Dolby TrueHD vs. DTS-HD

[J_UNTITLED]

Between these two main next-generation master audio lossless formats, does either of them have an edge over the other in terms of overall quality? Or are they in fact completely equal in what they can bring to your home theater?

[takezo]

Both formats are loss less, basically they will sound just as good as uncompressed PCM tracks that are already out. In other words they should be the same.

If you compare normal Dolby Digital 5.1 to DTS 5.1. It all depends on the movies and how dynamic the Dolby track is, but for the most part, DTS sound better. It's more dynamic in it's surround feild, crisper highs and lower lows. DTS has less compression than Dolby Digital 5.1 which accounts for better sound.

Though their are some movies with killer Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks, however it's hard to compare when most movies with killer Dolby tracks don't usualy have a DTS track for obvious reasons (they don't need it).

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by takezo

If you compare normal Dolby Digital 5.1 to DTS 5.1. It all depends on the movies and how dynamic the Dolby track is, but for the most part, DTS sound better. It's more dynamic in it's surround feild, crisper highs and lower lows. DTS has less compression than Dolby Digital 5.1 which accounts for better sound.

Glad to hear then that unlike DVD (at least in your opinion), they are equal on Blu-ray.

[crackinhedz]

Originally Posted by J_UNTITLED

Glad to hear then that unlike DVD (at least in your opinion), they are equal on Blu-ray.

well, being both formats are Lossless, being "equal" is only theory at the moment since NO one has the ability to listen to a DTS-MA track yet.

[beakergeek]

You always need to look at the bitrate and sampling frequency, which is almost never readily available with DTS-HD master or DolbyTrueHD. It is often available for PCM tracks (e.g. 48kHz/24 bit). The higher the bitrate and sampling frequency the better the quality of sound. Both DTS and Dolby have dropped the ball on this one by not telling us what their underlying bitrate and sampling frequency are. DTS-HD master has the ability to do 96kHz/24 bit as 7.1 channels which would be the ultimate for todays receiver and home theater technology.

[red_5ive]

Originally Posted by takezo

Both formats are loss less, basically they will sound just as good as uncompressed PCM tracks that are already out. In other words they should be the same.

If you compare normal Dolby Digital 5.1 to DTS 5.1. It all depends on the movies and how dynamic the Dolby track is, but for the most part, DTS sound better. It's more dynamic in it's surround feild, crisper highs and lower lows. DTS has less compression than Dolby Digital 5.1 which accounts for better sound.

Though their are some movies with killer Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks, however it's hard to compare when most movies with killer Dolby tracks don't usualy have a DTS track for obvious reasons (they don't need it).

I always favor dts because it just sounds better to me. But yeah I also have to admit a lot of DD tracks in various flicks the last few years sound phenomenal.

Unfortunately I haven't experienced TrueHD/lossless formats yet - I'm too chicken to audition anything at my local store in fear of buying something since I'm waiting for the Yammy RX-Z11 to come out so I can replace my Z1. I love my PS3, but I really wish Sony would have added analog 5.1 to it. *sigh*

[ack_bak]

The one major advantage for DTS-HD-MA over TrueHD is the fact that studios will only need to include that one audio format since the DTS Core can be stripped out for legacy players/receivers that do not support HD-MA. With TrueHD, studios will still need to include a legacy DD+ track on top of the TrueHD track using up more space.

Personally, I think no studios should use DTS-HD-MA until more players can support it (whether that be through internal decoding or the ability to pass the codec in its raw form via bitstream to an HDMI 1.3 receiver that can decode it).

[richteer]

Ack_bak, glad to see one of the few HighDefDigest forums' voices of reason here. Welcome!

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by richteer

Ack_bak, glad to see one of the few HighDefDigest forums' voices of reason here. Welcome!

Thanks I try to keep things "fair and balanced" over there at Hidef forums

[BStecke]

I'd prefer the use of DTS-MA over standard Dolby Digital. Even the core tracks to movies like The Transporter are FAR superior to standard DD, so at least it's a good option in the interim.

[ack_bak]

Originally Posted by BStecke

I'd prefer the use of DTS-MA over standard Dolby Digital. Even the core tracks to movies like The Transporter are FAR superior to standard DD, so at least it's a good option in the interim.

Agreed when it is DTS vs DD I have usually found DTS to be superior. But I would much rather have TrueHD right now over DTS-MA. If the PS3 is able to decode DTS-MA or pass the signal via bitstream over HDMI 1.3 to a receiver then I would be more than happy with DTS-MA.

[BStecke]

Agreed. The lack of anything being able to make use of DTS-HD is getting to be somewhat comical. Kinda like Fox's involvement with Blu-ray. Is it there or isn't it?

[J_UNTITLED]

So it seems the consensus here is that either DTS-HD is better or both are more or less equally sound choices?

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by beakergeek

You always need to look at the bitrate and sampling frequency, which is almost never readily available with DTS-HD master or DolbyTrueHD. It is often available for PCM tracks (e.g. 48kHz/24 bit). The higher the bitrate and sampling frequency the better the quality of sound. Both DTS and Dolby have dropped the ball on this one by not telling us what their underlying bitrate and sampling frequency are. DTS-HD master has the ability to do 96kHz/24 bit as 7.1 channels which would be the ultimate for todays receiver and home theater technology.

Well, that's true in theory, but Paidgeek confirmed some titles that are 48/24 even though the master was only 16 bit. There are re-recorded scores that are sampled at high rates (even direct to DSD) but you will have a hard time finding a movie with 96/24 anytime soon.
So the differences for now are not all that dramatic.

And as a side note: a few reviewers have stated, that the DolbyTHD track is not as good as the PCM track, even though they should be equal. No one knows why that is, but until now it seems like common consensus that PCM is the best track to listen to.

[Icemage]

Assuming the hardware comes up to speed with DTS-MA, the progression of favorable to unfavorable would be (prioritizing for fidelity first, then bandwidth usage):

DTS-MA > Dolby TrueHD > PCM > DTS-HD High Resolution > DD+ 3.0Mbps > DTS 1.5Mbps = DD+ 1.5Mbps > DD 640Kbps

I give DTS-MA the nod over TrueHD because it obviates the need for the inclusion of a secondary legacy track and thus conserves bandwidth.

[Zaphod]

Originally Posted by Icemage

Assuming the hardware comes up to speed with DTS-MA, the progression of favorable to unfavorable would be (prioritizing for fidelity first, then bandwidth usage):

DTS-MA > Dolby TrueHD > PCM > DTS-HD High Resolution > DD+ 3.0Mbps > DTS 1.5Mbps = DD+ 1.5Mbps > DD 640Kbps

I give DTS-MA the nod over TrueHD because it obviates the need for the inclusion of a secondary legacy track and thus conserves bandwidth.

Is the reason you rank PCM 3rd mostly because of bandwidth and space?

[J_UNTITLED]

Originally Posted by Zaphod

Is the reason you rank PCM 3rd mostly because of bandwidth and space?

That seems like the likely answer....

[HDJK]

Originally Posted by HDJK

..you will have a hard time finding a movie with 96/24 anytime soon.

And here is what 2 Insiders had to say about it:

Originally Posted by paidgeek

Typically 48k 24bit sampling is used these days. Higher sample rates can allow either higher frequency response or reduced filter distortion, but the cost of doubling the data rate is severe. Improving sample accuracy from 16 bit to 24 bit is a better way to improve sound quality.

Originally Posted by FilmMixer

Films are done at 24/48... there are very few exceptions to this.

The price for the jump to 96 or 192 is a reduction in 1/2 or 1/4 the amount of resources your mixer can handle... The console I work on has over 340 channels ( and that gets cut directly in 1/2 when we set the console to run at 96k), and we use at least 180-200 of them even on "simple" dialog films.. Upgrading the console to do 96 or 192 would cost on the order of $400-$800k, plus all of the other things that go with it (workstations, etc)... as a business decision, there is little sonic payout for that kind of investment, especially when you look at playback considerations and theater capabilities, even with digital cinema...

I think we will be looking to expand the number of playback channels first before I think we will go into a higher sample rate.

__________________
Film Sound and Post Production Insider

Re-Recording Mixer, Hollywood, CA.