Movie audio blu-ray is so much better!

[CapMan]

I watch most of my movies through Amazon Prime, Netflix and Disney + but decided to treat myself to the 4K blu-ray of Oppenheimer along with fairly basic 4K player.

I was staggered by the improvement in the audio of the DTS-HD soundtrack compared to DD+ which I appreciate is pretty compressed.

I’d say the improvement in the audio was more noticeable than the picture vs 4K streamed content.

Watching the 4K blu-ray of Lord of the Rings and it’s similarly impressive.

Is this the experience of other movie watchers and how many of you still by physical discs?

 

[Steve356]

I watch most of my movies through Amazon Prime, Netflix and Disney + but decided to treat myself to the 4K blu-ray of Oppenheimer along with fairly basic 4K player.

I was staggered by the improvement in the audio of the DTS-HD soundtrack compared to DD+ which I appreciate is pretty compressed.

I’d say the improvement in the audio was more noticeable than the picture vs 4K streamed content.

Watching the 4K blu-ray of Lord of the Rings and it’s similarly impressive.

Is this the experience of other movie watchers and how many of you still by physical discs?

Exactly my experience.

 

[onethreetwowaitthatswrong]

I would have liked a third option, which would be non-streamed digital movies. Or, in other words, watching offline a local computer file. It presents the advantage of not being exposed to any internet connection issue (lag, microcuts, etc.) and, if obtained from a reliable source, control over the video and audio formats used in your file. For watchers without AVRs and the multichannel speakers that would make DTS soundtracks useful, one can even enjoy some movies with flac audio (especially in animation and such I believe). I wouldn't struggle to believe physical disc offers better audio and video quality though.

 

[EJ3]

I would have liked a third option, which would be non-streamed digital movies. Or, in other words, watching offline a local computer file. It presents the advantage of not being exposed to any internet connection issue (lag, microcuts, etc.) and, if obtained from a reliable source, control over the video and audio formats used in your file. For watchers without AVRs and the multichannel speakers that would make DTS soundtracks useful, one can even enjoy some movies with flac audio (especially in animation and such I believe). I wouldn't struggle to believe physical disc offers better audio and video quality though.

And where did that local computer file come from? Surely not streaming?
I presume that it originated with a Blu Ray/4K disk.

 

[EJ3]

I do not stream (because why have compromised audio & video when I have a great system for both?
(I got over 5.1, 7.2 & such in the late 90's and am 2.2 based). + in my current house, I have no room for more.
Not even room for the speakers needed for the old quad formats (which, if there was an installation, would have to be 4.2 or 4.4 anyway)
As to how I watch & listen, I always buy physical disks.

I can get the concerts that I love (having been and continuing to go to many),
And many movies that are not available for streaming anyway.
I go to the movies & if I like the movie, I buy the physical disk, if it is available.
I know many people who do stream just for "background TV" (it's on all the time) but for "serious watching (such as a movie), they get the physical disk.
Even one's that have 5.1 or more.

 

[onethreetwowaitthatswrong]

And where did that local computer file come from? Surely not streaming?
I presume that it originated with a Blu Ray/4K disk.

Most of the times yes, although there are also webrips. But it depends how you interpret OP's question : is it still considered a physical media even though I have no disc ? On the quality side, is a ripped bluray file the same quality as the bluray played through a dedicated player ? Bit of the same debate than digital file vs physical CD here.

 

[anotherhobby]

I watch most of my movies through Amazon Prime, Netflix and Disney + but decided to treat myself to the 4K blu-ray of Oppenheimer along with fairly basic 4K player.

I was staggered by the improvement in the audio of the DTS-HD soundtrack compared to DD+ which I appreciate is pretty compressed.

I’d say the improvement in the audio was more noticeable than the picture vs 4K streamed content.

Watching the 4K blu-ray of Lord of the Rings and it’s similarly impressive.

Is this the experience of other movie watchers and how many of you still by physical discs?

While the video quality degradation in streaming is also noticeable, I agree that the audio definitely seems to take the bigger hit in streaming. I also do not watch movies via streaming for the same reason. I watch movies using a local Plex library instead of direct via disc due to convenience.

 

[Palmspar]

Yes a normal 1080p blu ray with HD 5.1 audio have way better sound than the best streaming movie with Dolby Atmos track.
But the most people us a phone/tablet, tv speakers, or on its best a soundbar.

 

[wunderkind]

Streaming represents convenience. DD+ is inferior to full HD audio. That said Disney+ via XBox X PCM is of higher quality than going 4K Netflix and Amazon via my ISP's STB which are limited to DD+.
I also notice the internet bandwidth consumption for 4K Disney+ is higher too. Easily resolved with wired ethernet connections.
But I agree that some movies are worth it in BluRay format. Top Gun Maverick BluRay in full UHD and DTS X was quite the glorious experience.

 

[voodooless]

is a ripped bluray file the same quality as the bluray played through a dedicated player ?

Yes

Bit of the same debate than digital file vs physical CD here.

Same non-discussion: yes, it’s the same.

I really doubt the codec is to blame for the perceived difference. From what I heard, streaming services do not get the same audio master as lands on a Blu-ray. Probably this is done to create an artificial difference in the delivery formats, reserving “highest quality” for the disks. It’s silly really.

For me, the convenience of streaming and the amount of content is just so much more convenient. If I really like something I may buy the disk, but I rarely do.

 

[norman bates]

Here's what I think is (was ?)

Dolby digital is about 10:1 compression compared to a redbook cd (16 bit/44k).
It takes a single 24 bit/96k and splits it in 5 channels + subwoofer.

DTS was said to have double the dynamics of dolby digital, or 5:1 compression compared to a normal cd (wave file).
Still yucky, but a moving picture uses some of our brain's ram, so it sounds better to our ears when there is video running, LOL.

Now, HD audio (cd, not movies) I think) was 24 bit/96k per channel, but it only has 2 more audio information bits than the above redbook cd (the rest is math or commands), but it does have double the words per second.

Can't tell you anything on the 4k.



How does DTS HD or DD+ fit in ?


Please, someone else chime in to correct me if I am wrong..........

 

[Chrispy]

DTS-HD is merely a lossless soundtrack, isn't it? Just a different codec from Dolby TrueHD? Is it a flavor of mastering before that with either? If so, what are the differences particularly in preparing the soundtrack?

I find the poorer video more an issue with streaming than audio generally, but I do prefer the actual disc over streaming.