The Death Of DVDS For Me

[moserw]

Tata indicom Broadband allows only 45 Gb of data transfer on its 256 kbps unlimited account for a month.

Why is it called unlimited then? Probably its a move to push users to higher packages. I've been using their 512 unlimited package and its really unlimited. No FUP on it.

 

[rikhav]

Why is it called unlimited then? Probably its a move to push users to higher packages. I've been using their 512 unlimited package and its really unlimited. No FUP on it.

Its there for all unlimited packages. I mean the limit. it would be more then the 256 kbps but still there is a limit.
Check with their helpline

 

[moserw]

Its there for all unlimited packages. I mean the limit. it would be more then the 256 kbps but still there is a limit.
Check with their helpline

FUP is not there for their 512 KBPS unlimited package. I've been using it for a while now.

 

[renjithvakkayil]

An original DVD/BLURAY takes a minimum of 2-3 weeks to reach India (forget that if u are not living in a METRO) while a rip is available within hours of the US release and most of the time I have seen that the DVDs we get are the Thai/Malaysian ones with crappy subtitles..the US DVDs are either unavailable or the price is almost 30% more than the Malaysian ones (so say abt Rs.500/600).If u are oredering via ebay/amazon also u have to wait for 2-3 weeks thats y ppl like us go for the rips (cant get UNTOUCHED bluray as its abt 25GB +)..so the best alternative is HQ rips encoded by ppl who know their stuff....

 

[reju]

Well to the human eye on most setups a Divx rip is as good as the original DVD so much so that most cannot see a difference. Similarly why should not (or cannot) a HD rip be as good as the original? Of course I've not compared both side by side, but just thinking why should there be a loss in PQ? FLAC rips are smaller in size compared to the original Audio CD or the WAVE files yet there is no loss of SQ or data. Same should be possible here too. Either way compression does not mean bad PQ. In most cases the human eye cannot see a difference.

If you use component connection between your DVD player and LCD TV, you can easily make out the difference between DivX and original DVD.

DVDs are far superior say 20-30% better. I am surprised to hear that you find no difference??? Similary for HD rips. I have compared them side by side. Though rips are good, on an average original are 10-20% better. You can easily make out the difference in darker scenes, you see many pixelations.

FLAC itself means loseless audio and in audio its very difficult to make out difference. Say MP3 196Kbps vs 320kBps. You cannot compare this with video compression.

 

[moserw]

I believe you've checked on an LCD where the image is stretched. On CRT the difference is hardly perceptible especially for good rips. I have the entire LOTR trilogy on DVD and I've also ripped them in Divx to fit on a single DVD in Divx. On my 29" Panny CRT there is no difference between both in terms of PQ even though 13GB has been compressed to a single 4.37GB DVD.

Coming to HD rips well if its a smaller rip like 5GB or less then yes there is a difference that's noticeable. Try a 8-10GB rip and there will be very little difference once again of course depending on the quality of the rip.

I'm not saying there is no difference. How much of it is visible to the naked eye is a different story. Also, I would say there would be a difference between Blu-Ray and HD rips. But saying MPEG4 (Divx) suffers in comparison to MPEG2 (DVD) is not possible unless the compression is like 500MB to a 4GB DVD. If you compress a 4GB DVD to 1.5-2GB using the right settings in Divx then not many will be able to tell the difference, that's how good Divx is.

Edit - Yes I use component cable for my CRT.

If you use component connection between your DVD player and LCD TV, you can easily make out the difference between DivX and original DVD.

DVDs are far superior say 20-30% better. I am surprised to hear that you find no difference??? Similary for HD rips. I have compared them side by side. Though rips are good, on an average original are 10-20% better. You can easily make out the difference in darker scenes, you see many pixelations.

FLAC itself means loseless audio and in audio its very difficult to make out difference. Say MP3 196Kbps vs 320kBps. You cannot compare this with video compression.

 

[reju]

I believe you've checked on an LCD where the image is stretched. On CRT the difference is hardly perceptible especially for good rips. I have the entire LOTR trilogy on DVD and I've also ripped them in Divx to fit on a single DVD in Divx. On my 29" Panny CRT there is no difference between both in terms of PQ even though 13GB has been compressed to a single 4.37GB DVD.

Coming to HD rips well if its a smaller rip like 5GB or less then yes there is a difference that's noticeable. Try a 8-10GB rip and there will be very little difference once again of course depending on the quality of the rip.

I'm not saying there is no difference. How much of it is visible to the naked eye is a different story. Also, I would say there would be a difference between Blu-Ray and HD rips. But saying MPEG4 (Divx) suffers in comparison to MPEG2 (DVD) is not possible unless the compression is like 500MB to a 4GB DVD. If you compress a 4GB DVD to 1.5-2GB using the right settings in Divx then not many will be able to tell the difference, that's how good Divx is.

Edit - Yes I use component cable for my CRT.

I never alter the aspect ratio while watching movies. So no stretching. Normal wide screen. Normally we have 700MB or 1400MB for DVD rips. If you have good TV and average vision you will not miss the difference! I know what I am talking about. I have been into all this since 2000. Those days it used to be "DivX;-)" and it used to take 4-5 softwares/ procedures to rip a DVD into DivX;-) Usually an overnight affair just for one DVD.

Normally the HD rips are 4.37GB or 7.96GB in some rare cases 9-12GB. On an average raw rips are 20-40GB. This maybe new for you, I am into this since last 2 years. So don't speculate or assume, just go through the process of learning from experience and then comment about the difference in PQ.

True HD rips are undoubtedly 10-20% better than rips (say 10% better when rips are above 10Gb) But then when you compare the difference in relation to the effort of downloading them and the space it occupies on HDD, I will not opt for True HD rips.

Unless I can afford to amass the original BD stuff. Well, maybe in future when the BD media is much cheaper!

 

[reju]

Well most don't hear a difference between DTS and Dolby Digital so SQ compression also does not make a difference.

Hey DTS is much better than AC3, any day! A good HT will show the difference. moserw I am sorry to say but today you are coming out with very surprising observations.

 

[suprateep]

Hey DTS is much better than AC3, any day! A good HT will show the difference. moserw I am sorry to say but today you are coming out with very surprising observations.

DTS is noticeably 5-10% better than AC3 and often the center channel is better is DTS - the thing is that DTS takes more space than AC3. I save DVDs (1hr 40mins) in a typical 2 GB file as h264 aduiocopy (the final file is better with AC3 than DTS mainly because AC3 takes lesser space. So my vote to AC3

 

[pradski]

Just to poke my nose here

why would the hifivision prominent members would want to rip on movies. Are we ( I am a small time guy anyway) that bad that we can not affford them, when we spend a fortune on expensive gear to listen and watch them. There is something to pay for what we use. LIke buying an original CD of the guy whom you like to listen. 500 bucks for a cd with a couple of good numbers is worth for life.

My thoughts so don't feel bad.

 

[moserw]

This maybe new for you, I am into this since last 2 years. So don't speculate or assume, just go through the process of learning from experience and then comment about the difference in PQ.

Seems very arrogant and high handed of you here, but I will leave it at that. You are only into it 2 years and I've been into it more than I care to remember or even count and even before the advent of Divx. FYI I've been even ripping and upping TS content for a good number of years and in case you don't know what that is let me know. I would assume you would know what TS is though. You have only probably been at the receiving end and just d/l stuff. Anyways I don't want to fight so I will leave it at that.

I never alter the aspect ratio while watching movies. So no stretching. Normal wide screen. Normally we have 700MB or 1400MB for DVD rips. If you have good TV and average vision you will not miss the difference! I know what I am talking about. I have been into all this since 2000. Those days it used to be "DivX;-)" and it used to take 4-5 softwares/ procedures to rip a DVD into DivX;-) Usually an overnight affair just for one DVD.

Normally the HD rips are 4.37GB or 7.96GB in some rare cases 9-12GB. On an average raw rips are 20-40GB. This maybe new for you, I am into this since last 2 years. So don't speculate or assume, just go through the process of learning from experience and then comment about the difference in PQ.

True HD rips are undoubtedly 10-20% better than rips (say 10% better when rips are above 10Gb) But then when you compare the difference in relation to the effort of downloading them and the space it occupies on HDD, I will not opt for True HD rips.

Unless I can afford to amass the original BD stuff. Well, maybe in future when the BD media is much cheaper!

If you read carefully I've said "most people" which means just about every other person. Mostly people don't even know what to look for in video to differentiate between PQ. For such people there will be hardly or no difference between Divx and DVD and I will still maintain this. Your assumption that DVDs are 20-30% better is flawed. No way is MPEG2 better than MPEG4. They may be better like your 20-30% because they are being compressed too much. Try a Divx rip at min compression and I would like to know how many will spot a difference between it and the original DVD. Anyone can spot a difference if its compressed to a 700MB file which is like 1/6th the original size. Try converting at higher bitrates and not many can spot the difference.

Coming to DTS vs. DD even here I've said about people in general. I've always maintained that DTS is better and I can hear the difference that's why I've always gone for DVDs with DTS. However, how many can hear the difference between DTS and DD? Just the other day in another post Venkat sir himself said he could not make out a difference between DTS and DD. So does that make you, supra and me better than Venkat sir because we can hear a difference. I would not assume I'm better than Venkat sir, but perhaps you might think otherwise seeing your tone to "teach me" and "educate me" as in your previous post.

No offense to you Reju and also none to you Supra. I still maintain that not many can make a difference between DTS and DD and not many can make a difference between a rightly done Divx rip and a DVD. Assuming that because you can notice a difference you are superior and can start teaching others is arrogance that's misplaced.

 

[moserw]

Well I rip because I want everything in a centralized location and available at hand. It's easier when everything I have is on a PC or on the PS3. Just need to turn on the PS3 and watch anything I want. Also, its easier to hand out the rips to friends and family rather than give the original CDs and DVDs which I'm possessive about. Finally, this way the original CDs and DVDs are safe and not prone to scratches.

Just to poke my nose here

why would the hifivision prominent members would want to rip on movies. Are we ( I am a small time guy anyway) that bad that we can not affford them, when we spend a fortune on expensive gear to listen and watch them. There is something to pay for what we use. LIke buying an original CD of the guy whom you like to listen. 500 bucks for a cd with a couple of good numbers is worth for life.

My thoughts so don't feel bad.

 

[reju]

Seems very arrogant and high handed of you here, but I will leave it at that. You are only into it 2 years and I've been into it more than I care to remember or even count and even before the advent of Divx. FYI I've been even ripping and upping TS content for a good number of years and in case you don't know what that is let me know. I would assume you would know what TS is though. You have only probably been at the receiving end and just d/l stuff. Anyways I don't want to fight so I will leave it at that.

I am sorry if you feel that way. Maybe I just wanted to open your eyes, that what you may think is correct may not be so. 2 years I have mentioned is for MKVs. If you read again you will note that from 2000 I started using 4-5 softwares to get one DVD rip. So it's not just d/l.

If you read carefully I've said "most people" which means just about every other person. Mostly people don't even know what to look for in video to differentiate between PQ. For such people there will be hardly or no difference between Divx and DVD and I will still maintain this. Your assumption that DVDs are 20-30% better is flawed. No way is MPEG2 better than MPEG4. They may be better like your 20-30% because they are being compressed too much. Try a Divx rip at min compression and I would like to know how many will spot a difference between it and the original DVD. Anyone can spot a difference if its compressed to a 700MB file which is like 1/6th the original size. Try converting at higher bitrates and not many can spot the difference.

But how can you generalise why you are not even using right display to justify your observations? Use LCD to compare. I am sure you know that CRT does not have adequate resolution to show you good from bad. So at least all those who use LCD with component/HDMI cable will be able to differentiate without hesitation.

Coming to DTS vs. DD even here I've said about people in general. I've always maintained that DTS is better and I can hear the difference that's why I've always gone for DVDs with DTS. However, how many can hear the difference between DTS and DD? Just the other day in another post Venkat sir himself said he could not make out a difference between DTS and DD. So does that make you, supra and me better than Venkat sir because we can hear a difference. I would not assume I'm better than Venkat sir, but perhaps you might think otherwise seeing your tone to "teach me" and "educate me" as in your previous post..

If you believe in something stick to that. According to you venkat feels otherwise. So is this the reason you have changed your stance and now write that there's no difference? And by saying what you feel you have heard does not make you better than anyone else. I am not here to show who is better. It's just some matters that we discuss and make your opinions heard. If speakers wires can make difference, superior audio format will not??

No offense to you Reju and also none to you Supra. I still maintain that not many can make a difference between DTS and DD and not many can make a difference between a rightly done Divx rip and a DVD. Assuming that because you can notice a difference you are superior and can start teaching others is arrogance that's misplaced.

Maybe you should stop using your PC for experiments. Otherwise you may continue to get erratic results like thesehyeah:

And please stop your kiddish stance of saying who is better/ superior etc

 

[suprateep]

Well I rip because I want everything in a centralized location and available at hand. It's easier when everything I have is on a PC or on the PS3. Just need to turn on the PS3 and watch anything I want. Also, its easier to hand out the rips to friends and family rather than give the original CDs and DVDs which I'm possessive about. Finally, this way the original CDs and DVDs are safe and not prone to scratches.

+1 to that. Why would I want to dig open my DVD collection when I can fire the movie from XBMC (HTPC front end for PC) - just check the included typical mediastream view.
View attachment 923

And then again I would hate scratches on my DVDs of Sin City, 300 ect - simply love em.

 

[venkatcr]

If speakers wires can make difference, superior audio format will not??

Whether DTS is superior to Dolby or not is highly debatable. Dolby Digital 5.1 vs DTS is an argument that has been going on for decades with no clear winner.

There are two distinct uses of these audio codecs and the way they are implemented.

In an movie hall, there is a difference in the way these technologies are implemented. DD stores the audio data as optical and analogue signals on the film itself. The analogue signal is a backup that can be used by the projector if there is a problem with the optical data signal. A CCD scanner in the projector reads the data and sends it for amplification. Each frame stores 3300 bits of data. At 24 frames per second, you have a bit rate of 79,200 or 79.2k/bits per second.

DTS, on the other hand, stores the data on a audio CD. Each picture frame has a cue that works as a timing device (SMPTE) for the audio on the CD. The projector is linked to a CD Player that plays the sound on cues from the projector. The bit rate used is 1103K/bits per second. So, theoretically, DTS needs lesser compression and can deliver better sound in a movie hall.

In a HT system, the story is completely different. Though DTS claims it encodes data at 1.5K/Bits per second, the actual bit rate used by DTS on DVD-Video is a maximum of 768K/bits per second. DD stores audio data at 448k/bits per second. They also claim they have better compression and decompression algorithms making the 200/bits per second difference completely redundant. If the same original sound track was used, it will be very difficult to make out a difference between DTS and DD in an HT system. You will make out differences much more easily using a different amplifier or speakers. But using the same equipment, and DTS and DD encoded from the same original data, I doubt that it will be easy to discern any difference. This is what professional reviewers in the industry also believe.

I used two independent DVDs of the movie - Sivaji. One with just DD and the other with just DTS. Here are the media information for the audio tracks.

ID : 136 (0x88)
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 755 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Surround: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Video delay : -881ms
Stream size : 69.4 MiB (14%)


ID : 128 (0x80)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 448 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Surround: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Video delay : -686ms
Stream size : 7.48 MiB (8%)

As you can see DTS uses nearly the maximum possible bit rate. I used two different systems to test the sound differences. One was a Yamaha 663 connected to EPOS bookshelves, surrounds, centre and sub. I switched the DVDs six times and used the same Chapter Six - The Instrumental Fight. After that I used my own Onkyo 875 with a Oppo 983 connected to two Wharfedlae 9.5s, Wharfedale 9 DFS surrounds, Aperion Audio Vertical Array Centre, and Hsu Research VTF 2 sub. The interconnects and speakers were of the best quality affordable.

As I said before, in neither system was I able to make out any differences between DTS and DD excepting an enhanced bass in DD.

Cheers

 

[reju]

Hi venkat,

Thanks for your detailed info on the DD & DTS, specially for the theaters as I had no idea how they do it technically.

I now understand that for DVDs there is not much difference between DTS and DD. Forgive me, I am not much in touch with DVDs as such.

But for HD MKV rips it does make a lot of difference. As you can see from the media info below from the movie Mamma Mia with DTS soundtrack.

Audio #2
Format : DTS
Format/Info : Digital Theater Systems
Codec ID : A_DTS
Duration : 1h 48mn
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 1 536 Kbps
Channel(s) : 6 channels
Channel positions : Front: L C R, Surround: L R, LFE
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Resolution : 24 bits
Language : English

So I had assumed that DTS in DVDs should also be good as these!

 

[skumar]

In line with the title of this thread, Amazon.co.uk has some good BD titles on sale (2 for 3 etc)...

 

[venkatcr]

But for HD MKV rips it does make a lot of difference. As you can see from the media info below from the movie Mamma Mia with DTS soundtrack.....So I had assumed that DTS in DVDs should also be good as these!

This is not DTS but DTS-HD or what was called DTS++. Both Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD are lossless compression and the rules are different. It will not be fair to compare DTS-HD with just Dolby Digital 5.1.

Cheers

 

[reju]

This is not DTS but DTS-HD or what was called DTS++. Both Dolby True-HD and DTS-HD are lossless compression and the rules are different. It will not be fair to compare DTS-HD with just Dolby Digital 5.1.

Cheers

No, no. This is not DTS-HD. That bit rate is similar what you had mentioned: 1.5MBits per second as per DTS specs.

Also my AVR does not decode DTS-HD.

 

[prakasse]

The Instrumental Fight. After that I used my own Onkyo 875 with a Oppo 983 connected to two Wharfedlae 9.5s, Wharfedale 9 DFS surrounds, Aperion Audio Vertical Array Centre, and Hsu Research VTF 2 sub. The interconnects and speakers were of the best quality affordable.

Cheers

Hi Venkat,

Normally one would advice us to go for speakers[at least front and center] from the same brand/series in order to have timbre matching. Even you have advised our forum members on the same.

I see that now you are using Aperion centre with wharfedale. Can you comment on its performance? Are you be able to distinguish the sound intensity/signature from the centre speaker? or it does matches with wharfedales?

Also how good is Aperion centre channel? which model you are using? and finally how much does it cost

Thanks,
Prakash.