Is DTS MA more environmentally damaging than True HD?

[DiscoDogg]

Hi All. (My first post, and what a topic!).

Here's my question:

In assuming that DTS MA and True HD are lossless and equivalent in that they BOTH reproduce bit for bit the studio (input) master, then they (must) only differ in their "approach" to compression.

I have read that DTS MA requires greater processing resources to decode than True HD (giving the exact same result as for True HD), so what's the net increase in electrical power (if any) to decode.

i.e. It would be very interesting to be able to perform a comparison of power consumption where the only variable was the audio codec.

IF the DTS MA decode did consume more electrical power, then does this make DTS MA a more environmentally damaging/irresponsible codec than True HD (if so, is PCM the most environmentally friendly of all?).

PS: I am not aligned with Dolby or DTS, just wanted to add another facet to the (ongoing) debate re: DTS MA vs True HD - which one is "better".

Wayne.

[PurpleAardvark]

I think you might be going to a little bit far on this one. DTS MA sounds better than True HD. You can debate it all you want but the the difference in wattage really has little to no impact. A cow does more damage than a blu ray player. So my way of saving the world is to eat all the steak I can. If every one ate steak the world would be a better place.

[xtop]

i must be really tired, cause i swear i'm posting in a thread thats trying to say one codec is better than another because of power consumption

[bigpapy]

+ 1

[PurpleAardvark]

Originally Posted by bigpapy

+ 1

[Sith]

Originally Posted by DiscoDogg

Hi All. (My first post, and what a topic!).

Here's my question:

In assuming that DTS MA and True HD are lossless and equivalent in that they BOTH reproduce bit for bit the studio (input) master, then they (must) only differ in their "approach" to compression.

I have read that DTS MA requires greater processing resources to decode than True HD (giving the exact same result as for True HD), so what's the net increase in electrical power (if any) to decode.

i.e. It would be very interesting to be able to perform a comparison of power consumption where the only variable was the audio codec.

IF the DTS MA decode did consume more electrical power, then does this make DTS MA a more environmentally damaging/irresponsible codec than True HD (if so, is PCM the most environmentally friendly of all?).

PS: I am not aligned with Dolby or DTS, just wanted to add another facet to the (ongoing) debate re: DTS MA vs True HD - which one is "better".

Wayne.

is this a joke? who cares, dts ma pwns....

[ascian]

my clicking and loading this down-syndrome-inspired thread wasted more resources than the topic matter.

but on the plus side i got 2 hyphens in one "word" YAHTZEE!!!

seriously, you over-sensitive hippies and anyone who uses the term "green" need to eat some hybrid batteries and put yourselves out of your misery.

[ascian]

Originally Posted by ascian

my clicking and loading this down-syndrome-inspired thread wasted more resources than the topic matter.

but on the plus side i got 2 hyphens in one "word" YAHTZEE!!!

seriously, you over-sensitive hippies and anyone who uses the term "green" need to eat some hybrid batteries and put yourselves out of your misery.

here's a double post, just for spite

[Sith]

Originally Posted by ascian

my clicking and loading this down-syndrome-inspired thread wasted more resources than the topic matter.

but on the plus side i got 2 hyphens in one "word" YAHTZEE!!!

seriously, you over-sensitive hippies and anyone who uses the term "green" need to eat some hybrid batteries and put yourselves out of your misery.

No sh*t, same people that won't eat a good Rib-Eye and ***** about
how much cows burp...

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by DiscoDogg

Hi All. (My first post, and what a topic!).

Here's my question:

In assuming that DTS MA and True HD are lossless and equivalent in that they BOTH reproduce bit for bit the studio (input) master, then they (must) only differ in their "approach" to compression.

I have read that DTS MA requires greater processing resources to decode than True HD (giving the exact same result as for True HD), so what's the net increase in electrical power (if any) to decode.

i.e. It would be very interesting to be able to perform a comparison of power consumption where the only variable was the audio codec.

IF the DTS MA decode did consume more electrical power, then does this make DTS MA a more environmentally damaging/irresponsible codec than True HD (if so, is PCM the most environmentally friendly of all?).

PS: I am not aligned with Dolby or DTS, just wanted to add another facet to the (ongoing) debate re: DTS MA vs True HD - which one is "better".

Wayne.

If one is more environmentally friendly than the other, it's only by a marginal fraction. This topic is rather mundane.

[PeterTHX]

DTS MA sounds better than True HD.

NO IT DOES NOT. Period. End of story.

It does take more processing power but I'd say the additional consumption is negligable.

However the DTS fanboys on the internet are wasting a lot of power firing up their PCs and posting to internet boards...

[UKTruBlu]

DTS HD MA kicks ASS!!! Beowulf has got DD true hd and the sound on the action scenes - especially at the end with the dragon - sucks, it sounds like the forgot to record the sound.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

NO IT DOES NOT. Period. End of story.

It does take more processing power but I'd say the additional consumption is negligable.

However the DTS fanboys on the internet are wasting a lot of power firing up their PCs and posting to internet boards...

Your right, if anything its just a volume thing. and we all know louder does not mean better.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by DiscoDogg

Hi All. (My first post, and what a topic!).

Here's my question:

In assuming that DTS MA and True HD are lossless and equivalent in that they BOTH reproduce bit for bit the studio (input) master, then they (must) only differ in their "approach" to compression.

I have read that DTS MA requires greater processing resources to decode than True HD (giving the exact same result as for True HD), so what's the net increase in electrical power (if any) to decode.

i.e. It would be very interesting to be able to perform a comparison of power consumption where the only variable was the audio codec.

IF the DTS MA decode did consume more electrical power, then does this make DTS MA a more environmentally damaging/irresponsible codec than True HD (if so, is PCM the most environmentally friendly of all?).

PS: I am not aligned with Dolby or DTS, just wanted to add another facet to the (ongoing) debate re: DTS MA vs True HD - which one is "better".

Wayne.

Mmmmmm. Thats something new. Green DTS HDMA. The DTS bombs have to be sucking some power, but the green difference between DTS HD and DD True HD? Not sure. Can both be recycled?

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by ascian

my clicking and loading this down-syndrome-inspired thread wasted more resources than the topic matter.

but on the plus side i got 2 hyphens in one "word" YAHTZEE!!!

seriously, you over-sensitive hippies and anyone who uses the term "green" need to eat some hybrid batteries and put yourselves out of your misery.

That is quite an extreme statement! I am not an "over-sensitive hippy" but I do consider myself a part of the green movement. There is definitely merit behind considering the larger damage caused by billions of people living with an excessive waste factor and trying to take steps towards rectifying that damage. Although it is a very marginal and extreme scenario to discuss, even to the point that I said above that it is a mundane topic, the OP does not deserve to be labelled with down-sydrome.

Perhaps the mods would consider removing the post that I quoted as it verges on a personal attack against the OP???

[BlackLightShark009]

Is this a trick question? It has to be. Someone tell me it is please. Twilight Zone. Hahaha

[Crème Blu-ray]

Originally Posted by PurpleAardvark

If every one ate steak the world would be a better place.

Just don't lay it on top of your receiver while it's playing back DTS-HD MA or else it'll end up well-done.

[Beta-guy]

I'm a PCM fanboy I think the way Blu-ray should be done is moderate to high bitrate AVC video, and PCM audio.

[Beta Man]

I power my system with the 500LB potato battery, to be more environmentally concious.....

[ryoohki]

LOL First you'll have to eliminate all PS3 Blu-ray Playback since it consume 130W(40g) and 180W(60g/80g) vs 20-30W from a Standalone...