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

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

The two tracks on Top Gun are not from the same master. They aren't even the same number of channels. So comparing them doesn't tell you anything about the codecs.

I just checked it out and you are absolutely right. On Top Gun, the Dolby TrueHD track is 5.1, and the DTS-HD Master Audio track is 6.1. Was hoping it could have been a more legit way of comparing the two formats.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by ganthc

But using your logic of "pressured sound engineers", couldn't it also be said that these same engineers have been pressured to say that TrueHD and DTS are the same thing? And I would say that the engineers who say that the DD+ track for Transformers were "indistinguishable" from the master audio were leaving no room for interpretation either.

It's all in the adverbs. By definition, an adverb tells "how," "where," "when," or "to what degree." In the case we're discussing with the engineers on Transformers, use of the adverbs "perceptually" and "virtually" tells to what degree the encode was indistinguishable--leaving room for interpretation. If they wouldn't have qualified it, merely saying, "The DD+ encode is indistinguishable," then there's no room for interpretation. I know this seems like a petty and picky thing, but when it comes to marketing and politics, it's the small technicalities of language that change the whole meaning of what is being said.

I conceded in my post that the possibility of pressure on the sound engineers still exists. There is no proof for or against the fact. But in my opinion, which I realize isn't fact, the likelihood of that is significantly diminished now that the format war is over and both lossless codecs are widely used.

Really, if Sony sticks with TrueHD, I am fine. They have had some incredible sounding mixes in TrueHD (30 Days of Night, Spiderman movies), and I would argue that on the movies where a PCM and TrueHD track were included for the same movie (Spiderman 3, and The Fifth Element), I was not able to tell the difference between the two after normalizing.

But I would say that in my opinion DTS mixes seem to have more bass, which gives them that "punchier" reputation. Personally, I would like to see Sony join Disney, Universal, Fox, and Lionsgate in putting DTS-HDMA tracks on their movies. I would say that if Disney switched from TrueHD to DTS-HDMA, they see some benefit in going with one lossless format over the other. Perhaps Sony is starting to see that this would be in their favor as well. Bottom line is that their customers seem to want to have the DTS lossless track, so if lossless is lossless, why not give them the lossless track that they want, regardless of the reasons (even if they might be faulty or misguided)? It's not like Sony is asking to put DNR or EE into their films or change aspect ratios to get rid of black bars. To me, it's a win-win for both sides on this one.

I agree with the sentiment that anything lossless is good--now that I am DTS-MA capable. But I remember just a week ago how devastated I would have been if Sony decided to go with MA, because my player--the Panny DMP-BD10A--didn't support MA. It could decode TrueHD and pass it via MC Analog, but DTS MA reverted to the core track. Now, I don't care, but for the sake of everybody who isn't DTS-MA equipped, TrueHD has something to offer.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

I agree with the sentiment that anything lossless is good--now that I am DTS-MA capable. But I remember just a week ago how devastated I would have been if Sony decided to go with MA, because my player--the Panny DMP-BD10A--didn't support MA. It could decode TrueHD and pass it via MC Analog, but DTS MA reverted to the core track. Now, I don't care, but for the sake of everybody who isn't DTS-MA equipped, TrueHD has something to offer.

It was the other studios that pushed me to purchase DTS-MA equipment so quickly. I too am just fine if they stay TrueHD. I wish there was a way for the software to default to the TrueHD track instead of me having to go dig for it.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by CAB

It was the other studios that pushed me to purchase DTS-MA equipment so quickly. I too am just fine if they stay TrueHD. I wish there was a way for the software to default to the TrueHD track instead of me having to go dig for it.

Sony and Paramount (and possibly other studios) titles do default to the TrueHD track. Most WB titles do not, but that is a WB decision - it has no relation to Dolby or their implementation of TrueHD.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by CAB

It was the other studios that pushed me to purchase DTS-MA equipment so quickly. I too am just fine if they stay TrueHD. I wish there was a way for the software to default to the TrueHD track instead of me having to go dig for it.

Gran Torino under Clint Eastwood can do it as a default,Finally warner is hearing us.No more digging it up

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

i think dts hd is better then dobly tru hd, i have some movies and they sound just like normal dolby, maybe abit louder with action, most movies with true hd have dialouge too low,
what about PCM???!

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

Gran Torino under Clint Eastwood can do it as a default,Finally warner is hearing us.No more digging it up

What!!

Wow, that's incredible and I read somewhere that Falling Down defaults to TRUEHD. Are they now hiding the DD track or is that still manuallly selected by the menu?

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by davcole

What!!

Wow, that's incredible and I read somewhere that Falling Down defaults to TRUEHD. Are they now hiding the DD track or is that still manuallly selected by the menu?

This is what i have read during the review of this title,It is there from the first time by default,You can still listen to Dolby Dgital if you want but you have to dig for it as we do before for Dolby True HD.

Even this way of progress on behalf of Warner still i prefer the other Lossless sound mentioned here in this thread.

[bluseminole]

I saw a quote that made me think of this thread (and honestly, of sooo many others as well)....

"I don't hate the truth. It's facts I'm not a fan of."
"Facts change, but my opinion never does."

--Stephen Colbert

[Hep]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

"I don't hate the truth. It's facts I'm not a fan of."
"Facts change, but my opinion never does."

--Stephen Colbert

Words to live by, he is a brilliant man. Long live the Cobert Nation!

[Sammy]

I voted "Other". They (and all studios) should offer both with the dts track being 7.1.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

It's all in the adverbs. By definition, an adverb tells "how," "where," "when," or "to what degree." In the case we're discussing with the engineers on Transformers, use of the adverbs "perceptually" and "virtually" tells to what degree the encode was indistinguishable--leaving room for interpretation. If they wouldn't have qualified it, merely saying, "The DD+ encode is indistinguishable," then there's no room for interpretation. I know this seems like a petty and picky thing, but when it comes to marketing and politics, it's the small technicalities of language that change the whole meaning of what is being said.

I conceded in my post that the possibility of pressure on the sound engineers still exists. There is no proof for or against the fact. But in my opinion, which I realize isn't fact, the likelihood of that is significantly diminished now that the format war is over and both lossless codecs are widely used.

Fair enough. I am just glad that we don't have to worry about lossy tracks except for when Warner cheaps out on their releases. It is one improvement from the format war that lives today.

I agree with the sentiment that anything lossless is good--now that I am DTS-MA capable. But I remember just a week ago how devastated I would have been if Sony decided to go with MA, because my player--the Panny DMP-BD10A--didn't support MA. It could decode TrueHD and pass it via MC Analog, but DTS MA reverted to the core track. Now, I don't care, but for the sake of everybody who isn't DTS-MA equipped, TrueHD has something to offer.

But I am guessing that missing out on Fox/MGM, Universal, Lionsgate, and Disney audio got you to upgrade your player. Perhaps Sony would be the tipping point for a lot of people.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

Well all know it has a smaller file size than DTSMA, but can you show were it would be more efficient when you included the required 640 DD track as opposed to DTSMA where the required legacy track is already included?

I'd love to see a link if you can provide that?

For silence on tracks TrueHD can go to "0" (zero) or even with the 640kbps for the DD companion track that's less than half of what the MA track would require at all times due to the 1.5 core.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Sammy

I voted "Other". They (and all studios) should offer both with the dts track being 7.1.

Sooo they should offer 7.1 only if you use DTS-HD MA? And then the Dolby TrueHD track (equally capable of delivering 8 channels and more) 5.1? Also, I don't think altering the tracks to make them 7.1 is matching the 5.1 master.

[D]

First of all, I voted once, and yes it was for dtsMA! So I guess that makes me misinformed, although I have many years of experience in the industry. With backround in manufacturing, as well as install and system design, from entry level mid-fi to ultra hi-end. But I am definately NOT in the category of FANBOY! So, I cast my vote on my KNOWLEGE of the FACTS, and my OPINION!

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by db01

First of all, I voted once, and yes it was for dtsMA! So I guess that makes me misinformed, although I have many years of experience in the industry. With backround in manufacturing, as well as install and system design, from entry level mid-fi to ultra hi-end. But I am definately NOT in the category of FANBOY! So, I cast my vote on my KNOWLEGE of the FACTS, and my OPINION!

-db+01

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by sanjay0864

I fail to understand why anyone would vote for Dolby TrueHD.

Anyone who understands audio would vote that sonically it DOES NOT MATTER which codec is used.

Lossless is lossless.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Fair enough. I am just glad that we don't have to worry about lossy tracks except for when Warner cheaps out on their releases. It is one improvement from the format war that lives today.



But I am guessing that missing out on Fox/MGM, Universal, Lionsgate, and Disney audio got you to upgrade your player. Perhaps Sony would be the tipping point for a lot of people.

Nailed it .

Still, missing out on 4 major studio's releases sucked big time. Missing out on 5 would just suck even more. This may seem cold but...better them than me

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by Hep

Words to live by, he is a brilliant man. Long live the Cobert Nation!

"But if we don't stoop to their level, we might lose in a worse way...by actually losing!"

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by dobyblue

Anyone who understands audio would vote that sonically it DOES NOT MATTER which codec is used.

Lossless is lossless.

I don't think knowledgeable people disagree about whether or not is it lossless.

I think the disagreement is about all the "features" attached to Dolby - such as Dialnorm, DRC, the -4DB stuff, that is a headache to steer through.

I also think the lossy core track of DTS is more attractive to those who can't decode either format.

So, do nothing and you get perfect lossless from DTS-HD; twiddle volume knobs, disable/enable stuff on players or receivers, and get perfect lossless from TruHD.

Maybe it's the difference from driving a car with an automatic, or a stick. Most folks prefer an automatic for daily driving.