Which audio format sounds better to you?

[lDlisturb3d]

Here is the deal, I love DTS-MA and LCPM but i Hate DD Tru HD it sounds so dull, like the movie is holding back or something. So my Pick is DTS-MA

[krazeyeyez]

all the same to me with a volume knob adjustment. Correct me if i am wrong but isn't MA and Tru just zip folders having nothing really to do with the sound. Aside from a couple screw ups with dialogue norm dials and the like.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by krazeyeyez

all the same to me with a volume knob adjustment. Correct me if i am wrong but isn't MA and Tru just zip folders having nothing really to do with the sound. Aside from a couple screw ups with dialogue norm dials and the like.

If so why does DTS-MA have a higher stream rate, and LCPM doesnt stream at all, its just raw

[substance]

formats themself are similar to zip. they use unique algorithms and coding to compress the original signal. I dont know which one is more efficient(if i had to take a guess i would have to say Dolby from the knowledge of its earlier lossy formats) when uncompressed the signal is 1:1 exact.

they have the same potential and same quality. this is true if they both use the same master. however in most cases dolby true hd uses dolby labs mix and dts ma uses dts mix. if one pays more attention and mix it better(more faithful to the directors intentions) it should sound better than the other.

[krazeyeyez]

Originally Posted by substance

formats themself are similar to zip. they use unique algorithms and coding to compress the original signal. I dont know which one is more efficient(if i had to take a guess i would have to say Dolby from the knowledge of its earlier lossy formats) when uncompressed the signal is 1:1 exact.

they have the same potential and same quality. this is true if they both use the same master. however in most cases dolby true hd uses dolby labs mix and dts ma uses dts mix. if one pays more attention and mix it better(more faithful to the directors intentions) it should sound better than the other.

so in essence each studio has the ability to alter the track on some levels in ways, much like cd's back in the day where people would pre crank the volume as it was perceived as louder is better.

Still indifferent on this, if i were to list my favorite sound tracks i am sure i would get a decent sample of all 3, well maybe not much in the lpcm department but the other two will be spread quite well.

[lDlisturb3d]

seriously, just look at all the Disney Movies, Disney doesn't play they're all about quailty (pixar/Sin City/kill bill/Pirates Of the Caribbean) mostly LCPM, but Sin City is DTS-MA. DTS is way better than DD

[Clark Kent]

As long as a lossless audio option is provided, I am happy. Woe to studios that include only lossy audio on certain titles, like WB and Lionsgate. May your profitability go into the red...

[crazyBLUE]

My Vote goes to DTS Sound Track !

[kurtis21]

As long as it's lossless I really don't care....Although..Linear PCM seems to always have the most punch. It also takes up the most space

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Clark Kent

As long as a lossless audio option is provided, I am happy. Woe to studios that include only lossy audio on certain titles, like WB and Lionsgate. May your profitability go into the red...

I care way more about the quality of the movie than the technical issues of the Blu-ray release. Fox is a crappy studio yet they do a good job with their Blu-ray's. But ya know what? I rarely buy their recent movies because in general they suck.

[Steve]

I don't care which one is on the disc as long as there is a lossless option. OP are you aware of the Dialnorm effects in Dolby soundtracks? They often lower the overall volume of the audio. I'm guessing that's why krazeyeyez made a reference to the volume knob. Once you turn it up so that the volume is the same, the quality should be the same.

[42041]

ugh... not this again.
lossy formats should never constitute the main audio track of any disc. PCM is a waste. I have no idea whether DTS-MA or TrueHD is more efficient but I suspect TrueHD because it doesn't have the 1500kbps lossy core.

[lDlisturb3d]

Originally Posted by Steve

I don't care which one is on the disc as long as there is a lossless option. OP are you aware of the Dialnorm effects in Dolby soundtracks? They often lower the overall volume of the audio. I'm guessing that's why krazeyeyez made a reference to the volume knob. Once you turn it up so that the volume is the same, the quality should be the same.

Its not the same, DTS is way more clear, i can hear dirt hitting the ground. But DD Tru HD is very dull, not crisp at all. DD usually streams at 1.5 to 2.5 mbps and DTS is around 3.5 to 4.7 mbps. Uncompressed is the max for the Blu Ray which is Usually 4.7 for 5.1 surround sound setups.

[42041]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Its not the same, DTS is way more clear, i can hear dirt hitting the ground. But DD Tru HD is very dull, not crisp at all. DD usually streams at 1.5 to 2.5 mbps and DTS is around 3.5 to 4.7 mbps. Uncompressed is the max for the Blu Ray which is Usually 4.7 for 5.1 surround sound setups.

are you really this clueless?
do you understand the concept of a lossless codec?

[FendersRule]

Originally Posted by deeman54

Here is the deal, I love DTS-MA and LCPM but i Hate DD Tru HD it sounds so dull, like the movie is holding back or something. So my Pick is DTS-MA

TrueHD and DTS-HD both produce the SAME end result, lossless audio. There is NO perceivable difference between these two. One of them might require volume adjusting, and that's it. Both are compressed lossless formats, and both are indicative of the exact raw PCM track after decoding.

This is a DTS-HD fanboi telling you to stop hating on TrueHD for those illogical reasons. They are the same.

Your breath is better used debating with DTS and DD lossy formats, as there is some actual algorithmic differences.

[42041]

I'm curious why one would be a DTS-HD fanboy? Why is it so overwhelmingly preferred? Does the name sound cooler? Do people use the lossy core?

[FendersRule]

Because:

* DTS has always been a "luxurious" codec which was implemented after DD, and typically costed more for theaters and such to implement.

* DTS > DD - more headway room.

* You can actually just put a DTS-HD track on a Blu-ray, and people with lossy setups can use the DTS core. With DD, you have to include not only the TrueHD track, but also the DD track. This is better engineering and saves room.

* DTS-HD is becoming the Blu-ray standard. TrueHD is becoming no-mo'

* Most of my "reference quality" tracks are DTS-HD.

[Jwilly019]

Where is the "They are all the same option"?

So you can hear dirt hitting the ground in a movie with DTS-HD MA, can you hear dirt hitting the ground when listening to that same movie with TruHD? Or are you comparing two different movies?

Justin

[FendersRule]

You don't want to include a "They are all the same" option because he's put a lossy codec up there (Dolby Digital). People who would select that choice are just plain wrong, or didn't pay attention to the list.

What he should have done, is replace the Dolby Digital with "Same thing", and I would place my vote for the same thing. Instead, now I can't place a vote because they are all the same thing aside from the lossy track.

[substance]

ok here is an example, by no means its scientificaly accurate but its a dummy proof explanation for lossless compression

this is a sample of the film footage in 16bit digital

1010101010000001

this is after Dolby True HD compression

10101010e1 (6 zeros turns into a "e" therefore takes up much less space)

this is after Dolby True HD uncompresion

1010101010000001

which is identical to the original source.


The end result for both are the same if they use the same original master.

Akira has a japanase Dolby TrueHD track in 24bit 196khz for all 5.1 ch. The audio portion takes up as much space as the video. The average bitrate is 20-25 mbps for audio.

196000(sampling size) x 24(bit depth) x 6(# of ch) = 28224000 bits = 28.224mbps