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

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Funny I have a dts-MA decoder in my setup and I have no parameter for entering my speaker layout. Add these non-standard layouts to dts' attempts to one up Dolby. They have caused more problems than they have solved.

Yeah it's funny and you know better than the engineer themselves,But i can't comment on your words since i do not have an AVR receiver capable of decoding these re-mapping speakers,but once i have will let you know if they are true or bullshit,Decoding is only done inside my player.But if you want me to believe you ,i'm sure my answer is no.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Yeah it's funny and you know better than the engineer themselves,But i can't comment on your words since i do not have an AVR receiver capable of decoding these re-mapping speakers,but once i have will let you know if they are true or bullshit,Decoding is only done inside my player.But if you want me to believe you ,i'm sure my answer is no.

I have three dts-MA decoders in my setup, one on an Onkyo 805, another on the PS3 and lastly my BD35. So I guess I am O-FER-3.

dts-MA was designed with these future parameters in mind, but none of the current decoder implementations have it. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I ONLY HAVE THREE EXAMPLES FOR YOU.

Those parameters are used for mixing coefficients to create the intended soundfield whether you use a standard setup or a heavily rear based setup. Basically the purpose is create virtual speakers when decoded. So if the sound mixer intended a standard 7.1 side surround setup, but the user had a rear surround setup, the side surround channel would be virtually created with the front mains and more front rear surrounds. It is an interesting idea, but again none of the current decoders support it and I am not sure most mixers are too concerned if a home environment has a side surround 7.1 setup or a rear 7.1 setup. Really, the average user setup is such a small environment that it is not going significantly alter the soundfield.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by davcole

I guess this is where I get lost?

While I agree that seeing a codec "light up" on your receiver seems silly, there's been some real tangible arguments in favor of the codec. Sony must see them otherwise they would not be soliciting opinions? The incompatibility with early models seemed to be their concern but that's been a quiet minority.

Like I said, there really are some real reasons to switch to DTS (like I would've liked the core back in the day before I had the capabilities to use TrueHD or PCM, though I will admit, Dolby Digital on Blu-ray generally sounds better than Dolby Digital on DVD because of the 640kbps). There are also reasons to stay with Dolby (better compatibility, more options like DRC). It just depends on what you prefer. I personally selected that it doesn't matter either way because it doesn't. Both codecs have their up sides and downsides.

However, this is a business decission. These companies wouldn't just all decide one day to switch to DTS because it "sounds better." It could be easier to encode or something like that, but what I am debating are the people claiming that it magically sounds better as I am sure you've seen thru this thread. I mean, one person said DTS-HD MA sounds better than PCM. Another said Dolby TrueHD is analog. There's a lot of misinformation out there (and people just plain making things up). But what will end up happening when/if Sony switches to DTS, people will use that switch as proof that all these lies are now fact. Does that make sense?

At this point, Sony would be silly just to ignore these numbers. I am not saying the switch would add more sales or that I prefer either codec. I am just saying that the majority of people here seem to think DTS is better for one reason or another. But I will keep posting to help stop the lies others around here are spreading to help stop the fanboyisms that keep popping up.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Encoding with Master Audio

Super-high quality video takes up a LOT of space during mastering, even on Blu-ray Discs. If possible, the content creators will encode with DTS-HD Master Audio, which is more efficient in terms of disc space and bit -stream bandwidth. In Short - the efficiency of DTS-HD Master Audio allows content creators to provide higher quality video, while encoding lossless audio that is identical to the studio master.Plus old AVR can take advantage of DTS @ 1.5 mbps.

Secondary Audio for interactive features known as DTS express and it is already used by Sony and can provide up to 5.1 channel interactivity .In other Words "The DTS Express audio is mixed with the Primary Audio, giving you an intensely great interactive surround experience"

Speaker re-mapping and it is only available in DTSHD master audio whereas Dolby TrueHD provides only standard configuration for your 7.1 speakers.


Higher the bit rate equal high quality and if this is not true should not be evident by the results of this poll.DTS high resolution can save space and at the same time can provide 7.1 speakers configuration with higher bit rate till now we see 3 mbps but can go up till 6.

DTS lossy plus extensions already mentioned in this thread and we talked about a lot.Its a shame on Sony who were behind the Blu-ray format since the beginning and can't provide at least a 24bit Dolby TrueHD for all their releases only for some exceptions like Underworld rise of Lycans.I wanna Salute Paramount because mostly their releases in Dolby TrueHD are fantastic because they are using 24 bit all the way and aggressively on their most titles.

Kudos for Disney taking the right decision dropping DolbyTrueHD and choosing DTSHD master audio ,National treasure book of secrets imported from Canada used this technology.My salutation and Bravo for FOX,Lionsgate and Disney including the Unbelievable Studio Universal who continue to exceed our expectations and released the true high definition titles


Sony are you listening!

Why praise Paramount and not Disney? Disney was using 24-Bit Dolby TrueHD tracks as well...

Also, it's not just Dolby recommending these 7.1 layouts either. It's pretty much everyone (THX, ITU-R, and more). It appears DTS is the only place allowing for incorrect speaker placement because of their exclusive "re-mapping" (which apparently at this point has caused more harm than good...)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

"SO, what if a movie’s sound engineer mixed the audio with one type of layout, but your speaker system is set up differently? Don’t worry, you’re good. DTS-HD Master Audio and High Resolution Audio include an exclusive feature called Speaker Re-mapping. Sophisticated algorithms are used to electronically “reposition” speakers, so you get the best possible sound quality without having to physically re-arrange your speakers. All DTS-HD featured A/V receivers have the ability to re-map content mixed with up to seven different speaker layouts. All you have to do is plug in one of the two common layout types (see graph below) in your AV receiver’s setup menu, and DTS-HD Speaker Re-mapping does the rest.

"It also prevents people from using PLIIx and Logic7 to intelligently matrix 5.1 to 7.1."

Why should i care about Pro Logic II or Logic 7 if i have lossless at hand ,why i should playing in a fantasy world if not going to listen to the movie as the director intended or as it is encoded by the Studio.All i care about is lossless sound wherever it is 5.1 or 7.1.For example if it is encoded only as 5.1 channel this is only my choice and vice versa.

Point One: The DTS speaker remapping is useless since the SMPTE (and THX) standard is the 7.1 one used by engineers. PCM and TrueHD manage to get these guidelines correct. The only opportunity seems to be for music playback, and even then the same speaker setup is recommended. How many of us are going to shuffle around our speakers depending on what 7.1 soundtrack is playing?

Point Two: As Craig has mentioned, none of his devices support it. Neither do mine, and I also have 3 different decoding options (four if you count my Media Center PC).

Point Three: PLIIx and Logic 7 work on any source, lossless or not.

Point Four: These 7.1 "presentations" on BD almost never have been remixed by nor have the input of the original sound mixers, who intended a 5.1 or 5.1 EX presentation.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by CraigW

I have three dts-MA decoders in my setup, one on an Onkyo 805, another on the PS3 and lastly my BD35. So I guess I am O-FER-3.

dts-MA was designed with these future parameters in mind, but none of the current decoder implementations have it. BUT WHAT DO I KNOW I ONLY HAVE THREE EXAMPLES FOR YOU.

Those parameters are used for mixing coefficients to create the intended soundfield whether you use a standard setup or a heavily rear based setup. Basically the purpose is create virtual speaker when decoded. So if the sound mixer intended a standard 7.1 side surround setup, but the user had a rear surround setup, the side surround channel would be virtually created with the front mains and more front rear surrounds. It is an interesting idea, but again none of the current decoders support and I am not sure most mixers are too concerned if a home environment has a side surround 7.1 setup or a rear 7.1 setup. Really, the average user setup is small environment that it is not going significantly alter the soundfield.

http://www.hd.club.tw/thread-4009-1-1.html

It is done through this software DTS HD Master Audio Suite v1.1 in PC,this is what i find till now,On the otherhand,its a good feature for future use maybe you are planning to put a speaker overhead and this criteria is powerful demanding on behalf of musicians.

temporary useful but not obligatory for anyone to apply it,good to exist.

You can go to DTSonline.com and you will notice multiple graphs of re-mapping speakers ,so they are useful for some people may want to listen in that way.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

http://www.hd.club.tw/thread-4009-1-1.html

It is done through this software DTS HD Master Audio Suite v1.1 in PC,this is what i find till now,On the otherhand,its a good feature for future use maybe you are planning to put a speaker overhead and this criteria is powerful demanding on behalf of musicians.

temporary useful but not obligatory for anyone to apply it,good to exist.

Why would you put a speaker overhead for one sound format alone when you can have a standard layout that works with everything from stereo sources (when using Pro-Logic) to 7.1?

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

http://www.hd.club.tw/thread-4009-1-1.html

It is done through this software DTS HD Master Audio Suite v1.1 in PC,this is what i find till now,On the otherhand,its a good feature for future use maybe you are planning to put a speaker overhead and this criteria is powerful demanding on behalf of musicians.

temporary useful but not obligatory for anyone to apply it,good to exist.

You can go to DTSonline.com and you will notice multiple graphs of re-mapping speakers ,so they are useful for some people may want to listen in that way.

I am not trying to be arrogant, but the only way it will be useful is if decoders actually support the use of the remapping parameters. Right now all it does is cause some decoders to mix down to 5.1 or throw away the rear surrounds resulting in 5.1.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Why would you put a speaker overhead for one sound format alone when you can have a standard layout that works with everything from stereo sources (when using Pro-Logic) to 7.1?

I'm not going to do that but rather trying to explain for most of you why DTSHD master audio is better.its a useful tool and if anybody looking for it can do it and the experience still the same.

if re-mapping speakers is useless ,higher bit rate =high quality is useless too,what about this third advantage and the most important factor of all

" DTS-HD and the DTS Digital Surround Core are on a single bitstream. To deliver a lossless and legacy encode, the other format must use separate streams. A DTS-HD Master Audio encode takes up less space on the disc compared to a Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital encode."

This is true and we have prove upon it.


With all my respect to all of you,Including Peter,Dobyblue,and Clayton

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

I'm not going to do that but rather trying to explain for most of you why DTSHD master audio is better.its a useful tool and if anybody looking for it can do it and the experience still the same.

if re-mapping speakers is useless ,higher bit rate =high quality is useless too,what about this third advantage and the most important factor of all

" DTS-HD and the DTS Digital Surround Core are on a single bitstream. To deliver a lossless and legacy encode, the other format must use separate streams. A DTS-HD Master Audio encode takes up less space on the disc compared to a Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital encode."

This is true and we have prove upon it.


With all my respect to all of you,Including Peter,Dobyblue,and Clayton

I am actually curious on the space saving thing. I haven't seen the comparisons between the 2. I'd assume that both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA would almost end up the same. The lossy Dolby Digital track is less than half of what the core is on DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD can drop lower than DTS-HD MA. Though I don't know how much that effects the whole space side of things.

But my point on the whole remapping of the speakers is that it's a useless feature that is causing issues. No one should physically rearrange their speakers to put one overhead as that would then throw off the standard layout that everything except DTS-HD MA 7.1 uses. This feature doesn't make DTS-HD MA better IMO, it actually makes it look worse as it's causing issues with certain receivers.

[srrndhound]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

"It also prevents people from using PLIIx and Logic7 to intelligently matrix 5.1 to 7.1."

Why should i care about Pro Logic II or Logic 7 if i have lossless at hand ,why i should playing in a fantasy world if not going to listen to the movie as the director intended or as it is encoded by the Studio.All i care about is lossless sound wherever it is 5.1 or 7.1.For example if it is encoded only as 5.1 channel this is only my choice and vice versa.

If what you really care about is hearing the movie as the director intended or as it is encoded by the Studio, then you certainly don't want DTS speaker remapping or DTS Essential's surround channel duplication.

On the other hand, the merits of L7 and PLIIx have been well documented for years, and regardless of whether you like to use them or not, as is your prerogative, the decison has nothing to do with the source being lossy or lossless. They work equally well with both.

And at least L7 and PLIIx allow you to choose when they are on or off. These goofy DTS "features" apparently do not.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

I'm not going to do that but rather trying to explain for most of you why DTSHD master audio is better.its a useful tool and if anybody looking for it can do it and the experience still the same.

if re-mapping speakers is useless ,higher bit rate =high quality is useless too,what about this third advantage and the most important factor of all

" DTS-HD and the DTS Digital Surround Core are on a single bitstream. To deliver a lossless and legacy encode, the other format must use separate streams. A DTS-HD Master Audio encode takes up less space on the disc compared to a Dolby TrueHD and Dolby Digital encode."

This is true and we have prove upon it.


With all my respect to all of you,Including Peter,Dobyblue,and Clayton

I am willing to bet if a scientific study was done, the difference of codec efficiencies is probably well under 10% meaning it is relatively insignificant which one is used for storage space and bandwidth use. Dolby is easier to decode (ie. less processing power) since it does not have to be built upon the lossy track.

Again I don't dislike dts, but I do dislike fanboys coming in here half cocked claiming how dts blows the doors off of Dolby with no scientific evidence.

Look back a few pages, you will see some interesting information from srrndhnd about what dts did (or inadvertantly did) back in the DVD dts days.
Is dts up to their soundtrack cooking again? Hmmm....

If both encoders are doing their job correctly, the end result when decoding, should be the same PCM file.

[Scorxpion]

Hitman Blu-ray disc region B and done on BD-25

english DTSHD master audio,Spanish+Italian+Russian in DTS core +Czech+Hungarian in Dolby Digital 5.1 and Polish in 2.0 Dolby digital

Subtitles in Arabic,Bulgarian,czech,English,Estonian,Greek,Hebr ew,Icelandic,Italian,Latvian,Polish,Portuguese,Rom anian,Serbian,Turkish,Ukranian,Castalian Spanish,Hungarian

Plus Special Features ,in the crosshairs,Digital hits,Instruments of destruction,setting the score,Deleted Scenes,grag reel,and High Definition trailers.

All of this can be done if Hitman was encoded with DolbyTrueHD sure it's not possible or if it's possible a degradation in PQ can interfere.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Hitman Blu-ray disc region B and done on BD-25

english DTSHD master audio,Spanish+Italian+Russian in DTS core +Czech+Hungarian in Dolby Digital 5.1 and Polish in 2.0 Dolby digital

Subtitles in Arabic,Bulgarian,czech,English,Estonian,Greek,Hebr ew,Icelandic,Italian,Latvian,Polish,Portuguese,Rom anian,Serbian,Turkish,Ukranian,Castalian Spanish,Hungarian

Plus Special Features ,in the crosshairs,Digital hits,Instruments of destruction,setting the score,Deleted Scenes,grag reel,and High Definition trailers.

All of this can be done if Hitman was encoded with DolbyTrueHD sure it's not possible or if it's possible a degradation in PQ can interfere.

I don't understand what you're claiming here? There's been titles from Sony with multiple dubbed lossless audio tracks on them plus Dolby Digital audio tracks for other languages and features as well.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Hitman Blu-ray disc region B and done on BD-25

english DTSHD master audio,Spanish+Italian+Russian in DTS core +Czech+Hungarian in Dolby Digital 5.1 and Polish in 2.0 Dolby digital

Subtitles in Arabic,Bulgarian,czech,English,Estonian,Greek,Hebr ew,Icelandic,Italian,Latvian,Polish,Portuguese,Rom anian,Serbian,Turkish,Ukranian,Castalian Spanish,Hungarian

Plus Special Features ,in the crosshairs,Digital hits,Instruments of destruction,setting the score,Deleted Scenes,grag reel,and High Definition trailers.

All of this can be done if Hitman was encoded with DolbyTrueHD sure it's not possible or if it's possible a degradation in PQ can interfere.

WTF? dts bandwidth and dataspace can have the same effect. More detrimental would be using uncompressed PCM for lossless audio instead of either TrueHD or dts-MA.

Are you really trying to embarass yourself here?

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I don't understand what you're claiming here? There's been titles from Sony with multiple dubbed lossless audio tracks on them plus Dolby Digital audio tracks for other languages and features as well.

Probably on BD-50 like 30 days of night ,what if 30 days of night is done on BD-25 still can behold multiple lossless sound and dolby digital sound.

what i'm claiming here is DTSHD master audio can play a role in saving space for other purposes.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by CraigW

WTF? dts bandwidth and dataspace can have the same effect. More detrimental would be using uncompressed PCM for lossless audio instead of either TrueHD or dts-MA.

Are you really trying to embarass yourself here?

i'm not embarrassing myself here again if DTSHD master audio doesn't have any advantage over DolbyTrueHD Disney,FOX,Lionsgate and Universal will never used it.Tell me why the majority of BD containing 7.1 channels are encoded in DTSHD master audio.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Probably on BD-50 like 30 days of night ,what if 30 days of night is done on BD-25 still can behold multiple lossless sound and dolby digital sound.

what i'm claiming here is DTSHD master audio can play a role in saving space for other purposes.

You are assuming that dts-core plus MA extension is taking less bandwidth than DolbyTrueHD + lossy track(640kbps max). Hate to tell you but your logic is flawed. If both lossless packets required zero bits, the dts core is a constant 1.5Mbps whereas the piggybacked DD lossy track is a max of 640kbps.

The only purpose dts-MA in this regard is delivering the best possible dts track to those that don't have new equipment.

I hate to say but it sure sounds like you read a couple of whitepapers and some dts marketing pamphlets and now you are an expert. DolbyTrueHD is a well designed codec as well and like I said doubt that one is significantly more efficient than the other.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

i'm not embarrassing myself here again if DTSHD master audio doesn't have any advantage over DolbyTrueHD Disney,FOX,Lionsgate and Universal will never used it.Tell me why the majority of BD containing 7.1 channels are encoded in DTSHD master audio.

.... because the studios producing them (New Line and Lionsgate) were DTS-HD MA exclusive.

And the reason for them using DTS-HD MA would be BUSINESS DECISIONS. You are absolutely 1000% proving my point.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Probably on BD-50 like 30 days of night ,what if 30 days of night is done on BD-25 still can behold multiple lossless sound and dolby digital sound.

what i'm claiming here is DTSHD master audio can play a role in saving space for other purposes.

It wouldn't matter what disc it's on, I am assuming both of them are probably producing around the same size files... Posting about a movie that has all of that doesn't just automatically mean that DTS-HD MA is saving space.