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

[mustang-gt-2002]

DTS-HD Master Audio.

[darkblueme]

To all of you people saying "it doesn't matter because lossless = lossless no matter what," I ask: why are you arguing the point? If you think Dolby TrueHD is the same as dts-hd ma, then why not support SONY switching to dts hd ma since it doesn't matter to you either way?

[CAB]

Originally Posted by pdawg2003_03

so my vote for SONY to dump Dolby TrueHD for DTS-HDMA is YES THEY NEED TO CAUSE DTS-HDMA is digital rather than Dolby TrueHD which is analog. So YES, YES & YES SONY NEEDS TO BE IN DTS-HDMA. Why is Dolby so easy to use cause it's analog, rather than DTS-HDMA being more precised with more sound and clarity. DTS (DIGITAL THEATRE SYSTEM) key word DIGITAL. If DOLBY TRUEHD is digital then they need to recall it Dolby Digital TrueHD so it can be DIGITAL, not by calling it Dolby TrueHD.

This has to be a joke. Deadpan much?

[Mr. Cinema]

Originally Posted by darkblueme

To all of you people saying "it doesn't matter because lossless = lossless no matter what," I ask: why are you arguing the point? If you think Dolby TrueHD is the same as dts-hd ma, then why not support SONY switching to dts hd ma since it doesn't matter to you either way?

Then why switch to begin with?

[darkblueme]

Originally Posted by Mr. Cinema

Then why switch to begin with?

Because dts hd ma is the bomb! It has 7.1 capabilities, and the "perception" is that it sounds better (which I agree with - it sounds better to me and to countless others for whatever reason), AND it takes up less disc space.

So if you consider the pros and cons, and you think lossless = lossless, the choice is simple.

[darkblueme]

The poll results are undeniable. The poll does not ask "which HD audio is scientifically better?" The poll asks: "Should SONY use DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD?"

The numbers speak for themselves.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by blujacket

A moot point considering half the studios are using DTS-MA now, and consumers are bitstreaming the 1.5 core from those tracks.

I have to agree. If Sony were the only studio considering DTSMA, then you can make an effective argument against the codec, but in fact the 3 of the majors are already using DTSMA:

Disney
Fox/Mgm
Universal

Makes the point moot. Effectively those studios have told consumers to upgrade to DTSMA capable, Sony would be no exception. Buying first generation always comes at a risk.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Originally Posted by darkblueme

Because dts hd ma is the bomb! It has 7.1 capabilities, and the "perception" is that it sounds better (which I agree with - it sounds better to me and to countless others for whatever reason), AND it takes up less disc space.

So if you consider the pros and cons, and you think lossless = lossless, the choice is simple.

Dolby TrueHD is capable of 7.1 sound and I was always under the impression TrueHD actually takes up LESS space.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by RedIsNotBlue

Dolby TrueHD is capable of 7.1 sound and I was always under the impression TrueHD actually takes up LESS space.

I think the less space comes into play because DTS does not require a seperate lossy track for those players and systems that do not support TrueHD. My understanding is that for each language on the disc using Dolby, there's a TrueHD and a DD.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by RedIsNotBlue

Dolby TrueHD is capable of 7.1 sound and I was always under the impression TrueHD actually takes up LESS space.

Well, BIslander stated earlier in the thread that DTS-HDMA is actually more efficient space-wise than TrueHD. Dolby TrueHD is more efficient with the bit rate on lossless audio. So you can have tracks like Twister which sound incredible, but average about 1.8mbps overall on the bit rate.

One issue of space with LPCM is that it also has to include the DD track as well as the huge space for the 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed lossless track. I think that DTS-HDMA offers the best of both worlds. It has low space impact on the disc, freeing it up for features, and it has a higher bit rate like LPCM, which seems to be popular amongst blu-ray users.

To me it seems like the only argument for Sony keeping Dolby TrueHD as the audio standard by those feverishly doing so is because they are "informed" and well...not really much of anything else. Their argument is that there is no difference so just stick with TrueHD. Plenty of blu-ray users are saying they do hear a difference or in general they just prefer high bitrate audio, and so if all things are equal I am still not hearing a compelling reason to stick with TrueHD, besides the "we should not buy into one lossless being better than the other" argument. So unless there are those that would argue that TrueHD is better, why not acquiesce to those that want DTS-HDMA as the standard for Sony?

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by Octavio

What about those thousands who have a 1st or 2nd generation BD players (amongst them several Sony models) that CANNOT internally decode DTS-HD MA but thanks to a firmware update can internally decode Dolby TrueHD?
You cannot simply tell them: Buy a new BD player! You know, not everybody is swimming on money.

since those models (such as Sony S1, S300, S2000ES, S500) CANNOT bitstream DTS-HD MA neither, the owners of those Sony players won't be able to listen lossless tracks when playing a Sony Pictures BD if Sony switches exclusively to DTS-HD MA. Isn't it kinda ironic?

This poll feels more like DTS fanboys meeting, rather than a serious poll. People who have no idea what they are talking about just pick DTS-HD because the bitrate looks cool on their PS3 or because it "must" be superior because on DVD's DTS sounded a bit better than DD.
Nonsense.

Hello There,

I fear your point here but on the other hand,you did not tell me how you are listening to remaining Studios using DTSHD master audio,Again if DTSHD master audio is used BDP-S300 can do DTS lossy sound and DTS-High Resolution @ 3mbps you still have missing only master audio.I'm sure S500 and S2000 can do that on DTSHD master audio.

Again Sony if decide to take this decision is not going to apply it directly but rather gradually ,So everyone will be happy and everyone is going to hear Lossless sound.Tell me again if you are not planning to change your player in the near future,Because Blu-ray players nowadays can be found at discount rates through different selling point.If now you can buy let's say for example Panasonic or Sony player capable of decoding everything at a range of $250 ,how much this is going to be cost at the end of the year 2009 sure under $200 or even someone will find Taiwanese player which will cost under $150.

[CAB]

As an aside, I remember buying a Sony DVP-S7000 and then, not long after, having to upgrade to the S7700 so I could take advantage of l33t DTS! At the time that's $900+ twice for DVD players. I loved that player with the dual optical pick-ups. I used it as my CD player until I got the S9000es.

I do understand the pain involved in upgrading gear which is the reason I started going with separates. I like that there is an attempt to standardize on releases so I can know what to expect.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Oh I see I get so a seperate Dolby Digital track has to be added with TrueHD which is what causes it to take up more space but with DTS-HDMA and if the person doesn't have an DTS-HDMA capable player they can still get lossy it can be extracted from that so in that sense it does save up space. That makes sense.

[johnhood]

DTS-HD - better reproduction of 'low end' frequencies! As mentioned on The Big Bang Theory (albeit DTS on DVD)!

[CAB]

Originally Posted by RedIsNotBlue

Oh I see I get so a seperate Dolby Digital track has to be added with TrueHD which is what causes it to take up more space but with DTS-HDMA and if the person doesn't have an DTS-HDMA capable player they can still get lossy it can be extracted from that so in that sense it does save up space. That makes sense.

Yep! x the number of languages authored. For most movies, meh, probably not a big deal. For 3+ hour epics like LoTR (yes, I know this isn't Sony) space will be at a premium.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by CAB

As an aside, I remember buying a Sony DVP-S7000 and then, not long after, having to upgrade to the S7700 so I could take advantage of l33t DTS! At the time that's $900+ twice for DVD players. I loved that player with the dual optical pick-ups. I used it as my CD player until I got the S9000es.

I do understand the pain involved in upgrading gear which is the reason I started going with separates. I like that there is an attempt to standardize on releases so I can know what to expect.

The same i did during past when DVD exist and my player wasn't decoding DTS ,it was Samsung 1st generation if i'm not wrong 905 model.But in case of Blu-ray,i count on PS3 as the most exciting player ever exist and still till now doing miracles,As for Blu-ray players i took the opportunity to buy the third generation in order not to do the same mistake during the age of DVD.

[RedIsNotBlue]

Originally Posted by CAB

Yep! x the number of languages authored. For most movies, meh, probably not a big deal. For 3+ hour epics like LoTR (yes, I know this isn't Sony) space will be at a premium.

Then I might have to change my vote for the switch that makes sense to me. I was always under the impression DTS-HDMA didn't save that much space compared to TrueHD. The more space the better.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well, BIslander stated earlier in the thread that DTS-HDMA is actually more efficient space-wise than TrueHD. Dolby TrueHD is more efficient with the bit rate on lossless audio. So you can have tracks like Twister which sound incredible, but average about 1.8mbps overall on the bit rate.

What he needs to do is add 640kbs to every TRUEHD track and measure the average bitrate that way to have a fair comparison as it's a requirement.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well, BIslander stated earlier in the thread that DTS-HDMA is actually more efficient space-wise than TrueHD.

Originally Posted by davcole

What he needs to do is add 640kbs to every TRUEHD track and measure the average bitrate that way to have a fair comparison as it's a requirement.

My earlier comment was only about space. It is my understanding that the TrueHD package contains separate, embedded stereo and lossy 5.1 tracks. These are not core tracks in the sense of the DTS core + extension design of building lossless using core elements. Again, I was just talking about space. And, I must admit, I do not know the actual comparative measurements between the two.

Originally Posted by ganthc

One issue of space with LPCM is that it also has to include the DD track as well as the huge space for the 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed lossless track.

There's no requirement for a DD track. BD requires one track that is backwards compatible. PCM meets that requirement.

Originally Posted by CAB

My understanding is that for each language on the disc using Dolby, there's a TrueHD and a DD.

For the most part, lossless is limited to English for discs released here. Some have a second lossless offering, but foreign languages generally get DD 5.1 regardless of the main English language sound track. And, from what I've seen, the encoding used on foreign languages is unrelated to what's used for the main English track.

[ClaytonMG]

I have an idea, though it takes up more space. USE BOTH. That way the uninformed people who don't understand these codecs will be happy and use DTS-HD MA and not Dolby TrueHD (since DTS-HD MA is digital and Dolby TrueHD is analog) and the ones that do understand can make their own decission. Or they could even do it as a test run for a while to see if people even notice a difference between the two.

Sony's been good with Dolby TrueHD, they haven't been using DialNorm or anything like that, so their TrueHD tracks would sound identical to DTS-HD MA (assuming DTS doesn't alter the tracks either) and there would be no level matching. So for like a 6 month time period (or longer as it seems Sony doesn't release too many movies anymore) they should use both. That's just my idea.