Paramount Makes Move To DTS-HD Master Audio

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by cembros

huge issues? What it automatically enables drc on some receivers, once you turn that off its an amazing track.

To me, that's a huge issue. And even after disabling DRC, it was nothing to write home about.

Originally Posted by cembros

An error on one disc has nothing to do with a codec thats an issue with the engineerer.

I agree that Iron Man was an encode issue (both with the DRC foulup, and the actual mix). My issue with Dolby is that none of these issues is really necessary to deal with. They can strip off all the nonsense, and have an excellent system.

Originally Posted by cembros

The true hd track on the fith element is theroetically better than the pcm in that it is 20bit compared to 16 bit. Why is it that you prefer dts, if there are plenty of movies with refrence tracks that are in true hd then what does the codec have to do with anything? You should check out some of the other titles i listed, simply amazing and all true hd.

I own many of them, with some being terrific, and some merely so-so. That's more a matter of the source material, not the codec.

I have noticed that LFE performance is universally better in DTS than in Dolby. I have two main setups; one uses dual Klipsch SUB-12 subwoofers, and the other, a JL Audio Fathom. Dolby tends to get sloppy at loud volume, DTS does not. I have no idea why, and I use the term "tends" intentionally; I have no problem with Police Certifiable, or the Yes concert, or the Chris Botti concert Blu discs. It may be the encode, or the quality of source material - I don't know, but I have my suspicions.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

To me, that's a huge issue. And even after disabling DRC, it was nothing to write home about.



I agree that Iron Man was an encode issue (both with the DRC foulup, and the actual mix). My issue with Dolby is that none of these issues is really necessary to deal with. They can strip off all the nonsense, and have an excellent system.

You know, i've got to agree with you on IRON MAN. I haven't understood the home theater communities enthusiasm over this title's sound (before you ask, yes I disabled DRC). While it certainly has it's fair share of low-end energy, I don't think the rest of the track is stellar and found myself sometimes wondering what's mixing from the mix? Same with TRANSFORMERS, both just weren't consistent enough or detailed enough to rank with the best, that's irregardless of codec.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

You know, i've got to agree with you on IRON MAN. I haven't understood the home theater communities enthusiasm over this title's sound (before you ask, yes I disabled DRC). While it certainly has it's fair share of low-end energy, I don't think the rest of the track is stellar and found myself sometimes wondering what's mixing from the mix? Same with TRANSFORMERS, both just weren't consistent enough or detailed enough to rank with the best, that's irregardless of codec.

Guess those Academy Award nominations (nominated by their sound mixing peers mind you) both films received were flukes?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Guess those Academy Award nominations (nominated by their sound mixing peers mind you) both films received were flukes?

Nope, not for me!! I go by what I hear--- always!!

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Guess those Academy Award nominations (nominated by their sound mixing peers mind you) both films received were flukes?

Guess you forgot that the Academy is rating the theater release, not the Blu encodes.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Guess you forgot that the Academy is rating the theater release, not the Blu encodes.

The encodes are direct transfers of the theatrical masters. Transformers was verified on another forum by a sound mixer who actually worked on it, who noted that a lot of bass in that film was sent to the main channels and people who didn't have their systems set up correctly would think it didn't have enough bass.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The encodes are direct transfers of the theatrical masters. Transformers was verified on another forum by a sound mixer who actually worked on it, who noted that a lot of bass in that film was sent to the main channels and people who didn't have their systems set up correctly would think it didn't have enough bass.

My comment concerned Iron Man, not Transformers.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

My comment concerned Iron Man, not Transformers.

Iron Man is still a direct transfer as well, from the mix created by Skywalker Sound.

[Freekman]

All I know is that lossless audio sounds better than other formats, even if I don't have my speakers properly set up. But the bass has never lacked during a film with great audio for me.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by davcole

You know, i've got to agree with you on IRON MAN. I haven't understood the home theater communities enthusiasm over this title's sound (before you ask, yes I disabled DRC). While it certainly has it's fair share of low-end energy, I don't think the rest of the track is stellar and found myself sometimes wondering what's mixing from the mix? Same with TRANSFORMERS, both just weren't consistent enough or detailed enough to rank with the best, that's irregardless of codec.

I agree these 2 titles have great reputation for audio that seems a bit unjustified to me, there is much better soundtracks out there than those 2 titles.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by trans22

I agree these 2 titles have great reputaion for audio that seems a bit unjustified to me, there is much better soundtracks out there than those 2 titles.

Thanks! Glad i'm not alone on this one!

[Deciazulado]

What do the last 3 dozen posts have to do with Paramount DTS?

[syncguy]

Wish to find out whether Paramount has been influenced by the outcome of the poll and moving in the recommended direction by the majority. Hope that is the case.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Deciazulado

What do the last 3 dozen posts have to do with Paramount DTS?

Their future releases, mostly. It's got everybody freaked out...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

To me, that's a huge issue. And even after disabling DRC, it was nothing to write home about.

Well, far more troublesome and annoying is the flagging foul-up on the DTS-HD MA track of Die Hard 2, where it's flagged for DTS-HD HR rather than MA so many receivers don't know what to do with it if you're bitstreaming (like I do with a Panasonic BD30)...you don't even get the DTS lossy core! Just silence. Fortunately the PS3 ignores it and I can at least get the full soundtrack. Fox still hasn't bothered to repress the disc and it's nearly been 2 years! At least with Iron Man you can just press a button to turn off DRC and get the full lossless soundtrack with the dynamics intact. If I didn't have a PS3 in addition to my BD30 this title would be relegated to the 2.0 DD track.

Then you have the speaker mapping issue which has been discussed in other threads, once again DTS is going against industry norm on 7.1 positioning (the other industry norm is the -27 playback level that DialNorm references).

And then you have the "DTS Essentials" nonsense where DTS-ES 6.1 titles are downmixed to 5.1 on a lot of receivers and in-player decoders like the new Oppo. Once again, the PS3 to the rescue where I can get the properly de-matrixed 6.1 soundtrack on titles like Bolt and the new Terminator 2 Skynet Edition.

You also forget DialNorm is a studio authoring function. They decide to use it, and DTS added it because the studios want it.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I agree that Iron Man was an encode issue (both with the DRC foulup, and the actual mix). My issue with Dolby is that none of these issues is really necessary to deal with. They can strip off all the nonsense, and have an excellent system.

*sigh*
I really have to agree with you on this one.

Or at the very least, strip out DialNorm and DRC on the TrueHD track, but apply it to its lossless companion track.

You're right that the consumer doesn't have to worry about which setting is correct. It took me a damn long time to figure out what each setting does.
Dialog Normalization has been misinterpreted for too long, including me.
Dynamic Range Compression is such a complex word that so many people around me have no idea what this is for.

And for some receivers or software DVD players, the options for DRC are: Wide, Narrow, Night. Just how exactly is someone unfamiliar to know what each option does and which is the best?

Seriously, LPCM was perfectly fine on all the previous BDs. There is no settings involved whatsoever. Just stick the BD in and play.
It's a real shame (and stupid) that not all receivers can receive a simple, straightforward and no nonsense LPCM, but it can decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Hell, it took such a long time before a receiver and/or player was able to understand that format.

And all this crap about LPCM taking up too much space is rubbish. That didn't stop films like Pirates of the Caribbean from being a reference BD for many people and for a long time. There is more than enough space available on the BDisc to do a great video encode, as long as they use a lossless high quality master.

I wish for the day that original language soundtrack is released in LPCM, while all other foreign dubs are in Dolby Digital or DTS.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by BozQ

*sigh*
I really have to agree with you on this one.

Or at the very least, strip out DialNorm and DRC on the TrueHD track, but apply it to its lossless companion track.

You're right that the consumer doesn't have to worry about which setting is correct. It took me a damn long time to figure out what each setting does.
Dialog Normalization has been misinterpreted for too long, including me.
Dynamic Range Compression is such a complex word that so many people around me have no idea what this is for.

And for some receivers or software DVD players, the options for DRC are: Wide, Narrow, Night. Just how exactly is someone unfamiliar to know what each option does and which is the best?

Seriously, LPCM was perfectly fine on all the previous BDs. There is no settings involved whatsoever. Just stick the BD in and play.
It's a real shame (and stupid) that not all receivers can receive a simple, straightforward and no nonsense LPCM, but it can decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. Hell, it took such a long time before a receiver and/or player was able to understand that format.

And all this crap about LPCM taking up too much space is rubbish. That didn't stop films like Pirates of the Caribbean from being a reference BD for many people and for a long time. There is more than enough space available on the BDisc to do a great video encode, as long as they use a lossless high quality master.

I wish for the day that original language soundtrack is released in LPCM, while all other foreign dubs are in Dolby Digital or DTS.

I totally agree with you about LPCM and it's supposed space hogging issues, look at UNDERWORLD EVOLUTION which has LPCM + bonus features and a great picture on a single layer 25GB blu-ray and let's not forget HELLBOY with great picture, directors cut + 3 hours worth of features on 1 disc, everyone who has blu-ray knows that LPCM is best so the studios should give the consumer what they want but sadly that won't happen.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BozQ

*sigh*
I really have to agree with you on this one.

Or at the very least, strip out DialNorm and DRC on the TrueHD track, but apply it to its lossless companion track.

You're right that the consumer doesn't have to worry about which setting is correct. It took me a damn long time to figure out what each setting does.
Dialog Normalization has been misinterpreted for too long, including me.
Dynamic Range Compression is such a complex word that so many people around me have no idea what this is for.

Great point!!

Those of us who still listen to dvd-audio, already know how great MLP (on which TRUEHD is based) works and sounds. Outside of providing for more than 5.1 channels and 192khz over them, I wish Dolby would have left it alone.

[cembros]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I own many of them, with some being terrific, and some merely so-so. That's more a matter of the source material, not the codec.

.

then why do you say that you prefer dts, like you said its the mix that makes a good or bad track not the codec. You seem to be contradicting yourself

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by cembros

then why do you say that you prefer dts, like you said its the mix that makes a good or bad track not the codec. You seem to be contradicting yourself

I think I'm getting where he is coming from.
When it comes to compression, DTS tends to leave most of the source material alone without all the metadata crap that Dolby normally attaches itself to the final output. (Namely Dialnorm and DRC)
While those settings can easily be resolved by turning off DRC and level matching to compensate Dialnorm attenuation, this sort of calibration wouldn't be needed if Dolby hadn't introduced these features and hanged on to it for so long.

As for his suspicion over the LFE output in TrueHD tracks, it's really not for me to conclude. In theory, yes, Dolby TrueHD is supposed to compress audio losslessly. But it could very well be specific decoder issues in certain receivers.
It takes two hands to clap. After all, CODEC = COmpressor and DECompressor.