Is Warner changing to DTS-HD Master Audio too?

[tvine2000]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Predator sounds freaking awesome. Demo worthy, IMO. Although the funny thing about that one is the original Dolby 4.0 surround track sounds just about as good as the DTS-HD track. Of course you have to kick up the Dolby a tiny bit, but it's one of the best sounding Dolby tracks I've ever heard. It's always been my belief that a good sounding disc has more to do with the mix itself than whether it's Dolby or DTS.

you right and i'm to glad to see someone else can see the bs here about dts vs dd.since the dd or dts tracks are done even after the music,i don't think enough time is spent mixing those tracks.most likely because they are too close to the deadline for release.

i myself have done final mixing for a mix on a cd,for my songs and i can tell you need at least 40hrs just to do a final mix.then it goes for some audio sweetling and master,a lot of things can get screwed up in the process.i don't believe dolby will let any studio go just with a dtsma track.uni and fox always have been dtsma on bd and newline,but will dd let all studios do dtsma,i think not.i haven't read anything from dolby on this subject,but i'm guessing there watching too.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Well the thing is that dts has been pretty loosey goosey with their decoders. Dolby has had a pretty firm spec on what the decoders should handle when they finalize a product. dts on the other hand has several different iterations of dts-HD decoders on the market. Some mix 7.1 to 5.1 even if you have a 7.1 setup.

That was a flaw in some early DTS-HD decoders that did not handle speaker remapping flags properly. The PS3 decoder was fixed, although the S550 seems to still have that flaw

Others will repeat the side surround channels, ie. force 5.1 in a 7.1 setup which then locks the user out of applying their own soundfield choice like PLIIx or THX Cinema2.

Yes. Panasonic, Oppo, and Pioneer all claim this is a requirement from DTS for their player decoders, although Sony players do not act the same way.

So newer decoders may be applying the data while older 1st generation decoders do not. THX at one time force a 4dB reduction on dts tracks. Not sure if they still do though, but I don't agree with that practice either.

Anything is possible, I suppose. This one seems easy enough to confirm, however, as most receivers report DN offsets. Besides, I've never seen anything written anywhere that indicates DTS decoders act on dialnorm values.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes but they use 2 different compression techniques, think MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 for video. DD is extremely efficient and can VBR it's channels independently, where DTS is CBR for all channels.

The DTS-HD at 1.5 mbps core's sound a lot better than the TrueHD core at 640 kbps, that's for sure. I prefer DTS-HDMA for this reason as I don't have a lossless receiver at the moment.

Really though, if you go past 1.5 mbps, there's little audible difference on most equipment.

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Predator sounds freaking awesome. Demo worthy, IMO. Although the funny thing about that one is the original Dolby 4.0 surround track sounds just about as good as the DTS-HD track. Of course you have to kick up the Dolby a tiny bit, but it's one of the best sounding Dolby tracks I've ever heard. It's always been my belief that a good sounding disc has more to do with the mix itself than whether it's Dolby or DTS.

You are totally right! DTS tracks are known to be louder and more agressive.. It has nothing to do with the technical aspects

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

The DTS-HD at 1.5 mbps core's sound a lot better than the TrueHD core at 640 kbps, that's for sure. I prefer DTS-HDMA for this reason as I don't have a lossless receiver at the moment.

Really though, if you go past 1.5 mbps, there's little audible difference on most equipment.

Actually there is no audible difference.. Since both are LOSSLESS mixes. It's just that often DTS HD Tracks sound better because the guys over at DTS like to make their tracks a little more aggressive.. Meaning more bass and such

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

My god no matter how much people are taught how DTS HD-MA has the same binary code and wavelength as Dolby TrueHD they still insist DTS HD-MA magically sounds better on their systems.

Thanks.. You couldn't have said it better... I thinks many people see "DTS HD Master" on the display of their receivers and magically think it's better.

I actually could test a movie which had both tracks. Well I owned it twice. It was Transporter 3.

The UK Version had a True HD Soundtrack while the other one had the DTS HD MA Soundtrack. I listened very carefully and with the volume turned way up to key passages but there was NO difference..

[Stephan.klose]

The only advantage of DTS HD instead of True HD is that, as it was previously mentioned is this thread, people with older receivers, that can't decode HD Soundformats get the 1,5 mb/s core on DTS Tracks and only the regular DD core which runs with 640 kb/s.

[Stephan.klose]

Also my very first question wasn't answered:

DOES ANYONE KNOW WHY WARNER CHOSE TO INCLUDE A DTS HD MA SOUNDTRACK ON "WATCHMEN" INSTEAD OF THEIR NORMAL TRUE HD?

[RiseDarthVader]

No one knows for sure it could be because it was specially requiested by Zack Snyder or they are testing a different codec or DTS HD-MA was easier to encode perhaps because of the maximum movie mode.

[Freekman]

As I said, they were probably seeing what consumers would think about it. If they hear feedback that people like DTS better, they might continue putting it into their future movies.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Freekman

As I said, they were probably seeing what consumers would think about it. If they hear feedback that people like DTS better, they might continue putting it into their future movies.

If they only go by this movie, I doubt we'd ever see another DTS title from Warner. There have been tons and tons of complaints about sync issues, volume level issues (dialnorm), fluctuation issues and the track being too "hot". Just check out the Watchmen Sound Issue thread.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

If they only go by this movie, I doubt we'd ever see another DTS title from Warner. There have been tons and tons of complaints about sync issues, volume level issues (dialnorm), fluctuation issues and the track being too "hot". Just check out the Watchmen Sound Issue thread.

It seemed to be player related.

Even so, doesn't make much sense that there would be issues since DTS HD has been on plenty of other movies before with no issues.

Very strange all around.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

No one knows for sure it could be because it was specially requiested by Zack Snyder or they are testing a different codec or DTS HD-MA was easier to encode perhaps because of the maximum movie mode.

Ooh yes! I never thought of this. That might very well be the reason!
DTS-Express.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'd love it if you could give us a bit more background on it's ease of implementation over TRUEHD.

Have you ever used the Dolby and DTS encoders? For features with multi-angle and seamless branching? If you have, then you really wouldn't need to ask these questions. If you haven't, trying to explain it to you would take too much time...

The biggest single complaint though is simply that the Dolby encoder is Mac only. The _ENTIRE_ workflow of DVD/Blu-Ray production is PC based (with the exception of creating graphics). Video encoding, authoring, QC and mastering are all done on PCs. So, if I want to even think about using Dolby, I have to have an additional computer at my station solely for the purpose of encoding THD audio. A complete waste of time/money/resources... The DTS encoder sits on the same system I use for authoring (in fact, I'm encoding DTS-HD MA audio right now... ). And it's a lot faster at encoding too (granted, that could be partly due to using an older Mac for the Dolby encoder, but it's a complaint I've heard from other facilities as well).

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I don't care what ANYONE says

And that would be the primary basis for your refusal to try to understand the reality of the sound formats...

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

there are many people who hear a difference when volume matching. It's not just me. I find EVERY DTS HD track more prolific than TRUEHD CRAPS... I mean, tracks!

Again, this is due to a failure in your (and indeed, MOST people's) ability to properly calibrate your sound system. It requires mounting a sound meter in your listening environment and fine-tuning the volume setting of each speaker individually, using each sound format (Dolby, DTS, THD, DTSHDMA, PCM). All the formats are processed a little differently, so they need to be adjusted separately, and usually several times to get them perfect. I'm not even sure if all receivers can have different volume level settings, per speaker, for each different format (probably not). Again, this would be part of the reason people 'think' that one is better than the other. 'I don't care what ANYONE says,' on a properly calibrated system, NO ONE would be able to tell the difference.

Originally Posted by bfellow

They don't. They have different bitrates and sizes. Is a 16-bit TrueHD equivalent to a 24-bit DTS-HD MA?

There's definitely a difference there, but keep in mind that THD is quite capable of 24-bit audio. It just matters what the source is. If you have a 16-bit WAV file as a source file, even the DTS-HD MA will be 16-bit. For Blu-Ray, it should always be 24-bit, but that's not always the case...

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

Actually there is no audible difference.. Since both are LOSSLESS mixes. It's just that often DTS HD Tracks sound better because the guys over at DTS like to make their tracks a little more aggressive.. Meaning more bass and such

DTS doesn't have anything to do with the film mixes... Audio assets are delivered to the authoring facility directly from the studio, and encoded in either DTS or THD there, whichever they prefer (or the studio tells them to prefer). DTS tracks are encoded at the exact levels of the original WAV files (or master tapes). Hence the term 'Master Audio'. Dolby usually encodes audio with a DB setting 4db lower, but it's a metadata flag, they aren't actually altering the sound files. Thus, at the same volume setting on a factory-default configured system, Dolby will be quieter than DTS (thus my insistence on proper audio calibration of your sound system). This setting can be changed when the audio is encoded, but I think out of fear of everyone having already set up their systems expecting the 4db difference, they don't want to suddenly switch to not using that setting...

Rik

[Freekman]

I have a low-budget cheap HT and don't have the capability to adjust each speaker for each format. I hope to purchase a more sophisticated system in the future to see just what you are describing. But most people can barely hear the difference between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Also, take into consideration that some films are better off using a less complicated audio type. If you have a film with terrible use of sound effects, it will be amplified through the system and sound worse. With a film like Watchmen, a lot of the explosions and other effects needed to use a better HD track in order to have the best possible effect.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by Freekman

If you have a film with terrible use of sound effects, it will be amplified through the system and sound worse. With a film like Watchmen, a lot of the explosions and other effects needed to use a better HD track in order to have the best possible effect.

I'm talking strictly about the lossless side of things, not the core streams.

Neither THD or DTS is 'better' than the other, they are just different. The output is exactly the same. The PCM track that's created 'real time' when the DTS or THD is decoded is identical.

It's like saying my copy of a program is better than your copy of the same program because I download the .RAR file, and you downloaded the .ZIP file. The compression format doesn't matter, the output is 100% identical. My program might look better on my computer because I have a 24" monitor compared to your 18" monitor, but that has nothing to do with the compression format used to deliver the files.

Rik

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

The biggest single complaint though is simply that the Dolby encoder is Mac only. The _ENTIRE_ workflow of DVD/Blu-Ray production is PC based (with the exception of creating graphics). Video encoding, authoring, QC and mastering are all done on PCs. So, if I want to even think about using Dolby, I have to have an additional computer at my station solely for the purpose of encoding THD audio. A complete waste of time/money/resources... The DTS encoder sits on the same system I use for authoring (in fact, I'm encoding DTS-HD MA audio right now... ). And it's a lot faster at encoding too (granted, that could be partly due to using an older Mac for the Dolby encoder, but it's a complaint I've heard from other facilities as well).

Holy smokes! Dude, are you working in an post production audio facility to actually get your hands on the DTS-HD Master Audio Suite? Or is there actually another software that does the encoding?

There's definitely a difference there, but keep in mind that THD is quite capable of 24-bit audio. It just matters what the source is. If you have a 16-bit WAV file as a source file, even the DTS-HD MA will be 16-bit. For Blu-Ray, it should always be 24-bit, but that's not always the case...

Can I ask a question since you're familiar with high end audio encoding? Is there any benefit in compressing a 16-bit LPCM to 24-bit TrueHD/MA?

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Freekman

I have a low-budget cheap HT and don't have the capability to adjust each speaker for each format. I hope to purchase a more sophisticated system in the future to see just what you are describing. But most people can barely hear the difference between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Also, take into consideration that some films are better off using a less complicated audio type. If you have a film with terrible use of sound effects, it will be amplified through the system and sound worse. With a film like Watchmen, a lot of the explosions and other effects needed to use a better HD track in order to have the best possible effect.

And boy what an effect they were

[MosHighDef]

PCM for the win!!

[saprano]

Originally Posted by MosHighDef

PCM for the win!!

Please Choose me