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

[Grubert]

Gentlemen, all please cut back on the personal attacks.

Address the substance of the post. Don't attack the poster.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by acen01947

I voted OTHER. Why?

If ALL of the studios pressed a Blu-ray disc like The Final Countdown, there would be no need for a poll. Reason: BOTH loss less audios are present.

So for those that like MA, have at it; for those that like TrueHD, you get to enjoy your audio craving as well.

Choosing sides is not a good idea when both can be had at the same time.

Unless there is an ulterior motive behind this...one dominant audio codec.

And since all things revolve around money, what good is a dominant audio codec when someone will come along and offer a competing codec (gee, aren't we already at this plateau)?

Let there be choice and make both (all) available. Blu-ray can support it,
amen.

While in theory this is great, what it ends up doing is taking up unnecessary space, thus leaving less room for a high-bitrate encode, special features, seamless branching, commentary tracks, and the like. As a whole the entire feature can suffer for it.

I personally don't care what they use, but only one lossless track please.

[natedog543]

I think the fact that this poll is even open, and Sony questions this, is an answer in itself. All the "guru's" and anyone who knows about audio, say they are the same. However, I know nothing about the tech side of it, but I do know I can hear a difference on my speakers. (Not so much the quality, but the presence; either way, a difference)
Give me DTS-HD any day

[Robert Siegel]

Both tracks should sound the same, but I think they should change to DTS MA. Those (and there are many now that Blu-ray is going more mainstream) without capabilities of decoding of the lossless audio tracks would then get the DTS core at 1.5 mbps on their older receivers instead of Dolby Digital's 640kbps (or in many cases 448).

PCM takes just too much space.

[SkullPhyre]

Consistantly, DTS-HD sounds better. Tru-hd sucks tbh. I always have to turn up the tru-hd tracks most of the time.

[DonRSD]

id rather see PCM

every blu should be a 50gb disc and PCM


but i voted DTS MA HD....dolby sucks.
doesnt Steven Speilberg ONLY do DTS audio as-well?
maybe this is a sign of things to come as far as his releases & pressure he is putting on Sony

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Like someone said before, that the sizes of the audio-formats on the disc are different.
I can find something in that, there must be more compression on one than the other.
I'm NOT saying this is true, but if they're not the same size one could probably not be truly lossless.
But there could just be a difference in the way they're engineered, the size-difference I mean.

Besides, DTS apparently DOES still sound different, if you don't speak about quality.
But the SOUND, it's obviously stronger and more dynamic since most people describe it that way.
So they do SOUND different, regardless of the quality.

They can CALL something "lossless", but don't believe everything they say.
It's like putting a label on anything and make people believe it's that.
(Now I'm not saying that Dolby "lies" or anything, but you get the point.)


Sure, cover it up Grubert, now you make us look equal.
He's the aggressive one here, I was just being "thankful" to him for insulting us.

It's called "compression efficiency". Why don't you do yourself a favor and use winzip to compress a document and then use winrar to compress the same document, see that they are not the same size (since winrar is more efficient, the rar file will be smaller), then decompress both and see if any words are missing. If you don't understand the logic behind lossless compression, then stop commenting on it.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Grifter02

It's called "compression efficiency". Why don't you do yourself a favor and use winzip to compress a document and then use winrar to compress the same document, see that they are not the same size (since winrar is more efficient, the rar file will be smaller), then decompress both and see if any words are missing. If you don't understand the logic behind lossless compression, then stop commenting on it.

Ehm, I know that...
But like someone else said, one must have more compression so might not be AS good as the other.
All I said is I could find something in that, doesn't have to be true.

[Travis]

Doesn't matter.

I usually pick DTS-HD over Dolby TrueHD because with my DVDs DTS gave a better sound so I'm hooked on the brand. Really haven't had time to compare. From what I've heard with my ears, it's all good.

[Dyana B]

In my humble opinion, I think that Sony should continue to use Dolby TrueHD and if at all possible, include a DTS-HDMA track as well. We must also remember that there are many other early adopters of the blu-ray format and perhaps they still have the older models like the BDP-S300, which now decodes the TrueHD track internally. They should not be deprived of the great sound that the TrueHD track offers, I'm just saying...

[slimdude]

DTS-HD MA sound much better than DolbyTrueHD because the LFE is more well defined, and the overall sound has much better clarity, and volume. I think DTS-HD MA is audibly equivalent to PCM (Uncompressed.)

[EWL5]

It's already been proven in the Spears and Munsil BD disc that Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and PCM sound exactly the same.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by mntwister

Both tracks should sound the same, but I think they should change to DTS MA. Those (and there are many now that Blu-ray is going more mainstream) without capabilities of decoding of the lossless audio tracks would then get the DTS core at 1.5 mbps on their older receivers instead of Dolby Digital's 640kbps (or in many cases 448).

PCM takes just too much space.

No! Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA doesn't sound the same. There's a distinct difference in their sound.

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Ehm, I know that...
But like someone else said, one must have more compression so might not be AS good as the other.
All I said is I could find something in that, doesn't have to be true.
And YOU stop being an azz... seriously... with your passive-aggressive comments...

"Passive-aggressive"? Google that term and tell me if it applies here...

It's just frustrating talking to people who are adamant about their opinions but know nothing about the subject.

Have you even bothered to listen to the same movie with two different codecs (eg. Close Encounters)? You cannot compare the sound from two different movies and say that DTS is better because that movie sounded better.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I suspect you are tossing me a bone here. But, the DTS core + extension approach is actually more efficient with lossless. Dolby is more efficient in legacy encoding, not lossless, where the TrueHD package must contain a separate DD 5.1 track as well.

Well this was news to me. I thought that DTS-HDMA actually took up more space on the disc than TrueHD. So if this is the case, then I think that speaks even better about DTS-HDMA.

But let's actually list out pros for both audio codecs and see if this could make things clearer, without taking into account potential subjective opinions on the quality of sound:

DTS-HDMA:
1. Offers lossless audio with high bit rates.
2. Is the most efficient space saver, which frees up space for features, etc.
3. Is able to deliver the best audio for those that don't have HDMI receivers.

Dolby TrueHD:
1. Offers lossless audio with efficient low bit rates.
2. Offers DRC for those that want it.
3. Is able to be decoded on most 1st gen blu-ray players.

Y'all can amend these as needed, but this seems to be the objective pros for either codec.

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by Grifter02

It's just frustrating talking to people who are adamant about their opinions but know nothing about the subject.

Have you even bothered to listen to the same movie with two different codecs (eg. Close Encounters)? You cannot compare the sound from two different movies and say that DTS is better because that movie sounded better.

but that's the whole point of opinions isn't it ... there's no prerequisite

It's not just 2 movies by far. It's every film I have seen with Dolby, to every movie I have seen with DTS. Same thing happens every time. If that ever changed, I'd be the first to admit it, but up until now (with nearly 250 Blus under my belt) I can hear a difference every time.

[tonyk]

24bit pcm for me

[Grifter02]

Originally Posted by natedog543

but that's the while point of opinions isn't it

It's not just 2 movies by far. It's every film I have seen with Dolby, to every movie I have seen with DTS. Same thing happens every time. If that ever changed, I'd be the first to admit it, but up until now (with nearly 250 Blus under my belt) I can hear a difference every time.

Except that this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact that both are 100% equal to the source. And you can't "hear a difference" because you aren't listening to the same thing. Of course each movie sounds different, they're different movies!!!

Do you think it's possible that Fox, Disney, etc. employ better sound technicians or put more effort into creating the audio for their films than WB or Paramount, and that's why every DTS movie you've watched sounded better than the Dolby movies? That's something you can have an opinion on, because it can't be measured or proven. But you cannot have an opinion on mathematics, it's the universal language and there is only one right answer.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by ganthc

Well this was news to me. I thought that DTS-HDMA actually took up more space on the disc than TrueHD. So if this is the case, then I think that speaks even better about DTS-HDMA.

DTS takes up more room on DVD. But, on BD the TrueHD package includes separate, embedded hires stereo and DD 5.1 tracks as well.

But let's actually list out pros for both audio codecs and see if this could make things clearer, without taking into account potential subjective opinions on the quality of sound:

DTS-HDMA:
1. Offers lossless audio with high bit rates.
2. Is the most efficient space saver, which frees up space for features, etc.
3. Is able to deliver the best audio for those that don't have HDMI receivers.

Dolby TrueHD:
1. Offers lossless audio with efficient low bit rates.
2. Offers DRC for those that want it.
3. Is able to be decoded on most 1st gen blu-ray players.

Y'all can amend these as needed, but this seems to be the objective pros for either codec.

Both use variable bitrates, taking the bandwidth they need based on the content being delivered at the moment.

If you go back a few pages, you'll see discussions about other issues such as channel duplication and DTS Master Audio Essential implementation. However, the moderators have indicated they do want to see discussion here about codec design or user interface issues. So, I will refrain from further comment in those areas.

[surfdude12]

PCM, DolbyHD and DTSHD are like 3 branches of the same chain restaurant: theoretically they should produce the exact same quality food, but practically we know they never do.

If we dropped everything except DTS, then quality would go down the tubes.
Competition = Quality, wasn't that in Econ 101?