD on the other side (which might just be DVD, or maybe 2-chan. DVD-A, or 5.1 DVD-A they can do whatever they want).
I was looking for Audioslave to come out on DVD-A, but I fogot it's a Sony label so their dual layer disc is going to be CD and regual DVD.

No idea if it'll come out later on SACD. What a mess.

[scooter]

"-what a mess ...

It sure is a mess, that is why I think that HDMI will win out in the long run. iLink will be relegated to high end audio but unless there is widespread interoperable adoption it is history.

HDMI has pretty much across the board support except for SACD.

Blu-ray will be adopted as the next standard for HD-DVD and with Blu-ray it is possible to have 1080i images with the highest resolution 8 channel sound all on the same disk.

Eventually hi fi will just be another computer, hell it almost is now with the exception of the speakers.

Anyway onto more important matters, any news on the centurian ?

[Rocket]

Hi Azyran,

I agree with many statements that you make but i'm confused with this one 'I'm getting burnt out with the complicated nature of it all and would personally like an all in one unit even if it's not world class... but the 'word' is that the modded Pannie IS world class from several who've heard it.

Why on earth after having built a beautiful and excellent sounding speaker like you have would you want to compromise it's overall sound quality?

As an example i have a pair of speakers which utilise a raven 1 ribbon tweeter and is mtm with 7 inch 7k4211db focal mid/bass drivers.  I listened to a friend's system and his speakers were designed here in perth by the same company, they utilise raven 1 ribbon tweeters but use 7inch accuton drivers.  The accuton drivers are much more expensive and sound better than the focals, no contest.

However my system sounds better than his as i have a great front end and preamp whilst he uses a cdp connected direct to his amp.  His system although having better speakers doesn't compare.

Ryan, i am not attacking you but with quality speakers that you have do yourself a favour and get the best you can afford.

best wishes

rocket

[azryan]

Scooter,

"-Blu-ray will be adopted as the next standard for HD-DVD and with Blu-ray it is possible to have 1080i images with the highest resolution 8 channel sound all on the same disk.-"

From what I read Blu-Ray stupidly adopted MPEG-2 compression which is just so much older and less advanced then MPEG-4 and it's variants so yes you get much more space on the disc, but it's so much more wasted that it could be if it was MPEG-4 (or Divx or WMP9, etc..)

Also I believe I read they also stupidly kept lossy Dolby Digital for the official audio. If you heard they didn't I'd like to know more.
I didn't hear anything about even 7.1 DD either and you seem to be implying 7.1 lossless type format?

Also Blu-Ray is a competing format with the DVD Group (though some members are the same which is totally messed up) so it won't ever be the HD-DVD standard.

The DVD Group's HD-DVD standard it looking to be at least for now regular DVD's with MPEG-4 compression which will store an HD movie where now MPEG-2 can only store a standard rez movie on a DVD.

Professional tests vs. WMP9 (MPEG-4 type compression) vs. HD-VHS showed that the WMP9 stomped all over the HD-VHS.
You can buy T2 on this HD format.

I see both formats as kinda flawed but HD-DVD discs and players could cost the same as current DVD's. Blu-Ray using new blue laser will cost more. Probably a LOT more, and it's official specs don't even use the latest technology in audio or video compression. It's demented.

"-Anyway onto more important matters, any news on the centurian?-"

Nope. Nothing on the Centurion. It's been in Danny's hands and I promised not to bother him about it -though I'd like to. hehe


Rocket,

"-Why on earth after having built a beautiful and excellent sounding speaker like you have would you want to compromise it's overall sound quality?-"

I didn't say I was trying to compromies my system. No way I'd do that.

As I said the 'word' is that the modded Pannie is what people would call 'world class'.
That's hardly a compromise is it?

Now do 'I' think it's world class? We'll see when I get it.

IMO I already had better sound than some systems I've heard that had literally 100 times more costly front end, so that's also related to what I'm saying about not looking to have THE BEST system in the universe.

Don't worry about me. My audio's pretty damn killer. hehe

[Rocket]

Hi Azryan,

Hey i was concerned, as your speakers deserve the best amplification you can afford.  That said i'm sure that wayne at bolder will do a wonderful modification for you.

Btw when will you receive the modded panny?  I've had a look at stores here in perth, oz and i have never seen any of those digital receivers for sale.  We're a bit Slow here in downunder   .

regards

rod

[Danny Richie]

Hey I dropped into Best Buy today to pick up a new CD and noticed they had 3 of those XR25's in stock that were out of the original box and marked down to $249. a piece.

How much are the mods?

I may have to pick one of these things up myself just to play with a little, or maybe I'll wait for the new XR70.

Hmmm.

[azryan]

"-Hey I dropped into Best Buy today to pick up a new CD and noticed they had 3 of those XR25's in stock that were out of the original box and marked down to $249. a piece.-"

That was the regular price they sold for from JandR.com before they were discontinued. Not much of a deal. I can sell you one of mine for $200.

The one in my bedroom never gets used. Why listen to anything but my Alpha room right?

I'll owe you some money soon anyway so we could just add it in maybe?

Wayne at first said he won't mod it 'cuz it's power supply is smaller than the XR45 which also discontinued now was only $50 more (but oddly not available in stores like B.B or C.C.?) so though I owned 2 XR25's I had to buy an XR45 to get Wanye to mod it.

Later he said he would mod the 25 though, but having both the 25 is a little grainier than the 45, and now I found out uses and all bit dropping volume. You can hear a 'click' as you scroll the volume up or down too.

I don't know if that'd change with modding, but it's not big deal. Just shows they're diff.

On the 45 you don't hear those volume stepping clicks all, and I guess the 45 uses a bit dropping volume down to about -20db -which for CD's means you don't lose any resolution 'cuz it's all upconverted to 24bit in the first place in the powerDAC chips.

From about -20 to -40 it adjusts the output voltage so no further bit loss.
Below that it drops bits again, but by the time is gets below 16bit it's REALLLLLY quiet so no prob. IMO.

"-How much are the mods?-"

$700 for the 2-chan mod and $750 for the HT mod. Yes, WAY more than the units themselves, but hey... if the total is ~$1,000 that's damn low vs. any other highly regarded combo of front end gear right?

The Panny can be run in 'Party' mode which sends the main signal to the rear surrounds. It tried it and I didn't hear any flaw in how it worked.

Doing this you can bi-amp any bi-ampable speaker. Then you can also adjust the levels of the two sections too if you want.

That was fun to play w/ the Alphas like that, but in the end I didn't even want to change the levels by even one db so even having 'digital pots' so to speak I felt it was pointless.

The 2-chan/bi-amp mod covers the center chan. output so you have to run a phantom center.

The HT version only being a little more $ puts on smaller binding posts for the rears and center and keeps and mods the center chan. output.

You can still use it in bi-amp 'party' mode anyway so it seemed like the better choice.

Both mods cover the rear center chan. output, but having tried a rear center IMO it's no good. You can get a reflection from the screen and it seems like it's comign from the front instead of the rear.

IMO 5.1 or 7.1 are great, but NOT 6.1.

Since I don't have a center speaker it didn't matter which mod I got, but I paid more and waited longer to get the HT mod having this Centurion in mind.

It's a race to see which I get first the modded 45 or the Centurion. hehehe

People found Bybees on the dig. input and the speaker outputs to be a great benefit on the Pannie which costs $100 a Bybee but since you're a dealer yourself I'm sure you can try them post standard Bolder mod.

"-I may have to pick one of these things up myself just to play with a little, or maybe I'll wait for the new XR70.-"

I'd wait (or buy my 25).

Even the stock XR45 isn't 'world class' IMO at all, and I've always posted that.

There's some probs. in the highs at times and overall it doesn't have the smoothness and realism my eARTwo amp had.

Certainly not as liquid smooth and real as I'm sure your Dodd gear sounds, but even modded there's no way it'll sound like your tube gear I'm sure (or pretty damn sure for just guessing. hehe).


The 45 was good enough vs. my Acoustic Reality eARTwo and Outlaw pre/pro comb to make me ditch the IMO stellar eARTwo amp and instead of getting a kick ass 2-chan. preamp to augment the pre/pro, try the modded 45 instead.

The pre/pro is not world class but w/ the eARTwo it bettered IMO MUCH MUCH more costly gear.

The Outlaw sounded about the same too as a $4K TAG pre/pro someone brought over.

Anyway... people are trying to figure out what the new XR50 and XR70 are in relation to the sold out 25 and 45.

Wayne seemed to say the 50 doesn't sound as good as the stock 45 and the power supply looks like there's space reserved for more parts like the 25 has compared to the 45.

It seems like the XR70 is the best bet now, and just have to wait and see if it's everything the 45 was when it comes out.

The 50 and 70 will have digital in for DVD-A so that could be a real exciting feature too -if there's a DVD player for 'em.

Bottom line.... I think modded I'll be really plenty happy with the 45.

It's been driving me batty thinking about amps, preamps, cables, DACs, CDplayers, etc to have the 'right' system.

I do 2-chan and HT on the same system which makes it all the more complicated too.

Selling my eARTwo already payed for the modded Pannie and most of the Centurion (I'm guessing on the price you'll eventually quote me. Hope I didn't guess TOO low. heheh), plus selling the Outlaw which I won't need now either... it's too good a deal to not try it IMO.

I just really like the concept of skipping most of that stuff and having a powerDAC (amp level DAC) built into a processor.
All digital till it just before it hits the binding post outputs.

If it doesn't do it for me, then I think my only option that I'd even be interested in would be Gary Dodd's amps and pre and one of the raved about killer DACs.

One of those DAC's on my list though was Bolder's modded MENSA DI/O which alone costs close to the price of this Bolder modded Pannie.

[scooter]

Scooter,

From what I read Blu-Ray stupidly adopted MPEG-2 compression which is just so much older and less advanced then MPEG-4 and it's variants so yes you get much more space on the disc, but it's so much more wasted that it could be if it was MPEG-4 (or Divx or WMP9, etc..) ...

Hi Azryan,

The adoption of MPEG by Blu-Ray is immaterial, it is what the DVD Forum decides that matters, they set the standards. Below is from the DVD Forum site:
Provisional approval of MPEG2, WM9 (VC-9) and MPEG4 AVC(H.264) Video CODECs as mandatory for the HD DVD Video specification for playback devices

http://www.dvdforum.org/25scmtg-resolution.htm

There will be other codecs adopted as well if something better comes along, but both MPEG-4 and WM9 are good codecs. So at a minimum you have 2 good codecs and the studio can decide which codec they want to use.

In the same meeting the following was not approved:
Approval of DD+, DTS++, and MLP as mandatory audio codecs to be included in the High Definition Video format

But this was approved:
The Steering Committee asks the TCG and WG-1 to reconsider their recommendation of audio codecs for HD Video Applications, and make a new recommendation by the next Steering Committee meeting that includes at least one lossless audio codec and at least one lossy audio codec.

The real fight is over the audio codec standards and also the disk standard. With Dell and HP both committing to Blu-Ray it means that Blu-Ray is almost certain to be adopted as the next standard. Their problem at the moment is that Blu-Ray requires a caddy for the disk, they are still working on a coating process that will allow it to go caddyless which will mean the costs will be acceptable.

I am not aware of any lossless format of any note besides MLP so it is highly likely that MLP will be the lossless standard (this is good for us). The battle is between DTS and DD for the lossy format, I hope DTS wins as it is a far superior codec than DD.

"Also Blu-Ray is a competing format with the DVD Group (though some members are the same which is totally messed up) so it won't ever be the HD-DVD standard. "

Not so there are only two formats being proposed one by Sony and one by Toshiba (I think). The benefits of the Toshiba proposal is that there would be no real additional tooling costs of any real consequence and costs of HD-DVD disk production will not be much more than a standard DVD, however it has significantly reduced capacity than Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray on the other hand has not been adopted more because they have not got production eqipment to show, so they have been delaying proceedings while they got their act together. There are additional costs for Blu-Ray and it will make disk production more expensive but not hugely so, I think we are talking a few cents a disk.

In the end this game is all about economies of scale, remember Dell, HP, Sony Playstation will all be using Blu-Ray. It is simply far more sensible to move in that direction so that HD-DVD is interoperable with home computers etc. As long as SONY can come up with a system for Blu-Ray to go caddyless it is all but a done deal. Personally I wanted the disks in a caddy and for the additional $5 it would probably cost it would be worth it as the disk would more or less be bullet proof, my kids have managed to destroy many of my DVD's.

It will be at least a further 2 years before we see any major production of HD-DVD titles, the studios are making so much money on DVD now there is no real impetus for them to hurry the HD-DVD standard along. All this is on Blu-Rays side as well.

Currently MLP has not been used with standard DVD for audio more due to bandwidth issues, Blu-Ray solves those issues and will allow the highest resolution lossless sound along with some of the best lossy HD codecs. Also from a marketing perspective going with the Toshiba standard is suicide as there simply would not be a lot of space left for any extras, it would also mean that hi-Rez sound on the same disk would remain but a dream.

So to my mind there are far too many negatives by going with the Toshiba proposal, hence the reason it has not been adopted and why Sony is being given the time it needs to complete Blu-Ray.

Hope that explains why I believe that Blu-Ray is a shoe in and allays your fears about the codecs that will eventually be adopted by the forum.

Note also that HDMI is the only interface that will be capable of carrying 8 channels of hi-rez audio and HD images at once, that is also why I believe in the long run it will be the primary interface for audio and video in the future. It also comes down to economies of scale, once they have a cheap HDMI chip available it will be included in all equipment as standard at little additional cost.

Look forward to when Danny gives you the Centurian.

Scooter

[azryan]

Blu-Ray Group is totally sepp. and a competing format to the DVD-Group.

(made more confusing by some companies being members of both groups -which seems damn criminal to me, but then most mega-corps are fairly criminal by default right? hehe).

I think you might also be confusing the idea of using a blue laser and the actual ‘Blu-Ray’ name and format specs? Two diff. things.

Thanks for the DVD Group link.
I hope that using a blue laser is part of the format spec options but not a MUST DO like it will be for Blu-Ray discs.

If a player doesn’t HAVE to use a blue laser it will still be able to play HD-DVD’s. It’d just need some diff. chips in the player which would be a very cheap revision of current players. In fact the technology’s been cheap and easy for years now.
We could have been watching HD-DVD’s by now.

The development of blue lasers is a diff. story and working on them getting to a mass production level has taken all this time.
Blu-Ray will be using MPEG-2 which is very very old outdated codec and a waste of the space they gain from using more (probably much more) costly blue lasers. It’s just senseless of them IMO.

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

You can see here Blu-Ray can’t call their discs ‘DVD’s ‘cuz only the DVD Group can use that term.

Read - 3.1 Is Blu-ray the same thing as HD-DVD?

They are called Blu-Ray discs (BD’s -which is pretty dorky if you ask me. hehe) and hope that it’ll be catchy enough that people will realize it basically means a hi def DVD-like thingy -even though they can’t say ‘HD-DVD’.

So you’re saying Blu-Ray will be the standard, but also saying ‘-it’s what the DVD forum decides that matters-‘ which seems like saying 24bit PCM will be the standard and SACD will be the format. A contradiction of mixing competing formats.

“-I am not aware of any lossless format of any note besides MLP so it is highly likely that MLP will be the lossless standard (this is good for us).-“

I’d like MLP too, but it’s been rejected by the Blu-Ray Group which seems beyond stupid.
You’re certainly right that it’d take a blue laser based disc to have the space for lossless audio, but Blu-Ray seems to have dropped the ball on it.


I hope it’s used in HD-DVD’s though, but it’ll probably just be option -hopefully like blue laser use will be, and at best and so we’ll see most movies in DD or DTS and the rare few in MLP. That’s my guess at least.

“- The battle is between DTS and DD for the lossy format, I hope DTS wins as it is a far superior codec than DD.-“

Not to get into a diff. debate, but while DTS is a higher data rate, as I understand it’s also less effi. and certainly a ‘diff.’ codec therefore the higher bit rate doesn’t mean it’s better as it’s not ‘apples to apples’..

Soundwise a DTS track usually mixes the LFE louder, the surrounds are usually louder, overall volume is typically louder than the DD track so I always choose the DTS track if it’s there, but as a format it’s never been proven that DTS is better.
I wouldn’t say it’s far superior. That implies such a clear, blatant huge diff. that if existed there wouldn’t have been the millions of DD vs. DTS threads on how many audio forums since the two formats came out.

What I said might sound like a contradiction but it’s not. It’s technical formats vs. how they’re implemented.

Dark Side of the Moon was supose to DVD-A, then Sony poured money on them and it became SACD instead. That doesn’t mean DSD is far better than PCM (IMO, it’s clearly technically NOT).
I think later they came out with Dark Side on DVD-A or are going to? But that it doesn’t sound as good I read somewhere (AudioRevolution maybe), but I doubt the two versions were from the exact same source with the only variable being the MLP PCM, and 1-bit DSD.

But I’m drifting... hehe

As for HDMI,

I don't really know much about it, but what you say about it being the only one to allow HD bit rate and 8 chan. of audio sounds great, but why would you think companies would actually go with what's best for us?

Sadly, that's not at all how they choose what to do.

As for the Centurion.... yeah, I look forward to hearing it too for sure.

[wshuff]

Ok, is this the story...?

Blu-Ray is Sony.  MLP has been rejected by Blu-Ray as the lossless standard.

Hmmm....could that mean that Sony is wanting DSD?  Or at least, just like they won't make a DVD-A player, they aren't going to adopt something from a competitor?

[scooter]

Blu-Ray Group is totally sepp. and a competing format to the DVD-Group.  ...

I have not been paying attention. I did not realise that in February they approved the AOD format. I can't believe they went with only 30gig, from an audio and video standpoint it is a travesty.

Blu-Ray was the competing format being considered by the DVD Forum, there are several press releases about it. Looks like Sony was asking too much money for Blu-Ray, that is the only reason that AOD would have been adopted over a Blu-Ray.

I now stand corrected, it is over, Blu-Ray has zero chance now of becoming the standard, %%&*! Sony for trying to be monopolistic. The AOD system had far fewer licencing issues than Blu-Ray, I had thought that Sony would give on this issue to defer the Forum decision, obviously they did not.

At least they will be using WM9 as the codec so that will help a little but at the end of the day it means lower resolution vision and sound since there is only a doubling in disk capacity yet the resolution is a 6 fold increase i.e. 2,073,600 pixels of resolution for HD vs 345,600 pixels for regular DVD. No algorhythm can solve that problem without losing a great deal of detail. This really sucks. The net effect is we will get a little more detail than the current DVD system but not the leap we deserve.

Since most of the studios will release a movie on a single disk for cost reasons we can only hope that some some will come out using two disks instead of the normal one allowing for higher quality video and sound.

The WM9 system is a wavelett based encoding method, I was using these types of video editing systems nearly 10 years ago, they soften the picture more than MPEG does but give pretty good results. There has to be a large loss of detail though that is the sacrifice. Based on the amount of disk space available I would expect a 15-25% improvement subjectively in the picture detail over current DVD, hardly worth the effort, it just sucks. They would be better off just using the standard DVD resolution and having better audio and video quality at a reduced video resolution.

On a positive side I have heard that there are real time WM9 encoders available which is a prerequisite for getting a lot of titles out in a reasonable length of time.

It is certainly a great shame that Blu-Ray has lost the fight.

Just so you know, the costs for retooling for AOD based disks are fairly minimal, the same with the disk production side. Once the Video and Audio codecs have been set, production will be able to happen quickly from a physical standpoint. What will hold things up is the authoring software required for the new codecs like WM9 and also the studios will not release HD titles en mass until they stop making such huge profits from regular DVD's, that won't happen for a couple of years from now.

I believe that SONY said they will be releasing some movies in HD on Blu-Ray in 2005, we shall see.

Microsoft has also committed that WM9 will also be an open standard and no doubt the licencing fees associated with it are lower than MPEG making it a major contendor for the codec of choice for HD material, SONY using MPEG 2 is arrogant and fool hardy and just puts the last nail in the Blu-Ray coffin if they go down that route.

Thanks for pointing it out to me, but I am now very depressed about the whole thing.

[scooter]

Just thought I would give you this link as well.

http://www.12south.com/hdtest/codec_test.png

A poster on AVS posted the picture to show the difference between MPEG2 & MPEG4 at the same bit rate (10 mbs). It gives you an idea of what we are missing due to codecs being used. Clearly MPEG4 is better but not a huge leap forward quality wise.

[azryan]

Well the good news (not that there's much of it) is that none of it is totally worked out yet.

I hate Sony as much as the next guy heh, but they're not the only one behind Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD either.

On WM9...
I was under the impression that it's been regarded as the best compression format out there.

The guy behind making one of the famous video set up discs (I forget if it's Avia or Vid Ess. or what) worked with Samsung while they were developing their DLP sets w/ TI's 720P DMD chip, and even with lots of compression with WM9 vs. the same exact video tests recorded to HD-VHS... the WM9 kicked it's ass.

And bottom line beyond that 'shootout' was that HD content on WM9 looked outstandingly shart, and artifact free.

I think I read the whole thing on AVSforum maybe ~6months ago.
Sorry, no link, but I bet you can find out about this specific test is you search it out.

Looking at that link you posted, if doesn't have any info about the source of the picture, the rez of the two clips.

A lot of times those type of video A/B's are close up of a shot so you can REALLY see the smallest diffs.

Looking at the pic though it looks to me like the MPEG-4 seems pretty photo real, and while the MPEG-2 doesn't look much worse, it is worse and we all know how great the best DVD's look. They don't suck at all.

Also a company professionally encoding a HD-DVD movie would probably have the best software to do it and no idea what was used to do those pics in that link.

Look at how crappy typical Sat. looks vs. typical DVD's. Both are MPEG-2.

The main thing of HD-DVD's would be if they used a red laser and couldn't fit lossless audio on it.

I guess I don't really have a problem with DD or DTS lossy compression. Would I prefer lossless audio? Hell yeah, but heck even the movie theaters use DD and DTS lossy compression. It's not like they have MLP or DSD soundtracks that we're missing out on at 'home'.

Really, DVD's kick a theater's ass in picture quality too IMO 'cept due to resolution... they're softer.

HD rez. even if highly compressed will just be stellar IMO, and with an advanced codec like WM9 (I'm not sure how you think it's the same or similar to something you used 10 years ago?) or DiVx or MPEG-4 there shouldn't be any artifact probs from carefully encoded movies.

Maybe you should look up reviews/comments on T2?

Like I said it's HD and encoded in WM9 that you are worried about not being up to snuff.

I think it might be on HD-VHS too and I'm sure people have done direct shootouts between 'em.

Currently you can only watch that HD version of T2 in WM9 on a fast PC, but it is in stores now. No guessing about what WM9 can do. There's a handfull of other nature type HD WM9 DVD's too.

wshuff...
You'd think Sony rejecting MLP would mean 'cuz they're pushing for DSD for the Blu-Ray codec? Nope. That's what you get for being logical. heh

[wshuff]

I guess business and marketing dollars don't always follow the logical path.  AZryan, the guy you're thinking about is Joe Kane.  He's the video guru behind A Video Standard, Video Essentials, and Digital Video Essentials.  I think I read an article that he wrote in WSR about his comparison of WM9 and HD via D-VHS.  Microsoft didn't come out looking bad, that's for sure.  I think I've read that a few DVD players are going to come with native support for WM9, but I'm not sure what you have to do to actually watch an HD movie like T2.  Maybe somebody who has viewed it can chime in, but I think you have to connect to the internet to get a digital key to unlock the HD version.  Ah, those damn pirates, ruining it for everybody.

[scooter]

On WM9...
I was under the impression that it's been regarded as the best compression format out there.
...

WM9 is no spring chicken. The problem with codecs is that people only want ones that have been in the market for some time and have the kinks worked out of them, that pretty much precludes any cutting edge stuff entering the race. So WM9 & MPEG4 are good codecs that meet these requirements. The wavelet technology was far superior to MPEG-2 when it was released but MPEG was annointed as the codec.

Sony is against MLP because they are having a spat with Meridian who invented MLP. MLP was actually chosen in the first place because it had no opposition at all, they were the only true lossless format available, the only other contender from memory was DTS which was kicked out because it was lossy. I am not aware of any other lossless format at present, anyone else know of one ?

Sony refuses to support DVD-A and Meridian and a couple of other Japaneese manufacturers refuse to support SACD. So the posturing goes on.

In the end I believe that unless there is a viable alternative MLP will be the lossless compression scheme used for HD-DVD. It is really immaterial which lossless compression scheme they use as with only 30gig of space it will never be used just as it has never been used in the current DVD format. So we will be stuck with mediocre audio on HD.

" Looking at that link you posted, if doesn't have any info about the source of the picture, the rez of the two clips.  "

The guy that posted the clips claimed to be a professional. He said the clips were frame matched and came from film. Based on what I have seen in the past it looked about right to me, MPEG-4 did a better job of capturing detail but not hugely so.

[azryan]

"-Based on what I have seen in the past it looked about right to me, MPEG-4 did a better job of capturing detail but not hugely so.-"

But what detail didn't it capture? That's the question right? This guy should have included an uncompressed version also so we could see what the other two didn't do.
Maybe the MPEG-4 version looks exactly the same as the original in real world use on a HD screen.

I still don't know the rez. of the shots or what the film was originally scanned at or if it's a full frame or close up of a section of frame.

That all makes a diff. as to the meaning of that pic.

Again.... I don't see any compression artifacts in the MPEG-4 picture. The picture doesn't look that good, but maybe that's the quality of the original too.
No codec will look 'better' than the original right?


According to blu-ray.com it says blue laser HD-DVD's will be 32G for a dual layer disc.

1). Maybe that's not what they'll end up actually being as that info's from a rival so a bit suspect, but it's higher than the 30G you've stated.

2). While that's less than the 56G for dual layer Blu-Ray... if HD-DVD is using MPEG-4 type advanced compression (and they will be) it's making much more effi. use of space and should make up for the 32vs.56G or room.

The important part is not 'more space is better' (which I'm not arguing that it isn't) but can you fit an HD movie on that disc, and how kick ass does it look and sound.

Blu-Ray on their site says they can put 2hrs. of HD on 27G single layer disc and they use MPEG-2.

With MPEG-4 a 32G dual layer disc should easily have PLENTY of space for even a long Lord of the Rings length film.

It seems like either format will be outstanding, and much better looking than DVD's which already look fantastic when done right (which most are now-a-days IMO).

I still think that your feeling that MPEG-4 is little better than MPEG-2 is not right.

You should look up that Joe Kane thing about WM9 vs. D-VHS.
Thanks wshuff for pointing out those details.

Yes you're right wshuff about the stupid internet thing. I think they're still in 'test mode' with that T2 disc.

You can get the same picture quality from MPEG-4 (or a variant) as MPEG-2 but compressed far smaller.

In the case of that Terminator 2 w/ WM9 compression... you're putting that 2hr+ Hi Def rez. movie onto a normal ~9G DVD.

If the new discs use blue laser and MPEG-4.... they're easily have space for full flawless HD video and whatever audio.

Speaking of audio...

I disagree that current DVD audio in the form of lossy DD and DTS is as you say -'mediocre'.

And while I wouldn't argue that a more advanced lossless compression would be cool, 99.9999% of people out the would get zero benefit from it, and to add that cost to players doesn't seem that reasonable to me.

Have you ever heard any DTS music discs? It can sound awesome IMO.
'Lossy' doesn't just mean they're throwing stuff out.
They also rename data to make is much smaller, and remove data that is audible masked anyway.
It's really cool how compression done right works IMO.

Also... I think it's hard to justify asking for better audio than the soundtracks in movie theaters get. I'm not talking about better speakers.
 
GR's Alphas and my Adire Tempest subs kick the crap out of any movie theater.

I'm saying that movie theaters get the same DD and DTS soundtracks we get on current DVD's.

It's not like they get MLP or DSD lossless tracks and we're asking for the same at home.

It's a DVD's picture resolution vs. 35mm theater film that we're trying to get at home and I think HD res will do it.

We already get the benefit of zero dust bits, sctraches, burn marks, washed out film stock, several generation copy, torn and gummi bear-covered screens, etc... that we get from the film we see in theaters.

I just found out too that D-VHS I guess has higher bit rate DD and DTS, so actually.... that IS already better than a movie theater.

I think at the least we'll get those higher bit rate soundtracks in hi-def. players, and I personally think it'll be great sounding when done right, and something people can take advantage of already.

No need to add special cables or added processing making EVERYONE upgrade their audio gear to implement it like we'd have to do w/ an all new lossless compression format which is what you're asking for.

I know you'd like MLP which already exists, but not in the 7.1 form you want it to be and matrixing for a height channel.

[jonwb]

This is really facinating guys...  

...but what on earth does it have to with Danny's speakers?

Any way to bring the topic back to a discussion on loudspeakers?

Perhaps others on the forum might me interested in this topic and are missing out because its here in the GR Research forum.  Can the thread me moved to the "Multichannel and Digital" forum?

Or maybe I'm just a grump because I've been staying up late too much working on my tall speakers.