[JadedRaverLA]

Finally, I get to argue:

Originally Posted by CraigW

The PS3 will continue to be the most popular player for quite some time so why not release titles that more endusers can enjoy.

Many more people are presently able to benefit from the standard DTS track (over the standard Dolby Digital track) than can benefit from ANY lossless codec. Moreover, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are "optional" codecs. The fact that one is currently supported by more hardware than the other is fairly irrelevant as most hardware going forward supports both.

Originally Posted by CraigW

I just don't understand why some are so impressed by dts. To me it appears to be more about marketing much like Monster has convinced a segment of the public that their cables improve the end experience.

Full bitrate lossy DTS is better than even Dolby Digital @640. You and I can argue that... but MANY more people would agree with me than you, and it has nothing to do with marketing. It has to do with experience. Back in the LD days, when I wanted to show off my audio system... I used a DTS LD, not an AC-3 one. In the DVD days, I did the same. In the Blu-ray days, the lossless codecs are equal so it makes no difference... but DTS has earned their reputation for quality.

Originally Posted by CraigW

If someone has equipment that can do dtsHDMA, then by default their equipment also does DolbyTrueHD. In the lossless world, lossless is lossless. So why are people so fearful of dts being abandoned for another lossless codec.

I don't think anyone is fearful of DTS being abandoned... we just don't understand why in the world they should, just because some people's equipment doesn't support all the options found in the Blu-ray spec.

Originally Posted by CraigW

I wonder if we would see as much resistance if the Dolby named had not be used on TrueHD. Remember TrueHD is just a new update for MLP, Meridan Lossless Packeting, from the old DVD-Audio spec.

...which is the reason every manufacturer was quickly able to get out Dolby TrueHD decoding hardware. It's been available forever as MLP decoding hardware. DTS actually created a new codec. It's now being made available in both players and receivers, so I don't see the problem. Also, except for this recent "debate" I didn't know anyone WAS a codec fanboy. Nobody has any resistance to Dolby TrueHD... the only resistance being shown is against DTS HD-MA. So, maybe you should rethink the analogy.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I disagree with all points, Dolby 640 is more than a match for DTS 1536.

Plus DTS' method of a core, followed by a HD extension, followed finally by the MA lossless data is needlessly complicated, CPU intensive, and more subject to errors (Die Hard 2). With TrueHD you have a companion Dolby Digital track, and that's it.

I know people have called HD HR and HD MA "extensions," but they ARE NOT extensions... in any way, shape or form. There's sinply a full or half bitrate standard DTS track placed alongside either the HR or MA track, and treated as a single track on a disc. You CANNOT create a lossless track from a lossy core at any rate, so I'm not sure how people thought this worked.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The PS3 has done TrueHD since day one. Full Dolby Digital Plus (7.1) was the recent update.
DTS-MA on the PS3 has been a rumor since day one...one of the PS3 developers at CES was exasperated by people asking him this, explaining that it's up to Sony Corp and DTS, not them.

Until a standalone player (Panasonic BD50) is released with DTS-HD MA decoding support, the PS3 will not decode it. If there's not an update for the PS3 by this June, then come back with your plan to make studios ditch DTS HD-MA and I'll give it more consideration. One thing to think about, though... Fox has OBVIOUSLY been targeting their releases toward the PS3 audience. They absolutely know that the PS3 crowd is their target market right now. They choose to use DTS-HD MA. Do you think they include that track just to piss you off... or do you think they've been promised PS3 support by Sony?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If DTS was *truly* superior then it would sound BETTER at the same bitrates as DD (448/640). But they can't do it. The same reason a MPEG4 AVC picture is smoother (as in less artifacts) at lower bitrates than MPEG2. I don't hear anyone arguing that MPEG2 is better since it needs more bitrate.

All you are saying is that Dolby Digital AC-3 is more efficient than DTS... which you will get no argument over. That doesn't make it at all superior. Why do you think music labels almost exclusively prefer DTS. For quality in a lossy codec... DTS still reigns supreme.

Originally Posted by turboLAZER

it's been suggested that the PS3 doesn't have DTS HDMA because Sony is aware of the importance of the other members of the BDA and would like to other companies like panasonic and pioneer to have a chance to sell standalone players and dts hdma is their biggest selling feature

There are almost certainly "gentlemen's agreements" prohibiting Sony from releasing Blu-ray features on the PS3 until the stand-alone manufacturers have such features available. Those other manufacturers are trying to make money, and having the PS3 be "The ultimate" Blu-ray player, with features you can't get in ANY standalone, would kill standalone sales.

My $.02.