Why is Dolby True HD going the way of the Dodo?

[Canada]

Simple why are most studios going with DTS MA soundtracks?

[Big Daddy]

Because idiots like us associate louder (DTS HD MA) with better quality. Secondly, it has something to do with money.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

Because idiots like us associate louder (DTS HD MA) with better quality. Secondly, it has something to do with money.

If that were the case, why is it that Uncompressed PCM has gone extinct before DD True HD?

[BLUCanadian]

Originally Posted by rded

If that were the case, why is it that Uncompressed PCM has gone extinct before DD True HD?

PCM file size is much larger than Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA... hence, to conserve disc space

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by rded

If that were the case, why is it that Uncompressed PCM has gone extinct before DD True HD?

That is easy to explain. LPCM takes way too much space on the disc and studios prefer to put junk and advertisements on the disc. Some of us predicted this a couple of years ago. Read my sticky thread on A Guide to HD Audio Codecs. You will note that I have a statement at the end of post #1 that mentions this.

In the future, we will see less LPCM titles (especially at 24-bit, 96KHz, and 7.1-channels) since this will require a lot of disc space. TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are encoded at variable bit rate and compressed, leaving more disc space for better picture quality and more extras.

• LPCM, the purest form of audio encoding on a disc, is lossless and uncompressed. However, it takes a lot more disc space.
• Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master Audio are both lossless and compressed form of audio encoding. They take significantly less space on a disc.

[Marcusarilius]

Originally Posted by Canada

Simple why are most studios going with DTS MA soundtracks?

I'm still seeing far too many DD HD tracks on my blu-rays. DTS HD MA is superior in dynamics and detail of sound. Not just "Loud". "Loud" I can turn down. "Lame", I can do nothing to improve upon.

[Canada]

One of things I like about DTS MA is the 1.5 mbps core, I have a HDMI receiver so I can get True HD and DTS MA. But before I upgraded I liked the 1.5 mbps that DTS MA provided.

[rded]

Originally Posted by BLUCanadian

PCM file size is much larger than Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA... hence, to conserve disc space

Originally Posted by Big Daddy

That is easy to explain. LPCM takes way too much space on the disc and studios prefer to put junk and advertisements on the disc. Some of us predicted this a couple of years ago. Read my sticky thread on A Guide to HD Audio Codecs. You will note that I have a statement at the end of post #1 that mentions this.

I know what you mean, but using that excuse is just plain bollox! I am sure there are better ways of encoding information into a BD disc. I mean 50 gigs is a lot of space. Here's why I say this- First, if Warner was able to squeeze the VC-1 video encode, True HD track along with the useless dd (640kps) into a 30 gig HDDVD for BATMAN BEGINS plus supplements on top of that; then why can't they give us the uncompressed track with the BD version when they used a 50 gig BD disc release??? Talk about space??? Secondly, they (Warner) themselves were able to squeeze the VC-1 encode, an uncompressed PCM, true HD, DD(640kps), all the special features and a partridge in a pear tree into a 50 gig disk for 300. I'd like to know how Warner was able to do this, and why FOX, Universal, Paramount, SONY and the rest of the studios could not with their releases??? I understand that not all studios use VC-1 but how much more space can an AVC encode use?? The same goes for DTS-HD! Space? C'mon now??That's just plain ridiculous!!!D
Lastly, if they can do away with the regular DD track like the spanish/french track, they'll have more than enough space. Besides, you really don't have to have the special features in the same disc as the feature film. There are ways of utilizing every bit of space in the disc, instead the studios choose to just jam it with useless stuff! I am all about maximizing the AQ and PQ of the movie and there's nothing like uncompressed, unadulterated-raw soundtrack Heck, whatever happened to the highly publicized 100 Gig BD disc so we wont have this "space" problem anymore??

So you have to give me a better excuse than that!

[Big Daddy]

Originally Posted by Canada

One of things I like about DTS MA is the 1.5 mbps core, I have a HDMI receiver so I can get True HD and DTS MA. But before I upgraded I liked the 1.5 mbps that DTS MA provided.

Why is that an advantage? Pretty much all Dolby TrueHD titles include a higher bit rate Dolby Digital.

Originally Posted by Marcusarilius

I'm still seeing far too many DD HD tracks on my blu-rays. DTS HD MA is superior in dynamics and detail of sound. Not just "Loud". "Loud" I can turn down. "Lame", I can do nothing to improve upon.

That statement is inaccurate and has absolutely no foundation.

Examples of lame Dolby TrueHD as you stated.

• Dave Mathews & Tim Reynolds (Dolby TrueHD 5.1, 96kHz/24bit)
• David Gilmour, Remember That Night (Dolby True HD, 5.1, 48kHz/24bit)
• Divertimenti, TrondheimSolistene (Dolby TrueHD, 5.1, 192kHz/24bit, DTS HD MA, 5.1, 192kHz/24bit, PCM: 5.1, 192kHz/24bit, SACD: 5.1, 2.824Mbit)
• The Fifth Element (5.1 Dolby TrueHD, 5.1 PCM)
• AIX Records: Audio Calibration Disc, HD Music Sampler (Dolby TrueHD 7.1, 96kHz/24bit, DTS HD MA 7.1, 96kHz/24bit, PCM, 5.1, 48kHz/24bit)

I own the above discs and a few others and have tested them multiple times after adjusting the levels with an SPL meter. It is impossible for anyone without an agenda to tell the difference. Why is it that Sony rarely has any titles with lame audio?

I don't care for either company, but as an engineer and a person with forty years of audio experience, statements like above insult my intelligence. I hope this thread doesn’t become another Dolby bashing thread because it is becoming a bit tiresome and mostly likely it will be closed.

[Jeff Kleist]

That is easy to explain. LPCM takes way too much space on the disc and studios prefer to put junk and advertisements on the disc. Some of us predicted this a couple of years ago. Read my sticky thread on A Guide to HD Audio Codecs. You will note that I have a statement at the end of post #1 that mentions this.

It's not the ads. You can put 3 lossless audio tracks at 48/16 into the same space as 1 lossless PCM track. So they can deliver lossless tracks to the dub markets as well. Personally I say lossless is an excellent incentive to get them to move over to subtitles and experience the real movie, but apparently marketing doesn't agree with me

I know what you mean, but using that excuse is just plain bollox! I am sure there are better ways of encoding information into a BD disc......*snip*

WB had a policy of parity between two versions. In the case of 300, when you have a digitally sourced movie with a hyper clean master and a relatively short run time, plus you're targeting for HD DVD you have gobs of space left over in terms of disc and bandwidth. That's why the Harry Potter discs are all sporting over a dozen Dolby Digital dub tracks in addition to the English PCM and the HD DVDs are limited to just a few.

Until very recently, the difference between AVC and VC-1 was essentially a wash, the problems you're seeing mostly is low bitrate HD DVD ports and DNR'd masters. Since VC-1 development has essentially stagnated, improvements in encoding speed and efficiency have now been appreciably different enough for production houses (Warner owns their own, GDMX) to consider buying new encoding packages. None of the other studios you listed, except on some Universal catalog titles have their Blu-ray versions hamstrung by HD DVD's limitations and therefore have enough space to go crazy like that. Batman Begins (sans IMAX scenes) and Dark Knight don't look that different theatrically, but the HD DVD compromised Begins certainly looks a heck of a lot worse on Blu-ray because of it.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

It's not the ads. You can put 3 lossless audio tracks at 48/16 into the same space as 1 lossless PCM track. So they can deliver lossless tracks to the dub markets as well. Personally I say lossless is an excellent incentive to get them to move over to subtitles and experience the real movie, but apparently marketing doesn't agree with me



WB had a policy of parity between two versions. In the case of 300, when you have a digitally sourced movie with a hyper clean master and a relatively short run time, plus you're targeting for HD DVD you have gobs of space left over in terms of disc and bandwidth. That's why the Harry Potter discs are all sporting over a dozen Dolby Digital dub tracks in addition to the English PCM and the HD DVDs are limited to just a few.
.

I see your point and I would rather have 3 different lossless tracks than lossly tracks. But why not just give us the Uncompressed version then.... Isn't it cheaper from a production stand point??"

At the time 300 was released, that was a marketing strategy but hey it worked, and Warner WAS ABLE to do it! So why not just continue the trend when the went exclusively BLU??? Sheesh most movies these days last no more than 1hr and 45 mins anyway so space is NOT really a problem.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Until very recently, the difference between AVC and VC-1 was essentially a wash, the problems you're seeing mostly is low bitrate HD DVD ports and DNR'd masters. Since VC-1 development has essentially stagnated, improvements in encoding speed and efficiency have now been appreciably different enough for production houses (Warner owns their own, GDMX) to consider buying new encoding packages. None of the other studios you listed, except on some Universal catalog titles have their Blu-ray versions hamstrung by HD DVD's limitations and therefore have enough space to go crazy like that. Batman Begins (sans IMAX scenes) and Dark Knight don't look that different theatrically, but the HD DVD compromised Begins certainly looks a heck of a lot worse on Blu-ray because of it.

Jeff, you kinda lost me there....would you care to simplify? My feeble mind could not keep up

[Jeff Kleist]

I see your point and I would rather have 3 different lossless tracks than lossly tracks. But why not just give us the Uncompressed version then.... Isn't it cheaper from a production stand point??"

Everyone these days charges per track, regardless of the resulting format. They typically have set packages with so much extra per item outside of it.

It's not cheaper if you're including additional lossless tracks because you still have a bit budget to worry about, and a CBR 4.5mbps track (6mbps for 24-bit) is still 10-12% of available bandwidth at any one time.

There wasn't any marketing strategy at the time, it was contractual. I prefer PCM audio myself wherever possible because it eliminates decoding errors from the equation. Bandwidth and bit budgets aren't as cut and dried as you think, there's a very fine art to balancing the load, and not having a 5mbps that has to be there makes their lives a lot easier, and gives the video room to stretch its legs when it needs it.

[Jeff Kleist]

Jeff, you kinda lost me there....would you care to simplify? My feeble mind could not keep up

HD DVD has 30GB maximum to play with and 28mbps total, audio, video and picture in picture tracks (which eat up about 4mbps by themselves) included. Fitting a 2 hour plus dynamic picture like Batman Begins into 12 megabits per second average (as I recall) with almost no room for spiking due to 8GB of extras, and another few gigs of picture in picture leaves it severely hampered. One of the biggest strengths of Blu-ray over HD DVD is having the headroom so that when you need to throw bits at the problem, they're available.

Blu-ray has 48mbps, of which up to 40 can be video and 20 audio at any one time, and 50GB of disc space

[Monkey]

DTS-MA tracks average better audio scores than Dolby True HD on blue.

Polls were done on several forums as well (here included) and DTS-MA completely curb stomped Dolby True HD in the polls.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Monkey

DTS-MA tracks average better audio scores than Dolby True HD on blue.

You gotta be kidding me!!!!

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by rded

You gotta be kidding me!!!!

Nope, not joking. That is factual. Go talk to Squid Puppet, he's got a link to the compiled scores.

[rded]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Everyone these days charges per track, regardless of the resulting format. They typically have set packages with so much extra per item outside of it.

It's not cheaper if you're including additional lossless tracks because you still have a bit budget to worry about, and a CBR 4.5mbps track (6mbps for 24-bit) is still 10-12% of available bandwidth at any one time.

There wasn't any marketing strategy at the time, it was contractual. I prefer PCM audio myself wherever possible because it eliminates decoding errors from the equation. Bandwidth and bit budgets aren't as cut and dried as you think, there's a very fine art to balancing the load, and not having a 5mbps that has to be there makes their lives a lot easier, and gives the video room to stretch its legs when it needs it.

So if the studios just give us one track, say Uncompressed audio then it will be cheaper? And will make a lot of guys like you and I very happy. I am with you on this- I prefer Uncompressed PCM.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

HD DVD has 30GB maximum to play with and 28mbps total, audio, video and picture in picture tracks (which eat up about 4mbps by themselves) included. Fitting a 2 hour plus dynamic picture like Batman Begins into 12 megabits per second average (as I recall) with almost no room for spiking due to 8GB of extras, and another few gigs of picture in picture leaves it severely hampered. One of the biggest strengths of Blu-ray over HD DVD is having the headroom so that when you need to throw bits at the problem, they're available.

Blu-ray has 48mbps, of which up to 40 can be video and 20 audio at any one time, and 50GB of disc space

Gotcha! But if the studios were to eliminate the extras and lossy/foreign language mixes, will this result in better AQ and consequently PQ by maximizing bit rate?

[rded]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Nope, not joking. That is factual. Go talk to Squid Puppet, he's got a link to the compiled scores.

But you're comparing different movies with different mixes. These releases do not have both DTS HD and True HD tracks. Not a fair comparison. This merely justifies Big Daddy's post(#2) above.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by rded

But you're comparing different movies with different mixes. These releases do not have both DTS HD and True HD tracks. Not a fair comparison. This merely justifies Big Daddy's post(#2) above.

I'm not sure you point. I stated a fact and your response was "you got to be kidding me". I didn't state they were the same movies and the same mixes.

Never said life was fair either. Fact is however that Dobly True HD got curbed stomped in polls here and at other forums.. Of course it came down to member votes so I don't see anything about it not being fair unless you feel their were a mass amount of fraudulent votes (users with multiple accounts).

Then again I also don't see why it wouldn't be fair that DTS-MA scores higher on average in reviews. It's just a simple fact.

Maybe Penton-Man can jump in with more info but I think he alluded to in the poll thread that studios are paying attention to how the consumers voted Could very well explain why Dolby True HD is going the way of the Dodo (if that really is true)