Fox and DTS HD-MA

[DaViD Boulet]

DTS-HD MA is a great solution and there will soon be a plethora of players that can decode, as well as bitstream to outboard devices via 1.3. The fact that the hardware has taken a while to catch up with Blu-ray specs should not cause us to look backwards and stop the format from moving forward. We're early adoptors: we're audio/videophiles. We should be happy that content providers are future-thinking with their software and not merely authoring for legacy gear.

There are positives to DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD: DTS-HD MA has a better sounding "core" stream for non-advanced-audio listeners that the 640 dolby track on TrueHD titles, and so delivers superior sound for those without HDMI at present.

It also takes less space than TrueHD since the DTS "core" is built upon with exention frames to provide the Master Audio quality, versus Dolby's companion track for TrueHD on BD (so in some cases it's the best solution if bandwidth is a problem).

[Tok]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

I don't want to respond since this is Bill's "insider" thread... but since there isn't actually a question anywhere in there why not move the post to the "General discussion" area where it can actually be discussed. I have a strong opinion on this (that disagrees with yours), but all I'll say here is that I have no idea what dts and Monster cable have to do with one another, or why you keep making that comparison.

Fine if you disagree with me but I just would like to get Bill's read on why some studios are exclusively using it when a very small minority can enjoy it. You do understand lossless from the dts algorithm and the Dolby algorithm should be exactly the same don't you? So why use it when it is not supported by the most popular player?

Look at the first part of your response.... this is Bill's thread so I really don't care about your opinion.

[bkbluray]

"Fine if you disagree with me but I just would like to get Bill's read on why some studios are exclusively using it when a very small minority can enjoy it. You do understand lossless from the dts algorithm and the Dolby algorithm should be exactly the same don't you? So why use it when it is not supported by the most popular player?"

+1

[PeterTHX]

OK, here's my take on why some seem to prefer DTS...

My hearing's quite sensitive. I don't have that 15-18k rolloff that the average person has.

I find a lot of DTS tracks unnecessarily harsh (bright). This seems to be the same brightness that people call "sharper, clearer, punchier" etc. I find the same sound details in the DD tracks. If they're that different, then chances are it's a different mix. I find DD at 640 smooth, clean & clear.

This seems to be the same phenomenon with 16-bit PCM vs 24-bit TrueHD. Due to the higher resolution, the TrueHD is smoother. We all know from our CDs 16-bit PCM can be quite harsh at times.

If DTS was *truly* superior then it would sound BETTER at the same bitrates as DD (448/640). But they can't do it. The same reason a MPEG4 AVC picture is smoother (as in less artifacts) at lower bitrates than MPEG2. I don't hear anyone arguing that MPEG2 is better since it needs more bitrate.

[DaViD Boulet]

The only thing we know is that DTS mix their track about 5db louder than DD witch is the real one nobody knows..

No. DTS doesn't "mix their tracks". That was in the days of LD.

Today the same audio engineer take the SAME MIX he uses for DD, DTS, whatever. It's not a DTS person... it's the guy at the studio or whoever is hired to master the audio (regardless of codec).

BTW, DTS was never mixed "louder" on DVD (LD isn't part of this discussion). The drop in DD is because of dialogue Normalization with LOWERS the audio level by about 4db due to recalculating the audio waveform prior to d/a.

My hearing's quite sensitive. I don't have that 15-18k rolloff that the average person has.

I find a lot of DTS tracks unnecessarily harsh (bright). This seems to be the same brightness that people call "sharper, clearer, punchier" etc. I find the same sound details in the DD tracks. If they're that different, then chances are it's a different mix. I find DD at 640 smooth, clean & clear.

I actually find DTS to be "smoother" and more laid back with more natural timbers compared to the flatter sound of DD.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I actually find DTS to be "smoother" and more laid back with more natural timbers compared to the flatter sound of DD.

Not to be rude and I can understand why some feel the lossy version of full datarate dts is better than lossy full datarate DD, but I at this point I am only concerned with the lossless algorithms. I never claimed DD@640kbps was better than dts@1.5Mbps. I just said that you just can't look at the data rate since they are based on different data reduction principles related to the science of human hearing.

DolbyTrueHD is more commonly found and like PeterTHX said is easier to implement than dtsHDMA. Look I can understand why someone who has not gone to upgrade equipment yet would prefer dtsHDMA being used to get fullrate lossy dts, but at some point they are going upgrade so who really cares what lossy codec is present. Lossy is just a stop gap until the majority of hardware in use supports lossless.

Again the PS3, the most popular BD player, has supported DolbyTrueHD since day one and several players like the Sony BDP-S1 and Panny BP10 were updated to support DolbyTrueHD. Lossless is lossless and many more BD users have the ability to decode TrueHD.

David I hope you are right about what paidgeek said regarding dtsHDMA decoding for the PS3. I am just getting upset for it taking so long and why FOX uses dtsHDMA exclusively when so few can enjoy it.

But as far dtsHDMA being more efficient, I don't buy it. We are probably talking a very small improvement, so small it is statistically insignificant when compared to the BD datarate and disc space.

[Tok]

Let me just say this topic is being discussed much more logically here than some of the comments I saw when trying to get debate going at AVS.

Maybe I am being too hard on some with the analogy to Monster cable, but I saw way too many illogical arguments for dts at AVS. 'dts HDMA. It freakin' rocks' Probably much of it related to people being trained/marketed to believe dts was a higher quality codec. But again in this thread I consider lossy yesterday's tech and not relevant to the discussion on lossless audio codecs at hand.

The only thing I am really trying to point out is that the lossless algorithms for both codecs should produce the same end result. Factoring in the PS3 probably being the most common BD player for the next several years, why are studios producing discs that will not satisfy the largest user base?

Again if the PS3 ever decodes it, it is a moot issue, but I really have doubts about it.

decoded DolbyTrueHD = decoded dtsHDMA = Uncompressed PCM. In the end they are all the exact same soundtrack.

[PeterTHX]

The BD10 and PowerDVD both recognize that DTS-HD MA data is present, but they don't actually do anything with it. All either actually does is deal with the "core" DTS track.

No, because of the extension, you get DTS-HD from the MA tracks, just not the full lossless. Watch the PowerDVD readout and you'll see bitrates in the 4-6Mbps range. Does that "sound" like just the core to you?

but I saw way too many illogical arguments for dts at AVS. 'dts HDMA. It freakin' rocks'

They mistake the quality of the *mix* vs. the codec. Truth is that stuff like Live Free or Die Hard or The Day After Tomorrow would sound equally amazing in Dolby TrueHD.

[turboLAZER]

Originally Posted by bkbluray

"Fine if you disagree with me but I just would like to get Bill's read on why some studios are exclusively using it when a very small minority can enjoy it. You do understand lossless from the dts algorithm and the Dolby algorithm should be exactly the same don't you? So why use it when it is not supported by the most popular player?"

+1

it's been suggested that the PS3 doesn't have DTS HDMA because Sony is aware of the importance of the other members of the BDA and would like to other companies like panasonic and pioneer to have a chance to sell standalone players and dts hdma is their biggest selling feature

[JadedRaverLA]

Finally, I get to argue:

Originally Posted by CraigW

The PS3 will continue to be the most popular player for quite some time so why not release titles that more endusers can enjoy.

Many more people are presently able to benefit from the standard DTS track (over the standard Dolby Digital track) than can benefit from ANY lossless codec. Moreover, both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are "optional" codecs. The fact that one is currently supported by more hardware than the other is fairly irrelevant as most hardware going forward supports both.

Originally Posted by CraigW

I just don't understand why some are so impressed by dts. To me it appears to be more about marketing much like Monster has convinced a segment of the public that their cables improve the end experience.

Full bitrate lossy DTS is better than even Dolby Digital @640. You and I can argue that... but MANY more people would agree with me than you, and it has nothing to do with marketing. It has to do with experience. Back in the LD days, when I wanted to show off my audio system... I used a DTS LD, not an AC-3 one. In the DVD days, I did the same. In the Blu-ray days, the lossless codecs are equal so it makes no difference... but DTS has earned their reputation for quality.

Originally Posted by CraigW

If someone has equipment that can do dtsHDMA, then by default their equipment also does DolbyTrueHD. In the lossless world, lossless is lossless. So why are people so fearful of dts being abandoned for another lossless codec.

I don't think anyone is fearful of DTS being abandoned... we just don't understand why in the world they should, just because some people's equipment doesn't support all the options found in the Blu-ray spec.

Originally Posted by CraigW

I wonder if we would see as much resistance if the Dolby named had not be used on TrueHD. Remember TrueHD is just a new update for MLP, Meridan Lossless Packeting, from the old DVD-Audio spec.

...which is the reason every manufacturer was quickly able to get out Dolby TrueHD decoding hardware. It's been available forever as MLP decoding hardware. DTS actually created a new codec. It's now being made available in both players and receivers, so I don't see the problem. Also, except for this recent "debate" I didn't know anyone WAS a codec fanboy. Nobody has any resistance to Dolby TrueHD... the only resistance being shown is against DTS HD-MA. So, maybe you should rethink the analogy.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I disagree with all points, Dolby 640 is more than a match for DTS 1536.

Plus DTS' method of a core, followed by a HD extension, followed finally by the MA lossless data is needlessly complicated, CPU intensive, and more subject to errors (Die Hard 2). With TrueHD you have a companion Dolby Digital track, and that's it.

I know people have called HD HR and HD MA "extensions," but they ARE NOT extensions... in any way, shape or form. There's sinply a full or half bitrate standard DTS track placed alongside either the HR or MA track, and treated as a single track on a disc. You CANNOT create a lossless track from a lossy core at any rate, so I'm not sure how people thought this worked.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The PS3 has done TrueHD since day one. Full Dolby Digital Plus (7.1) was the recent update.
DTS-MA on the PS3 has been a rumor since day one...one of the PS3 developers at CES was exasperated by people asking him this, explaining that it's up to Sony Corp and DTS, not them.

Until a standalone player (Panasonic BD50) is released with DTS-HD MA decoding support, the PS3 will not decode it. If there's not an update for the PS3 by this June, then come back with your plan to make studios ditch DTS HD-MA and I'll give it more consideration. One thing to think about, though... Fox has OBVIOUSLY been targeting their releases toward the PS3 audience. They absolutely know that the PS3 crowd is their target market right now. They choose to use DTS-HD MA. Do you think they include that track just to piss you off... or do you think they've been promised PS3 support by Sony?

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If DTS was *truly* superior then it would sound BETTER at the same bitrates as DD (448/640). But they can't do it. The same reason a MPEG4 AVC picture is smoother (as in less artifacts) at lower bitrates than MPEG2. I don't hear anyone arguing that MPEG2 is better since it needs more bitrate.

All you are saying is that Dolby Digital AC-3 is more efficient than DTS... which you will get no argument over. That doesn't make it at all superior. Why do you think music labels almost exclusively prefer DTS. For quality in a lossy codec... DTS still reigns supreme.

Originally Posted by turboLAZER

it's been suggested that the PS3 doesn't have DTS HDMA because Sony is aware of the importance of the other members of the BDA and would like to other companies like panasonic and pioneer to have a chance to sell standalone players and dts hdma is their biggest selling feature

There are almost certainly "gentlemen's agreements" prohibiting Sony from releasing Blu-ray features on the PS3 until the stand-alone manufacturers have such features available. Those other manufacturers are trying to make money, and having the PS3 be "The ultimate" Blu-ray player, with features you can't get in ANY standalone, would kill standalone sales.

My $.02.

[PeterTHX]

I know people have called HD HR and HD MA "extensions," but they ARE NOT extensions... in any way, shape or form. There's sinply a full or half bitrate standard DTS track placed alongside either the HR or MA track, and treated as a single track on a disc. You CANNOT create a lossless track from a lossy core at any rate, so I'm not sure how people thought this worked.

It's extensions, I verified this with DTS engineers at CES. Dolby uses companion tracks. DTS uses core+HD ext+MA ext = DTS-HD Master Audio.

All you are saying is that Dolby Digital AC-3 is more efficient than DTS... which you will get no argument over. That doesn't make it at all superior. Why do you think music labels almost exclusively prefer DTS. For quality in a lossy codec... DTS still reigns supreme.

Music labels? DTS has it's own music label. Otherwise they're SACD/DVD-Audio/DualDisc.

Efficiency is part of it. But if DTS was a better CODEC than it would sound better at the same or even lower bitrates, much like AAC over MP3. AAC @128kbps sounds as good as MP3 @192kbps and AAC @192 is much better than MP3 @192 (Dolby helped design AAC 'natch).

Fact is that DTS cannot sound better or even decent @448kbps. So on many DVDs I have close to a megabit of bandwidth and a gigabyte of storage wasted for a box selling bullet point.

They absolutely know that the PS3 crowd is their target market right now. They choose to use DTS-HD MA. Do you think they include that track just to piss you off... or do you think they've been promised PS3 support by Sony?

Or DTS made a deal with Fox. I still think Fox should offer TrueHD and DTS-MA (like Sony did with Close Encounters), they have the bandwidth for it.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

DTS-HD MA is a great solution and there will soon be a plethora of players that can decode, as well as bitstream to outboard devices via 1.3. The fact that the hardware has taken a while to catch up with Blu-ray specs should cause us to look backwards and keep the format from moving forward. We're early adoptors: we're audio/videophiles. We should be happy that content providers are future-thinking with their software and not merely authoring for legacy gear.

DTS-HD has a better sounding "core" stream for non-advanced-audio listeners that the 640 dolby track on TrueHD titles, and so delivers superior sound for those without HDMI at present.

It also takes less space than TrueHD since the DTS "core" is built upon with exention frames to provide the Master Audio quality, versus Dolby's companion track for TrueHD on BD (so in some cases it's the best solution if bandwidth is a problem).

DaViD,

I could care less about the difference in the lossy arena and since dts and Dolby lossy are built upon different data reduction assumptions you can't just look at it from a raw bitrate view. Again lossless dtsHDMA is the same as lossless DolbyTrueHD. The PS3 will continue to be the most popular player for quite some time so why not release titles that more endusers can enjoy.

I just don't understand why some are so impressed by dts. To me it appears to be more about marketing much like Monster has convinced a segment of the public that their cables improve the end experience.

If someone has equipment that can do dtsHDMA, then by default their equipment also does DolbyTrueHD. In the lossless world, lossless is lossless. So why are people so fearful of dts being abandoned for another lossless codec. I wonder if we would see as much resistance if the Dolby named had not be used on TrueHD. Remember TrueHD is just a new update for MLP, Meridan Lossless Packeting, from the old DVD-Audio spec.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by elwaylite

Guys, wrong place for the argument, move on.

Sorry not trying to argue here, I would just like to get Bill's reading on why dts is used when it really offers no advantage. I was just trying to defend my post.

[DaViD Boulet]

I could care less about the difference in the lossy arena and since dts and Dolby lossy are built upon different data reduction assumptions you can't just look at it from a raw bitrate view. Again lossless dtsHDMA is the same as lossless DolbyTrueHD. The PS3 will continue to be the most popular player for quite some time so why not release titles that more endusers can enjoy.

Craig,

it takes LESS BANDWIDTH for DTS HD MA to deliver a lossless soundtrack on BD than the same PCM signal compressed with Dolby TrueHD (with companion track). This isn't a debate about algortihms: The point is that if you only had limited bandwidth and you wanted to get a lossless soundtrack on the disc, DTS might be able to do it where TrueHD might not fit.

The PS3 will continue to be the most popular player for quite some time so why not release titles that more endusers can enjoy.

All the more reason to be happy with DTS-HD MA! The PS3 will be updated soon to provide full decoding. Remember, the PS3 didn't even decode Dolby TrueHD until an update not that long ago.

[PeterTHX]

I disagree with all points, Dolby 640 is more than a match for DTS 1536.

Not to mention it's more compatible with many more setups.

DD and TrueHD offer late night options DTS does not as well.

Plus DTS' method of a core, followed by a HD extension, followed finally by the MA lossless data is needlessly complicated, CPU intensive, and more subject to errors (Die Hard 2). With TrueHD you have a companion Dolby Digital track, and that's it.

Did anyone really hear a difference with Close Encounters?
Probably the millions of PS3 owners who can actually access the TrueHD track.

Craig,

it takes LESS BANDWIDTH for DTS HD MA to deliver a lossless soundtrack on BD than the same PCM signal compressed with Dolby TrueHD (with companion track).

Not really. The megabit range is similar.
TrueHD can be decoded easily by the PC as well. To date, there is *no* solution for DTS lossless on the PC. None. Zip, zilch, nada. Slightly less bandwidth size is negated by complication, explaining why nearly every BD player under the sun has been firmware updated to TrueHD capability and no DTS-MA in player capability.

Remember, the PS3 didn't even decode Dolby TrueHD until an update not that long ago.

The PS3 has done TrueHD since day one. Full Dolby Digital Plus (7.1) was the recent update.
DTS-MA on the PS3 has been a rumor since day one...one of the PS3 developers at CES was exasperated by people asking him this, explaining that it's up to Sony Corp and DTS, not them.

[DaViD Boulet]

I disagree with all points, Dolby 640 is more than a match for DTS 1536.

Your ears and mine do indeed disagree. My ears consistently prefer DTS at 1500+ over Dolby at 640.

Not to mention it's more compatible with many more setups.

Any consumer with HD media like Blu-ray is likely to have a decoder that can handle the DTS core.

DD and TrueHD offer late night options DTS does not as well.

One of the reasons many audiophile's prefer DTS's "less is more" approach with audiophile sound reproduction.

Plus DTS' method of a core, followed by a HD extension, followed finally by the MA lossless data is needlessly complicated, CPU intensive, and more subject to errors (Die Hard 2). With TrueHD you have a companion Dolby Digital track, and that's it.

To Craig's point, what does it matter how the algorim is accomplishing the goal? The end result is both provide lossless when fully decoded, and both provide a legacy stream for SPDIF listeners. DTS can do it with less bandwidth given the requirement on BD for TrueHD to bundle a companion DD stream.

Did anyone really hear a difference with Close Encounters?
Probably the millions of PS3 owners who can actually access the TrueHD track.

And Millions of PS3 owners will enjoy the DTS-HD MA once they get their update. Then we can compare. The fact that I hear differences between the PCM and TrueHD on many Sony discs leads me curious about what we might or might not hear comparing the "bit for bit lossless" playback of TrueHD and DTS-HD MA.

The PS3 has done TrueHD since day one. Full Dolby Digital Plus (7.1) was the recent update.

My bad. I thought it was added when DVD upscaling was added (I didn't have HDMI before then)

DTS-MA on the PS3 has been a rumor since day one...one of the PS3 developers at CES was exasperated by people asking him this, explaining that it's up to Sony Corp and DTS, not them.

Paidgeek stated that it was coming in early '08. Not a rumor.

[ryoohki]

The only diff in Sony TrueHD and PCM tracks are 5db. So you have to level them out. Just like DTS and DD are not of the same level and people think they are a lot better while in reality they are really close. There's a difference, but not as high as DTS make it sound to be. Sony use no Metadata in their TrueHD. thus the file is just a ZIPPED pcm file.

[DaViD Boulet]

The only diff in Sony TrueHD and PCM tracks are 5db. So you have to level them out. Just like DTS and DD are not of the same level and people think they are a lot better while in reality they are really close. There's a difference, but not as high as DTS make it sound to be. Sony use no Metadata in their TrueHD. thus the file is just a ZIPPED pcm file.

if there is any level difference between the TrueHD compressed/decoded signal and the PCM original, then dialog-normalization processing or some other amplitude-recalculation has taken place. With a digital audio signal, this means ever data-point has been recalculated rendering bit-for-bit accuracy impossible.

It's one reason why we've pushed for Sony to not apply DN to their TrueHD tracks.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Your ears and mine do indeed disagree. My ears consistently prefer DTS at 1500+ over Dolby at 640.

There's only a handful of tracks to compare...which ones are you citing?

Any consumer with HD media like Blu-ray is likely to have a decoder that can handle the DTS core.

Possibly. There's also the PS3 owner and the fact that a lot of TVs can take a AC-3 signal over HDMI.

One of the reasons many audiophile's prefer DTS's "less is more" approach with audiophile sound reproduction.

Which is precisely why it shouldn't be the only track on the disc. I work some late nights. I'd like to watch things like The Day After Tomorrow or other Fox discs without constantly reaching for the volume control. This isn't an issue with TrueHD discs... Late Night: HIGH = Spider-Man 2 in surround at 1AM.

To Craig's point, what does it matter how the algorim is accomplishing the goal? The end result is both provide lossless when fully decoded, and both provide a legacy stream for SPDIF listeners. DTS can do it with less bandwidth given the requirement on BD for TrueHD to bundle a companion DD stream.

A: The bandwidth difference is negligible or actually in Dolby's favor (TrueHD at 24-bit is typically 4-5 mbps add in a 640kbps track and you're still below the 6+ mbps I typically see for DTS-MA.

B: PC's don't have the horsepower to do this easily. Cyberlink has been working with DTS for a LONG time to do this. AVC/VC-1 are already demanding, and add in DTS-MA you bring even the fastest Core2 processors to their knees.

And Millions of PS3 owners will enjoy the DTS-HD MA once they get their update. Then we can compare. The fact that I hear differences between the PCM and TrueHD on many Sony discs leads me curious about what we might or might not hear comparing the "bit for bit lossless" playback of TrueHD and DTS-HD MA.

See my next reply (separate post)

Paidgeek stated that it was coming in early '08. Not a rumor.

Didn't he say "they're working on it"? No timetable AFAIK.

[turboLAZER]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Your ears and mine do indeed disagree. My ears consistently prefer DTS at 1500+ over Dolby at 640.



Any consumer with HD media like Blu-ray is likely to have a decoder that can handle the DTS core.



One of the reasons many audiophile's prefer DTS's "less is more" approach with audiophile sound reproduction.




To Craig's point, what does it matter how the algorim is accomplishing the goal? The end result is both provide lossless when fully decoded, and both provide a legacy stream for SPDIF listeners. DTS can do it with less bandwidth given the requirement on BD for TrueHD to bundle a companion DD stream.



And Millions of PS3 owners will enjoy the DTS-HD MA once they get their update. Then we can compare. The fact that I hear differences between the PCM and TrueHD on many Sony discs leads me curious about what we might or might not hear comparing the "bit for bit lossless" playback of TrueHD and DTS-HD MA.



My bad. I thought it was added when DVD upscaling was added (I didn't have HDMI before then)




Paidgeek stated that it was coming in early '08. Not a rumor.

i agree with you David. If we have to take this to the streets I got your back. my pioneer vsx-1015tx doesn't have an HDMI connection, so i am forced to live with 1500kbps or 640kbps for now. my ears prefer the clarity of the DTS core 1500kbps. and one day when i upgrade my receiver i'm sure i'll enjoy both lossless codecs equally.