Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertM
Basically that HD Audio sounds good in theory, but it sounds the same in practice. There have been tests to evaluate whether people could hear the difference, and the results are generally negative. Maybe the most golden-eared of the audiophile set can hear a difference, but I KNOW that I can't. The difference, if it exists, is really subtle.
All else being equal, I would pick HD myself, even though I can't hear the difference, simply because there is no compression so the sound should be technically the best. On a BD-50, where there is a lot of room this might make sense. But on a BD-25 there usually isn't enough room for HD-Audio and the original video, without compressing the video further. I won't trade video quality reduction for an audio "improvement" that I can't hear. Just my opinion.
Regards,
Bob
|
In the double-blind tests (which is the only reliable method) no one could distinguish HD from DD 640Kbs when using identical sources. That's according to Dolby's (the developers of True-HD) own testing (google should find it). Interestingly, though, in other tests if the amplitude is "finagled" as sometimes seems to happen in HD, people are fooled into selecting the source with the higher amplitude -- even if it is the non-HD (compressed) source. The term "smoke and mirrors" comes to mind.