DolbyTrueHD, DTS HD/MA, and players discussion

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by LembasBread

It's great that SPHE is looking into higher resolutions and compressed lossless is definitely a great option of doing that, but, imo, there should still at least be a 16-bit LPCM track for compatability's sake.

Well, with the sole exception of Samsung's BD players, ALL current BD players have/will have Dolby TrueHD capability (some need a firmware update of course). Since Samsung is intent on offering a combo player anyway no big loss.

[jnelson2000]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

ALL current BD players have/will have Dolby TrueHD capability (some need a firmware update of course).

Is this true for the new BDP-S300 player. Getting some conflicting reports from Sony on whether or not this player supports DD+. THD and DTS-HD.

Thanks,

Jeff

[blitz6speed]

Originally Posted by jnelson2000

Is this true for the new BDP-S300 player. Getting some conflicting reports from Sony on whether or not this player supports DD+. THD and DTS-HD.

Thanks,

Jeff

It will do everything except DTS HD-MA. It shares similar chips with other hardware that does those codecs, so doubt there is any chance of much difference.

[DaViD Boulet]

I think the majority of us will be happiest with a higher bit depth like 24/48 and TrueHD than a 16 bit PCM track.
It seems that almost all standalones are now capable of TrueHD.

I know for myself I always think "future proof" when it comes to software encoding: ie, wanted 16x9 anamorphic DVDs even when 4x3 downconversion on my 4x3 set didn't look as good as "straight" 4x3 bcs I knew I wanted the advantages of 16x9 long-term.

So if Sony needs the disc-space, I'd rather a 20-24 bit DTHD stream than a 16-bit PCM, if the choice needs to be made.

[phloyd]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

I think the majority of us will be happiest with a higher bit depth like 24/48 and TrueHD than a 16 bit PCM track.
It seems that almost all standalones are now capable of TrueHD.

The original Samsung and Philips players?

Would be perhaps cruel to 'cut off' the earliest of adopters...?

BTW, I am all for 6.1 and 7.1 mixes where appropriate.

[DaViD Boulet]

The original Samsung and Philips players?

Would be perhaps cruel to 'cut off' the earliest of adopters...?

anyone who bought any first or 2nd generation player without HDMI 1.3 or advanced audio decoding built-in (or software upgradable) knew what they were getting into. BD software progress shouldn't be held back by gear that was obsolete when it was designed. The first Sony DVD player couldn't pass DTS bitstream. Should the studios have never provided DTS?

There will always be a core DD on any DTHD track for BD users. 640 kbps Dolby should be fine for anyone with an old player while they save for a new player that costs hundreds less, and does much much more.

[PeterTHX]

The first Sony DVD player couldn't pass DTS bitstream. Should the studios have never provided DTS?

Well, yeah.

[dobyblue]

The 1.5 Mbps DTS tracks on DVD were amongst the best of the bunch.

However, unless DTS-HD MA is included on all players as of 11.01.07 it would be a shame to not see TrueHD as the standard.

If they're both lossless then there's no reason to use one over the other. I notice Lions Gate is using DTS-HD MA on Dr. Strange 7.1

[phloyd]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

The first Sony DVD player couldn't pass DTS bitstream. Should the studios have never provided DTS?

DTS came a lot later than this development by comparison.

That said I tend to agree that early adopters knew what they were getting into with early hardware.

Though some who got the Panasonic I bet expected to get DTS-MA and have been disappointed. Possibly hoped to get PiP but will be disappointed there too.

That said I have no regrets with my Panasonic and certainly had no intention of getting the Samsung player due to its limitations...

[ProvenFlipper]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

anyone who bought any first or 2nd generation player without HDMI 1.3 or advanced audio decoding built-in (or software upgradable) knew what they were getting into. BD software progress shouldn't be held back by gear that was obsolete when it was designed. The first Sony DVD player couldn't pass DTS bitstream. Should the studios have never provided DTS?

There will always be a core DD on any DTHD track for BD users. 640 kbps Dolby should be fine for anyone with an old player while they save for a new player that costs hundreds less, and does much much more.

Co-sign.

BD is just now starting to hit mainstream. The people buying now, are the ones who would be pissed if they couldn't take advantage of lossless codecs with the player they just spent $500 on. The early adoptors should have known what they got themselves into. I have a Sammy BD-P1000, I knew that it would never be able to decode advanced codecs. Am I pissed? No, because I was enjoying BD at launch with PCM. Now times have changed and it's time to evolve. Just because there is no PCM, it doesn't mean people won't get any audio at all, they can still get 640kb/s DD which sounds pretty good in most cases.

Personally, I welcome the move. I think it will push people to help further the adoption by moving their Sammys and Philips players to the bedroom and buy new players for their main viewing areas. The faster we can get more and more BD players into peoples homes, the faster we can get rid of DVD.

[DaViD Boulet]

The 1.5 Mbps DTS tracks on DVD were amongst the best of the bunch.

However, unless DTS-HD MA is included on all players as of 11.01.07 it would be a shame to not see TrueHD as the standard.

If they're both lossless then there's no reason to use one over the other. I notice Lions Gate is using DTS-HD MA on Dr. Strange 7.1

Personally, I like DTS-HD MA more because it avoids the issue of Dialog Normalization that DD (even TrueHD) sets by default during the encoding stage. Since no consumer gear can bypass the flag's instructions to recalculate the amplitude of the waveform when it's set, no Dolby TrueHD with DN can provide bit-for-bit performance out of the decoder.

Any consumer who cares about lossless audio can choose to buy a player that can decode DTS-HD MA when they become available, so I don't think that the studios need to shy away from DTS-HD MA as a way of delivering lossless audio (don't expect my PS3 to be the last player I ever own either).

Hardware comes and goes. It's the software library of films that I want optimally encoded (which includes Dolby TrueHD when DN is not used).

[ay221]

I heard that Fox is dropping DTS-MA in their new upcoming movies. Is this true, and if so, does that mean DTS-MA will become defunct?

[blackpixels]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Personally, I like DTS-HD MA more because it avoids the issue of Dialog Normalization that DD (even TrueHD) sets by default during the encoding stage. Since no consumer gear can bypass the flag's instructions to recalculate the amplitude of the waveform when it's set, no Dolby TrueHD with DN can provide bit-for-bit performance out of the decoder.

Any consumer who cares about lossless audio can choose to buy a player that can decode DTS-HD MA when they become available, so I don't think that the studios need to shy away from DTS-HD MA as a way of delivering lossless audio (don't expect my PS3 to be the last player I ever own either).

Hardware comes and goes. It's the software library of films that I want optimally encoded (which includes Dolby TrueHD when DN is not used).

DaVID, what is your current system set up? PS3 or other BR player/AVR/Seperates? Analog/Opt/Coax or HDMI - thoughts regarding both. I'm of the old school and continue to resist HDMI, but there's no way out thanks to majority rules...

[WickyWoo]

Personally I believe DTS-MA is headed for the scrapheap. It takes too much horsepower to decode, they're really late to market, and in the end offers no tangible benefits over the existing codecs, especially since PCM seems to have become the de-facto BR standard.

[blackpixels]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Personally I believe DTS-MA is headed for the scrapheap. It takes too much horsepower to decode, they're really late to market, and in the end offers no tangible benefits over the existing codecs, especially since PCM seems to have become the de-facto BR standard.

So true, but isn't that typical MO for the DTS camp? They always seem to be playing catch-up in that area, too bad, I really enjoy their product.

[WriteSimply]

Originally Posted by WickyWoo

Personally I believe DTS-MA is headed for the scrapheap. It takes too much horsepower to decode,

Sigma Designs reference design can do that with a single board. HDMA won't work for older players' chips but it's certainly not too much for Profile 1.1 reference designs.

they're really late to market,

Unfortunate for them. However, the ability to change the way you hear the movies based on your surround setup is a huge plus over TrueHD.

and in the end offers no tangible benefits over the existing codecs, especially since PCM seems to have become the de-facto BR standard.

PCM takes too much bandwith. So far we haven't seen any 4 hour movies yet but the crunch will be LOTR:ROTK Extended Edition. You'll waste space for PCM on that. The best bet would be either TrueHD or HDMA.

HDMA offers a higher sampling rate than TrueHD. It may not be applicable for movies, since most soundtracks are mastered at up to 24-bit but for concert videos, they can go higher.


fuad

[WickyWoo]

Sigma Designs reference design can do that with a single board. HDMA won't work for older players' chips but it's certainly not too much for Profile 1.1 reference designs.

OK, but considering it's essentially a zip file, and maybe I'm failing to understand features of it, but it sounds to me like simple poor coding. I know the studios aren't happy with it at all.

Unfortunate for them. However, the ability to change the way you hear the movies based on your surround setup is a huge plus over TrueHD.

Can you elaborate please?

THX is working on an auto-calibration system as an "Optimode 2.0" using HDMI 1.3, to me that sounds far more promising

PCM takes too much bandwith. So far we haven't seen any 4 hour movies yet but the crunch will be LOTR:ROTK Extended Edition. You'll waste space for PCM on that. The best bet would be either TrueHD or HDMA.

Put it on 2 discs. Except for a vocal minority I don't think very many people mind changing discs 2 hours in

HDMA offers a higher sampling rate than TrueHD. It may not be applicable for movies, since most soundtracks are mastered at up to 24-bit but for concert videos, they can go higher.

They can yes, but I have yet to see any concert mastered 96/24

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Personally, I like DTS-HD MA more because it avoids the issue of Dialog Normalization that DD (even TrueHD) sets by default during the encoding stage. Since no consumer gear can bypass the flag's instructions to recalculate the amplitude of the waveform when it's set, no Dolby TrueHD with DN can provide bit-for-bit performance out of the decoder.

Is THAT the reason why people continue to prefer LPCM over TrueHD?

Gary