'It is believed' . . . . by whom exactly?, posted on January 27, 2003 at 08:41:43
Martin says Audiophile Posts: 1347 Joined: December 21, 2001	.

Nonsense., posted on January 27, 2003 at 08:47:52
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	Rhino are certainly doing no such thing, nor would Teldec. Do you even know who Warner is?

I know this will sound like I'm an evil traitor but........., posted on January 27, 2003 at 09:09:50

HiFi Connasewer

.....if they were to change dvd-a to solely Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 surround, I would be O.K. with that. Obviously these compressed formats aren't hi-rez ones, but the surround aspect is what I am interested in. And actually, couldn't surround be considered a type of "higher" resolution (compared to stereo) ebecause of it's superior reproduction of a music venue OR becuase it gives the artist more channels to work with?

As someone who right now can only listen to the DD/DTS tracks anyway, I find them perfectly listenable. And many DTS tracks just sound plain good. And if they would drop the video/photo crap, I'll bet a DD/DTS disc would come to market much faster (& cheaper to boot).

I just don't want to lose this awesome surround option I've grown to really enjoy.

Speaking of DTS-only music discs.................

I don't see your point. You can do that on a CD. (nt), posted on January 27, 2003 at 09:26:35
Eric LeRouge Audiophile Posts: 3060 Location: France, Paris Joined: October 7, 2002	nt

Calm down kids! He means Kurt Warner (St Louis Rams), posted on January 27, 2003 at 10:27:02

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Seriously, does anyone believe even Warner Bros is that dense? C'mon.

DTS is scalable -- they can change the codec's bit word lengths, sample rates and bit rates. Currently, they are doing 24/96 5.1 for inclusion on some DVD-As. Yes, they can do 24/192 and yes, they can do more channels. At least 10.2 (check out the article about DTS in this month's WidesreenReview -- it's their 10 Year Anniversary).

No they can't do 192/24 DTS - but..., posted on January 27, 2003 at 10:58:38
Michi Industry Professional Posts: 2329 Location: colorado Joined: November 23, 2001	Where on earth did you hear this?

Re: I don't see your point. You can do that on a CD. (nt), posted on January 27, 2003 at 11:27:19

HiFi Connasewer

If it's a choice between losing dvd-audio COMPLETELY and being stuck with only stereo CD, or having CD and a DD/DTS surround format disc, I'll take the latter. This is assuming of course that Warner--with their huge music catalog--doesn't switch to sacd.

Or how about this: a 5.1 DD/DTS + stereo 96kHz/24bit LPCM disc? And with no video portion or on-screen menus.

>>>5.1 DD/DTS + stereo 96kHz/24bit LPCM disc<<<, posted on January 27, 2003 at 11:45:28
Joe Murphy Jr Audiophile Posts: 4424 Joined: February 3, 2001	I'll second that!!!

see pg.73 WidescreenReview Vol 12 No2 Issue 69, posted on January 27, 2003 at 11:54:38
Joe Murphy Jr Audiophile Posts: 4424 Joined: February 3, 2001	"It covers sampling rates up to 192kHz and has a lossless mode as well." -- John Kirchner of DTS on the codec's capabilities.

Re: Never Trust Widescreen Review, posted on January 27, 2003 at 12:17:55

NotMe

Widescreen Review is the ultimate shill for DTS. Everything DTS does is great, their technologies have Gary Reber wetting his pants and everything else is worthless.

DTS is lossy, DTS 96/24 is lossy and worse quality than regular DTS (because data is taken from the audible region to deliver inaudible content). Sure, there is loss-less DTS (always has been) but that would require the replacement of every DTS decoder already sold.

Never believe anything written in Widescreen Review, you get more accurate reporting from AudioRevolution and that's saying something.

Re: I know this will sound like I'm an evil traitor but........., posted on January 27, 2003 at 12:21:28

NotMe

"........if they were to change dvd-a to solely Dolby Digital/DTS 5.1 surround, I would be O.K. with that."

What you're describing is DVD-Video. Guess what? We already have that.

The bottleneck is getting artist clearance and creating a surround mix. Once both are out of the way, it's just as easy to create MLP 5.1 as it is Dolby Digital 5.1, the masters just end up going through a different encoder.

You are uttering complete nonsense, posted on January 27, 2003 at 12:23:48

Frank

***DTS is lossy, DTS 96/24 is lossy and worse quality than regular DTS (because data is taken from the audible region to deliver inaudible content). ***

Did you ever really hear it ?

Frank

From what I can gather from the DTS specs you are right. At least up to 24/96 5.1 lossless should..., posted on January 27, 2003 at 12:30:46
LarsB Audiophile Posts: 449 Location: Copenhagen Joined: April 21, 2002	...be obtainable in theory by setting compression rate to zero. But as NotMe points out it's propably not supported by the majority of DTS decoders (if any at all), not to mention problems with bit-rate restriction.

What are you debating?, posted on January 27, 2003 at 14:41:24

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

1) I do not consider DTS to be a HI-REZ format. Any material where the music information has been compromised -- poisoned with watermarking such as Verance or by throwing away bits -- cannot be considered HI-REZ.

2) The quote was in WR, but WR (Editor Gary Reber) wasn't quoted -- Kirchner from DTS was. Are you saying that DTS doesn't know the limits of its own codec?

3) Most of what WR "promotes" for DTS is for the DVD-V format -- not the DVD-A format. WidescreenReview, in their opinion and mine, supports the best codec currently available for that format -- DTS. The only other alternative lossy codec (remember, DVD-V is a video format first -- not audio) is Dolby Digital. Is "that" your choice regarding the two options? By the way, if you promote DVD-A over SACD, does that make you a "shill" for DVD-A?

4) I stated that DTS has 24/192 capability because Michi -- who, in my opinion, usually adds valuable discussion and thought provoking comments anytime she posts -- posted that it wasn't available. Well, it is available. Whether or not it will work with the decoder in everyone's processor/receiver may or may not be possible. However, keep in mind that DTS-ES is backwards compatible and DTS 24/96 is also backwards compatible. While neither will allow you to take advantage of its features unless you have a DTS-ES or DTS 24/96 capable chip, the new format can still be used with your current decoder. When, or if, you upgrade later on, you will be able to take advantage of what these new formats offer. Sounds like the similar benefit that DD/DTS/MLP DVD-As and hybrid SACDs have to me. Is that such a bad thing?

5) DTS can have a bit rate over 6 Mbs. As a lossy compression codec, I think that's a good deal of information and far more than what's used now (for lossy codecs). Will we ever go to 10.2 channels like TH the ex-THX guru wants? I can't answer that. They can't answer that. Neither can you. The fact is, they have this capability.

6) The sound quality is subjective. There are some people that think DVD-As and SACDs sound no better than CDs and those CDs can be matched by "CD-quality" MP3s! There are even people that think their format of choice, with its added sounds of Rice Krispys, is better than the master tape that it was produced from! Are you going to tell any of them that their "subjective" opinion is wrong?

7) All I know is that DTS makes a lot more people happy than you do by pissing with your pants still on. I see what they are doing to further people's enjoyment of DVD-As and DVD-Vs. Just what are you doing?

That isn't going to happen - PCM is the MAIN part of the DVD-A spec. (nt)`, posted on January 27, 2003 at 15:31:05
Maven Audiophile Posts: 397 Joined: June 2, 2002	.

Re: DTS, posted on January 27, 2003 at 15:33:03

John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999

1) 24/96k/5.1 is beyond spec for DVD-A, so some compression is required, certainly zero doesn't cut it.

2) WG-4, which is the governing body of DVD-Audio within the DVD Forum, held an open competition for lossless compression codecs. DTS was one of the entrants, and failed on at least one track, as did all other entrants save Meridian and their Meridian Lossless Packing.

3) Max bit rate for DTS is about 6mb/sec if I remember my discussion with Lorr Kramer correctly.

Regards,
John Kotches

Re: You are uttering complete nonsense, posted on January 27, 2003 at 15:36:49

John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999

I have, and I find it no better or worse than the previous codec.

Trade something here, get something back there.

Regards,
John Kotches

What would it take to alter the Dvd-Video Spec to include 192kHz LPCM? Thx. n/t, posted on January 27, 2003 at 15:40:32
HiFi Connasewer	.

Hmm... better get the stocks of DVD-A's whilst theyre still made, posted on January 27, 2003 at 15:58:40

SnaggS
Audiophile

Posts: 1194
Joined: October 4, 2000

I was just quibling about whether to purchase some of the key artists on DVD-A incase the format was ever dropped.

Whilst going DTS/DG route with more video content isn't dropping it.... well, Verence + Lossy Compression is just pushing it a bit calling it Hires.

So would 6mbits DTS still be Hirez (i.e. better than CD ?), posted on January 27, 2003 at 16:01:18

SnaggS
Audiophile

Posts: 1194
Joined: October 4, 2000

By a substantial margin ? I guess using a mega DTS stream will give better performance to more people and leave more room for Video clips.

Daniel.

Re: A replacement for DVD-Video, posted on January 27, 2003 at 16:10:12

John Kotches
Reviewer

Posts: 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO Area
Joined: November 16, 1999

An HD-DVD spec.

It simply will never be part of the current DVD-VIdeo specification.

Regards,
John Kotches

I'll second that also, except..., posted on January 27, 2003 at 16:44:07

Eric LeRouge
Audiophile

Posts: 3060
Location: France, Paris
Joined: October 7, 2002

that you need a DVD disc to store so much data. So, in effect, you have to use DVD-V authoring (will play on any DVD player) to store all this stuff... and you've got yourself a good old DAD.

OR you decide to include a DVD-A section next to the DVD-V section, store the 96/24 section there (2CH or MCH), and you have yourself a hybrid DVD-A, which is exactly what you have on the market right now. Whether it is LPCM or compressed/encoded through MLP is only a detail if you stay up to 24/96, but MLP becomes necessary above that (so I hear, I have never done it).

In either event, whether you choose to go DAD or DVD-A, you cannot have it without a menu and some image content, even if it has to be "still imagery", as they say. A minimum video content is mandatory for a DVD disc structure (I know, it socks).
No video, no nothing. You can carve that in stone.

Sorry guys, but unless I misunderstood something, I still don't get your point.

Best

Eric

As far as DTS, Inc's codecs, yes, but -, posted on January 27, 2003 at 17:02:07
Michi Industry Professional Posts: 2329 Location: colorado Joined: November 23, 2001	as far as I know there is nothing on the consumer market that can decode 192khz DTS, nor lossless DTS. That's saved for the theatres.

I think DTS 24/96 is more "marketing"..., posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:18:42

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

than substance. As you say, get something here -- give something there. But I tend to look at DTS as a "for movies" format, rather than a "for music" format. I'd take DTS-ES 6.1 Discrete (at 1.5 Mbs) over any of the other available movie formats (be they DTS or Dolby) any day. Notice I said 1.5 Mbs and not "just" the ES format. I've heard too many higher bitrate movies to say that 768kbs in 6.1 ES is as good as 1.5Mbs 5.1 (which is smoother to my ears).

Re: No, You're Spouting Nonsense. Read..., posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:18:51

NotMe

Yes, I've heard DTS 96/24, at home and at shows. If you think it's superior to regular DTS, you fell for the marketing hype or are hearing a souped-up mix.

You need to read "Backward Compatible Enhancement of DTS Multi-Channel Audio Coding That Delivers 96-kHz / 24-Bit Audio Quality" by Zoran Fejzo, Stephen Smyth, Keith McDowell, Yu-Li You, and Paul Smith - Digital Theater Systems, Inc. AES Pre-print 5259, presented at the 109th Convention.

It was written by DTS themselves and explains, in a nutshell, that a DTS 96/24 encoder splits the incoming data into two halves; one half contains the legacy backward compatible core data, whereas the other carries the extension data. In a 96/24 decoder, the 48kHz portion of the signal is upsampled to 96kHz, then combined with the true 96kHz element.

The entire audible frequency range, 20Hz - 24kHz, is carried by the core encoder, but the available data is split between the two encoder halves. In a regular 48kHz DTS system the 20Hz - 24kHz range is delivered at 1,536kb/s, in a DTS 96/24 system that same area of the spectrum is delivered at 1,152kb/s since 384kb/s is dedicated to the utterly pointless, inaudible extension data.

As I said, read the document. If you think DTS 96/24 sounds better, then fine, but don't try to say it is superior to any other form of DTS, it isn't.

http://www.aes.org/

>>>still image<<<, posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:24:19

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

I'll second that, too!!!

How 'bout Britney Spears -- and "nothing" else?
:-)

Re: What are you debating?, posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:28:26

NotMe

I'm debating the fact that WSR always promotes DTS and gives them an open forum to wax lyrical about their latest and greatest format without ever being taken to task. DTS engineers know the limits of their formats, but I'm not so sure about their marketing people or Widescreen Review. And if you think Reber wasn't involved, wake up, he's the editor/owner/publisher.

I'm not sure who the remainder of your ramble is aimed at, there was no mention of anything other than the dubious merits of DTS 96/24 in my post, so I can only assume you're addressing someone else with the remainder.

And as for point seven, resorting to the schoolyard name-calling only serves to devalue anything sensible you may have had to say.

>>>384kb/s is dedicated to the utterly pointless<<<, posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:32:52

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

And here I thought that you were referring to Dolby Digital.

:-)

DTS 24/96 -- pointless? Maybe "give and take". Marketing job? I'd agree with that (below).

Noone else, posted on January 27, 2003 at 19:50:33

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

Your post came off, to me at least, that DTS is just a marketing game and holds no value in audio/video. That's what I was addressing with the reply. "Pissing with your pants up" is an expression -- not name-calling. I believe it does apply in regards to "my" impression of your post. Perhaps this was not your post's intent, but that's how I took it. As to the name-calling and having ones contribution "devalued", I don't believe I've met anyone whose given name was "shill" -- have you? WR is not perfect and I never said that they were. But if you think that these guys are bad, just wait until you read the "high end" mags...

The same place you get your information, Michelle., posted on January 27, 2003 at 21:26:55
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	When you have "bat ears" you hear what Warner executives are thinking.

You misunderstand the documentation., posted on January 28, 2003 at 00:18:37

Frank

The 1.5 kbs is not always used on a 'regular' DTS encoded disc.

Also 'normal' DTS doesn't have a frequency range up to 24kHz. One of te losses in the lossy coding scheme is that hf above 20kHz is filtered to save bitspace. I doubt that the DTS9624 encoding extends the frequency range to a 'useless' 48kHz frequency range.

You forget that there are twice as many samples available in the 20-24kHz range with DTS9624.

Like John said win some loose some but in general DTS9624 is just slightly better.

Frank

Grow up., posted on January 28, 2003 at 00:50:42

Michi
Industry Professional

Posts: 2329
Location: colorado
Joined: November 23, 2001

What are you, twelve years old? Just go through threads and do nothing but fling insults?

And what kind of moron uses 'bat ears' as an -insult- on an audiophile forum? What's appropriate, Jim, mud ears?

I'd guess, by your post, you're claiming you've got a set of those.

Joe, I said---, posted on January 28, 2003 at 01:11:20

Michi
Industry Professional

Posts: 2329
Location: colorado
Joined: November 23, 2001

that it wasn't available to the consumer... Which it isn't. (24/192 no, 24/96 yes.)

The lossless version is also not available for HT or to consumers.

(The information I get comes from whitepapers delivered by DTS when I was doing encoding professionally.)

I see people asking if 24/192 DTS is available, and then answering "Yes, 24/96 DTS is available."

//""It covers sampling rates up to 192kHz and has a lossless mode as well." -- John Kirchner of DTS on the codec's capabilities. "//

Yes, the CODEC ITSELF does. But *no* current consumer implementations can understand it.

"DTS" isn't really a single codec, more like a suite of algorithms, as most lossy codecs are. (AAC for example: AAC Main, LC, and SSR.)

However a good portion of these algorithms are not implemented _at all_ in consumer products.

What Kirchner probably meant was that in house, yes, they can make their (DTS's algorithms) do lossless 192. It was probably developed for the DVD-A forum.

DTS's current "bitrate ceiling" is determined by the DVD-V spec's bitrate limit. (~6mbps for DVD-V, ~9mbps for DVD-A.)

I just think people are getting confused as to what 'DTS' means. Their 'codec' can be used to refer to all of their algorithms in one package.

But I challenge anyone to find a single piece of consumer gear that can do lossless DTS at 192khz.

You can scan Pirelli calendars as your picture gallery, as well (nt :-), posted on January 28, 2003 at 04:45:27
Eric LeRouge Audiophile Posts: 3060 Location: France, Paris Joined: October 7, 2002	nt

When you do grow up, you'll know a baseless rumour..., posted on January 28, 2003 at 07:22:01
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	when you hear one.

"The lossless version is also not available for HT or to consumers", the future ?, posted on January 28, 2003 at 07:31:09

SnaggS
Audiophile

Posts: 1194
Joined: October 4, 2000

Sorry, couldn't resist. It sucks, Nonesuch is owned by Warner... so I've got a choice of

1) New CD releases
2) Lossy Watermarked DVD-A if it even gets a DVD-A release
3) Original Vinyl pressings...

Guess which I'll be taking, 1 or 3....

Verance being audible is a baseless rumor?, posted on January 28, 2003 at 11:16:58
Michi Industry Professional Posts: 2329 Location: colorado Joined: November 23, 2001	Tell me how Verance's audibility is a "baseless rumor" when even Verance doesn't claim inaudibility? Seems like a 'base' to me.

I mean Warner dropping PCM., posted on January 28, 2003 at 11:36:45
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	You're really hung up on the Verance thing, aren't you? Funny, it doesn't get much play here - and the people on this board actually listen to DVD-As.

question, posted on January 28, 2003 at 11:49:11
Joe Murphy Jr Audiophile Posts: 4424 Joined: February 3, 2001	Before anyone answers, I am not talking about copyright issues or someone's ability or inability to hear watermarks: do you think it's in the best interest of the artist to alter or add to that artist's original intent (that intent being the creation of music)?

Re: No Misunderstanding Here - The Documentation is Clear, posted on January 28, 2003 at 12:00:17

NotMe

>The 1.5 kbs is not always used on a 'regular' DTS encoded disc.<

Half-rate DTS is known as just that, half-rate, so "regular" DTS is 1.5Mb/s. That is what my reference intended. Sorry for any confusion caused.

>Also 'normal' DTS doesn't have a frequency range up to 24kHz. One of te losses in the lossy coding scheme is that hf above 20kHz is filtered to save bitspace.<

No. From DTS' own literature (this particular example from http://www.dtsonline.com/dtsposition.pdf): "For 48 kHz sampling, DTS has response to 24 kHz at 1.5 Mbit/s and response to 19 kHz at 754 kbit/s."

>You forget that there are twice as many samples available in the 20-24kHz range with DTS9624.<

Wrong again. There aren't. The frequency range up to 24kHz is delivered by the core data, to remain backward compatible it has to be sampled at 48kHz. In a DTS 96/24 decoder, the 48kHz data is upsampled, so the actual content has no more samples. From the document previously referenced:

"The input digital audio signal with a sampling frequency up to 96 kHz and a word length up to 24 bits is processed in the core branch and extension branch. In the core branch input audio is low-pass filtered to reduce its bandwidth to below 24 kHz, and then decimated by a factor of two, resulting in a 48 kHz sampled audio signal. The purpose of this LPF decimation is to remove signal components that cannot be represented by the core algorithm."

>I doubt that the DTS9624 encoding extends the frequency range to a 'useless' 48kHz frequency range.<

Nope (I thought you were the tech guy around here?). The same AES document contains two graphs, the first shows uncompressed 96kHz PCM with a frequency response extending to 48kHz. The second shows the behaviour of the two DTS encoder halves, the core data, which rolls of steeply just before 24kHz and the residual component which mirrors the response of the uncompressed PCM right out to 48kHz.

As I said, try to get hold of some DTS technical documents, the 96/24 example in particular, prior to jumping the gun about the system's operation.

Useless to go on on the watermark issue, posted on January 28, 2003 at 12:02:45

Frank

Warner chose to use it on their releases and others didn't.

I don't like it but I don't like the dsd noise shaping artifacts too.
At least the pcm masters are not contaminaited by the watermarking.
A dsd master will always contains the noise shaping artifacts.

Watermarking is optional with DVD Audio AND with sacd.
In fact, Philips demonstrated similar watermarking technology for sacd. It's there for record companies who want to use it.
It's a pity this sacd feature wasn't highlighted in the (biased) audiophile press as well.

It's useless to go on and on about it. It will show up on sacd and redbooks sooner or later.

Frank

Re: question, posted on January 28, 2003 at 12:07:42

Frank

What's different from some of the mastering practises used to 'enhance' the listening experience?

Frank

It was a "yes" or "no" question, posted on January 28, 2003 at 16:01:19

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

In my opinion, if the artist is OK with a suggested enhancement or requests the enhancement, then it becomes part of his/her creation.

Watermarking, however, is NOT an enhancement -- it's a degradation, whether or not the artist wants it or it is forced upon him/her. All the semantics in the world can't change that -- it's still a degradation, regardless of how large or small that degradation is.

I thought we wanted the highest resolution and most accurate preservation of the artist's creation that is available to consumers. Did I miss something? Why are you so intent on arguing against this? Please point out one instance where I have argued "against" the DVD-A format.

I believe it was "yes" or "no". Your turn...

Well, OK. I definitely do listen to DVD-A's though. heh., posted on January 28, 2003 at 17:33:14
Michi Industry Professional Posts: 2329 Location: colorado Joined: November 23, 2001	nt

In the artist's interest no, but with labels such as Warner, the artist doesn't own or control it., posted on January 28, 2003 at 17:34:25
Michi Industry Professional Posts: 2329 Location: colorado Joined: November 23, 2001	n

Artists sign their paintings., posted on January 28, 2003 at 21:42:29

Jim Pearce
Audiophile

Posts: 23677
Joined: January 4, 2002

The idea that electronic watermarking is simply morally wrong is puerile. Whether this watermarking is truly in the interest of the artist is arguable, but it would be patronizing to assume that we know better than they do. Whether the watermark is impinging on the buyer's rights is a complex issue. The current implementation may be imperfect, but the actual sonic degradation is hard to detect. You can't contribute to this debate by posing a "fool's dilemma". Why should we answer yes or no?

There are no artifacts. That is marketing rubbish and UNPROVEN {nt}, posted on January 29, 2003 at 00:34:08
SnaggS Audiophile Posts: 1194 Joined: October 4, 2000	.

Why not ?, posted on January 29, 2003 at 01:37:35

Frank

I can imagine that some artist want better copy protection.

Watermarks can also be used to log airtime for royalty revenues going into artist pockets.

Frank

I have heard them, posted on January 29, 2003 at 01:39:06

Frank

and bat ears are not needed to hear it.

Frank

Re: No Misunderstanding Here - The Documentation is Clear, posted on January 29, 2003 at 07:35:46

Frank

"The input digital audio signal with a sampling frequency up to 96 kHz and a word length up to 24 bits is processed in the core branch and extension branch. In the core branch input audio is low-pass filtered to reduce its bandwidth to below 24 kHz, and then decimated by a factor of two, resulting in a 48 kHz sampled audio signal. The purpose of this LPF decimation is to remove signal components that cannot be represented by the core algorithm."

This doesn't say anything about upsampling the core data. It's just explaining how the core data is derived so it will be compatible.

As I understood it the missing samples are reconstructed by information contained in the extension data.

Frank

Yes, posted on January 29, 2003 at 09:11:27

Frank

Would be my answer. It will give the artist the best option in collecting royalties and preventing copying. If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future.

You suggest that the watermark is limiting artists creativity and music making. I have a surpise for you: it does not.

To me watermarking is less objectionable than severe dynamic range compression and intended digital clipping often used to 'enhance' the listening experience.

I don't like it but can live with it. It doesn't prevent me from enjoying music.

"Please point out one instance where I have argued "against" the DVD-A format. "
Why should I ? If you re read my question you will see that I didn't accuse you of arguing against the DVD Audio format.

Frank

Re: No Misunderstanding Here - The Documentation is Clear, posted on January 29, 2003 at 09:43:52

NotMe

>This doesn't say anything about upsampling the core data.<

Not this particular passage, but it demonstrates that the data is indeed separated into two halves, with the core data carrying everything up to 24kHz. The extension data, specified as "above 24kHz" carries the higher frequencies. There's nothing in the document about the extension data carrying frequencies below 24kHz sampled at a higher rate.

And just to revisit your assumption that a lossy CODEC wouldn't bother reproducing 48kHz signals, I've just spotted the following paragraph on a page fold:

"The graph in Figure 8 illustrates the capability of coding system to cover the entire bandwidth from 0-48kHz at a combined bit rate of 1536 kbps. As before 1152kbps is allocated to the core stream and 384kbps is allocated to the extension stream."

I don't know about you, but I think that's utterly pointless. Dedicating valuable data to inaudible content in a lossy coder makes no sense at all, unless one considers the marketing potential of the term "96/24" amongst those who don't appreciate how the technology works.

And, something we've not re-visited is the quality issue. I still maintain DTS 96/24 will and does sound worse than regular DTS because of the reduced data dedicated to the audible content, but whether that is a correct assumption or not, I know that anyone listening to a DTS 96/24 track on non-DTS 96/24 hardware will suffer, they're only getting 1,152kb/s.

they won't, posted on January 29, 2003 at 10:05:06

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

"If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future."

They won't.

CD players, SACD players, CD burners, DVD burners do not include Verance hardware. And they won't.

This was a dumb idea that backfired. Unless the Verance watermark is common on both hardware and software, it is of little use. It has proven to be, so far, a useless idea, that has been rejected by the very consumers to whom "hi-rez" audio is supposed to sell.

It will disappear.

Ok..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 10:10:36

Methos
Audiophile

Posts: 3402
Location: DFW area
Joined: April 17, 2001

Please cite:
1 Disc, 1 Track, 1 Time Mark where you have heard DSD noise-shaping artifacts on a released SACD title.

a spurious comparison, posted on January 29, 2003 at 10:11:03

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

Artists do sign their paintings. This takes up one small part of the canvas.

Watermarking is spread throughout the entire recording.

It would be as though an art dealer decides to apply a tint to each painting depending on who painted it. Van Goghs could be painted over with a red tint, Rembrandts with a green tint. So that a machine could recognize the artist. No matter how light a tint, how "invisible" it was claimed to be, I think the art world would have quite a few problems with this scheme.

I agree with your post above: it will disappear., posted on January 29, 2003 at 10:44:02
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	However, if recording artists have a real problem with Verance, they know who to talk to. Can you point to any comment from a recording artist on this?

Re: Ok..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 10:59:25

Frank

Bucky Pizarelli disc from chesky.
On every track every time the stick impacts on the vibes.

Frank

Very well...I shall purchase this one, and investigate. BTW, how do you know you are hearing DSD..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:05:57
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	artifacts?

no I can't..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:13:20

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

haven't heard any comments, but I do know that many recording artists consider theft of their work to be a big problem and I'm sure many of them support any solution that promises to put an end to this. And to add an unsupported generalization, they don't seem all that interested in the audiophile characteristics of what they put out. An audio watermark, possibly audible to a small market of fanatics, if it stops piracy, I doubt they'd care. The problem is it is not stopping piracy, it is not being used for anything, and it cannot be unless it is widely adopted. Which I think is extraordinarily unlikely.

CHSAM223 BUCKY PIZZARELLI/SWING LIVE M-CH/2-CH SACD..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:14:45
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	that one? Have you heard artifacts on any other SACDs? If you haven't heard problems on any discs I own (I have about 150 currently), I will get this one to find out what you're hearing. Do you have a more detailed description of what this artifact sounds like?

Thank you for your honest answer., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:15:45

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

I'm being serious. However, I disagree with your reasons.

Whether or not you see watermarking as audibly affecting the music is not the same as "dynamic range commpression and intended digital clipping". Both of the latter are tools of the engineer/band for getting a sound that he/they want or creating a desired effect.

I am not a fan of dynamic range compression and I really don't see digital clipping as an "artistic" effect that I like to hear. Digital clipping is all too obvious and unenjoyable to the ear. Compression can be an artist's tool to get a certain sound that he/she desires, but unfortunately it's almost universaly used to "dumb down" the recording so that the music sounds acceptable on more common systems (boomboxes and rack systems), rather than high-end components.

>>>It will give the artist the best option in collecting royalties and preventing copying. If recorders which act upon the embedded instructions in the watermark become commonplace in the future.<<<

As far as detecting the watermark via consumer recorders, I don't see the hardware manufacturers giving this a high priority. I believe they will have to be forced to do such a thing -- the labels are not going to be able to do it without legal backup (as in getting another law passed). And just what can anyone do about the millions and millions of recording devices already available? Do you think that they will cease to exist in this envisioned 1984-like state?

As far as financial issues, I believe the majority of artists will tell you that their biggest concerns are with the labels that "represent" them. How many "old" musicians are flat broke. They sold millions and millions of albums, but got back chump change. In the '40s, '50s and '60s, there were no massmarket tape decks, CD burners or Napsters. The labels ripped them off. Today, it's pretty much the same way. Only now, the labels have gotten smart(er) and try to throw off the trail by claiming that tape recorders, CD burners, Napster et al, pirates and the Easter Bunny just make it too hard for them to turn a profit. Who suffers? The artist. And me. And you. So, you might want to rethink that idea if you believe that watermarking a recording is going to help the artist. The labels won't let that happen. They don't see themselves as there to help the artists: they see themselves as there to "help themselves".

Not yet., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:18:55

Frank

In the latest chip from cirrus the watermark detection is built in.
At this moment it's just not implemented. Perhaps it will be in the future perhaps not. It's too early to tell.

The technology is not included in any playback device. The mark is completely embedded in the signal itself.

Philips demonstrated similar technology for sacd already with a demo where a handheld pda with a simple microphone was able to identify an embedded watermark within 3 seconds of playback.
A fact that wasn't highlighted and 'amplified' by the 'audiophile' press.

It wasn't a dumb idea. I don't like it either but if it works out it's the best shot at real copy protection.
There are no (consumer) recording devices available yet for copying hirez multichannel content.

At this time nobody can tell how it will work out.

Frank

Re: CHSAM223 BUCKY PIZZARELLI/SWING LIVE M-CH/2-CH SACD..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:25:13

Frank

I have heard it on other disc too.

Louder transients in the upper frequency range sounds a bit distorted and 'unattached' from the rest of the instruments tones.
At the moment it occurs soundstaging looses it's stability and sounds pull back into the speakers. Sonic images are also less solid and give an impression sounding more airy but less focussed.

Frank

you are right but..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:27:10

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

"The technology is not included in any playback device. The mark is completely embedded in the signal itself."

Absolutely. But unless hardware recognizes this signal and does something with it, it is useless. There are many ideas on how to use a watermark, but they all require hardware support. A recorder, for example, may recognize that it is allowed to make a certain number of copies of this music.

There are already machines that monitor radio airplay of songs. These machines do not use watermarks, they actually identify the waveforms of popular songs. Watermarks are not required for this application, although Verance claims this as an important application.

I cannot predict the future, but I think the whole idea seems to be dying. Verance wants their product in every CD player, cell phone and DVD player. They want to be the worldwide solution to copy protection. I doubt any of this will happen.

Specific discs? Sonys or Telarcs preferred...I have only the Chesky sampler and Carla Lother..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:28:07
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001

A watermark is NOT an artist's signature., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:36:07

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

How can you make such a comparison? The signature of an artist on his/her painting adds value by connecting the work with the artist. It is a bond between the artist and his/her creation. Are you saying a degradation of his/her work -- a copy protection watermark -- should be a "musician's" signature?

That is sad.

Tunenut, don't be too quick to generalize., posted on January 29, 2003 at 11:39:50

Jim Pearce
Audiophile

Posts: 23677
Joined: January 4, 2002

The idea of watermarking is a very powerful one, and may be enlisted on the side of the forces of light some day. For instance, you may need a watermark to verify that a message came from a certain party, that a photo hasn't been doctored, etc..Recognizing a waveform is not sufficient to establish "property of..". Personally, I agree with you that the market will likely resist deliberate crippling of recording devices - but if you can extend copyrights to seventy years after the death of the artist, who knows what you can get through Congress?

Re: Thank you for your honest answer., posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:12:11

Frank

I don't like the watermark myself but realize it's not so bad in practise. In fact only in direct comparison with unmarked material it's recognizeable. Michi can't tell the setting used by Warner by just listening to the Warner discs. So how audible is it really?

****As far as detecting the watermark via consumer recorders, I don't see the hardware manufacturers giving this a high priority. I believe they will have to be forced to do such a thing -- the labels are not going to be able to do it without legal backup (as in getting another law passed). And just what can anyone do about the millions and millions of recording devices already available? Do you think that they will cease to exist in this envisioned 1984-like state? ****

They will simply get no license from the DVD Forum to produce a recorder without copy control. And if they do they get in trouble with the already existing laws.
Recorders for consumers will come to market because without the ability to record or expectations of hackability a new format will most likely fail in the mass market.

As for the millions if devices out there only a handfull are able to record multichannel content. How many people are using cassette recorders these days to record music? Most consumer decks have a lifetime of little over a 1000 hours. It's about the future and not about old equipment that is dissappearing anyway.

****As far as financial issues, I believe the majority of artists will tell you that their biggest concerns are with the labels that "represent" them. How many "old" musicians are flat broke. They sold millions and millions of albums, but got back chump change. In the '40s, '50s and '60s, there were no massmarket tape decks, CD burners or Napsters. The labels ripped them off. Today, it's pretty much the same way. Only now, the labels have gotten smart(er) and try to throw off the trail by claiming that tape recorders, CD burners, Napster et al, pirates and the Easter Bunny just make it too hard for them to turn a profit. Who suffers? The artist. And me. And you. So, you might want to rethink that idea if you believe that watermarking a recording is going to help the artist. The labels won't let that happen. They don't see themselves as there to help the artists: they see themselves as there to "help themselves".****

Not al recordabels are thieves. It's a bit over the top to claim this for all of them.
Copyright theft has happened and it is still happening
Getting a disc produced, marketed and distributed costs serious money and only about 1 in 10 discs are a succes that pulls the cart.
Most artist are not succesfull to begin with. If the succesfull ones end up poor it's often their own fault.

Copying is a real issue for record labels and it really is. Almost every disc sold is copied at least one time for a friend or family relation.

At least with DVD Audio an artist has the option to do it all himself with little investment and without watermarking if he doesn't like it.
Otherwise it's back to the monopolized replication facilities.

Frank

As a photographer, its easy., posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:16:30
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	Digital manipulation is so sophisticated now that it is hardly necessary to shoot an original image. Most photographers would welcome the ability to embed an indelible watermark in digital copies of their images which would survive through any digital manipulation. A vanishingly small visual distortion would be a small price to pay.

Chicken egg or egg chicken problem, posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:19:27

Frank

What came first?

Frank

Re: No Misunderstanding Here - The Documentation is Clear, posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:32:04

Frank

Bits are dynamically allocated to signal content. If little signal content is availaible beyond 20kHz little bit space is used and the remaining bits get allocated to signals having a higher 'priority'.
The encoder selects different algorithms by analyzing the signals content.
The extension stream is additional data the term extension doesn't imply that it's used for the upper frequency range only.

Frank

Frank, I am also curious about your answer to this one..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:32:41
Eric LeRouge Audiophile Posts: 3060 Location: France, Paris Joined: October 7, 2002	Have you heard the DVD-A? Best Eric

Re: Frank, I am also curious about your answer to this one..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:46:09

Frank

I have the DVD A and it sounds much more 'natural'.
The recording was done with ambisonics technology and at home I'm sitting IN the audience. The applaus completely surrounds me and handclaps are right next to me. The vibes sound much more convincing.

With the sacd it's more in a circle auround me at a larger distance.
I doesn't sound convincing.

Frank

DSD's limited ability to handle HF percussion is clearly audible., posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:47:07
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	This is particularly the case with brushed cymbals in jazz. I can name at least three discs off the top of my head. Frank hears a somewhat more general problem. In any case, you can easily predict this by looking at the S/N ratio over 10 kHz of actual SACD players in Stereophile's lab tests.

the egg of course!!! (NT), posted on January 29, 2003 at 12:59:17
tunenut Audiophile Posts: 9161 Joined: July 18, 2000	NT

"I can name at least three discs off the top of my head." Please do, with at least the track if not, posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:00:13
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	...the timing.

steganography is here to stay..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:12:47

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

and watermarking is a subset of this general field. Like any other technology, it can be used for good or evil. Terrorists can embed messages within seemingly innocuous photographs. The CIA can do the same. Certify authenticity, as you say, just as the watermark is used in money. However, this watermark does not affect in any way the usage of the money. What I object to in principle, and I'm not the only one, is a watermark that is embedded directly in audio content, not in a phone call, where the audio quality is a secondary concern, but in a supposedly "hi-rez" format where audio quality is the primary selling point. I still say this is dumb. Verance does not say it is inaudible. I have no personal experience with it, so I don't know, but I object in principle. If a machine can hear it, I strongly suspect at least some human beings can also hear it. Especially because it is supposed to be robust enough to survive ripping to MP3 and broadcasting on AM radio. So watermarking as a generic idea, sure it can have its benefits. It is this specific implementation that seems like a bad idea to me.

It doesn't seem to be audible whatsoever, except to a very small number of DVD-A adherents..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:23:06
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	...no reviewers at TAS or Stereophile, or any other reputable magazine (for that matter, neither I nor anyone that I know) have noticed what you claim is "clearly audible". Please provide specific examples to support your case.

Well stated. nt, posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:25:11
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001

Methos, try this one..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:34:03
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	My ears, my system. DK, When I Look Into Your Eyes, "I've Got You Under My Skin", brushed cymbals throughout the track. They are more clearer and more detailed on the CD as played back through my Marantz SA-14. Just bear in mind, I don't think this is a big deal - just as I don't think the watermark thing is a big deal. Nothing is perfect.

'reputable magazine ' ?, posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:34:36

Frank

These reviewer even fail to recognize simple harmonic distortions generated by the SET tube amps they review.

Frank

No, they're always recognised in the tech measurements section. In fact, much ink is often spilled.., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:45:32

Methos
Audiophile

Posts: 3402
Location: DFW area
Joined: April 17, 2001

...trying to reconcile the listening impressions with the measurements. Just because it generates some distortion, doesn't mean the reviewed equipment sounds bad. In fact, SET amps often sound extremely GOOD. Our ears are fairly tolerant of harmonic distortion, but very sensitive to some distortions produced by early (and many more recent) SS amplifiers. I'd take an SET over a Phase Linear amp or a typical receiver amp section any day.

Re: steganography is here to stay..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:46:00

Frank

A machine can do 100 mph, can you run that fast?

In principle you can object. But what's the use if you can't hear it in a practical situation? I'm sure the difference in marked and unmarked content isn't as big as the sonic difference between let's say different sacd player models.

If you obey your principles you can't buy a disc from Sony or any other record company who chose to 'protect' their redbooks.

Let's boycot them all and buy a guitar.

Frank

Excellent, I have that one., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:49:42
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	As soon as my stereo is re-assembled (I just moved), I will listen for this. I may just hook up my preamp for a headphone session first.

Re: No, they're always recognised in the tech measurements section. In fact, much ink is often spill, posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:54:38

Frank

Objectionable distortions that can be easily removed with a sane amplifier design are much more harmfull than any of the dsd or watermark artifacts.

It doesn't sound more musical. If it does to you you should attend live concerts a bit more often.

Frank

I have a guitar..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 13:55:42
tunenut Audiophile Posts: 9161 Joined: July 18, 2000	and I would not buy a copy protected disk from Sony if I knew about it. Or from anyone else. But I would buy other things from Sony if they are not copy protected. I am not trying to generally condemn any company or encourage any boycotts.

This is getting interesting (nt), posted on January 29, 2003 at 14:03:29
Eric LeRouge Audiophile Posts: 3060 Location: France, Paris Joined: October 7, 2002	nt

Thanks. + Some more impressions..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 14:28:31

Eric LeRouge
Audiophile

Posts: 3060
Location: France, Paris
Joined: October 7, 2002

Thanks Frank,

I find your posts very clear and factual.

Did you find other notable differences in the surround mixes?
(These are just subjective impressions on my end of other records, to see if they match yours.)

- Some sounds being above listening position or above you in DVD-A, but not in SACD (circle effect, but nothing really above ear level)
- Surround effects in SACD being slightly "non-focused" (I don't mean a fuzzy image, very detailed but no firm point where elements are located, things floating around in a very nice, but slightly eerie way, impression that people are not "grounded" to the floor...)
(I hope this makes sense)

Thanks for your comments

Best

Eric

Marilyn vos Savant had a well-reasoned answer to that question in her column.., posted on January 29, 2003 at 14:34:08
Methos Audiophile Posts: 3402 Location: DFW area Joined: April 17, 2001	...and it turns out she agreed with you! : )

there should be a separate board for the chicken/egg discussion..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 14:37:59
tunenut Audiophile Posts: 9161 Joined: July 18, 2000	this one could get really ugly.

Do I maintain that SET amps are always more musical than push-pull SS designs? No..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 15:14:50

Methos
Audiophile

Posts: 3402
Location: DFW area
Joined: April 17, 2001

...but neither do I insist that low THD SS amps are better-sounding (or even more accurate overall) for that reason alone. THD figures are close to worthless for judging the sound quality of an amplifier, IMO.

P.S. Most of the concerts I attend are of the non-amplified, classical variety. : )

"more clearer" ... need "more education" ? {nt}, posted on January 29, 2003 at 16:08:06
SnaggS Audiophile Posts: 1194 Joined: October 4, 2000	.

Then I speak to you as BOTH --, posted on January 29, 2003 at 17:31:53

Joe Murphy Jr
Audiophile

Posts: 4424
Joined: February 3, 2001

a photographer AND a musician -- I would never desecrate my work as an artist.

Watermarking in audio -- the deliberate poisoning of an artist's work by his "representative" OR by the artist himself -- is unacceptable in a medium that calls itself high resolution. If a recording is watermarked, it is no longer high resolution.

I will not be treated like the dog of an undeserving master. The more people eat their scraps, the longer it will be before we're able to sit at the table where we belong.

Good enough, when better/the best is available, is unacceptable. Regardless of what one calls shit, it's still shit. I have enough "sense" to tell the difference. Not everyone else does -- or cares.

A slip of the digit. You can't spell cat.nt, posted on January 29, 2003 at 20:45:07
Jim Pearce Audiophile Posts: 23677 Joined: January 4, 2002	nt

Re: Beating a Dead Horse., posted on January 29, 2003 at 21:40:10

NotMe

>Bits are dynamically allocated to signal content. If little signal content is availaible beyond 20kHz little bit space is used and the remaining bits get allocated to signals having a higher 'priority'.<

Thank you for agreeing with my point - a lossy coder with 48kHz response is pointless - being able to assign bits as required only underlines that point.

>The extension stream is additional data the term extension doesn't imply that it's used for the upper frequency range only.<

No - the DTS 96/24 is split in half as I explained at least once already.

Oh, and if you're still in doubt about upsampling:

"To decode a core+extension bit-stream, Figure 1 B), the unpacker first separates the stream into the core and extension data. The core decoder decodes the core data and produces the core LPCM audio that is next up-sampled to 96kHz using the 48-to-96kHz interpolator. The core decoding and interpolation are both performed in the â€œReconstruct Core Audio Componentsâ€ block."

What part of this do you not understand? Sheesh...

http://www.aes.org/

don't get your hopes up..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 22:01:09

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

the most likely conclusion to this test will be that one party says he hears something bad on an SACD and the other party says he doesn't. I have seen this type of thing happen in the same room with two people listening to exactly the same material. Disagreeing about what they are hearing. So across the world, with different systems, is agreement likely? Not at all. There will never be one right answer to these kind of questions anyway.

can you provide another example?, posted on January 29, 2003 at 22:24:38
Christine Tham Reviewer Posts: 4839 Location: Sydney Joined: December 29, 2001	the last time you quoted this as an example, not only can't i hear what you claim, but i appear to be hearing more resolution on sacd than what you are hearing on your system (sacd or cd), so whatever the limitation is it's not in the medium.

just for fun..., posted on January 29, 2003 at 22:48:05

tunenut
Audiophile

Posts: 9161
Joined: July 18, 2000

this has nothing much to do with audio watermarking, but as a photographer you may enjoy this. The link contains 2 pictures of an arctic hare, before and after a picture of an airplane is hidden within it. At first, the pictures look only very slightly different. But the more you look....draw your own conclusions whether these type of differences are important or not.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fapp2/steganography/image_downgrading/

Re: Thanks. + Some more impressions..., posted on January 30, 2003 at 06:04:18

Frank

I agree with your subjective impressions. More airy but less substance to sum it all up.

The mix on the Bucky Pizarelli DVDA disc is a 4.0 mc config and the sacd is mixed to 5.1 mc.
Since both are derived from a ambisonics B recording I don't see much difference in the actual mix.

Frank

Re: can you provide another example?, posted on January 30, 2003 at 06:44:45

Jim Pearce
Audiophile

Posts: 23677
Joined: January 4, 2002

Christine,
Yes, but not now because I'll need to cite track and time on Waltz for Debby and Know What I Mean?. By the way, sarcasm aside, my conclusion was that you could well be getting less resolution on CD on your system than I am on mine. How you could conclude that you were getting better resolution on CD (where I indicated that I was hearing far more detail in the brush strokes than on SACD) and SACD is beyond reason. Since we would each need to spend 48 hours on planes to do an A/B (and my aural memory wouldn't survive 48 minutes) this will remain a mystery.

Page:

[ 1 ] [ 2 ]

DVD-Audiobahn

OMG..... It is believed Warner dropping PCM entirely for DTS/DD {nt}

144.136.248.2