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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Thomme

But WAY more consumers (myself included) are still using receivers that can only decode lossy, a fact that I'm sure Sony is aware of.

Like Sir Terrance said, DTS's lossy track sounds better than Dolby's. Good enough for me.

Sir Terrance prefers DTS but he's not entirely correct on those auditioning 640kbps DD tracks...

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby...compressed_PCM

[Hep]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

This is why these polls are the very definition of unscientific.

Of course, this poll is unscientific, but it is a poll about preference and perceptions. I am by no means an audio expert, but I have educated myself enough to know that there are many people posting in this thread that don't understand the basics; you are not one of them.

There is a learning curve involved for new members who have preconceived notions. Many of the DTS-HDMA fans are voicing opinion based on flawed logic and incomplete knowledge.

I get that you are fighting for the True HD option in this poll, but your arguments are largely preference related and do little to differentiate between the actual codecs.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Less DSP horsepower, cheaper to implement.

Neither the consumer nor SPE care how hard a particular DSP is working to decode the audio track. The price issue is only relevant to the hardware manufacturers, not software. I don’t know of any current receivers that do True HD and not DTS-HDMA; so hardware cost is moot since the vast majority already include both. (I am assuming you are not talking about licensing, which must be competitive for Sony to consider the switch)

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No "pop" issues. There are thousands of people still out there with faulty DTS-designed DSPs that could blow out their speakers.

This again is an issue for the hardware manufacturer, and not a problem inherent in the codec.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Features: DRC is very important to those (like me) who screen films with older parents and young children (and those in apartments). Watching a movie like Bolt in DTS becomes an exercise in remote-volume control, where Iron Man in TrueHD was not. Not to mention those with limited range speaker setups (there are MILLIONS of people with cheap HTIBs out there, sad...but that's a fact).

The DRC feature is a valid benefit for some, but one that many members would consider a negative because the default DRC setting on many receivers is on or auto; the results of which do affect the quality of the resultant audio. This again is a hardware manufacturer issue, and in no way is an argument for or against any one of the codecs since both are capable of providing DRC. Judging by the comments on this thread, there are many more who find this a nuisance rather than a benefit (not a scientific poll ).

I understand where your preferences come from and glad they are based on facts, but I suggest that they don't say much about the performance of the codecs themselves. It seems most of the complaints are the result of our hardware and not the codec itself. I sincerely hope you are not being compensated for your True HD support here.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

WTF was that about!? do you even know why sony is even considering changing codecs? you need to watch what you say.

It's not because TrueHD is considered inferior.

[Thomme]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If Sony wants to keep their reputation as a company with informed consumers then they should keep things the way they are.

Well that's just rude...

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Thomme

But WAY more consumers (myself included) are still using receivers that can only decode lossy, a fact that I'm sure Sony is aware of.

This is clearly not a slam dunk business decision for Sony to make. And, if the post announcing the poll on the home page is any indication, the one factor that is not in play is an actual difference in audio quality between the two codecs:

"The eventual choice of DTS-MA over TrueHD won't affect owners of a player that supports both formats. The sound quality of a lossless track doesn't depend on the codec used, just like a compressed computer file will be identical once opened, whether it came in a .zip or .rar file."

The installed base of players and receivers that cannot decode lossless will be one factor to consider. The 1509 core track would seemingly give DTS an edge. But, it's not the only consideration, of course. The home page announcement mentions two other factors that might favor Dolby - the installed base of players that decode TrueHD but not dts-MA and complexities/processing power issues involved with DTS implementation:

"However, for owners of earlier players (some of which can decode Dolby TrueHD but not DTS-MA), the use of DTS-MA may limit their access to lossless audio."

And:

"The issue can be further compounded technically if we bring up codec efficiency (how big the respective audio files get), authoring, processing power needed for decoding, and other factors."

The implementation of dts-MA decoding remains a work in progress, which figures to be a factor in Sony's decision-making process.

[Thomme]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Because DTS is offering to waive royalties, which makes them CHEAPER.

Needless to say it's not on merit nor what a few hundred fanboys on the internet think.

... and so's that.

(Do you have proof on that royalty thing, btw?)

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Wow... I have a feeling that Sony will be seriously considering DTS HD MA!!!

[PeterTHX]

[QUOTE=Hep;1945395]The DRC feature is a valid benefit for some, but one that many members would consider a negative because the default DRC setting on many receivers is on or auto; the results of which do affect the quality of the resultant audio. This again is a hardware manufacturer issue, and in no way is an argument for or against any one of the codecs since both are capable of providing DRC. Judging by the comments on this thread, there are many more who find this a nuisance rather than a benefit (not a scientific poll ).

From Penton's thread:

When I'm watching an action movie, I am constantly turning down the volume during explosions and up during the quieter, dialogue driven scenes. I live in a townhouse, so I also don't want the volume up too high. Would using DRC help at all? I care much more about the dialogue volume and often times, it's hard for me to hear some of it during certain movies. So I'll have it cranked up high to hear it, then BOOM, an action scene occurs and I'm reaching for the remote.

There are a LOT of people in his situation. Dolby gives them a choice of full range or limited. DTS does not.

I understand where your preferences come from and glad they are based on facts, but I suggest that they don't say much about the performance of the codecs themselves. It seems most of the complaints are the result of our hardware and not the codec itself. I sincerely hope you are not being compensated for your True HD support here.

I was accused of being compensated for my strong belief of Blu-ray over HD DVD in other forums. Not my first dance.

[RiseDarthVader]

Originally Posted by JAKLIZT

The Incredible Hulk VS Iron Man winner The Incredible Hulk.

Well I have the Australian release of The Incredible Hulk by paramount which uses the Dolby TrueHD codec and it sounds as good as all you guys in the US and reviewers are loving about the sound. The Incredible Hulk just has a really good mix. I am getting the same thunderous bass as you guys in the US are getting with DTS-HA MA. So if anyone is still saying they hear a difference get the Region A and Region B release of thre The Incredible Hulk and listen to it. Same mix = same awesome clarity and thunderous bass.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I was accused of being compensated for my strong belief of Blu-ray over HD DVD in other forums. Not my first dance.

From a personal perspective I am completely neutral on lossless since I can decode both and don't use (or want) DRC. My only point here was to suggest that your arguments and tone have gone from professional reasoning to being more emotional. In your capacity it may be detrimental to display fierce brand loyalty. Just an observation, others may disagree.

[PeterTHX]

From a personal perspective I am completely neutral on lossless since I can decode both and don't use (or want) DRC. My only point here was to suggest that your arguments and tone have gone from professional reasoning to being more emotional. In your capacity it may be detrimental to display fierce brand loyalty. Just an observation, others may disagree.

Emotional? Never once did I say DTS-MA will make something sound bad...unlike some who are ill-informed who seem to think TrueHD will (and is analog to boot, I forgot).

[davcole]

I need clarification.

I believe that most receivers have a "night mode" that can compress the lossless signal so that whatever codec is used, can have the dynamic range compressed.

Now I think the difference with TRUEHD and for that matter DD is that it has a preset dynamic range? Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

I need clarification.

I believe that most receivers have a "night mode" that can compress the lossless signal so that whatever codec is used, can have the dynamic range compressed.

Now I think the difference with TRUEHD and for that matter DD is that it has a preset dynamic range? Someone correct me if i'm wrong.

"Night Mode" only works with Dolby codecs.
The range reflects the master, the presets only are for what level of dynamic compression to apply when someone turns on Night Mode.

[Penton-Man]

You can never make everyone happy right?
There is no royalty issue, we don't pay royalties to use either codec.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You can never make everyone happy right?
There is no royalty issue, we don't pay royalties to use either codec.

Busted.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Because DTS is offering to waive royalties, which makes them CHEAPER.

You can never make everyone happy right?
There is no royalty issue, we don't pay royalties to use either codec.

nice try peter.

Needless to say it's not on merit nor what a few hundred fanboys on the internet think.

So were fanboys just because we prefer one codec over the other. i guess that makes you one to.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

nice try peter.
So were fanboys just because we prefer one codec over the other. i guess that makes you one to.

Just watch it with the personal attacks, ok?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You can never make everyone happy right?
There is no royalty issue, we don't pay royalties to use either codec.

Disney, Fox, Lionsgate do have finiancial incentives.

[Trogdor2010]

It is the Master of the audio track is what determines the quality of the audio track, not the codec, the codec is how much information is sent and then presented in analog form (what humans can see and hear), the benefit of lossless audio over a lossy codec is that you may hear sounds that did not came from the lossy codec, but there is so much information given from the lossless codec, the human ear cannot hear all the sounds from the source, but that is that, the lossless codec offers all the sound from the original source and all sound below 20Hz to above 20,000Hz, the lossy codec offers sounds from 20Hz to 20,000Hz true to the source, but I believe they do not offer sounds below 20Hz or above 20,000, since the human ear cannot hear outside those frequencies, casually listening to it will show no difference in quality.

Before you bash me over why you think I think lossy is shit, let me say I would love to own one of the new HDMI receivers for lossless audio since they tend to have better masters done with the lossless codecs, give masters superior Dynamic range, deeper base, more life and atmosphere to the track and more true to the master than the lossless tracks. All I am saying is that if you have older equipment, you don't need to freak upgrade to lossless audio, especially if you paid thousands of dollars on audio equipment, but if you want to upgrade, go for a receiver with lossless audio capable, and those with older receivers may consider getting a player with multichannel analog outputs.

[the Bass Mechanic]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

It is the Master of the audio track is what determines the quality of the audio track, not the codec, the codec is how much information is sent and then presented in analog form (what humans can see and hear), the benefit of lossless audio over a lossy codec is that you may hear sounds that did not came from the lossy codec, but there is so much information given from the lossless codec, the human ear cannot hear all the sounds from the source, but that is that, the lossless codec offers all the sound from the original source and all sound below 20Hz to above 20,000Hz, the lossy codec offers sounds from 20Hz to 20,000Hz true to the source, but I believe they do not offer sounds below 20Hz or above 20,000, since the human ear cannot hear outside those frequencies, casually listening to it will show no difference in quality.

Sorry, but that is incorrect (the last part, about no sub 20Hz in lossy codecs). Lossy (and lossless) codecs are limited in how high a fequency they can encode by the sample frequency (ie. 48KHz sample=24KHz bandwidth, but is more like 22KHz with real world antialiasing filters) but there is no inherent low frequency limit. I know this not only from reading numerous books and white papers on digital audio and codecs, but also from my FFT analysis of a number of DVD's to establish the extent of subsonic content (below 20Hz) in the Dolby Digital soundtracks. In fact, most films since "the Matix" and "Lost in Space" have considerable subsonic content in the DVD and BD/HD-DVD soundtracks (before 1998, almost all movie soundtracks went trough a 25Hz "subsonic" filter to maintain maximum headroom, esp. as most movie theater subs had a sharp dropoff below 25-30Hz).

I also have Tactile Transducers in my couch and chair that enable me to feel any subsonics present, and there are a lot of them (one of my favorites is "Titan A.E." :~).