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

[cembros]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Oh don't be so childish, you know what I mean.
Wait, you don't, or else you wouldn't react this way would you.
I'm done here, I'm just telling my experience with the differences.
But everyone just rambles over it in disbelief, so bye.

i dont think he is being childish, dont make such a huff, why not respond with some quantitive evidence such as what titles you compared and how you did so.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Oh don't be so childish, you know what I mean.
Wait, you don't, or else you wouldn't react this way would you.
I'm done here, I'm just telling my experience with the differences.
But everyone just rambles over it in disbelief, so bye.

Sorry that I offended. I should have ignored that particular comment so that the focus would remain on the issue at hand.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by davcole

Right now it doesn't seem to have a use, however DD+ may find itself a home in some internet and satellite download services.

Maybe. It seems that standard DD (at most the 640kbps type) will be the standard though because of bandwidth issues.

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Maybe. It seems that standard DD (at most the 640kbps type) will be the standard though because of bandwidth issues.

Precisely my argument against any type of download, for a true movie lover like myself anyway, who cares about how the film sounds as much as how it looks. I think in the promotion of Blu-ray, they are emphasizing the picture much more than the sound. They say "high def audio" but never say anything more than that. I think they need to teach the consumer there is a huge difference in audio between a high-def download and a Blu-ray Disc. So far, they havn't done much to get this message across to the mainstream, and yet it's a major feature for the format that is not available on downloads or streaming and probably won't be for a very long time!

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Which discs with dts-MA and TrueHD did you compare? Did you level match the outputs to remove volume differences from the equation? Were these blind tests or sighted?

It's not a matter of being stubborn. Your observations are not consistent with the science or engineering involved here. Under those circumstances, it seems prudent to ask whether there are other factors beyond the codecs that would account for the observed differences. That's where these discussions tend to break down. All too often, the subjectivists bail to the place where you seem to have landed - you hear what you hear and you really don't seem interested in figuring out why that might be the case.

You base what you hear on what others hear? Really?

I certainly concur with your logic and reasoning from the scientific and engineering perspective.

However, people in this discussion who adamantly claim to hear a difference probably don't have the resources nor equipment to conduct a scientific DBT. Asking these folks to give you such data is unrealistic. I am sure you are aware most of them can't or even qualified to. Perhaps honest folks are really hearing a difference between the codecs. I suppose most folks when they do their subjective testing aren't aware of the dialnorm and DRC and thus don't compensate for them as you pointed out. But for those who do compensate and still claim a difference, well, that needs further investigation.

If a real scientific DBT has been done by qualified investigators that proves there is no difference between the two codecs, would somebody please provide a link to those so we can end this debate about dts:HD being better than TrueHD? I know they are the same, but I don't have a link nor can I provide evidence that they are the same.

[Robert Siegel]

Of course, there IS something to be said about what sounds better to you no matter what the technical specs are and in the end that is what counts. I have always felt from what I have studied that lossless is lossless, but in some cases, like Twister (Dolby True in USA and DTS MA in Europe, which I own both) the DTS MA is most assuredly a better sounding track in all respects (though the USA Dolby True Track is excellent). I also feel strongly that Superman Returns PCM track sounds better than its Dolby True track, and my stereo system is not a cheap one so I do have quality components to compare them! I do not, however, have any tools to measure anything except with my own ears. However, one needs to take into consideration that since the Twister Blu-rays were released in 2 different countries and that it was from different studios (Universal in the UK, Warner here), there could very well be a different master. As for Superman Returns, I am not sure if those are the same encodes.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by mntwister

Of course, there IS something to be said about what sounds better to you no matter what the technical specs are and in the end that is what counts. I have always felt from what I have studied that lossless is lossless, but in some cases, like Twister (Dolby True in USA and DTS MA in Europe, which I own both) the DTS MA is most assuredly a better sounding track in all respects (though the USA Dolby True Track is excellent). I also feel strongly that Superman Returns PCM track sounds better than its Dolby True track, and my stereo system is not a cheap one so I do have quality components to compare them! I do not, however, have any tools to measure anything except with my own ears. However, one needs to take into consideration that since the Twister Blu-rays were released in 2 different countries and that it was from different studios (Universal in the UK, Warner here), there could very well be a different master. As for Superman Returns, I am not sure if those are the same encodes.

i compared the superman tracks and found them to be the same after level matching. The pcm track is much much louder and initally sounds better at the same volume as the true hd. This is an important factor that people need to remember, true hd tracks are for the most part going to be quieter but are the exact same as their counterparts. I suspect the same to be true for the twister track

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by cembros

i compared the superman tracks and found them to be the same after level matching. The pcm track is much much louder and initally sounds better at the same volume as the true hd. This is an important factor that people need to remember, true hd tracks are for the most part going to be quieter but are the exact same as their counterparts. I suspect the same to be true for the twister track

I think every person will hear differently, after all we each have different sets of ears. I just felt on Superman that the PCM had more of a cleaner bass kick to it. Yes I am aware that the PCM is louder. I especially feel that with Twister, the DTS MA is better in many different ways (having nothing to do with the volume of the encoding). I truly believe this is a different encode than the USA edition. Technically, they should not sound as different as they do if they are the same master!

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by rwojtalewicz

I certainly concur with your logic and reasoning from the scientific and engineering perspective.

However, people in this discussion who adamantly claim to hear a difference probably don't have the resources nor equipment to conduct a scientific DBT. Asking these folks to give you such data is unrealistic. I am sure you are aware most of them can't or even qualified to.

I don't think the questions I asked get close to constituting a request for a scientific DBT. I suppose level matching might be a small challenge, but anything in the ballpark would be plenty good enough for these purposes. Did the movies have the same soundtrack encoded both ways? Did the listener know which was which? Pretty simple stuff.

Perhaps honest folks are really hearing a difference between the codecs. I suppose most folks when they do their subjective testing aren't aware of the dialnorm and DRC and thus don't compensate for them as you pointed out. But for those who do compensate and still claim a difference, well, that needs further investigation.

That's the point here, I think. There are many legitimate explanations for the differences people hear, explanations that have nothing to do with the codecs involved. But, it seems like a lot of people are satisfied with an easy, almost certainly incorrect explanation, and they look no further. That's fine, I suppose, except that they go on to insist (rather loudly) they are correct and refuse to engage in basic scientific methods to determine the actual causes.

If a real scientific DBT has been done by qualified investigators that proves there is no difference between the two codecs, would somebody please provide a link to those so we can end this debate about dts:HD being better than TrueHD? I know they are the same, but I don't have a link nor can I provide evidence that they are the same.

That would be nice, although I doubt the subjectivists would be swayed by such evidence. I really don't know that such a study has ever been done. Sir Terrence has described test results showing that the data outputs of the Dolby and DTS lossless decoders are identical.

At some point, the people who claim that two does not equal two need to step up with proof beyond their own personal experiences, which is no proof at all.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by BIslander

At some point, the people who claim that two does not equal two need to step up with proof beyond their own personal experiences, which is no proof at all.

+1

I have to agree that's the way it is. It's pretty much the same with all pseudosciences. For instance, there are people who claim to have seen UFOs. After weeding out the crackpots and hoaxers, that leaves the honest folks who really saw something they can't explain. Like the Phoenix, Az triangles which I didn't see although I was there when they occurred. Hundreds of people saw them and even photographed them. They indeed saw something which they couldn't explain. They were given an explanation by the Air Force out of Luke AF Base. Yet, still people claim they were extraterrestrial craft. LOL.

Didn't mean to stray off topic. But on topic, that's the sort of thing we have here in this discussion with the dts:HD vs TrueHD with people claiming that one is better than the other. You're right the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. Carl Sagan's notable quotable: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Robert Siegel]

" Originally Posted by BIslander View Post
At some point, the people who claim that two does not equal two need to step up with proof beyond their own personal experiences, which is no proof at all."

My earlier comments only pointed out that we all hear things differently and I don't think it's very nice to cut down those who hear a difference with their own ears and stereo systems. If they decide to push it and say everyone else is wrong, then it is a different story. As I said in my previous posts, from what I have studied on how these formats are encoded, they should be decompressed to sound identical. It's like taking a computer file and compressing it in different forms of a zip file, when you decompress it, it should look the same or sound the same. But how sure are we that they are identical in the end? Has anyone actually taken two zip files in different compressed formats and studied every single pixel? Technically, things can happen during any process. But is one better than the other? I think DTS may get the upper notch with some people because during the laserdisc years and even on DVD, we were assured a better soundtrack when DTS was used over Dolby, and it certainly was a better track. But really, the process used now is very different with Dolby True over the old Dolby Digital.

I am happy whether the disc has DTS MA, Dolby True or PCM. I actually prefer PCM because no compression is used and the less you process a signal, the better chance it will be identical to the original. When I am really angry is when there is NO lossless track. And sadly we have plenty of prior Warner and Lionsgate releases that lack them.

But, if you look at the poll results, more people prefer DTS, and if that's what they want, then I think Sony should use it.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by mntwister

But, if you look at the poll results, more people prefer DTS, and if that's what they want, then I think Sony should use it.

Yes, that's what Penton-Man wants to know, and maybe Sony will adopt it. That's ok with me. I voted Yes in the poll myself. However, I know darn well there is no difference between the codecs once they're decoded back to PCM. I just support dts, period.

Some people, and I'm one of them might have voted Yes just because they like the dts logo better than Dolby's. I think dts looks cool on an AVR's display. That's just my preference. We don't really know what those people were thinking when they voted Yes.

I hope Sony goes dts-HD, but not because it sounds better than TrueHD.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by mntwister

But, if you look at the poll results, more people prefer DTS, and if that's what they want, then I think Sony should use it.

Unfortunately they seem to "prefer" it for the wrong reasons.

[srrndhound]

Originally Posted by mntwister

I actually prefer PCM because no compression is used and the less you process a signal, the better chance it will be identical to the original.

Yes. But this is actually a point in favor of lossless compression over naked PCM.

PCM is actually more fragile than a losslessly compressed signal, at least in one sense. If the PCM signal is somehow modified along the way--resampled, requantized, truncated, etc, the sound will not change very much, but it will not be identical to the source. If a lossless track is subjected to any sorts of such "distortions" prior to decoding, the file breaks.

Why would the data be changed? Remember those early DVD players? One of the chipsets used would output PCM to the S/PDIF driver after multiplying by "FFFF" with is real close to 1.0, but it's not, exactly. Turned out that this caused clicking problems for lossy signals. No one ever noticed it when those chips serviced only PCM. It's just an example.

The point is, lossless decoders output what was put in, and nothing funny, however subtle, can happen to it while in the compressed state. Only that which follows in the PCM path can alter its integrity.

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Unfortunately they seem to "prefer" it for the wrong reasons.

+1

Right you are!

[Yeha-Noha]

Originally Posted by srrndhound

The point is, lossless decoders output what was put in, and nothing funny, however subtle, can happen to it while in the compressed state. Only that which follows in the PCM path can alter its integrity.

Thanks.

I couldn't have said it better.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by mntwister

When I am really angry is when there is NO lossless track. And sadly we have plenty of prior Warner and Lionsgate releases that lack them.

I actually wouldn't fault Lionsgate as much as I would Paramount. Even when Lionsgate was using lossy audio codecs, it always had a DTS (1.5mbps) track that at least gave a nice delivery of sound. Lionsgate had maybe 10 films that had lossy tracks, before they switched to lossless. Paramount, meanwhile, had a DTS track as well, but then jettisoned it and stuck with standard DD about the same time as Lionsgate went to lossless. They didn't start giving lossless audio consistently until its eventual comeback to Blu-ray when hd-dvd failed. Only Disney, Fox, and Sony have always delivered consistent lossless audio, and kudos to them.

[Coqui2k]

Dts-hd Ma

[Robert Siegel]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I actually wouldn't fault Lionsgate as much as I would Paramount. Even when Lionsgate was using lossy audio codecs, it always had a DTS (1.5mbps) track that at least gave a nice delivery of sound. Lionsgate had maybe 10 films that had lossy tracks, before they switched to lossless. Paramount, meanwhile, had a DTS track as well, but then jettisoned it and stuck with standard DD about the same time as Lionsgate went to lossless. They didn't start giving lossless audio consistently until its eventual comeback to Blu-ray when hd-dvd failed. Only Disney, Fox, and Sony have always delivered consistent lossless audio, and kudos to them.

Very true.

[Rob J in WNY]

Wow, 1000 posts on this topic!