Has DTS MA won?

[kristoffer]

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

[RBBrittain]

Actually, it seems to me that TrueHD has made a small comeback in the last year or two. DTS-HD MA was built for backwards compatibility; TrueHD had to be tweaked for it. Besides, Dolby still has a theatrical sound business, along with new technology (Atmos), to sell to the studios in a nice, bundled package with TrueHD; DTS doesn't. (It doesn't hurt that Dolby bought the naming rights to the Oscars' theater after Kodak abandoned it in Chapter 11, either.)

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

Both are lossless compression, which means they will sound identical to the original audio mix which will be in PCM format.

DTS-HD Master Audio does not provide better quality sound over TrueHD (remembering that you cannot compare different sound tracks (films) and come to the conclusion that DTS-HD MA sounds better).

Dolby TrueHD has always been accompanied with an embedded lossy DD track, so backwards compatibility is a none-issue, what the difference is, is the feature set and how the encoder/decoder is incorporated in the equipment, for example both codecs have their problems. DTS have a cut down version which is called DTS-HD Master Audio Essentials which a lot of BD players and some receivers have, this doesn't support all DTS technologies i.e. it does not support DTS 96/24, ES information, will output 5.1 tracks at 7.1 without choice and I believe it doesn't support 192kHz sampling rate at any channel number, thus it outputs 96kHz when decoding. Bitstreaming to a component with full DTS-HD MA decoding capability will avoid this.

The reason I believe that DTS-HD MA is found on more disc's maybe down to cost and that studio's have cottoned on to the fact that the majority of people think DTS is better and will base their purchases on this.

[pentatonic]

Originally it was also based on the fact that DTS-HD MA was faster and also cheaper to author as the PCs needed were already found at those houses. True HD then called for a beefier station, was longer also to author and hence more expensive and much more time consuming. Now I'm sure it isn't a factor anymore but once they got setup for it I guess they just continued using DTS.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Both are lossless compression, which means they will sound identical to the original audio mix which will be in PCM format.

DTS-HD Master Audio does not provide better quality sound over TrueHD (remembering that you cannot compare different sound tracks (films) and come to the conclusion that DTS-HD MA sounds better).

Dolby TrueHD has always been accompanied with an embedded lossy DD track, so backwards compatibility is a none-issue, what the difference is, is the feature set and how the encoder/decoder is incorporated in the equipment, for example both codecs have their problems. DTS have a cut down version which is called DTS-HD Master Audio Essentials which a lot of BD players and some receivers have, this doesn't support all DTS technologies i.e. it does not support DTS 96/24, ES information, will output 5.1 tracks at 7.1 without choice and I believe it doesn't support 192kHz sampling rate at any channel number, thus it outputs 96kHz when decoding. Bitstreaming to a component with full DTS-HD MA decoding capability will avoid this.

The reason I believe that DTS-HD MA is found on more disc's maybe down to cost and that studio's have cottoned on to the fact that the majority of people think DTS is better and will base their purchases on this.

You're correct that there's no difference between DTS-HD MA, TrueHD & LPCM, all things being equal (i.e., same soundtrack, no dialnorm). However, the earliest TrueHD tracks weren't configured properly for full compatibility; the studios tended to reuse their old DVD-quality DD 5.1 tracks (not even full 640 kbps DD bitrate) and authored their discs to default to those even on TrueHD-capable players (much like the early LPCM discs). DTS-HD MA's default setting has always been full compatibility -- full 1.5 Mbps DTS core plus MA extensions to lossless quality, with the latter as default if the decoder supports it.

Bringing up DTS-HD MA Essentials is a red herring. First, that's a limitation on decoders, not discs. Second, all that means is the player doesn't support DTS extensions between core and MA, which frankly has more impact on DVD than BD; DTS-ES tracks play as core DTS, but DTS-HD MA tracks play with full fidelity. (Edit: I also don't think there's many 192 kHz tracks out there, especially with DTS-HD MA.)

DTS-HD MA pulled in front because it was seen as providing the best of both worlds -- lossless audio for those with the appropriate decoders (including Essentials), with full-bitrate DTS for everyone else. Now that it's clear TrueHD can provide virtually the same thing -- with more backwards compatibility since more legacy equipment supports DD than DTS -- it's more a matter of DTS inertia vs. Dolby marketing (i.e., sweetheart deals on TrueHD when bought together with Atmos).

[Tech-UK]

@RBBrittain. I know its a limitation with regards to the decoder, which is why I brought it up. Less feature set support, of which essentials gives you. Just trying to make a point that DTS isn't better than Dolby when it comes to the whole process.

I believe TrueHD decoders have full support of Dolby's technologies, but again in the PS3 (3D playback) and some Blu-ray players, it will not support 7.1 TrueHD when decoding, only 5.1, whether this is indeed decoder related or down to the software, firmware or even hardware of the device, that is limiting it.

If your referring to the early WB releases, they actually did include an embedded DD track with the TrueHD track at full 640kbps, plus a separate DD track as well, which it defaulted to.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...69e0116e#specs

If you know of any title of which doesn't include an embedded DD track, it would be useful to the discussion.

I believe the reason for defaulting to DD on TrueHD and PCM encoded tracks was that most people were connecting their equipment via S/PDIF back in the day. And to provide instant compatibility that's what they did. DD is mandatory and the mandatory track must be used as the primary soundtrack (nowadays its different), most people back in the early day's were not aware of these different codecs and how they should set their equipment up, so the easiest thing to do is for it to default to the most widely known home media codec.

[MRP4BLU]

My guess is it has to do with Cinevia and how the unbeatable copy protection is embedded within the DTS track. As far as I know Dolby does not do this.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

@RBBrittain. I know its a limitation with regards to the decoder, which is why I brought it up. Less feature set support, of which essentials gives you. Just trying to make a point that DTS isn't better than Dolby when it comes to the whole process.

I believe TrueHD decoders have full support of Dolby's technologies, but again in the PS3 (3D playback) and some Blu-ray players, it will not support 7.1 TrueHD when decoding, only 5.1, whether this is indeed decoder related or down to the software, firmware or even hardware of the device, that is limiting it.

If your referring to the early WB releases, they actually did include an embedded DD track with the TrueHD track at full 640kbps, plus a separate DD track as well, which it defaulted to.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...69e0116e#specs

If you know of any title of which doesn't include an embedded DD track, it would be useful to the discussion.

It's still not a 'core' track though, because TrueHD doesn't use core + extension in the same way as DTS HD. It's simply a hidden lossy track.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

IIRC, Roger Dressler (retired from Dolby Labs) said it was a matter of QA economics. He said proofing a master with DTS was faster than proofing a master with Dolby because the DTS version required less passes therefore less time. Time = Money.

At work when we finished a program we had to screen for bad edits, color matching, audio levels, video levels, video blanking, closed captioning, etc. This involved several staff members and could take several hours to complete.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's still not a 'core' track though, because TrueHD doesn't use core + extension in the same way as DTS HD. It's simply a hidden lossy track.

Now Geoff, I said embedded not core.

TrueHD and the hidden DD track can take up less space than a DTS core + extension of the same soundtrack.

Example here:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...b4a48b2c#specs

The DTS-HD Master Audio tracks average bitrate includes the core + extension data.

The TrueHD track as you said isn't based on core + extension, but if you take the average bitrate and add the DD rate of 640kbps it is still less than the DTS-HD MA track. Thus more efficient, but provides the same AQ plus backwards compatibility.

[Geoff D]

Fair enough mate, just thought I'd point it out.

As for TrueHD vs DTS-HD, you're right in that the former takes up less space even with a separate DD track bundled in, but it seems as if the studios are willing to sacrifice a few more bits for the sake of expediency, if Roger Dressler's assertion is correct.

Funny thing is, in Dolby's TrueHD white paper they say that the lossy core + lossless extension 'as used by other companies' is actually more difficult to master because of how the perceptual coding techniques change when you go from lossy to lossless, and thusly what's needed to optimise the mix when one is folded into the other.

But I guess that Dolby's use of core + extension for mastering channels (it goes 2.0 + 3.1 to get a 5.1 mix, and adds another 2.0 extension for 7.1) is more awkward to proof than DTS' version.

[MOONPHASE]

All of my Funimation titles use Dolby TrueHD.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Fair enough mate, just thought I'd point it out.

As for TrueHD vs DTS-HD, you're right in that the former takes up less space even with a separate DD track bundled in, but it seems as if the studios are willing to sacrifice a few more bits for the sake of expediency, if Roger Dressler's assertion is correct.

Funny thing is, in Dolby's TrueHD white paper they say that the lossy core + lossless extension 'as used by other companies' is actually more difficult to master because of how the perceptual coding techniques change when you go from lossy to lossless, and thusly what's needed to optimise the mix when one is folded into the other.

But I guess that Dolby's use of core + extension for mastering channels (it goes 2.0 + 3.1 to get a 5.1 mix, and adds another 2.0 extension for 7.1) is more awkward to proof than DTS' version.

No probs Geoff!

Yeah, their whitepaper is quiet interesting on DD+ and TrueHD.

Have you read the DTS-HD MA whitepaper?

Here if you want to take a look:

http://www.opusproductions.com/pdfs/...WhitePaper.pdf

[Trekkie313]

All I know is that I can actually hear the dialogue with Dolby HD at lower levels, whereas DTS just wants to bombard me with effects and music.

[surma884]

I've noticed TrueHD tracks are 24bit 96khz, where as DTS-HD MA tracks are 24bit 48khz. So wouldn't that make TrueHD a superior format? Whether you can hear the difference between 48khz and 96khz depends on you and your equipment, but just based on the specs TrueHD would be considered better. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Reading some other threads, it seems DTS has support for 96/24 but most blurays only do 48/24. So if we had a DTS 96/24 track it wouldn't matter, both formats would be the same.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by surma884

I've noticed TrueHD tracks are 24bit 96khz, where as DTS-HD MA tracks are 24bit 48khz. So wouldn't that make TrueHD a superior format? Whether you can hear the difference between 48khz and 96khz depends on you and your equipment, but just based on the specs TrueHD would be considered better. Any thoughts?

That is a choice of the studio, DTS-HD MA will do 96/24 as well if the content provider wants it. The majority of movie soundtracks are recorded at 48/24 with VERY few exceptions. You typically only see resolutions higher than that with concerts.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by surma884

I've noticed TrueHD tracks are 24bit 96khz, where as DTS-HD MA tracks are 24bit 48khz. So wouldn't that make TrueHD a superior format? Whether you can hear the difference between 48khz and 96khz depends on you and your equipment, but just based on the specs TrueHD would be considered better. Any thoughts?

EDIT: Reading some other threads, it seems DTS has support for 96/24 but most blurays only do 48/24. So if we had a DTS 96/24 track it wouldn't matter, both formats would be the same.

As Kris has stated, its down to the content/producer.

There are a few DTS-HD MA tracks at 96/24, Baraka and Samsara are two examples. And a few TrueHD tracks at 96/24, but pretty much all films are 48/16 - 24.

There are even 192kHz tracks on Blu-ray. Akira being one.

[singhcr]

The only real difference in capability between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA is that DTS is limited to 96/24 for 6ch whereas TrueHD can go upto 192/24 for 6ch. Below that channel number they are both capable of 192/24.

With the rare exception of movies like Akira with 6ch 192/24, TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are equally good as almost all movies are 48/24. Even if there's a push for higher sampling frequencies, it would probably be 96/24. It woul dbe neat to see some kind of DSD format but that's just a pipe dream of mine.

Now how do we get magnetic stripe sound on an optical disc?

[Tech-UK]

Wasn't there talk of DSD on Blu-ray?

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by surma884

So wouldn't that make TrueHD a superior format?

No. They take the original 48K sources and process them to 96K through an apodizing (signal altering) filter that purportedly eliminates some of the harshness of digital sound. IIRC, they base this on the fact the Nyquist filter will cause ripple (ringing) in the pass band. All based on wideband square test signals. If one test with band-limited square waves then the output pretty much replicates the input.

IMO, TrueHD 96K is just marketing BS. And if you want to see some ringing, just test your loudspeaker system , will make any decent Nyquist filter look VERY tame.