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

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by 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.

I wonder why you begin with this tone. I recall a chap referring to me as an "******* fanboy"; wouldn't your comment be best addressed to him?

It takes two to argue, unless you're using the term "argument" to mean "stating a position".

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

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

I stand corrected.

The last time I looked at the site - perhaps 18 - 24 months back - this information hadn't been posted. I went ahead and separated my speakers in any case - they're wall mounted, so I can't shift them around based on the source material.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by 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.

Rather than beg for cites, I'll just disregard this comment.

Originally Posted by BIslander

(on the topic of DTS speaker positions modes thus far unsupported...)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.

Perhaps you've mistaken me for someone else. I have absolutely no interest in expanded DTS speaker positioning modes at this time; all I'm saying is that hardware manufacturers don't appear to be supporting them at this time, and may in the future. To me, and to most people, this is irrelevant.

Hardware manufacturers also are not automatically disabling DRC, or compensating for Dialnorm, which is my chief bone of contention with Dolby. From your own cites, there are seven movies that have been released with DTS tracks using the enhanced speaker position modes that can't be properly decoded - hardly as pervasive a nuisance as Dialnorm, and I haven't seen any data on how many Dolby films have DRC as a default. We both know about the Iron Man problem; I have no idea how many others there are.

My statement is simple: a miscode from new DTS modes on seven movies is not a reason to ditch DTS. A default Dialnorm and DRC schema for Dolby, unless voluntarily and aggressively avoided, is a reason to ditch Dolby. Your opinion varies.

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

THX recommendations have been updated since I did my speaker placement (against their recommendations, by they way; their recommendations at that time were based on pre-True HD and DTS-HD adoption). ClaytonMG posted the updated links, and yes, it's irrelevant.

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

I use them all the time. I find no special magic to them - with my receiver, I can easily duplicate or modify them, if I like. It comes nowhere close to actually creating a PCM 7.1 track with discrete audio streams to the rear surrounds. It's just another method of supplying sound to rear speakers, in my humble opinion, and I see no huge disaster in not engaging these modes and using duplication of the surrounds on 5.1 sources, as you seem to.

It's odd that you're so passionate about this duplication of surround signals, instead of robot processing, as if these automatic modes are somehow hugely important - and then stating that any other sound schema devised by DTS for sound placement is unimportant. For the thousandth time, I'm not anti-Dolby at all, if Dolby will stop dicking around with sound levels and dynamic range without my actual control.

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that also an option that can be selected during encoding? And that all movies don't have the speaker placement as an option? Sounds like a bug, not a plan.

As an idea, I like it. Sounds cool, but I don't really need it. I think they should turn it off, for now.

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

Here's where the rubber meets the road.

Who is "most agree"? I own Pioneer units, that don't decode; I let the player do it, and I've heard the "most agree" arguments that players shouldn't decode, yada yada. At some point, all of this gets absurd. If I had all MacIntosh or Krell gear (one day, one day) my player would decode, and I'd be happy with it.

If I decode and use analog outs, my only control in any case would be MCACC control of the PCM stream. I couldn't engage any robot mode, in any case. And "most agree" that analog input is better - not that I'd know; I'm using HDMI, and can mix as I see fit. In fact, that's why I didn't know about the Hellboy 2 issue - my receiver is set to "Auto Surround", and when it gets a true 7.1 PCM or DTS MA signal, it delivers it as PCM. When it gets a 5.1 PCM signal - decoded by the player - it engages the robot PLIIx mode.

For those who decode from within the receiver, perhaps this is an irritant, and I can understand and agree that limitation of selection of playback isn't desirable. In these cases, I think the DTS encode should be limited to whatever modes are supported by the manufacturer's technology. I also recommend that players do the decoding, but that's just advice and preference.

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

I didn't agree with his comments, as I saw nothing in DTS's new modes to recommend any switch. My bias against Dolby is not based on whoop-de-do new features in DTS offerings at all.

One last time: I would not give a tinker's damn which system is used, if either one would simply give an unaltered, bit for bit decompression of the original LPCM soundtrack as designed by the filmmaker. I don't want volume changed, range compressed, speakers remapped, nothing.

I have far more issues with Dolby doing this, than DTS. Please restrict arguments with "fanboy" types to them.

[BIslander]

Blu-Dog, you clearly do not understand that DTS Speaker Remapping alters the original sound mix. In its current implementation, it is the only "feature" of Dolby or DTS lossless encode/decode processing that changes the final output in ways that the end user cannot prevent. And, DTS requires player manufacturers to change the final lossless output of 5.1 releases to 7.1 using channnel duplication. Given your lack of understanding and seeming unwillingness to learn, there's no point in further discussion.

[LembasBread]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

...there are seven movies that have been released with DTS tracks using the enhanced speaker position modes that can't be properly decoded - hardly as pervasive a nuisance as Dialnorm, and I haven't seen any data on how many Dolby films have DRC as a default.

Though Dialnorm and DRC are relatively a "nuisance" they can be compensated for via turning up the volume and turning of the DRC. When a 7.1 DTS-HD MA track isn't decoded properly, there's nothing the end user can do to compensate to get the discrete 7.1 channels back.

There has been one documented case of auto DRC enabled on a Dolby TrueHD encode. 7 documented cases of faulty DTS-HD MA encodes. I'd say from that track record, Dolby is the more ideal encode option with less bugs for the end user to deal with.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by LembasBread

There has been one documented case of auto DRC enabled on a Dolby TrueHD encode. 7 documented cases of faulty DTS-HD MA encodes. I'd say from that track record, Dolby is the more ideal encode option with less bugs for the end user to deal with.

I think it's only six not seven, actually, with the documented downmix problem caused by remapping flags. To me, the more significant number is that ALL DTS 5.1 encodes on BD have forced channel duplication in 7.1 systems using Panasonic, Pioneer, or Oppo (analog) players for decoding.

[lgans316]

The International - Brand new release - 16-bit Dolby TrueHD / 448 Kbps.

Damn you Sony.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by lgans316

The International - Brand new release - 16-bit Dolby TrueHD / 448 Kbps.

Damn you Sony.

this site gave the audio track on this film 5 stars, not sure why you are upset????

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by cembros

this site gave the audio track on this film 5 stars, not sure why you are upset????

Coz of the over-compressed 448 Kbps core.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Coz of the over-compressed 448 Kbps core.

Its not a core its a seccondary track, are you not able to decode lossless?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by lgans316

The International - Brand new release - 16-bit Dolby TrueHD / 448 Kbps.

Damn you Sony.

I'm about to watch that and see if it compares with the review. However 16bit and 448DD is a bit of a disappointment when you think of how it could potentially sound.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm about to watch that and see if it compares with the review. However 16bit and 448DD is a bit of a disappointment when you think of how it could potentially sound.

what does the 448dd track have to do with how the true hd sounds.

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm about to watch that and see if it compares with the review. However 16bit and 448DD is a bit of a disappointment when you think of how it could potentially sound.

I'm sure the 448 number is the lossy Dolby Digital track bandwidth, limited to 448kbps (for systems without lossless processing). On the lossy note, it is disappointing that is is not 640kbps. However...

...The lossless Dolby TrueHD audio will be several mbps at least.

BIG difference.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm about to watch that and see if it compares with the review. However 16bit and 448DD is a bit of a disappointment when you think of how it could potentially sound.

DTS can have a 768kbps core, and a couple releases do have it.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by cembros

what does the 448dd track have to do with how the true hd sounds.

Wow!! Where did this come from?

I make mentioned of what the previous poster said about the legacy track being 448kbs along with the TRUEHD being 16bit and I say it's a disappointment. How does that get twisted into me suggesting a 448 legacy track makes for in inferior TRUEHD presentation? The knock on the TRUEHD is the 16bit instead of 24bit, not TRUEHD.

Are we getting a bit too defensive in the thread we ignore the context of what is written?

Oh, by the way I can't believe they scored the audio a 5.0. This is barely into the 4.0 range. Nowhere near a perfect reference rating.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by davcole

Wow!! Where did this come from?

I make mentioned of what the previous poster said about the legacy track being 448kbs along with the TRUEHD being 16bit and I say it's a disappointment. How does that get twisted into me suggesting a 448 legacy track makes for in inferior TRUEHD presentation? The knock on the TRUEHD is the 16bit instead of 24bit, not TRUEHD.

Are we getting a bit too defensive in the thread we ignore the context of what is written?

Oh, by the way I can't believe they scored the audio a 5.0. This is barely into the 4.0 range. Nowhere near a perfect reference rating.

i didnt say u suggested that the 448 track affected the true hd track, instead i questioned why having a 448 track is even an issue when you have a true hd track.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by cembros

i didnt say u suggested that the 448 track affected the true hd track, instead i questioned why having a 448 track is even an issue when you have a true hd track.

My point suggests that for both the Lossless and Legacy tracks that the consumer gets a downgraded version from what was available. They could have had a 640DD which would be best for the legacy consumer and for the lossless capable, we could have a 24bit "master quality" track.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

Oh, by the way I can't believe they scored the audio a 5.0. This is barely into the 4.0 range. Nowhere near a perfect reference rating.

I'll bet if it was DTS-MA you'd be agreeing with the 5.0...

[cembros]

Originally Posted by davcole

My point suggests that for both the Lossless and Legacy tracks that the consumer gets a downgraded version from what was available. They could have had a 640DD which would be best for the legacy consumer and for the lossless capable, we could have a 24bit "master quality" track.

i doubt that most could even hear a difference between 16bit and 24 bit. Plus a 448 track leaves more space on the disc for the video

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I'll bet if it was DTS-MA you'd be agreeing with the 5.0...

Now that comment is just silly!!

Peter you've obviously not kept up with what i've said in this thread otherwise you'd not make such a silly comment. I've said 2x in this thread that I hear no differences between the codecs and that I voted "doesn't matter", so why would you make such an unenlightened comment?

Please check yourself before embarrasment.