Is Warner changing to DTS-HD Master Audio too?

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by BozQ

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?

Yep, authoring these discs is what I do... Granted, anyone can buy the DTS Audio Suite, but I am using a company-supplied copy (it's not cheap, $1500 I think...). To my knowledge, their software is still the only encoder available that does DTS-HD MA (as I believe Dolby's software is the only TrueHD encoder currently available...).

Originally Posted by BozQ

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?

No, there wouldn't be any benefit. Once it's 16-bit, you can't get any added quality by converting it to 24. It won't hurt anything, but it won't help either.

Rik

[Scorxpion]

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.

OHHH come on ,This is only the effect of DolbyTrueHD on your side let you say this,what if it is Vice Versa what a conclusion statement you will have Warner Bros have never used lossless correctly.Can you show me a synchronization issues rather than the Korean players.SAMSUNG players and LG players are disasters of their own issues ,always have problems with watchmen or without it.I don't know how Sony,Pioneer and Panasonic engineers are not interfering with their hardware architecture and give them an idea to put a reputable player without hiccups and errors.Always they are late in updating their firmware players before others,show me a single player from their side without any single error.Warner used dialnorm on DTSHD master audio is not a big problem and can be fixed easily from our side.Give me a reviewer from whatever you want if it is not got get insane from this robust soundtrack and get astonished at the end.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

Yep, authoring these discs is what I do... Granted, anyone can buy the DTS Audio Suite, but I am using a company-supplied copy (it's not cheap, $1500 I think...). To my knowledge, their software is still the only encoder available that does DTS-HD MA (as I believe Dolby's software is the only TrueHD encoder currently available...).

Damn! I am green with envy!
I've been dying to play around with this software, even a demo version would be great, but nadda. No chance to do so!

Speaking of price, you just brought up something I've never thought of before.
http://www.dolby.com/professional/pr...ng-DVD_HD.html
http://www.dts.com/Professionals/Pro...dio_Suite.aspx
The basic Dolby Media Encoder SE is the cheapest of the bunch, and it costs a whooping US$2900. That's a whole US$900 more than full featured DTS Master Suite. That's a huge difference and its perhaps the reason why more studios going over to DTS? Anyone's guess I suppose.

No, there wouldn't be any benefit. Once it's 16-bit, you can't get any added quality by converting it to 24. It won't hurt anything, but it won't help either.

Thanks a lot for answering this question. Really appreciate it.

By the way, did the software allow additional extensions on top of the DTS-Core? What I meant is, in a DTS MA track, there is the DTS-Core, which is plain ol' DTS 5.1 in 1536kbps, right? Is it possible to have further extensions like DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 or DTS 96/24 on top of the core? I'm quite sure ES Matrix is possible. But I'm not sure about the rest.

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by BozQ

The basic Dolby Media Encoder SE is the cheapest of the bunch, and it costs a whooping US$2900. That's a whole US$900 more than full featured DTS Master Suite. That's a huge difference and its perhaps the reason why more studios going over to DTS? Anyone's guess I suppose.

Well, for a small facility with a limited budget, that could affect what they purchase in the beginning... But all major studios and authoring facilities have both encoders. It's a one-time cost, so once you have both encoders, it doesn't cost any more for one format over the other... Considering that the authoring software is in the range of $30,000 and the video encoding software is also $20,000+, the cost of the audio software is down right cheap.

Originally Posted by BozQ

By the way, did the software allow additional extensions on top of the DTS-Core? What I meant is, in a DTS MA track, there is the DTS-Core, which is plain ol' DTS 5.1 in 1536kbps, right? Is it possible to have further extensions like DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 or DTS 96/24 on top of the core? I'm quite sure ES Matrix is possible. But I'm not sure about the rest.

Different setting are available depending on the channel layout. If it's 7.1, you can't do 96/24 or ES Matrix. The ES Phase-shift and Pre-Mixed settings are available on some 6.x settings, and a 96/24 core is only available if the sample rate is 96kHz or higher, and only with a 6.1 ES Matrix, 5.1 or 2.0 audio setup.

Either way, the encoder will still create the legacy 5.1 DTS stream that's compatible with every DTS decoder out there, and will add an additional extension for the extra ES or 96/24 data...

The legacy DTS core can be 1509, 1344, 1152, 960 or 768 kbps, but it's usually left at 1509. I encoded a feature file with 1509 and 768 settings, and the difference in size was negligible compared to the size of a Blu-Ray disc... It's a very efficient storage algorithm. It's not just muxing in a complete 5.1 stream, it's more a difference stream (it will use what it can from the HD MA streams, and only store what additional data is needed to create a legacy stream...). That's part of what keeps DTS files smaller than THD files, in general... It's not a huge space difference, but it's there, and could add up if you are putting 2, 3 or more lossless tracks on a feature.

Rik

[Canada]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

Some of my DTS dvds sound more cleaner then the 1,000 dvds with Dolby I own

The reason for that is because unlike Blu ray where Dolby True HD and DTS MA should theoretically sound the same all Dolby Digital 5.1 are encoded at 640 kbps, DTS is encoded at rate of 768 kbps. So higher bitrate means better sound.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Canada

The reason for that is because unlike Blu ray where Dolby True HD and DTS MA should theoretically sound the same all Dolby Digital 5.1 are encoded at 640 kbps, DTS is encoded at rate of 768 kbps. So higher bitrate means better sound.

Not necessarily. It's more dependent on the mix itself than the format. Of course the difference between a 640kbps and a 1.5mbps track is much more pronounced, but a difference of 128kbps is not really going to be noticeable. There's plenty of 640kbps Dolby Digital tracks that sound just as good as their 768kbps DTS counterparts on DVD.

[deado]

I've never seen a 640kbps DVD, only 384 and 448.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Canada

The reason for that is because unlike Blu ray where Dolby True HD and DTS MA should theoretically sound the same all Dolby Digital 5.1 are encoded at 640 kbps, DTS is encoded at rate of 768 kbps. So higher bitrate means better sound.

Not quite accurate:

DVD rates for DD are 448kbps and for DTS 768kbps.

BD uses DD @640kbps and DTS @1536kbps.

However due to the nature of their compression methods, DD is far more efficient than DTS, especially at lower bitrates. High frequencies roll off @16kHz for DTS 768kbps, where it remains flat for DD @448. So higher bitrates don't necessarily mean better, the same way in the video realm MPEG4 or VC-1 at lower bitrates (17-20Mbps) beats MPEG2 encoded at a higher bitrate (20-25Mbps). In a blind, level matched test you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between DD @640kbps and DTS @1536kbps.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by deado

I've never seen a 640kbps DVD, only 384 and 448.

Pink Floyd: The Wall has an additional 640kbps track for players that can pass the signal.

[Blu-Dog]

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.

And no matter how often it's repeated that a supposedly lossless codec decreases volume from the core source via Dialnorm, it's denied, denied, denied that people will hear a difference without knowing the cause.

Dolby's been shooting itself in the foot. They have a terrific product, but they put a muzzle on it and then wonder why DTS tracks with an increase of 4DB at reference levels sounds so much better to folks who don't know about this stuff.

Will they wake up? Maybe. There's nothing wrong with Dolby that a shave and a haircut wouldn't fix.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Basing the entire opinion of a lossless audio codec on a placebo effect huh? While I prefer DTS HD-MA for having it's core 1.5mps track built right into it and saving space I don't like it when someone goes on about how it is better because it sounds better when clearly it cannot.

Clearly how?

-4DB, my friend. Sometimes more. That's not peanuts.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dialnorm serves two purposes, neither of which strikes me as silly. The first is to equalize volume levels across all media. The second is to provide an accurate "center point" for dynamic range control. The one thing I've never understood is why Dolby decided on a dialnorm value of -31 while dialog on films is generally at -27. That 4db difference is the cause of most of the complaints about DN.

I have yet to hear any reason for a broadcast standard to apply to recorded media. Quite simply, I have to sit through menus telling me in multiple languages that I can't record or rebroadcast the disc I just paid for, so I have no interest in that process.

More importantly, DTS doesn't have these "purposes" in mind, and not a living soul misses them. As you've noted in other posts, Dialnorm was forced into the DTS schema, and it's not been utilized to this point.

Even Dolby admits that Dialnorm has not been a success, since not all recorded broadcast media uses it - and not all broadcasters implement it correctly. Even more oddly, DRC, a crippling mode I've never seen anyone actually use - has never been implemented by users, with or without Dialnorm.

It looks like Blu simply caught Dolby flat-footed. Eager to blend in all of the logo-based hardware dependencies they've enjoyed for decades, they put more stuff in that real audiophiles have less than no use for.

The pushback is incredible. Will they learn? Turn off these "features", and they might make some friends back.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm pretty sure that Warner engaged it for WATCHMEN. I had to turn that one up about 5 clicks over my standard for DTSMA, I have to boost Disney DTSMA tracks about 3 over my standard, so I think that those studios are engaging it.

I have no evidence of it though.

I can't imagine why. One fellow ran it through a processor and swears dialnorm (or dialognorm or whatever it's called under DTS) was invoked. I hope he's reading it wrong, what a disaster to play games like that with an encode.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Sometimes I just wished Dolby didn't implement Dialnorm and DRC. Or at least default it to OFF.

If they did, I've have voted "makes no difference" in that other thread.

[Freekman]

Quasi-related: My dad just said, "You got ripped off. There is no such thing as 'HD' Sound!" I replied with a simple "false."

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

Well, for a small facility with a limited budget, that could affect what they purchase in the beginning... But all major studios and authoring facilities have both encoders. It's a one-time cost, so once you have both encoders, it doesn't cost any more for one format over the other... Considering that the authoring software is in the range of $30,000 and the video encoding software is also $20,000+, the cost of the audio software is down right cheap.



Different setting are available depending on the channel layout. If it's 7.1, you can't do 96/24 or ES Matrix. The ES Phase-shift and Pre-Mixed settings are available on some 6.x settings, and a 96/24 core is only available if the sample rate is 96kHz or higher, and only with a 6.1 ES Matrix, 5.1 or 2.0 audio setup.

Either way, the encoder will still create the legacy 5.1 DTS stream that's compatible with every DTS decoder out there, and will add an additional extension for the extra ES or 96/24 data...

The legacy DTS core can be 1509, 1344, 1152, 960 or 768 kbps, but it's usually left at 1509. I encoded a feature file with 1509 and 768 settings, and the difference in size was negligible compared to the size of a Blu-Ray disc... It's a very efficient storage algorithm. It's not just muxing in a complete 5.1 stream, it's more a difference stream (it will use what it can from the HD MA streams, and only store what additional data is needed to create a legacy stream...). That's part of what keeps DTS files smaller than THD files, in general... It's not a huge space difference, but it's there, and could add up if you are putting 2, 3 or more lossless tracks on a feature.

Rik

Rik, thank you very much for that whole load of information!

Ben

[Rik1138]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

And no matter how often it's repeated that a supposedly lossless codec decreases volume from the core source via Dialnorm, it's denied, denied, denied that people will hear a difference without knowing the cause.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Clearly how?

-4DB, my friend. Sometimes more. That's not peanuts.

And this is why I keep stating, over and over and over, that you have to ADJUST YOUR SOUND SYSTEM SEPARATELY FOR DOLBY AND DTS. This is done to compensate for this 4db difference, effectively eliminating the dialnorm affect. Without making these adjustments then, of course, one is going to sound different than the other.

If your system only has one volume that you can adjust, then you will never be equally happy with both formats. Unfortunately, this is probably the case with most consumer level A/V equipment. At the very least, using a calibration disc of some kind, find out what the difference in volume is to make them sound similar. You need the exact same audio encoded in both formats to adjust your system properly. The other problem might be if you are letting your Blu-Ray player decode the streams into PCM and outputting that. Then your receiver has no idea if it's a DTS or THD stream in the first place. In that case, you will have to adjust the volume for each type of stream.

DTS-HD MA and THD _can_ sound exactly the same if you can set up your equipment properly...

But, I do agree that Dolby is only hurting themselves... While it is possible to make them sound the same, it's obvious from this thread that many people haven't (or can't) make the adjustments necessary. Thus, the one format that 'just works' is, naturally, the preferred one (that being DTS).

With DTS being a mandatory format now in Blu-Ray players, maybe it is time to just stop using the -4db/dialnorm setting on Dolby/THD... It's not being done in DTS obviously, and people have a natural tendency to like that sound better... And they already have to deal with the different volume levels from film to film. Time for some tests maybe...

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

OHHH come on ,This is only the effect of DolbyTrueHD on your side let you say this,what if it is Vice Versa what a conclusion statement you will have Warner Bros have never used lossless correctly.Can you show me a synchronization issues rather than the Korean players.SAMSUNG players and LG players are disasters of their own issues ,always have problems with watchmen or without it.I don't know how Sony,Pioneer and Panasonic engineers are not interfering with their hardware architecture and give them an idea to put a reputable player without hiccups and errors.Always they are late in updating their firmware players before others,show me a single player from their side without any single error.Warner used dialnorm on DTSHD master audio is not a big problem and can be fixed easily from our side.Give me a reviewer from whatever you want if it is not got get insane from this robust soundtrack and get astonished at the end.

I don't really understand what you're saying, but can you show me where WB cares? Bottom line, there are a lot of complaints and issues with the audio. Doesn't matter which players do what. The track is getting bad feedback from quite a few consumers so you better hope that WB tries DTS on a different title and doesn't just go by this experience (which was the entire point of what I was saying).

I know the issues probably have nothing to do with it being in DTS. But do you think all of the people complaining know it's not DTS's fault?

[ClaytonMG]

About Dialnorm...

Isn't WB the only one using it at this point on lossless tracks? And yes, they did lower the Watchmen track 4db.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

And this is why I keep stating, over and over and over, that you have to ADJUST YOUR SOUND SYSTEM SEPARATELY FOR DOLBY AND DTS.

Let's be careful with terminology here. Your statement should read, "To get truly lossless audio, you need to change the volume for Dolby encodes."

Originally Posted by Rik1138

This is done to compensate for this 4db difference, effectively eliminating the dialnorm affect. Without making these adjustments then, of course, one is going to sound different than the other.

Until I read about this problem in this forum, I wasn't aware of it. My receivers, Pioneer Elite units, would flash up a warning that Dolby encodes were being boosted - I couldn't figure out what was going on. Finally I got it.

How many people who prefer DTS are aware of this? Does it take secret insider knowledge to play back a commercial disc? The whole thing fails the logic test.

Dolby does this to match a broadcast standard that they openly admit is unsuccessful. They should drop it, but won't.

And for folks like me, who don't have all their gear sitting out in the open - one of my rigs is inside a cabinet, out of sight - fiddling with volume settings when I want to hear it at reference level doesn't make any sense at all.

Originally Posted by Rik1138

If your system only has one volume that you can adjust, then you will never be equally happy with both formats. Unfortunately, this is probably the case with most consumer level A/V equipment.

Unfortunate for Dolby. This is why most consumer level equipment users prefer DTS.

Consider my situation - two full setups, including Kuro 60" and Sony 52" XBR TV's, Pioneer Elite receivers, DefTech Mythos, Sonus Faber Domus, and Vienna Acoustics speakers, and JL Audio Fathom and Klipsch subwoofers, controlled by Harmony 1100 remotes. All off-the-shelf gear. Real, consumer level stuff.

I prefer non-hassle DTS encodes.

Originally Posted by Rik1138

At the very least, using a calibration disc of some kind, find out what the difference in volume is to make them sound similar. You need the exact same audio encoded in both formats to adjust your system properly.

I have that capability with the Elites - I can set up custom sound modes, including crossover settings, volume, the whole thing, without a problem.

Why should I need to do that, if the source is lossless? Why did I pay for very good playback gear, decoding lossless audio, if I have to compensate for modes that are not truly "zero-variance" decodes from the original PCM track?

It's not a law of nature; it's a choice, by whoever encodes the original track. If they make choices like that, I prefer another product. I didn't pay serious money for my playback gear, and their disc, to spend hours fiddling around compensating for their choices.

Originally Posted by Rik1138

The other problem might be if you are letting your Blu-Ray player decode the streams into PCM and outputting that. Then your receiver has no idea if it's a DTS or THD stream in the first place. In that case, you will have to adjust the volume for each type of stream.

This is my point: Why is a clean PCM encode a "problem"? Why is Dolby's choice of format taken as something that is immutable, unchangeable, and most important, not the preference of the consumer, by roughly a 9:1 ratio?

[QUOTE=Rik1138;2167190]DTS-HD MA and THD _can_ sound exactly the same if you can set up your equipment properly...

They can also sound exactly the same if unneeded features - Dialnorm, and DRC - are not invoked. Why bring the mountain to Mohamet? I still fail to see why these modes are invoked, or why these modes are supported by Dolby proponents. They need to simply make a super-clean encode, and leave all the voodoo modes in the lossy core or something.

Originally Posted by Rik1138

But, I do agree that Dolby is only hurting themselves... While it is possible to make them sound the same, it's obvious from this thread that many people haven't (or can't) make the adjustments necessary. Thus, the one format that 'just works' is, naturally, the preferred one (that being DTS).

I had the pleasure of once again playing my Police: Certifiable disc last week; it's a Dolby THD encode, of amazing quality and clarity. I fiddled with the volume until I was satisfied (I have no interest in calibrating for each disc, or trying to make new sound modes for PCM encodes; I'm paying cash for studio engineers to deal with that) and it reminded me of what you can get from Dolby. But it was a pain in the ass, which does not amuse me.

Originally Posted by Rik1138

With DTS being a mandatory format now in Blu-Ray players, maybe it is time to just stop using the -4db/dialnorm setting on Dolby/THD... It's not being done in DTS obviously, and people have a natural tendency to like that sound better... And they already have to deal with the different volume levels from film to film. Time for some tests maybe...

There is this unholy resistance to pressuring Dolby to do this from some Dolby adherents, and I'm still at a loss to understand it. This is Blu, not some cable/satellite broadcast.

I hope attitudes change.