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

[steve1971]

I say just keep things the way they are, which means I dont care either way.

[Blu3]

I vote DTS-MA all the way.

To those who say it doesn't matter, both are lossless to the source, TrueHD is the same if you just turn the volume up a bit and/or DTS-MA sounds better because of the mix, not the codec, why can't we all understand this, yadda yadda yadda, I say:

Who cares? DTS-MA blows away TrueHD every time. Everyone that comes over my place and hears one vs the other easily picks DTS-MA as the better more punch audio. Nobody cares if they are the same "lossless to the source" or if the reason is the mix. People can hear the difference. Why can't you tech geeks understand that? DTS-MA is simply more dynamic and packs more punch without us having to crank up the volume. TrueHD simply falls short. It's the era of HD, and I want to be blown away, period. I don't care how, I only care that it's done.

I vote for PCM 1st, DTS-MA 2nd and TrueHD 3rd.

Note: I understand there's one or two TrueHD tracks that do sound better than their DTS-MA counterparts (whether from the same movie or other comparable movies), but one or two isn't going to cut it. Majority rules and the majority is DTS-MA >> TrueHD.

[natedog543]

EXACTLY blu3
I don't see why the tech guys keep on. more than 60% now and counting... numbers don't lie, right grifter02?
They still have yet to explain why (as you, me, and everyone else has mentioned) we have to raise our volumes way up, with Dolby, to reach what we get with DTS to begin with... DTS blows my speakers away every time. And it's a good thing; it's only during the climax, action scenes, etc. With Dolby, same level through the whole movie. Less bang for the buck.

It may not be apples to oranges however. Sure it's apples to apples, both are red, grown from the same seed, delivered, and cost the same... but once you get them home, one is way more juicy!

[bt12483]

Originally Posted by SkullPhyre

Consistantly, DTS-HD sounds better. Tru-hd sucks tbh. I always have to turn up the tru-hd tracks most of the time.

Hate to sound like a broken record here, but I have to agree.

I know both are lossless. But in the real world (i.e. me watching movies in my basement) I find that I need to turn up TrueHD more to get to the same "comfort level" that DTS provides. I know this is a simple volume match, but if I don't have to do it with DTS, then that one simple thing is a tangible benefit of the DTS codec in my book.

Plus, are there any power/usage savings for my receiver? If I listen to a 2 hour DTS movie with my receiver at volume 50, but then watch a 2 hour Dolby movie with my receiver at 55, wouldn't I be giving my receiver a "break" via DTS? Via the -5 drop when listening to a TrueHD track at 55 versus a DTS track at 50? Would there be any benefits from a heat generation and power consumption perspective, since my receiver is using less current running at 50 than at 55? If I can run my receiver at 50 instead of 55, in my book that is a benefit. Even if it is minimal. It could reduce wear and tear on the internal components of my receiver over the course of normal usage, not too mention power usage. Any hardcore tech heads here care to comment on the validity of my above savings assumption via DTS? I would love to hear a more technical explanation/correction if there is one.

Not too mention the legacy support for 1.5mbps which is higher than Dolby's legacy audio.

If I had an older player incapable of decoding/bitstreaming DTS I would probably vote different. But with my PS3, I hear a tangible difference, even though I know they are equal.

I say DTS HD MA.

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by markjdye

Quit paying royalties to Dolby and DTS. Go back to the first Blu-rays and make everything from here on out Uncompressed PCM. The price of Blu-rays would go down and you'd get the best unmessed-with sound.

Disc space-issues aside, I seriously doubt the price of BDs would go down without DD or DTS usage licensing. The money saved would just add to the profit margin.

[D]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Your information is not correct here. DTS does not master sound tracks hotter than the original master, and since you have no access to the master you cannot quantify this statement. Dolby TrueHD with the effect of dialog normalization lowers the volume based on the offset setting of the encoder. All of the tracks I have mixed and have been encoded to DTS - the volume of the encode matches my master exactly.

Thank You for your input Sir Terrence, always great to hear from you. A welcome change from some of the egotistical redderick that's been posted here.

[SBrooks1]

You might as well go ahead and close this poll now. It's not going to change. LOL

[Streaker76]

I'm a huge fan of DTS, and even bigger with the Master. Everytime a film is released that is the first thing I look for.
Sony should be smart as well and get the bitstreaming capabilities for the PS3. Would be the ultimate player in my opinion.

[Acierator]

Originally Posted by mntwister

PCM takes just too much space.

Oh, sure right. They need that space for the often boring and superfluous extra's nobody cares about. I love PCM, it's the oldest digital audioformat around and has been unrivaled in popularity for 30 years. TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are just PCM with some file compression.

We should see more 24bit-96kHz tracks by the way. 16bit-48kHz is so low def

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by Blu3

DTS-MA is simply more dynamic and packs more punch without us having to crank up the volume.

Originally Posted by natedog543

They still have yet to explain why (as you, me, and everyone else has mentioned) we have to raise our volumes way up, with Dolby, to reach what we get with DTS to begin with... DTS blows my speakers away every time.

Originally Posted by bt12483

I know both are lossless. But in the real world (i.e. me watching movies in my basement) I find that I need to turn up TrueHD more to get to the same "comfort level" that DTS provides. I know this is a simple volume match, but if I don't have to do it with DTS, then that one simple thing is a tangible benefit of the DTS codec in my book.

This is going to be my last post in this thread because it's getting tiring reading the same nonsense over and over. All I want to say is: Louder =/= Better. If all tracks were Dolby TrueHD, then your default volume would be set for that and you would never complain about the volume. So you have to turn it up a few notches for THD, so what? Once you do that, they sound the same. This has nothing to do with the quality or the dynamics, it's just the volume. It has no bearing on which is better.

Originally Posted by natedog543

EXACTLY blu3
I don't see why the tech guys keep on. more than 60% now and counting... numbers don't lie, right grifter02?

You're right, numbers don't lie, but these numbers aren't saying what you think they're saying. An opinion poll does not prove that one thing is better than another, it just shows that more people think one is better than the other. This poll clearly shows there are a lot of uninformed people on this forum.

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by Streaker76

I'm a huge fan of DTS, and even bigger with the Master. Everytime a film is released that is the first thing I look for.
Sony should be smart as well and get the bitstreaming capabilities for the PS3. Would be the ultimate player in my opinion.

PS3 hardware is incapable of DTS-HD MA bitstreaming. They could change the hardware in future revisions, but the ones that have already been built will never be able to do it.

[Acierator]

It seems to me this discussion ISN'T about lossless audio, it's about the painfull fact that many people can't decode neither Dolby TrueHD nor DTS-HD MA and are dependent on the old DVD era core formats. They don't have a player and/or AV receiver that's up to spec. Let's face it, BD players with both codecs on board are in the top range. Most only pass the bitstream along. Would you upgrade you AV receiver just to get lossless audio?

I use an upsampling stereo PCM dac for my audio. I detest compressed soundtracks and don't really care that much about surround, yes I can hear you hissing . DTS is the worst codec in situation with my Sony BDP-S1E not supporting MA. TrueHD sounds signifcantly better than its core, this is quite obvious in The Matrix Trilogy which features both as seperate tracks. But as always when you're reaching for performance audio: you need the gear to hear.

[bt12483]

Originally Posted by Grifter02

This is going to be my last post in this thread because it's getting tiring reading the same nonsense over and over. All I want to say is: Louder =/= Better. If all tracks were Dolby TrueHD, then your default volume would be set for that and you would never complain about the volume. So you have to turn it up a few notches for THD, so what? Once you do that, they sound the same. This has nothing to do with the quality or the dynamics, it's just the volume. It has no bearing on which is better.

From a technical perspective, you are correct. Neither is "better". But from the perspective of me plunking down on the couch and watching a flick, DTS wins, for reasons exhausted above. I never said one was better technically. I said, in so many words, that DTS is easier, from a usability standpoint.

Plus, do you care to answer/challenge my question about power consumption via the receiver? If I watch a DTS movie at a lower volume level than a TrueHD movie, will I not (potentially) extend the life of my receiver (and it's internal components) and use less power since my receiver is using less current whilst operating at a lower volume level with a DTS movie. That is a tangible benefit if my assumption is accurate, however minimal it may be.

[Jeff Kleist]

Plus, are there any power/usage savings for my receiver? If I listen to a 2 hour DTS movie with my receiver at volume 50, but then watch a 2 hour Dolby movie with my receiver at 55, wouldn't I be giving my receiver a "break" via DTS?

No, power usage is in relation to the volume of sound being put out, and the wattage required to drive that

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bt12483

Plus, do you care to answer/challenge my question about power consumption via the receiver? If I watch a DTS movie at a lower volume level than a TrueHD movie, will I not (potentially) extend the life of my receiver (and it's internal components) and use less power since my receiver is using less current whilst operating at a lower volume level with a DTS movie. That is a tangible benefit if my assumption is accurate.

Not accurate.

The power required is the same to reach a certain volume level.

[PeterTHX]

And for all those who don't get it still:

TrueHD would have sounded the same for your demo soundtracks.

[blu1183]

would this poll affect me? because im using a ps3 so wouldnt both truehd and dts hdma both become pcm through my receiver? both would be lossless tho correct? but no difference? im confused.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by blu1183

would this poll affect me? because im using a ps3 so wouldnt both truehd and dts hdma both become pcm through my receiver? both would be lossless tho correct? but no difference? im confused.

Your receiver can accept multi-channel PCM over HDMI so you should be good to go as long as you've got the PS3 set to output PCM and you're running HDMI from the PS3 to the receiver. The Dolby vs. DTS issue shouldn't affect you.

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by Grifter02

This is going to be my last post in this thread because it's getting tiring reading the same nonsense over and over. All I want to say is: Louder =/= Better. If all tracks were Dolby TrueHD, then your default volume would be set for that and you would never complain about the volume. So you have to turn it up a few notches for THD, so what? Once you do that, they sound the same. This has nothing to do with the quality or the dynamics, it's just the volume. It has no bearing on which is better.

ok, well hopefully before you leave, let me rephrase every post I have made.
It was never about quality to me. Simply, I guess it is more about convienence. I love that, with DTS audio, I do not have to reach for my remote to turn up action scenes to make them more intense, then turn it back down for a good speach volume. With DTS, they are *usually* perfectly synced so that the action scenes blow you away, and once they are done, it goes back to a moderate volume.
I guess you can say Dolby is consistant if nothing else. That's exactly why I do not prefer it. Default volumes have nothing to do with the variancy you get from DTS. My defaults are the same for dialogue on either format. It's the action scenes that tip the scales. Dolby stays the same. DTS does not. That's what all of us have been trying to explain to you techs!

And the numbers do mean what I think. The majority of ppl can tell the difference.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by blu1183

would this poll affect me? because im using a ps3 so wouldnt both truehd and dts hdma both become pcm through my receiver? both would be lossless tho correct? but no difference? im confused.

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

Your receiver can accept multi-channel PCM over HDMI so you should be good to go as long as you've got the PS3 set to output PCM and you're running HDMI from the PS3 to the receiver. The Dolby vs. DTS issue shouldn't affect you.

It shouldn't affect anybody. But, the PS3 is not immune to the differences being described by DTS proponents in this thread.