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

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

i'm not embarrassing myself here again if DTSHD master audio doesn't have any advantage over DolbyTrueHD Disney,FOX,Lionsgate and Universal will never used it.Tell me why the majority of BD containing 7.1 channels are encoded in DTSHD master audio.

Have you ever heard of spiffs, concessions, payola and other means to get someone to use your product.

dts is giving these studios concessions to get their codec to be used. It is not because it is necessarily better. Sure the wind is blowing in dts' favor at the moment, but will it be when those current agreements expire?

dts is living on borrowed time. If it weren't for the current use of a newer product on a physical HD media, then dts would not have a significant product market share in any of their consumer areas.

dts DVD is dead and dts will never be used on digital TV broadcasts. Their only hope to stay relevant in the consumer market is to be #1 audio codec on BD. Otherwise there is not much of reason anymore to include dts decoders in AV products.

As far as 7.1, Dolby can do it as well without issues. There is nothing inherently difficult about encoding it. But as another user pointed out to me, many of these '7.1' tracks were created by just applying a matrix algorithm then hardcoding the result to a 7.1 encode. So I am not that excited by '7.1' tracks unless they were specifically created by the original mixer.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

i do not have an AVR receiver capable of decoding these re-mapping speakers,but once i have will let you know if they are true or bullshit,Decoding is only done inside my player.

Remapping happens during decoding, which you currently do in your BD player. So, you don't need to wait for an AVR with lossless decoders. Just check your player - does it have an option to specify one of the seven DTS-HD speaker layouts? I am sure it does not. Or, try Google. You won't find any AVRs that list DTS Remapping as a feature. As far as I know, there aren't any receivers or players with that functionality at this time.

So, we are left with a new function that has no current value, questionable future value, and causes problems with current equipment (7.1 downmixes and forced channel duplication that prevents better matrix techniques). All in all, DTS speaker remapping seems to offer reasons to stay with TrueHD rather than switch.

[davcole]

I have to admit I scratch my head when we talk space and bandwidth savings between the codecs. While in theory, the combination of TRUEHD and DD in some cases could prove to be less in bandwidth cause the DTS core is running at 1.5mbs whereas the DD legacy track runs at 640kbs, in the typical Hollywood film, that's a few exceptions when the lossless rate would drop below 1.5, and those would be the only cases where the TRUEHD/DD combo would be efficent. For the majority of most films i'd doubt you'd see the lossless rate drop below 1.5mbs.

Now here's where it gets tricky.

Most films will have an active soundtrack in all channels, therefore all the DTSMA has to do is reach the peak necessary for lossless, whereas TRUEHD has to reach the lossless peak and still carry the 640kbs legacy track.

Think about it? Do you think the reason why Sony has used 448kbs on some of the legacy DD tracks isn't about space savings?

I think TRUEHD's best argument for space savings is for everything to come out 16bit resolution with a 5.1 channel max, that's the closest argument you could make for TRUEHD efficiency. Now if you want to up the bitrate to the industry standard of 24bits, well I think even the TRUEHD supports have to take a seriously long look that the combo TRUEHD/DD is more efficient.

That's why I believe there are more 24bit and 7.1 mixes in DTSMA, given it's efficiency over the TRUEHD/DD combo.

Right now the only TRUEHD major supporting studio that consistently does 24bit is Paramount. Warner and Sony have been down-rezzing some of the titles. Think about it, has to be a reason for it?

I do think if you see Sony go DTSMA, you'll see more 24bit and 7.1 channel mixes from those studios.

[cembros]

you see more dtshdma 7.1 tracks because a certian studio was artifically creating the extra channels using a matrix process similar to a consumer receiver.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

Most films will have an active soundtrack in all channels, therefore all the DTSMA has to do is reach the peak necessary for lossless, whereas TRUEHD has to reach the lossless peak and still carry the 640kbs legacy track.

That peak is still less than what DTS-MA requires.

Think about it? Do you think the reason why Sony has used 448kbs on some of the legacy DD tracks isn't about space savings?

No. it's more about recycling the DVD encode. Money & time savings.

I think TRUEHD's best argument for space savings is for everything to come out 16bit resolution with a 5.1 channel max, that's the closest argument you could make for TRUEHD efficiency. Now if you want to up the bitrate to the industry standard of 24bits, well I think even the TRUEHD supports have to take a seriously long look that the combo TRUEHD/DD is more efficient.

It is, most films aren't balls-to-the-walls sound, it would quickly become fatiguing.

Look at Close Encounters, the DTS track is consistently a megabit or more than the TrueHD track, and that's still over half a megabit more when you add it's 448kbps companion DD track.

That's why I believe there are more 24bit and 7.1 mixes in DTSMA, given it's efficiency over the TRUEHD/DD combo.

Wrong, certain studios are responsible for ordering the remixes and send it to places like Mi Casa. New Line did it, and once they were folded into Warner that stopped. They could easily do a 7.1 TrueHD track, but Warner feels that the "7.1!!!" bullet on the box isn't as important as LionsGate does.

Just how many FOX 7.1 DTS-MA tracks are there? Is there even one? And they were DTS-MA from the beginning.

Right now the only TRUEHD major supporting studio that consistently does 24bit is Paramount. Warner and Sony have been down-rezzing some of the titles. Think about it, has to be a reason for it?

In order to fit multiple TrueHD tracks. Sony will put 3 lossless tracks on their discs, so they can use the same master in multiple regions, again saving money.

I do think if you see Sony go DTSMA, you'll see more 24bit and 7.1 channel mixes from those studios.

Again, see FOX. And Warner's apparently doing Watchmen DTS-MA (the fanboy appeal of that title is off the scale now)...in 5.1, and we'll see if it's 16 or 24 bit then.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by cembros

you see more dtshdma 7.1 tracks because a certian studio was artifically creating the extra channels using a matrix process similar to a consumer receiver.

Honestly, what would that have to do with DTSMA if another studio decides to mix for 7.1?

[Jeff Kleist]

Honestly, what would that have to do with DTSMA if another studio decides to mix for 7.1?

There are a mere handful of true 7.1 mixes on Blu-ray. Virtually all of them simply have had the same rear extraction done that your receiver can do, just in the studio instead of on the fly.

Until the majority of theaters go 7.1 (not anytime in the forseeable future), that's where the mixes are going to lie.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Again, see FOX. And Warner's apparently doing Watchmen DTS-MA (the fanboy appeal of that title is off the scale now)...in 5.1, and we'll see if it's 16 or 24 bit then.

You think that has to with the director wanting DTS-MA? warner never used dts before so why now? im guessing it was asked for just like S.S did with close encounters.

Im pretty sure the track is going to be 16bit like all other warner movies.

[srrndhound]

Originally Posted by cembros

you see more dtshdma 7.1 tracks because a certian studio was artifically creating the extra channels using a matrix process similar to a consumer receiver.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

There are a mere handful of true 7.1 mixes on Blu-ray. Virtually all of them simply have had the same rear extraction done that your receiver can do, just in the studio instead of on the fly.

If you are referring to MiCasa, that's not how they did it (I visited Brant Biles and discussed this with him). If not, then to whom do you refer?

[srrndhound]

Originally Posted by davcole

I have to admit I scratch my head when we talk space and bandwidth savings between the codecs. While in theory, the combination of TRUEHD and DD in some cases could prove to be less in bandwidth cause the DTS core is running at 1.5mbs whereas the DD legacy track runs at 640kbs, in the typical Hollywood film, that's a few exceptions when the lossless rate would drop below 1.5, and those would be the only cases where the TRUEHD/DD combo would be efficent. For the majority of most films i'd doubt you'd see the lossless rate drop below 1.5mbs.

Now here's where it gets tricky.

Most films will have an active soundtrack in all channels, therefore all the DTSMA has to do is reach the peak necessary for lossless, whereas TRUEHD has to reach the lossless peak and still carry the 640kbs legacy track.

Think about it? Do you think the reason why Sony has used 448kbs on some of the legacy DD tracks isn't about space savings?

One of the parameters of the VBR bitrate that no BD player appears to reveal is the peak bitrate. The bitrate meter you see is averaging over a certain time window that is much longer than the rate of change of the lossless VBR track. Even if the file sizes or even the average bitrates appear to be similar, there can be differences in the peaks. Both lossless codecs have processes whereby these peaks are reduced by spreading them over time, but they are not identical in effect. While I have no data to back this up, I have heard that HDMA does a little better on these peaks than TrueHD.

In another post the idea of the VBR bitrate dropping to zero was mentioned. However, in any real world situation, that will not happen, even in dead silence, since there is always a noise floor present. Wideband noise does not compress well. For example, when the source wordlength changes from 16 to 24 bits, the PCM data rate changes by 2 Mbps, while the average lossless bitrate changes by about 1.8 Mbps, and the peak bitrate changes by about 2 Mbps. There's virtually no difference, and that means the noise floor in these 24-bit sources is less than 16 bits. That means the bitrates can never drop below roughly 1 Mbps for 16-bit sources, and add 1 Mbps for each 4 bits after that.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by saprano

You think that has to with the director wanting DTS-MA? warner never used dts before so why now? im guessing it was asked for just like S.S did with close encounters.

Im pretty sure the track is going to be 16bit like all other warner movies.

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs

There's no DTS on the DVD. If it was what the director really wanted, the DVD would also feature DTS.

[saprano]

So why change from what they normally use? im not complaining, im happy the watchmen will have DTS, but there has to be a reason why they're using it.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

http://www.dvdempire.com/Exec/v4_ite...or=1#topoftabs

There's no DTS on the DVD. If it was what the director really wanted, the DVD would also feature DTS.

Well, if we are to believe CraigW, then the reason it's not on the DVD is because DTS on dvd is dead.

Personally, I am happy it's DTS-HDMA. But it's not like I wouldn't buy it if it came in TrueHD.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by srrndhound

One of the parameters of the VBR bitrate that no BD player appears to reveal is the peak bitrate. The bitrate meter you see is averaging over a certain time window that is much longer than the rate of change of the lossless VBR track. Even if the file sizes or even the average bitrates appear to be similar, there can be differences in the peaks. Both lossless codecs have processes whereby these peaks are reduced by spreading them over time, but they are not identical in effect. While I have no data to back this up, I have heard that HDMA does a little better on these peaks than TrueHD.

In another post the idea of the VBR bitrate dropping to zero was mentioned. However, in any real world situation, that will not happen, even in dead silence, since there is always a noise floor present. Wideband noise does not compress well. For example, when the source wordlength changes from 16 to 24 bits, the PCM data rate changes by 2 Mbps, while the average lossless bitrate changes by about 1.8 Mbps, and the peak bitrate changes by about 2 Mbps. There's virtually no difference, and that means the noise floor in these 24-bit sources is less than 16 bits. That means the bitrates can never drop below roughly 1 Mbps for 16-bit sources, and add 1 Mbps for each 4 bits after that.

Thanks so much for sharing your insights.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well, if we are to believe CraigW, then the reason it's not on the DVD is because DTS on dvd is dead.
Personally, I am happy it's DTS-HDMA. But it's not like I wouldn't buy it if it came in TrueHD.

Buddy go back and the read what I said.... 'dts on DVD' is DEAD. Not DVD is DEAD. Give me a list of major DVD releases in the last year that featured dts audio.

Again their only hope is to have dts used primarily on Blu-ray because major content providers are not encoding DVDs with dts any longer.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

So, we are left with a new function that has no current value, questionable future value, and causes problems with current equipment (7.1 downmixes and forced channel duplication that prevents better matrix techniques). All in all, DTS speaker remapping seems to offer reasons to stay with TrueHD rather than switch.

"Questionable future value" seems to be predicated on what the hardware manufacturers will provide in future DTS mapping choices. Things may change.

At this time, the THX standard states that rear channels on 7.1 mapping should place the speakers next to each other, in a glorified 6.1 setup. I have two 7.1 HT's, one in with the rears close to each other, one with them widely separated. It doesn't matter much for THX playback - I'm struggling to think of any Dolby 7.1 releases, but vaguely remember that two or three have been done.

Robot mode 7.1 extensions such as PLIIx, a Dolby mode, are just as questionable as anything DTS is doing; it seems to be a pretty marginal excuse to stay with Dolby.

[BIslander]

Blu-Dog - I'm going to take one shot at this in hopes that you have developed an interest in discussing rather than arguing about these issues since your last set of posts in this thread.

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

"Questionable future value" seems to be predicated on what the hardware manufacturers will provide in future DTS mapping choices. Things may change.

Fair enough. Perhaps you can describe the value you see. Even if it worked, I don't see one that would affect more than a handful of people. If a value develops in the future, then the future would seem to be the right time for Sony to switch codecs.

At this time, the THX standard states that rear channels on 7.1 mapping should place the speakers next to each other, in a glorified 6.1 setup. I have two 7.1 HT's, one in with the rears close to each other, one with them widely separated. It doesn't matter much for THX playback - I'm struggling to think of any Dolby 7.1 releases, but vaguely remember that two or three have been done.

How is this related to DTS-HD 7.1 Speaker Remapping? I have not seen anything in the DTS-White Paper or the diagrams of the seven remapped positions that includes that particular THX recommendation.

Robot mode 7.1 extensions such as PLIIx, a Dolby mode, are just as questionable as anything DTS is doing; it seems to be a pretty marginal excuse to stay with Dolby.

Again, how is this related to DTS Speaker Remapping?

PLIIx is a Dolby matrixing DSP just like Neo:6 is a DTS mode. There are others from other companies as well. All of them are applied by the user post-decoding. All are optional and not part of the encoding process. You can apply each of these DSPs to any sort of multichannel soundtrack - PLIIx can be applied to a dts-MA 5.1 source while Neo:6 can be applied to TrueHD. You can use them with PCM sources. This is not a dts-MA vs. TrueHD kind of issue.

Remapping is supposed to offer the home user the opportunity to reprocess the 7.1 mix for his/her room layout, provided it matches one of the seven DTS layouts. As previously explained, that only works if the user can tell the decoder where his speakers are placed, which is not possible in any current receiver or player. However, Panasonic, Pioneer, and Oppo have all said that remapping is the reason they've been ordered by DTS to remix 5.1 lossless by duplicating surround channels to the rears as part of decoding. That DTS requirement means you cannot listen to a 5.1 dts-MA track the way it was recorded if you have a 7.1 system and one of those players doing the decoding. You must listen to a re-processed version that most agree is inferior to what you call questionable "robot 7.1 extensions". Channel duplication is considerably less sophisticated than PLIIx or Logic7. Remapping is also responsible for the 5.1 downmixing of some 7.1 discs with some decoders that you confirmed yourself with Hell Boy 2.

Finally, please remember the context of my post. Sporxpion posted DTS marketing literature about Speaker Remapping as a reason that Sony should switch to dts-MA now. My post was designed to get beyond the marketing claims and examine that particular feature in more detail. I think the evidence shows that in its current state of development, remapping is more of a liability than an asset.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

"Questionable future value" seems to be predicated on what the hardware manufacturers will provide in future DTS mapping choices. Things may change.

At this time, the THX standard states that rear channels on 7.1 mapping should place the speakers next to each other, in a glorified 6.1 setup. I have two 7.1 HT's, one in with the rears close to each other, one with them widely separated. It doesn't matter much for THX playback - I'm struggling to think of any Dolby 7.1 releases, but vaguely remember that two or three have been done.

Robot mode 7.1 extensions such as PLIIx, a Dolby mode, are just as questionable as anything DTS is doing; it seems to be a pretty marginal excuse to stay with Dolby.

No, that's not true. If you actually read what THX says, the back speakers should be placed together for NON-7.1 sources. And that's if you're using their surround modes. However, THX receivers also accomadate for people that aren't able to (or choose not to) place their back speakers together.

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/71.html

Now, if you look at what THX recommends for TRUE 7.1 sources from Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA, you'll see the EXACT same set up as what Dolby recomments.

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/speakers/dolby.html

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by saprano

So why change from what they normally use? im not complaining, im happy the watchmen will have DTS, but there has to be a reason why they're using it.

For the same reason Sony is possibly thinking of changing. For the same reason Disney changed. For the same reason Universal and Fox have always been DTS-HD MA.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well, if we are to believe CraigW, then the reason it's not on the DVD is because DTS on dvd is dead.

Personally, I am happy it's DTS-HDMA. But it's not like I wouldn't buy it if it came in TrueHD.

DTS on DVD is pretty much dead. However, if a director chose to use DTS thinking it's superior (or had a case like Speilberg) I am sure a studio would be happy to work things out. But it's true, there's not much demand for DTS on DVD. I can't even remember the last time DTS was on a DVD (of course I haven't purchased a DVD of a movie since 2006 so there might've been some that slipped by me).