DVD-Audiobahn New DVD-Audio music releases and talk about the latest players.

---

[ Follow Ups ] Thread: [ Display  All  Email ] [ DVD-Audiobahn ]

---

[ Alert Moderator ]

---

Speaking of "Absolute Bollocks"

Posted by racerguy on December 31, 2005 at 12:46:30

In Reply to: Re: both Porcupine tree DVD-Audio's offer high resolution for the masses. posted by JamesB on December 31, 2005 at 00:47:21:

So, when I point out your blatantly obvious misstatements, suddenly I'm some sort of self-annointed authority? That's quite sad, JamesB. If that's how you think you should participate here, you should probably go back to lurking. You're obviously better at lurking than you are at trying to burst bubbles.

>>Typical compression for MLP is 53%. Let me restate that for you. Typical. I'm sure it's not an accident that you used a figure that would be worst-case scenario<<

Without knowing exactly what the disc authors did on the FZ release, which I do not own (and which you obviously do not own either), it is impossible to state anything other than "worst-case," as you so poorly put it. I am using the numbers provided by Meridian for calculation of space requirements, straight from their project calculator and white paper.

You, on the other hand, are picking a number specifically and solely to support your baseless assertion.

>>It would result in a file size of approximately 2.31Gb.<<

You could get close to this number by making the surrounds mono instead of MC. Is that what you're doing to try to salvage your position? I suspect you haven't even thought it through that far, but I would like to give you a little benefit of the doubt, if at all possible. BTW, I'm assuming full 3/2.1, not 3/1.1.

So, let me ask you this - and don't try to duck the question - if everything on the FZ disc could fit on a single layer, why was it released on a dual-layer? I'm just dying to see what sort of tortured rationalization you come up with. :-)

>>and par for the course that you talk about throwing away bits<<

And why is this "par for the course?" It is a standard method of space saving on DVD-Audio, and is recommended by Meridian. So what's your point? Once again, do you even have one? It seems that you don't.

>>The compression could actually be greater than 53%, but we'll use that as a fair guide. It would result in a file size of approximately 2.31Gb.<<

No, "we" will not use it. As I said before, YOU are using it solely because it supports your baseless assertion. In addition, your simple little theoretical world is missing something important.

>>By-the-way, have you checked the dowmix coefficients on the DTS discs or did you just take a wild guess and assume they have any?<<

I made an assumption. A valid assumption, based on the fact that many of the discs I've tried have downmix capability. If you don't like it, that's fine - we'll remove downmix capability. According to the Meridian project calculator, that will save us a whopping 0.088 Gb. Happy now?

>>50 minutes of two-channel 96/24 PCM is 1.609Gb, not "about" anything, and not 1.811Gb. It can be calculated exactly: 50 * 60 * 1000 * 4608 / 8 = final_aif_size_bytes. Back to school for you.<<

You need to pull your head out of your theoretical world. Again, I used the Meridian calculator, not a post-it note. For a real-world comparison, I just popped the DVD-V side of a Classic Records HDAD into my DVD drive. It's one of the Alan Parsons Project discs, and the total playing time is 42:48. You are missing something important, because the total size of the VIDEO_TS directory is 1,906,176,000 bytes (and 99.9% of it is data in the VOB files). By your post-it note calcs, it should only be 1,479,168,000 bytes. Why such a big difference, JamesB? Again, you are missing something important. Looks like you should go to school before you tell someone else to go back to it.

>>50 minutes of ~1.509Mbs DTS is 0.54Mb.<<

First you insist on your precision calculations, now you get all sloppy. Too funny! FYI, DTS 96/24 is 1.536 Mbs, so it's actually 0.576 Gb. Over half a GIGAbyte, not half a MEGAbyte. Add in the important stuff that you are missing, and we get a real-world number of 0.599 Gb.

>>Add them all together and what do you get? 4.459Gb. Well what do you know, it'll all fit and leave a little breathing room for less than "typical" MLP compression and the lossy DTS overheads.<<

Add them all together using your wrong numbers, and yes, it's small enough to fit on a DualDisc. If we use the right numbers, it's not.

Again, JamesB, if you're right, then why did DTS go to the effort and expense to put the FZ release on a dual layer disc, if it would actually fit on a cheaper single layer disc? Well?

>>And incidentally, an expert like yourself (ha!) <<

Your sneering attitude is deliciously ironic. I've certainly enjoyed the entertainment your foolishness has provided! I'm definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer around here, but compared to you, I'm a genius. :-)

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---