Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Blu Ray vs HD-DVD

My guess is that the name change is purely marketing to counter DTS lossless (particularly since DD+ doesn't have lossless mode). You would think at the very least Dolby Digital paid Meridian to rename MLP to "Dolby Digital Lossless"

Now I fully expect Bluray music videos in Dolby Digital Lossless!! 1080p30 + multichannel Dolby Digital lossless

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 03-08-2005).]

If this is the case, would a blu-ray player beable to play a DVD-A disc? Im sure there is more to it than just the codec being supported.

Apologies if this has already been covered, sometimes I just cannot be bothered to trawl through a large number of long posts.

I have it from a reliable source that "Dolby Lossless" is a combination of Dolby Digital and MLP. My source did not indicate whether it encompasses DD+ or not, but I suspect it does.

By using the name Dolby Lossless for the combination, they avoid MLPs association with DVD-Audio.

This part is IMO: It would allow some companies (remaining nameless of course) to include particular codecs that was a part of competing audio disc standard. They aren't using MLP, they're using "Dolby Lossless"

Semantics? Yes. When all you have left is semantics...


[This message has been edited by John Kotches (edited 03-08-2005).]

I will also be interested in seeing what happens with audio only formats such as SACD-2 and DVD-Audio, er, DD lossless. DVD-Audio format had a portion for DVD-V to display still shots... I wonder what the plan is going to be for Dolby Digital Lossless (DVD-Audio) on Bluray... Now that there is agreement for mandatory support of DVD-Audio on Bluray, what can we expect from DVD-Audio 2 (Dolby Digital Lossless)? We need to standardize multichannel audio now that we have room for as many channels and bandwidth as needed. No more limitations from the DVD format. I will be anxious to see what develops.

I think that although many channels could be supported, that both DTS and Dolby lossless will audio will be limited by the Bluray/HDMI spec to 8 channels. Can we have both flexibility and standardization of multichannel audio in the future? How will Bob Katz (Chesky), Micheal Bishop (Telarc), and all the other recording engineers see eye to eye on multichannel. I know that many engineers made 'sacrifices' based on the limitation of 5-6 channels with DVD-Audio. Perhaps now that we can have at least 8 channels, there can be standardization of a center channel in all surround formats. But assuming you have 8 audio channels to play with, what would be your vision of an ideal standardized surround format? How many channels would your ideal surround format involve, possibly greater than eight? At the very least, I hope a center channel in all future multichannel music. There also has to be some concordance with speaker positioning for home theater, as most people have enough trouble maintaining a dedicated home theater, let alone a separate multichannel music room. Would love to hear your thoughts...

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 03-08-2005).]

Chris says:


DVD-Audio and SA-CD are media format specifications. DD Lossless is a compression algorithm that can be used in more areas than just optical disc formats. You need to stop portraying things such that DVD-Audio == Dolby Lossless.

DVD-AUdio doesn't have a DVD-Video portion, the slide show is part of the datastream in the .AOB files.

As far as including backward support for DVD-Audio, certainly all of the ingredients are now available to do so, but that doesn't make it a guarantee to happen. It would be silly not to include such capability, but that hasn't stopped companies from making short sighted decisions in the past. I suspect that inclusion of DVD-Audio media support will be left up to the player's manufacturer rather than mandated and that most will indeed include this capability.


As far as surround standards implementation for surround music, it would be nice to have a standard emerge. As it stands, without standards odd things occur.

Cheers,

Well the failure of DVD-A and SACD makes me believe 2 channels is enough for music..

I do like multi channel music, but there are a lot of bad mixes out there. So i cannot blame people for not buying multi channel titles.

Jaco

I am playing with the semantics. I thought that was obvious. I am aware that DVD-Audio is a format specification that uses MLP.

Obviously, it would be silly not to improve upon the DVD-Audio specification with Bluray. Given that Dolby Digital Lossless for Bluray will have limitations based on the Bluray Format (probably 8 channels), it is simply a play on words to call Dolby Digital lossless on Bluray as DVD-Audio 2 (similar to SACD-2). In any case I do understand all the diffences, as those are 'the basics'. I was not aware how the slideshow was handled.

I was looking more for a reply as to what you would like to see as your ideal surround format, given the likely limitations of 8 channels on Bluray (for both DD and DTS).

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 03-08-2005).]

Until the environment is standardized, I'd rather focus on quality of recording then worried about how many channels I have to playback on.

Cheers,

I too wish for more original recordings in multichannel and improvements in recording quality/technique.

I realize we all have different home environments, nonetheless, we all have concerns about speaker positioning and what would be the best speaker configuration to satisfy home theater, multichannel music, and music videos. The only thing I know for certain is that I would prefer a center channel to be part of a standard. For instance, some people mention 7.1 as being a nice standard (three across the front, 2 discrete sides, 2 discrete surrounds). Any opinions?

[This message has been edited by Health Nut (edited 03-08-2005).]

IMO wishing things for DVD-A is akin to banging your head against a brick wall. Like it or not (and I'm neutral) it has not succeeded. Try to find a DVD-A recording in stores.

Sadly SACD is not faring much better. I'm still waiting for an SACD disc ordered months ago at Amazon. Yes the sound can be better than CD but it does not follow that music NEEDS hi-rez recording to be enjoyable. The improvement is subtle, not dramatic and that is why it has not succeeded in the marketplace. Joe Blow is not appreciative of subtlety and will certainly not pay more for what he cannot hear.

Now stand back and look at DVD. Far too few non movie DVDs (the genre of interest to me) exploit the video fidelity of the medium now with many no advance on VHS quality. And how many displays fully exploit the capabilities of present DVD standards? Many people can watch the most appalling picture quality. However FTA digital transmissions are "educating" the masses and DVDs have caught on massively with millions of players out there.

Therein lies the next hurdle, how many people are likely to be persuaded to buy a new player to play more expensive DVDs to gain "improvement" in picture quality they are incapable of appreciating?

Apologies for sounding so negative but IMO hi-rez DVDs have an uphill battle to succeed anyway. Offer two different formats and the public is guaranteed to be confused and will boycott both. The industry are running the risk of wasting millions of dollars if they continue with the lunacy of two competing formats.

It is NOT the same situation as existed with VHS & Beta. Home recording was a new, appealing medium so did have a hope of succeeding. Hi Rez video is very much the same situation as hi-rez audio. The public really does not care. Give them the confusion of two competing formats and they will vote with their feet & pockets to give both video formats the same fate as looks like falling to DVD-A & SACD.

Some in the industry are really SLOW LEARNERS. They should take their blinkers off and look around them!

John

The points in this thread are all very true. You just have to look at the way your friends react when you say you spent �10,000 on a pair of speakers and a DVD player. People just don't care about quality in the way that we do.

Add to this the fact that most people aren't even realising the full potential of DVD - what is the point in having a better format?

DVD offers far better quality than most people can see on their current equipment anyway.

Tangentially, I saw a report this week that some studios (Warner certainly, can't remember the others) are starting to sell current DVDs in China for $3 or so. They are priced to combat the 100% piracy level. They will have minimal packaging and no extras, but they will have the original English soundtracks.

When these discs leak out into the West (and they will...) then why would Joe Blow re-tool for HD/BD in order to spend $20+ on a disk that offers marginal improvements over the $3 version ?

Regards

Mark