Poll: Should Sony use DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by lgans316

1) Sony should shift from 16-bit to 24-bit lossless audio on all titles, period. They are doing 24-bit only on titles for which they have exclusive U.S home video distribution rights.

I really think that's the reason why they are considering DTSMA. From a bandwidth perspective, in order to have a 24bith lossless English and lossless foreign language track, i'm sure it's less bandwidth intensive to have 2 DTSMA tracks with the legacy track included as opposed to 2 TRUEHD and 2 DD legacy tracks.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by davcole

I really think that's the reason why they are considering DTSMA. From a bandwidth perspective, in order to have a 24bith lossless English and lossless foreign language track, i'm sure it's less bandwidth intensive to have 2 DTSMA tracks with the legacy track included as opposed to 2 TRUEHD and 2 DD legacy tracks.

Good point, I like the way that works too.

[GoodToGo]

Originally Posted by iceman

AVS has gone from being 30 times larger than blu-ray.com, to currently 33% larger than blu-ray.com and AVS is, and has been, on a negative trend for a very long time. avforums.com is now also larger than AVS.
Source: Alexa.com.

Size doesn't always make a forum better or worse. AVS is all about the science and if you want info on how to set up your speakers, deep technical knowledge about codecs, new hardware coming out, AVS is the still by far the best place to go. Hardware reports and threads about users interactions with them make AVS almost indispensable. I read about my speakers, receiver, TV, everything on AVS.

Originally Posted by iceman

AVS is a general forum about AV and hardware, while Blu-ray.com is 100% about Blu-ray. I'm sure there are many Blu-ray users at AVS, but I'm also willing to bet that Blu-ray.com has a higher percentage of Blu-ray users. AVS also has a history of, mildly put, being "unfriendly" towards Blu-ray. If you have missed this, you must have been asleep the last few years. Believe me when I say that AVS has played out its role and will never have the same influence.

Very true, AVS folks are still biased towards HD DVD. Just face the damn truth, HD DVD lost and Blu-Ray won. There were several reasons for this and in the end, my personal opinion is that the better format won. In addition, as a whole, AVS users tend to have a little snotty attitudes towards threads discussing comparison between codecs. For them it is an open and shut case that all codecs are equal...theoretically. The problem is that in practical use, DTS MA sounds better almost always when compared to True HD and equal to PCM. Anyone saying hearsay can only look at this thread where the number of people preferring DTS MA is much more than True HD. Any such voices on AVS would be shut down saying that you don't have enough theoretical knowledge about the codecs

Interestingly, I found out about blu-ray.com from AVS. Plus I was all ready to plunge into the next hi def format

[4K display]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I am curious about why blu-ray.com was selected as opposed to a considerably more active site with many more members such as AVS.

400+ votes in 5 days

They could freeze this vote right now and it would be far more impressive than the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD poll at AVS during its heyday(pre-format launch era with little to no competition and before the red slanted moderation materialized).

550ish votes after 3 1/2 months, 911 votes after a year and a half. Pfff!

For the oldtimers, that thread has some classics including a dozen posts by Richard Doherty when he was still a PHL/BDA insider...good times

[Damage Inc.]

HEH... That's a taddy itty bitty ridiculous don't you think?
Being biased towards a technology that has discontinued development. XD


Not to call the poster before me childish, but I think it's a bit childish to say "who won".
It's so funny:
There are like two developers with two different formats that are just trying to get the best product.
Then the consumers jump in thinking it's an actual war.
They start arguing and actually fighting online until long after the "war" is over (current status).

It's not about winning, it's about trying to get the best product for everyone.
Because myself I was like: "OK, so there will be a new format coming soon, so-called HD..."
"Wait what, there are two competing formats? *big sigh* OK, guess it'll have to wait!..."
And there everyone went "ratatatatata no this is better that is better, mwumwumwu", etc.
It's just sooo ridiculous and tiresome. I mean, I really didn't care what would "win".
I just wanted the "HD-DVD", as in the HD-equivalent of the DVD, to come out.
I actually loved the name, loose from the technology/format itself.
That was the only disappointing thing besides the waiting for the next format.


Anyway, that's just my view on that subject, sorry for the off-topicness, I'm going to bed. XD

[4K display]

Anywhoo, guess I should start looking forward to Angels & Demons in 6.1 DTS-HD Master Audio...yummy!!

[trans22]

Originally Posted by 4K display

Anywhoo, guess I should start looking forward to Angels & Demons in 6.1 DTS-HD Master Audio...yummy!!

i hope your right

[Jodi]

Originally Posted by justinbaily

Back on old dvd i only got sony in superbit and tracked down many dts versions
of dvd's like galaxy quest,private ryn,all 3 jp movies and while i'm not sure if or
by how much dts is better than trueHD i've prefered dts.

Sony should go with dtshdma. I even have a dts theatre sign.

I'm in the same boat with you, JustinBaily.
I own many of the Sony Superbit DVDs because of the DTS. I also own some Japanese import DVDs from Sony Pictures w/English DTS (Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, As Good As It Gets, and others). FF:TSW sounds absolutely thunderous in DTS!
And I still have lots and lots of the same DVDs you mentioned in DTS (JPs, Galaxy Quest, Amistad, etc.).
And yes, I own 2 DTS theater signs.
I do not own a single Sony Blu-Ray disc simply because of the fact that they do not have DTS....but that will change if Sony Blu goes DTS.
We'll see.

Jodi

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

What I found with the DVD-equivalents of Dolby and DTS, because I don't have an HD-receiver yet,
is that DTS just sounds much fuller and Dolby just much duller.
Also Dolby used to crack because of the really lossy format, DTS never or rarely did.
Then you'd also hear a lot more detail in DTS compared to Dolby.
Of course also the sheer volume, punch and loudness of DTS compared to Dolby.

The lossy Dolby Digital and lossy DTS audio were always very different animals through the years of DVD. To put it simply:

DTS, at one time, was a more "exclusive" audio format which not all players and receivers could decode, circa late 1990s into early 2000s. DTS offered cleaner, more accurate audio, mostly due to its higher bitrate. As you well know, DTS was offered on a lot of DVDs, but those which did offered standard Dolby Digital 5.1 for all the systems which could not decode DTS.

I LOVED the DVDs which offered DTS. Indeed, their sound was superior, but comparing the "lossy DTS vs. lossy Dolby Digital" to "Dolby Digital TrueHD vs. DTS-HD Master Audio" is not quite along the same lines of reasoning.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I guess you don't understand how this actually works.

I guess each week's lottery numbers, with about the same level of success you're having here.

Originally Posted by BIslander

DRC flags exist in the metadata. DRC is only implemented when engaged by the playback device. You need to set DRC to On in your player or receiver, otherwise nothing happens.

That's odd. I've already mentioned that DRC is an "opt-out" option on standard equipment. I have a Sony S-300, BDP-550, and each requires that the DRC option be turned off. (On the 550, it's not an "on-off" function; it's either "normal" or "wide", with "wide" meaning "off".)

I also have Pioneer Elite receivers, which have "night-mode" compression options - which have nothing to do with Dolby, and can be applied to any sound source. Of course, I have to select that option, it's not a default.

Originally Posted by BIslander

If Dolby can do A and B and DTS can only do A, then it can be argued that Dolby is superior. That's not logical?

No, it's not logical; it's a feature set, and I'm not arguing about the efficacy of it; I'm marveling at the lunacy of making every feature a default. It's clunky, which defies logic. It's unnecessary as a default, much like the valet key for a luxury automobile - you don't expect the dealer to hand that to the new owner, and then tell him, "use this in limp mode for regular use, but if you want the car to drive to its capability, come back and we'll give you the real keys."

Originally Posted by BIslander

You don't have a use for DRC. Nor do I. But, some people do, making it a useful feature that Dolby has and DTS does not.

I will note with interest your comments about the volume knob below.

Originally Posted by BIslander

You're right, dialnorm is not an option. So, turn up the volume a little more. DRC depends on how you set up your player or receiver, not something you deal with disc to disc unless you want to. As I said in a previous post, I set my player and receiver for DRC = Off when I configured them and have never had to deal with that setting when playing a disc.

Clearly, you're not getting my point, and I think I'm belaboring it...anyway:

The whole notion that pocket-protector geeks need to know this stuff in advance is ludicrous. I shouldn't need to fiddle with the volume knob every time I switch from one mode to another, and this clearly isn't any indication of a well though out technical sound design. Clearly, it's an attempt by Dolby to make use of any other codec difficult.

You're saying that if everything is Dolby, and your equipment is set up for use with Dolby, it doesn't make any difference. I understand what you're saying, very clearly, and I'm saying that this notion wastes my time, and I don't prefer to buy into it.

Originally Posted by BIslander

As I said before, Iron Man was incorrectly authored. It turned on DRC regardless of the player/AVR setting.

This wouldn't have been a problem if the codec was designed as "opt-in". Such arrogance on the part of a manufacturer irritates me no end.

Originally Posted by BIslander

No. It's lossless, just 4db quieter. You're the first person I've seen who includes master volume as part of the definition of lossless. That's certainly not how the industry uses the term. DRC only gets involved if you engage it yourself.

I've seen a number of your posts in this forum, and you appear to be a pretty knowledgeable fellow. This is why I'm saying your comments are disingenuous; clearly, you know better.

If a sound designer sets the volume at leve X, and the encoding reduces it to X-(4db), are you actually saying that both sound schemas are identical?

"Well, it's the same, if you twiddle the knob a little bit" is not identical. Playing the PCM track next to the TruHD track, and getting a different volume level, is not identical. And obviously, DRC sound attenuation is not identical, especially when there is no notification that it's engaged. (I would welcome a loud farting noise or something when it kicks in, so I know I'm getting ripped off).

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dialnorm was actually an attempt to level program output levels - a major complaint among consumers. Broadcast is the primary application, but it applies to all types of outputs. The concept doesn't seem idiotic at all. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out the way intended. But, since programs levels are all over the map for TV, discs, video games, and everything else, most people adjust the volume at the start of any program they are watching. It isn't as though dialnorm on a TrueHD track makes you do something you aren't already doing anyway.

Well, so much for the "If Dolby can do A and B and DTS can only do A, then it can be argued that Dolby is superior. That's not logical?" stuff you were saying earlier.

Originally Posted by BIslander

Oh - and to your original assertion about "fiddling with" - is that it - DRC and dialnorm? No other fiddling going on?

Well, that's about it. I have to go into the Elite's menu and disable Dialnorm (sometime it works) and go into the menus for the players and eliminate DRC (with cryptic comments about "normal" and "wide", instead of "on" and "off"), and I have to increase the volume on my receiver by 4DB whenever I notice that the movie is Dolby, but that's about it.

Of course, I'd prefer to just pop in the movie and play it, but your mileage may vary.

Anyway, I voted to dump Dolby TruHD. If they got rid of all those ludicrous "features", I might have voted the other way.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Speaking of fiddling with the output, there's a disturbing trend with the implementation of dts-MA decoders in players. Panasonic, dating back to the BD50, and Pioneer with the dts-MA upgrade for the 09FD, 05FD, and 51FD, are now doing channel duplication to create 7.1 outputs from 5.1 sources. Both manufacturers reportedly claim they are doing so per DTS requirements. It's not an optional function, it can't be turned off.

I couldn't figure out why the Pioneers didn't come out of the box with DTS-HD MA compatibility; so I got a new Sony unit to upgrade from my older one.

Sony doesn't have this "requirement", so if that's what Panasonic and Pioneer are saying, I can't understand why.

Of course, one can simply adjust the channel volume levels manually for the rears, right? Works for Dolby.

Originally Posted by BIslander

Many analog users may consider this a feature because most receivers can't apply DSPs such as PLIIx to analog sources. But, it also means people doing player decoding for HDMI output are stuck with channel duplication for the rears instead of being able to use better matrix processing available in their receivers.

So, you're not happy that a company is forcing users to opt-in to a codec "feature" without their knowledge, consent, or control? This doesn't sound right, coming from you.

Originally Posted by BIslander

Now, this is not part of the DTS codec itself. But, it's something that DTS appears to be forcing into decoders and, considering the posts in the Pioneer and Panasonic threads at AVS, it would appear to be a significant drawback for some end users.

PLIIx modes are kind of gimmicky at best, so it's possible some folks are reaching a bit on this one.

Anyway, it wasn't forced into my decoder on the Sony unit.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Sony doesn't have this "requirement", so if that's what Panasonic and Pioneer are saying, I can't understand why.

Me neither. Others are asking the same question. I hope there's some clarity forthcoming on that in the next few months. I am merely reporting what the companies apparently have said. (The Panasonic information comes from Chris Boylan of Big Picture Big Sound relaying an email from Panasonic Japan and Pioneer's from Chris Walker, a Pioneer insider who posts at AVS.)

So, you're not happy that a company is forcing users to opt-in to a codec "feature" without their knowledge, consent, or control? This doesn't sound right, coming from you.

There's no option here. I'd consider it an excellent addition if the user had control.

PLIIx modes are kind of gimmicky at best, so it's possible some folks are reaching a bit on this one.

DSPs such as PLIIx and Logic7 are considerably more sophisticated than channel duplication. But, you don't like them, so others shouldn't either?

Besides, this new feature forces people with 7.1 systems using player decoding to listen to fake 7.1 with all dts-MA 5.1 discs. They can never listen to the soundtrack the way it was mixed unless they actually reconfigure their players or receivers when switching between 5.1 and actual 7.1 content. That's a whole different matter than turning up the volume a few db or setting the DRC option just once and leaving it that way forever.

Anyway, it wasn't forced into my decoder on the Sony unit.

Are you saying it's OK since it doesn't affect your equipment?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

DSPs such as PLIIx and Logic7 are considerably more sophisticated than channel duplication. But, you don't like them, so others shouldn't either?

I use them all the time, since it's all that's available. I don't have a problem with them, per se, but I prefer PCM 7.1 or codec 7.1 source material.

The "robot remaster" modes on receivers are OK, at best. Agonizing over whether that, or simple channel duplication, are better seems like overkill. For purists, 5.1 playback for 5.1 source should be the Grail; everything else is a compromise, no matter what mode it is.

Originally Posted by BIslander

Besides, this new feature forces people with 7.1 systems using player decoding to listen to fake 7.1 with all dts-MA 5.1 discs. They can never listen to the soundtrack the way it was mixed unless they actually reconfigure their players or receivers when switching between 5.1 and actual 7.1 content.

Man, does THAT sound familiar.

Originally Posted by BIslander

That's a whole different matter than turning up the volume a few db or setting the DRC option just once and leaving it that way forever.

I guess you don't like the idea of having to adjust your receiver or player, based on some manufacturer's requirement. This "whole different matter" thing is overblown - any time you have to fiddle with something, it's a pain in the neck. If you like setting your DRC option - and how you found out about it would be interesting; Dolby sure as hell didn't notify you publicly - is your idea of a normal setting, have at it.

Originally Posted by BIslander

Are you saying it's OK since it doesn't affect your equipment?

Of course not. I'm saying that here's a group of manufacturers, making changes to sound schemas without notification of the people who are paying for it - with one big difference: it doesn't affect everyone.

Dolby's goofy DRC and Dialnorm settings affect every unit playing back their sound setup. It's a known and documented fact, and I've cited commentary from their own website about it.

This other stuff you're talking about are rumors, culled from somebody's email, and I have serious doubts about what a disaster it is, since it's not clearly documented.

[BIslander]

Oh, there's one more emerging issue with dts-MA player decoding. Nearly all of the new players are using "DTS Master Audio Essential" decoders. They do the lossless stuff just fine. But, they do not decode the DTS-ES and DTS 96/24 extensions. So, if you are doing player decoding and you want the rear channels on LOTR or Gladiator or you want to listen to a disc with 96/24 encoding, you have to use a separate optical or coax connection to your AVR's legacy DTS decoder. It's not a huge deal for most people, of course. There aren't all that many discs using those legacy extensions. But, it's another example where DTS is not necessarily plug and play.

HD audio is not simple stuff. There's a myriad of issues depending on the equipment involved and the way the audio is stored on a disc. That's true of both Dolby and DTS.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Oh, there's one more emerging issue with dts-MA player decoding. Nearly all of the new players are using "DTS Master Audio Essential" decoders. They do the lossless stuff just fine. But, they do not decode the DTS-ES and DTS 96/24 extensions. So, if you are doing player decoding and you want the rear channels on LOTR or Gladiator or you want to listen to a disc with 96/24 encoding, you have to use a separate optical or coax connection to your AVR's legacy DTS decoder. It's not a huge deal for most people, of course. There aren't all that many discs using those legacy extensions. But, it's another example where DTS is not necessarily plug and play.

I first heard about this on the new Panasonic units, and I wondered what the heck was going on. The only thing that they decode through the player are the straight DTS lossy core. This irritated me no end, as at the time I was looking to buy, the BD-50 was pretty much sold out (it didn't have this problem) and the Sony BDP-550 was becoming a rare bird, too.

The lack of the imbedded codec implies that manufacturers didn't want to spend the extra money on a unit that most folks would play Blu-ray stuff exclusively. I play DVD's on Sony's carousel unit, so it's no big deal, but I wanted to avoid units like this in case they had some other gimp-mode nonsense hidden someplace.

Originally Posted by BIslander

HD audio is not simple stuff. There's a myriad of issues depending on the equipment involved and the way the audio is stored on a disc. That's true of both Dolby and DTS.

I don't see where this is a DTS issue. My BDP-550 decodes everything, no problem, including DTS-ES and the 96/24 modes. This is a manufacturer problem, and the reason I didn't get the Pio 051-FD was because they didn't have the firmware set up for DTS-HD yet - another nudge towards getting a receiver that decodes, is what I'm thinking.

This isn't a codec issue, like DRC and Dialnorm are for Dolby.

[BIslander]

So, you don't think the structure of dts-MA encoding has anything to do with this. Manufacturers have had considerable difficulty getting Master Audio decoding into players. Implementation is a mixed bag of Essential decoders, forced channel duplication, players (including your Sony) that have to use the lossy DTS core when mixing secondary audio, and receivers that can't apply DSPs such as PLIIx when decoding dts-MA tracks. Why do you suppose that only happens with DTS?

[Deciazulado]

Gentlemen, this thread is a poll asking how many members would prefer Sony to use DTS-HD MA tracks or use Dolby TrueHD tracks on its BD titles. If you want to continue discussing extensively DTS vs Dolby vs players vs implemented feature vs receivers etc go to the Audio or Hardware forums. Thank you

[saprano]

But if we do that its going to get locked like all the other ones. so this is kind of a free ride

Unless one of you mods gives us the privilege to discuss DTS vs Dolby in the audio section.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

Gentlemen, this thread is a poll asking how many members would prefer Sony to use DTS-HD MA tracks or use Dolby TrueHD tracks on its BD titles. If you want to continue discussing extensively DTS vs Dolby vs players vs implemented feature vs receivers etc go to the Audio or Hardware forums. Thank you

DTS-HD MA for me; I'm done here, thanks.

[davcole]

While the thread is a poll, it's also an infomation sharing thread so people can not only voice their reasons for their preferred codec, but also their objections as to why they don't chose the competing codec. Seems to me it allows Sony to see all sides of the issue.