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

[mikenike]

I would have chosen TrueHD since Sony is using that right now as well as the fact that TrueHD is decoded internally by more players, but since Blu is making headway now and many studios are going towards DTS-HD MA, I'd say go with DTS-HD MA. No rants about losslessness because, well, that's been there, done that. Both sound good to me, but I chose what I chose due to studio selection trends.

[drummerboy_2002]

For what it's worth, I chose to go with DTS-MA. Honestly I don't care that much. My system can decode both, and they decompress to the original mix. The DTS core does provide backward compatibility without the need for a second file, so people less fortunate can still enjoy the audio (whether that is any space savings to Tru-HD + DD tracks, I dont know). But then only the more expensive players and receivers decode DTS-MA, so the cost of being able to play the lossless track is higher. And as evidenced in this thread, there is an obvious bias in favor of anything DTS (reasonable or not), so that's a selling point for Sony. Ah, whatever, I'm set, so who cares.

[JJ]

Vote "other" for its all the same damn thing.

[Zman2k2]

I voted "Wouldn't matter to me either way", because they can rock whichever codec they want. It's all the same.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Lossless is Lossless doesn’t exist in my dictionary always I prefer one over another.

I think you actually prefer soundtracks, not compression codecs.

[BIslander]

Lossless is lossless.

...but, do we understand?

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I think you actually prefer soundtracks, not compression codecs.

Its better to respect other opinion and not invade it.Actually i know compression codecs what it means very carefully and i'm listenning to them and enjoying watching movies wherever it is DTSHD master audio or Dolby True HD,But you don't mind if i said DTSHD master audio is slightly better.So respect my opinion.

Thank you.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I think you actually prefer soundtracks, not compression codecs.

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Its better to respect other opinion and not invade it.Actually i know compression codecs what it means very carefully and i'm listenning to them and enjoying watching movies wherever it is DTSHD master audio or Dolby True HD,But you don't mind if i said DTSHD master audio is slightly better.So respect my opinion.

OK.

Perhaps you can share how one lossless compression codec produces a different output than another one.

Also, how are you doing the comparisons of codecs (not soundtracks) that leads you to your opinion.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by BIslander

OK.

Perhaps you can share how one lossless compression codec produces a different output than another one.

Also, how are you doing the comparisons of codecs (not soundtracks) that leads you to your opinion.

I'm not doing any comparisons of codecs( excuse me If i mentioned before Soundtrack doesnt mean necessary music soundtrack but i talk about codecs) ,as you know i'm decoding it through my PS3 and my new player Panasonic BD-35 through Sony Receiver.Always DTSHD sound more clearer more powerful and Punchier at the same time,You can hear every single piece among my 5.1 speakers as if you are listening to PCM or even better(Maybe here still DTS in the age of DVD let me fall in love with everything called DTS),in case of Dolby-THD may i have the same experience but i have to turn up the volume knob,i have to play again with my setup on the receiver center channel make it +db up ,Same applies to my surround speakers.In case of DTSHD master audio you can always account on the same configuration whereas on Dolby TrueHD you have plan for the suitable configuration for getting the full experience as before.

PS : I make sure Digital noise reduction is turned off in my PS3 and my Receiver

[BIslander]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

I'm not doing any comparisons of codecs( excuse me If i mentioned before Soundtrack doesnt mean necessary music soundtrack but i talk about codecs)

??

(Maybe here still DTS in the age of DVD let me fall in love with everything called DTS)

That seems likely.

in case of Dolby-THD may i have the same experience but i have to turn up the volume knob

Dolby encoders default to -4 dialnorm while DTS encoders default to 0 dialnorm. So, yes, a Dolby track will usually be 4db quieter. I think most of us adjust audio levels at the start of a movie. So, I don't see how this difference matters much one way or the other.

i have to play again with my setup on the receiver center channel make it +db up ,Same applies to my surround speakers.

It sounds like the mixes on the movies you've watched with TrueHD tracks are not to your liking. Encoders do not alter the original mix. So, using dts-MA instead of TrueHD with those particular movies would produce the same output.

In case of DTSHD master audio you can always account on the same configuration whereas on Dolby TrueHD you have plan for the suitable configuration for getting the full experience as before.

By the same token, you like the mixes on the movies that you've watched using dts-MA encoding.

Sorry, I did not mean to be rude. But, that's what I meant when I said you prefer soundtracks (specific movie audio presentations) rather than codecs. The codec appears to be a useful tool for you when deciding whether to watch a movie. But, there's nothing in what you've said that points to an actual difference between TrueHD and dts-MA.

[ganthc]

I voted for DTS-HDMA. I have always felt that DTS has provided a more robust sound, even during the dvd days. For people that don't have receivers that are HDMI based, they can still enjoy the bitstreamed 1.5 mbps DTS core audio with DTS-HDMA. With Dolby TrueHD, they are stuck with standard Dolby audio. For most users, I think DTS-HDMA offers the best delivery for quality audio, even moreso than LPCM. The fact that Disney has migrated over to it should give you an idea about how preferred the codec is.

While there have been some powerful and incredible Dolby TrueHD tracks, I would say that a lot of the demo-worthy audio tracks have been with DTS-HDMA. Also, Dolby True-HD doesn't seem to have 7.1 audio yet, and that is a major letdown for those of us who have that theater setup.

[hardcorefrokid]

It's all in the mix, geez!

[davcole]

I know a lot of people are taking the DTSMA preference for the legacy DTS core. I personally think it's fantastic, but I think a lot of the perception is based from our experience with DVD and DD and the 448 max. I have to admit, to my ears, DD at 640 sounds pretty dang close to DTS @1.5 (though i'll still give DTS the slight edge). I admit i'm pretty impressed with 640DD though neither legacy codec is in the same league as lossless.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I have always felt that DTS has provided a more robust sound, even during the dvd days.

On DVD, there are actual differences between DD 5.1 and DTS. That's not the case with lossless, of course.

For people that don't have receivers that are HDMI based, they can still enjoy the bitstreamed 1.5 mbps DTS core audio with DTS-HDMA. With Dolby TrueHD, they are stuck with standard Dolby audio.

DD 5.1 on Blu is also encoded at a higher bitrate than it is on DVD, just like DTS. So, that's back to the same old Dolby-DTS discussion. (DTS has higher bitrates and is less efficient.)

For most users, I think DTS-HDMA offers the best delivery for quality audio, even more so than LPCM.

?? Are you saying dts-MA is better than the original soundtrack (PCM)? How do they do that?

Also, Dolby True-HD doesn't seem to have 7.1 audio yet, and that is a major letdown for those of us who have that theater setup.

Producers/studios who elect to use TrueHD simply aren't doing 7.1 as much. But, that has nothing to do with the codec. The Nightmare Before Christmas is TrueHD 7.1 The newly released Star Trek movies are also 7.1.

[matthewrounds]

Originally Posted by BIslander

The newly released Star Trek movies are also 7.1.

Interesting because Star Trek Season 1 (TOS) is 7.1 DTS HD MA

I don't know that I really care about the codec choice for Sony. I'd say that one reason to go with DTS HD MA is the DTS core, but if we are talking about a blu-ray disc should we really care about people who do not have receivers that cannot process the HD audio? To me this is equivalent to having to video codes on the disc, one for people who don't have HDTV's and those who do.

[Hep]

Originally Posted by davcole

I know a lot of people are taking the DTSMA preference for the legacy DTS core. I personally think it's fantastic, but I think a lot of the perception is based from our experience with DVD and DD and the 448 max. I have to admit, to my ears, DD at 640 sounds pretty dang close to DTS @1.5 (though i'll still give DTS the slight edge). I admit i'm pretty impressed with 640DD though neither legacy codec is in the same league as lossless.

This is exactly the issue in my estimation. In the DVD days I could definitely differentiate between DD and DTS. In those days I only relied on my ears and not the specs (I had no idea about the numbers, I just knew it sounded better to me). It takes an unemotional ear to accept that the lossless codecs are equal; some people just can't get over the noble DTS legacy. It's understandable but illogical and flawed.

And yes, lossless blows the lossy codecs out of the water, so we should all just be happy with what we have in either DTS HDMA or True HD – a perfect digital reproduction of the master track.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by BIslander

On DVD, there are actual differences between DD 5.1 and DTS. That's not the case with lossless, of course.

I have found that the LFE levels even when I try to adjust for sound leveling tends to be punchier with DTS. DTS does do a different mix than Dolby does, and I guess my preference is with DTS-HDMA. Trust me, I'll take TrueHD over standard Dolby any day, but if given a choice, I prefer DTS-HDMA

DD 5.1 on Blu is also encoded at a higher bitrate than it is on DVD, just like DTS. So, that's back to the same old Dolby-DTS discussion. (DTS has higher bitrates and is less efficient.)

Perhaps, but I would argue that there can be some comparison drawn between a Universal hd-dvd DD+ encode with 1.5 mbps audio, and that same audio done with DTS core (1.5 mbps) on blu-ray, and that the DTS track sounds better. It's not an identical mix, so I prefer the DTS version. Not to say the DD+ track is terrible, but there is just a noticeable improvement in sound, even with the same bit rate.

?? Are you saying dts-MA is better than the original soundtrack (PCM)? How do they do that?

No, but since DTS-HDMA is compressed, it is more efficient than LPCM, so there is an advantage there. That is what I am meaning. Plus, if those users do not have hdmi receivers, they cannot enjoy the LPCM track and have to listen to it in standard DD. The DTS-core of DTS-HDMA delivers the better audio at that point.

Producers/studios who elect to use TrueHD simply aren't doing 7.1 as much. But, that has nothing to do with the codec. The Nightmare Before Christmas is TrueHD 7.1 The newly released Star Trek movies are also 7.1.

Quite true. But Disney had the option to release movies in 7.1 TrueHD, and never did, but a lot of their titles released on DTS-HDMA are in 7.1, which seems to indicate that as a studio, when they want to deliver the best sound possible, they are leaning towards DTS-HDMA. Obviously TrueHD offers the most efficient delivery of lossless audio...no doubts there. But from a mix perspective, the DTS audio tends to be better...in my opinion. Others agree as well, so I am not alone in that assumption.

[BIslander]

Let's leave legacy Dolby vs DTS out of this. That's old, tired ground and different than the lossless discussion.

Originally Posted by ganthc

since DTS-HDMA is compressed, it is more efficient than LPCM, so there is an advantage there. That is what I am meaning.

TrueHD also saves space compared to PCM, although I'm not sure why we should care about that with all the space available on BD.

Plus, if those users do not have hdmi receivers, they cannot enjoy the LPCM track and have to listen to it in standard DD. The DTS-core of DTS-HDMA delivers the better audio at that point.

LPCM has nothing to do with dts-MA or TrueHD. If you lack HDMI, but have analog outs, you can listen to multichannel PCM. If not, you'll get whatever other track is put on the disk, if any. From my experience, I've seen discs with PCM and DD 5.1, but not with PCM and any flavor of DTS. But, how does any of this relate to the topic of whether TrueHD of dts-MA is better?

Disney had the option to release movies in 7.1 TrueHD, and never did, but a lot of their titles released on DTS-HDMA are in 7.1, which seems to indicate that as a studio, when they want to deliver the best sound possible, they are leaning towards DTS-HDMA.

And Warner decided to use TrueHD. I suspect both companies made business decisions.

Obviously TrueHD offers the most efficient delivery of lossless audio...no doubts there.

I suspect you are tossing me a bone here. But, the DTS core + extension approach is actually more efficient with lossless. Dolby is more efficient in legacy encoding, not lossless, where the TrueHD package must contain a separate DD 5.1 track as well.

But from a mix perspective, the DTS audio tends to be better...in my opinion. Others agree as well, so I am not alone in that assumption.

What mix? Dolby and DTS don't mix anything. They compress and decompress - they zip and unzip audio files. The mixing is done long before the track is encoded for storage on a disc. And, it isn't changed one bit during encoding.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

What mix? Dolby and DTS don't mix anything. They compress and decompress - they zip and unzip audio files. The mixing is done long before the track is encoded for storage on a disc. And, it isn't changed one bit during encoding.

If that were true, there'd be no need to fiddle with DRC controls during playback.

I couldn't figure out why Iron Man sounded like crap until I figured that out.

It should not be the default with Dolby, but it is. Why defend it, or claim that TruHD is not fiddled with?

[AlaskaDon]

I think that it's very easy to get lost in the science of things, and forget about the real purpose of this poll. It's also very much about marketing and public perception. Do Sony engineers really need someone from this forum to explain to them the difference, or lack of difference between two lossless audio codecs? Of course they don't.

If you take the poll results as they are right now, then Sony could provide positive satisfaction to 85%+ of their customers by using DTS rather than Dolby. The fact that they are the same (or not) is irrelavent from a marketing standpoint. It's all about perceived satisfaction. The DTS core thing for those with older equipment also leads to more customers being satisfied, and freeing up disc space is always a good thing as it can allow for more extras, better picture, lossless in multiple languages, etc. IF that extra space is utilized fully.

Granted the poll results may not be representative of the general public, but if they are then the switch is a Win-Win for Sony, at least up to this point in the poll.