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

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Actually, I care. I'd rather not have someone altering tracks to what they think "sounds good." That's like saying to the original sound designer/mixer that their work wasn't good enough in the first place.

Worked for Pearl Jam's re-release

Sometimes the work wasn't good enough in the first place (lot of early CD's). Plus different people have different tastes. Of course some people use their own equalizers to adjust the frequency range to their likings as well, some want more bass, more mid bass, less vocal.. All just personal preference.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Worked for Pearl Jam's re-release

Sometimes the work wasn't good enough in the first place (lot of early CD's). Plus different people have different tastes. Of course some people use their own equalizers to adjust the frequency range to their likings as well, some want more bass, more mid bass, less vocal.. All just personal preference.

Then let them adjust it themselves. A track that is supposed to match the master should NOT be altered. And you cannot tell me that the people that worked on Transformers or a recent film like that would go "oh, you guys boosted the bass... yeah we wanted to do that but didn't."

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Then let them adjust it themselves. A track that is supposed to match the master should NOT be altered. And you cannot tell me that the people that worked on Transformers or a recent film like that would go "oh, you guys boosted the bass... yeah we wanted to do that but didn't."

When it comes to mixing and mastering there are tons of things that can be done in the studio that can't simply be done on a receiver to get even remotely the same results.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Monkey

When it comes to mixing and mastering there are tons of things that can be done in the studio that can't simply be done on a receiver to get even remotely the same results.

None of which have anything to do with the Dolby and DTS encoders used to compress a soundtrack for storage on a disc.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

"We have received final specs for Warner's 3 November Blu-ray Disc release of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The good news is that the films will arrive with 1080p transfers and DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio sound mixes"

Now jump on me and say this decision is made because the director want this Lossless and not Warner.There is something hidden in DTSHD master audio to be slightly better than it's counterpart.

They are using Mi Casa, the studio New Line used to use for their 7.1 remixes and they encode in DTS-HD MA. The same people repurposed the trilogy for DVD to DTS-ES.

[LembasBread]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They are using Mi Casa, the studio New Line used to use for their 7.1 remixes and they encode in DTS-HD MA. The same people repurposed the trilogy for DVD to DTS-ES.

And while generally MiCasa delivers fantastic home video mixes, they're also responsible for those mis-authored 7.1 mixes that would downmix to 5.1.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by BIslander

None of which have anything to do with the Dolby and DTS encoders used to compress a soundtrack for storage on a disc.

True, which is why that wasn't the context in which I brought it up. Refer to Clayton's post for the context

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Monkey

True, which is why that wasn't the context in which I brought it up. Refer to Clayton's post for the context

But what he's saying is that neither DTS nor Dolby should be altering the mixes. Even back in the day they shouldn't have been unless requested to do so.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

But what he's saying is that neither DTS nor Dolby should be altering the mixes. Even back in the day they shouldn't have been unless requested to do so.

Of course not, I've never made or implied anything even remotely close to saying they do. My point was that mixes can and have been improved. Heck ask somebody to mix all the elements of a track two different times a week apart and I doubt they'd come out identical unless he specifically took notes on all the settings per each track, etc which would be an insane amount of work in itself.

[davcole]

Wow... interesting that Penton states a decision is already made. While he didn't state codec, the comments do highly suggest DTSMA. I do believe this is a business decision and not a qualitative decision. I've always maintained I feel their consideration is based on file size and bandwidth savings. I'm betting that for new releases instead of those 16bit releases, we'll see 24 bit releases with multiple lossless tracks.

What was most interesting is that he says Warner's monitors the thread and basically states they are considering. Equally interesting when announced specs for LORD OF THE RINGS is DTSMA 7.1 along with WATCHMEN's already announced DTSMA track.

The real question is, what is the reason for their business decision. It sure will be interesting to find out.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Of course not, I've never made or implied anything even remotely close to saying they do. My point was that mixes can and have been improved. Heck ask somebody to mix all the elements of a track two different times a week apart and I doubt they'd come out identical unless he specifically took notes on all the settings per each track, etc which would be an insane amount of work in itself.

You wandered off the topic somewhere here. This particular discussion began with Scorxpion's claim that there's a hidden secret with DTS that improves the sound. ClaytonMG said that would not be lossless and would be wrong to do. trans22 said he didn't care as long as the sound improved. ClaytonMG again said it would be wrong and an insult to the original designer. That's where you weighed-in to offer an opinion about how soundtracks can be improved with remixing. I suppose that's true. But, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed - whether the encoding process itself can change the mix. That's the actual context - Scorxpion's claim that "there is something hidden in DTSHD master audio to be slightly better than it's counterpart."

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by BIslander

You wandered off the topic somewhere here. This particular discussion began with Scorxpion's claim that there's a hidden secret with DTS that improves the sound. ClaytonMG said that would not be lossless and would be wrong to do. trans22 said he didn't care as long as the sound improved. ClaytonMG again said it would be wrong and an insult to the original designer. That's where you weighed-in to offer an opinion about how soundtracks can be improved with remixing. I suppose that's true. But, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed - whether the encoding process itself can change the mix. That's the actual context - Scorxpion's claim that "there is something hidden in DTSHD master audio to be slightly better than it's counterpart."

It's pretty simple, I quoted exactly what I responded to. I didn't quote Scorxpion's claim about something hidden and I clearly wasn't talking about anything being hidden in my response to Clayton.

If you want to only discuss whether or not the encoding process itself can change the mix, by all means that is your prerogative. If you have a problem with post that aren't 100% on topic, feel free to mark them.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by BIslander

You wandered off the topic somewhere here. This particular discussion began with Scorxpion's claim that there's a hidden secret with DTS that improves the sound. ClaytonMG said that would not be lossless and would be wrong to do. trans22 said he didn't care as long as the sound improved. ClaytonMG again said it would be wrong and an insult to the original designer. That's where you weighed-in to offer an opinion about how soundtracks can be improved with remixing. I suppose that's true. But, it has nothing to do with the issue being discussed - whether the encoding process itself can change the mix. That's the actual context - Scorxpion's claim that "there is something hidden in DTSHD master audio to be slightly better than it's counterpart."

Sorry to response today on what i have been said yesterday due to some lagging in internet connection from my side.
You have understand me wrongly and everybody accounting on what i have said "Something Hidden"What i mean here in reality is the technical achievements of DTSHD master audio over Dolby TrueHD maybe i'm wrong.Maybe its easily to encode DTSHD master audio 24 bit in 7.1 rather than using Dolby TrueHD 24 bit in 7.1,you already know the long duration of these movies by time Dolby TrueHD proves it is a little hungry space over DTSHD master audio so choosing DTSHD master audio is better for encoding and saving some space for extras.Sony by using multiple lossless sound Dolby TrueHD ,they are obligated to diminish it to 16 bit rather 24 bit.Dolby TrueHD face some problems among unexperienced users who doesn't know about DRC or Dial norm or night shift mode or whatever called and applying these settings can diminish the experience of lossless sound at the end Or the master sound as director intended it to be.BIslander you already know my reply a couple post back i dont know where in this thread now how DolbyTrueHD can interfere with me ,everytime i should calibrate my surround receiver and lower up my volume knob in order to enjoy the complete experience of DolbyTrueHD whereas DTSHD master audio is one step calibration and you are safe.Maybe for this reason many users found DTSHD master audio as a powerful codec over its counterpart but doesnt mean they are fanboyism or living in fantasy world.You already know i have appraised Paramount Blu-ray discs for using DolbyTrueHD 24 bit.Yes i move my cap to them.Havent and never said DTSHD master audio can alter the original surround track.But it is usefull and straight forward to enjoy a complete experience without fear or making sure just all my settings are ok.

I have my own rights to choose DTSHD master audio over DolbyTrueHD.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

CE3K You also keep saying "every" DTS-MA track beats a TrueHD track yet if I point out say Forgetting Sarah Marshall doesn't sound anywhere as good as say Iron Man (even with DRC engaged!) that doesn't count.

I don't know how bad FSM sounds, but if a DRC track beats it, every actor must have been gagged with a bath towel during filming.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

All DTS-HD MA, all scoring 3.5 or less.
What was your point again about DTS making things magically better?

You listed some of the most miserable, non-blockbuster, and/or aged titles out there.

Great homework.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

If Sony switches to DTS-HD MA, it will be because of the belief that customers (for whatever illogical, dumb reasons) prefer it over TrueHD.

I'm glad this hasn't become personal.

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Them switching is not evidence that DTS supporters are "correct" or that DTS is "better." I think if it was a matter of "better," Sony employs many sound engineers that would be capable of determining that for themselves.

It appears that the decision is far more complicated than "sounds better" for the studios. If it was about sound, you wouldn't see Dialnorm or DRC engaged at all.

For the frantic pouncers ready to scream, "But Sony doesn't use Dialnorm!", I'll simply say, prove it.

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

I would have much preferred if this thread was set up as a logical debate where burden of proof was placed upon statements, but it is not even close to that - it's merely a showcase of the majority subjective opinion.

Merely what?

One last time.

I get a PCM track, there it is, for whatever it's worth, good or bad.

Encoded in DTS, nothing is lost.

Encoded in Dolby, it loses 4DB, and has DRC imbedded, which must be defeated at either the player or receiver level.

The results, scientifically, CANNOT be identical. Everything other statement is ludicrous.

The differences can be overcome, obviously; twiddle knobs, defeat features in menus, etc.

As a consumer paying serious dollars for products and services, I'm saying, without reserve, that to call two different results identical is a farce, and a ripoff.

If Dolby would drop all that window dressing, there would be no issue. If Dolby wants to stay in the Blu game, they should come up with TruHD-UFW (UnF**kedWith) and then, I'd call it scientifically identical.

It's possible - even ridiculously simple - but I think Dolby has other business reasons for saddling everyone with their corporate plan to make everyone conform to their standard.

Check the poll results for the consequences.

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

Sony switching would just be catering to the silly wishes of people who don't care to understand the technology - not that I would blame Sony, as their goal is to sell, and switching to DTS is no skin off their back.

Well, I guess this did become personal.

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

But I personally find it very disheartening that there is such passion for one format or another when they are both mathematically equal.

One track matches the PCM original, bit for bit.

The other reduces sound output by at least 4DB, and amputates dynamic range by default. And you still call this identical?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Well I think it's clear that Sony is going with DTS if they're judging just from the poll.

However, as I and a few others stated a long time ago, THIS IS A BUSINESS DECISION. It doesn't automatically prove that DTS has some sort of magical quality over Dolby TrueHD.

BINGO

Give the man a cigar!

This is exactly the point: it is a business decision, with factors involved that go far outside subjective opinions about what sounds better to the average buyer.

The important thing to remember is that a huge factor will be the impulse buy at a brick and mortar site, or a fast on-line shopping burst - two movies, one from Sony and one from other studio - and the preference of the buyer for one sound format over the other.

Two actioner blockbusters, both likely purchases, one in DTS and one in Dolby. Which buy gets postponed? Why give the buyer a reason to say, "maybe I'd have to double-dip when the DTS version comes out later, I'll just go with this other DTS title now."

Lost sale.

Why risk it, for Dolby's business plan?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

The whole thing is childish. When someone discusses real evidence that the two are identical, you get the "Pfft we don't care, we just personally like it better" response. Yet in other posts, there is the clear message that these people think DTS-HD MA really sounds better. If they TRULY believed they were the same, TRULY believed the science, they would have no reason to continue to argue that DTS-HD MA is better. Yet they do. What does that say?

Looking at the reviews, the average scores between LPCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA only differ from each other by around 3 points! Given the wide breadth of movies out there, plus people's varying equipment and subjective tastes in sound, I'd say those are pretty damn identical results.

I don't care if Sony switches to DTS. I know they're both the same, so the actual codec on the disc means nothing to me. I am just disheartened by this ridiculous thread, and the complete breakdown of logic, reason, and good manners.

I somehow have a problem reconciling the first and last sentences in your post.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I'm glad this hasn't become personal.



It appears that the decision is far more complicated than "sounds better" for the studios. If it was about sound, you wouldn't see Dialnorm or DRC engaged at all.

For the frantic pouncers ready to scream, "But Sony doesn't use Dialnorm!", I'll simply say, prove it.



Merely what?

One last time.

I get a PCM track, there it is, for whatever it's worth, good or bad.

Encoded in DTS, nothing is lost.

Encoded in Dolby, it loses 4DB, and has DRC imbedded, which must be defeated at either the player or receiver level.

The results, scientifically, CANNOT be identical. Everything other statement is ludicrous.

The differences can be overcome, obviously; twiddle knobs, defeat features in menus, etc.

As a consumer paying serious dollars for products and services, I'm saying, without reserve, that to call two different results identical is a farce, and a ripoff.

If Dolby would drop all that window dressing, there would be no issue. If Dolby wants to stay in the Blu game, they should come up with TruHD-UFW (UnF**kedWith) and then, I'd call it scientifically identical.

It's possible - even ridiculously simple - but I think Dolby has other business reasons for saddling everyone with their corporate plan to make everyone conform to their standard.

Check the poll results for the consequences.



Well, I guess this did become personal.



One track matches the PCM original, bit for bit.

The other reduces sound output by at least 4DB, and amputates dynamic range by default. And you still call this identical?

observations that nobody can dispute

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I also voted that it doesn't matter. To me, personally, it doesn't. But, if I had a 7.1 system, I'd vote to keep TrueHD. I don't think 5.1 tracks should be forced to 7.1 using channel duplication, which is happening with many DTS-HD player decoders. I think it's better to let 5.1 play as 5.1 or to let the user select a DSP that matrixes the surrounds to the rears.

One of the studio wizards posted here that all they do with 7.1 tracks is duplicate them with PLIIx like we do here at home. The theater mix is usually 5.1.

I don't know if that applies to SDDS mixes, though.