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

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by BIslander

It shouldn't affect anybody. But, the PS3 is not immune to the differences being described by DTS proponents in this thread.

It affects people like myself who have the PS3 as their player (no multi-channel analog outputs) but a receiver that can't accept audio over HDMI. For the time being I am stuck using optical Toslink from the PS3 if I want surround sound. So I prefer DTS given that it's at 1.5 Mbps whereas Dolby is at 640 kbps. And then there's the issue of low volume during dialogue scenes for Dolby tracks, such as with The Dark Knight.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by Grifter02

This is going to be my last post in this thread because it's getting tiring reading the same nonsense over and over. All I want to say is: Louder =/= Better. If all tracks were Dolby TrueHD, then your default volume would be set for that and you would never complain about the volume. So you have to turn it up a few notches for THD, so what? Once you do that, they sound the same. This has nothing to do with the quality or the dynamics, it's just the volume. It has no bearing on which is better.



You're right, numbers don't lie, but these numbers aren't saying what you think they're saying. An opinion poll does not prove that one thing is better than another, it just shows that more people think one is better than the other. This poll clearly shows there are a lot of uninformed people on this forum.

it's got nothing to do with being informed it's to do with having good hearing, too much information can be a bad thing THEORY and REALITY are 2 very different things.

[bt12483]

Originally Posted by bt12483

If I watch a DTS movie at a lower volume level than a TrueHD movie, will I not (potentially) extend the life of my receiver (and it's internal components) and use less power since my receiver is using less current whilst operating at a lower volume level with a DTS movie.

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

No, power usage is in relation to the volume of sound being put out, and the wattage required to drive that

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not accurate.

The power required is the same to reach a certain volume level.

OK, then scratch the power savings idea.

But I still vote DTS, for reasons similar to the guys below:

Originally Posted by AikonEnt

The best audio my system can currently do is the 1.5mbps core track of DTSHDMA, therefore I voted yes.

Originally Posted by natedog543

ok, well hopefully before you leave, let me rephrase every post I have made.
It was never about quality to me. Simply, I guess it is more about convienence. I love that, with DTS audio, I do not have to reach for my remote to turn up action scenes to make them more intense, then turn it back down for a good speach volume. With DTS, they are *usually* perfectly synced so that the action scenes blow you away, and once they are done, it goes back to a moderate volume.
I guess you can say Dolby is consistant if nothing else. That's exactly why I do not prefer it. Default volumes have nothing to do with the variancy you get from DTS. My defaults are the same for dialogue on either format. It's the action scenes that tip the scales. Dolby stays the same. DTS does not. That's what all of us have been trying to explain to you techs!

And the numbers do mean what I think. The majority of ppl can tell the difference.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

It affects people like myself who have the PS3 as their player (no multi-channel analog outputs) but a receiver that can't accept audio over HDMI. For the time being I am stuck using optical Toslink from the PS3 if I want surround sound. So I prefer DTS given that it's at 1.5 Mbps whereas Dolby is at 640 kbps. And then there's the issue of low volume during dialogue scenes for Dolby tracks, such as with The Dark Knight.

That's a whole different matter, or two matters in your case.

1. Dolby at 640 and DTS at 1509 are not much different, perhaps not at all. (But, let's not go there in this thread! I'll just mention it because lots of posters are touting DTS 1509 superiority as a statement of fact, which it is not.)

2. The problem with The Dark Knight is the mix, not the codec used to store it on a disc. It has a great soundtrack. But, dialog can be tough to hear in some parts. That also would have been the case with dts-MA. Compression codecs do not alter the mix.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by natedog543

Lie. My receiver must be fooled too then bacause I have to do the same thing the guy below me does.
Period

So one codec is superior merely because its mixed 4dB hotter on average than another? Because here's the thing--for the one poster who used "300" as an argument--when I level match the PCM and TrueHD tracks, there's absolutely no difference.

If adjusting your volume is a pain in the ass to you, then I can see your argument against TrueHD. But that's volume, not quality. So how is it you can attribute superiority to DTS? Do you really think that sound engineers take extra care to make DTS and TrueHD tracks sound identical when both are going to be included for the same movie (i.e., Close Encounters, Spears and Munsil, all 2L titles...), but then slack off quality-wise with TrueHD when it is to be the sole track? Unlikely.

As a brandname, I back DTS, if for no other reason than the improvements offered by legacy DTS over legacy DD. But technically, I don't care. And in all honesty, when somebody says, "Well, I hear a difference," you're essentially saying that the sound mixing engineers--whose equipment is most certainly designed to introduce no characteristics but merely reproduce what the decoded codecs are delivering--are incompetent or deaf.

There is no conspiracy to keep DTS in the dark. Dolby doesn't have a monopoly on BR like they did on DVD. If you prefer DTS, that's fine...I'm not trying to tell you you shouldn't have a preference. But don't patronize the people who can't hear that difference (because IMHO, it doesn't exist, but that's my OPINION) by asserting that YOUR ears are the end-all final word on the subject.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by BIslander

2. The problem with The Dark Knight is the mix, not the codec used to store it on a disc. It has a great soundtrack. But, dialog can be tough to hear in some parts. That also would have been the case with dts-MA. Compression codecs do not alter the mix.

+1. Dialog in the Dark Knight was difficult at times to make out even in the theaters...and I saw it in three different theaters, each belonging to three different chains: AMC, Regal, and Carmike. That's a mix issue. Although the Regal also suffered from equipment issues, which is also a factor people should consider before judging codecs...is your equipment neutral? Do ALL codecs go through the same exact processing after they've been decoded to their "raw" form?

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by trans22

it's got nothing to do with being informed it's to do with having good hearing, too much information can be a bad thing THEORY and REALITY are 2 very different things.

Unfortunately "REALITY" in this case seems to be a relative and variable thing. At least "THEORY" stays consistent.

too much information can be a bad thing

So ignorance is bliss?

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

So one codec is superior merely because its mixed 4dB hotter on average than another? Because here's the thing--for the one poster who used "300" as an argument--when I level match the PCM and TrueHD tracks, there's absolutely no difference.

If adjusting your volume is a pain in the ass to you, then I can see your argument against TrueHD. But that's volume, not quality. So how is it you can attribute superiority to DTS? Do you really think that sound engineers take extra care to make DTS and TrueHD tracks sound identical when both are going to be included for the same movie (i.e., Close Encounters, Spears and Munsil, all 2L titles...), but then slack off quality-wise with TrueHD when it is to be the sole track? Unlikely.

As a brandname, I back DTS, if for no other reason than the improvements offered by legacy DTS over legacy DD. But technically, I don't care. And in all honesty, when somebody says, "Well, I hear a difference," you're essentially saying that the sound mixing engineers--whose equipment is most certainly designed to introduce no characteristics but merely reproduce what the decoded codecs are delivering--are incompetent or deaf.

There is no conspiracy to keep DTS in the dark. Dolby doesn't have a monopoly on BR like they did on DVD. If you prefer DTS, that's fine...I'm not trying to tell you you shouldn't have a preference. But don't patronize the people who can't hear that difference (because IMHO, it doesn't exist, but that's my OPINION) by asserting that YOUR ears are the end-all final word on the subject.

yeah guy. did u read my last post? or first for that matter. From the beginning I said it wasn't about *quality*.
And I never thought of my opinion as the end all. The guy I was talking to seemed to feel that way though. That may be why my posts seemed a little strong. For him to say it was a placebo effect is absurd when you have new users noticing a difference even before they come in the forums or learn anything about lossless

[neo_reloaded]

In terms of the actual presentation of the lossless track, I do not care whether DTS-HD MA or Dolby TrueHD is used - I understand what lossless compression entails, and therefore have no prejudices or false notions against either.

In terms of the state of the Blu-ray format / community, I kind of hope Sony sticks with Dolby TrueHD, as their switching would lend more credence to the ridiculous claims of the pro-DTS-ers. It would further undermine the perceived quality of the WB and Paramount TrueHD tracks, and they might also switch. And then we'd have no competition - something which is never good.

If Sony switched for economic reasons, sure, more power to them (not that I have any naive ideas about them passing the savings on to the consumer, but I understand that they are a business). If they switched so that more people without the equipment to handle true lossless could get a slightly higher bitrate lossy experience, I'd question their judgment slightly (as bitrate between DTS and Dolby is not apples-to-apples), but it wouldn't bother me terribly. But if they switched because people without an understanding of audio engineering and lossless compression schemes thought the DTS mixes were "punchier", I'd feel the decision was a step backwards.

This doesn't really effect me terribly either way, as Sony will stick with SOME form of lossless, and therefore I'll get the same audio presentation on my discs. But if I had to choose at gunpoint, I'd say stick with Dolby TrueHD.

[natedog543]

hey bluseminole, not trying to stimulate an argument but when u said it's like calling the sound engineers incompetent or deaf, does that mean everybody else here is incompetent because we *do* hear a differenece? "essentially" that is what you are saying

[aurora71]

I've listened to all lossless audio tracks and I think DTS-HD MA has a richer punchier sound. Dolby True HD does have it's moments with some blu-ray titles such as Resident Evil Extinction but the quality in sound with other blu-ray titles are not nearly as good as DTS-HD MA.

If you listened to most movies with Dolby True HD and not just from Sony but othet studios such as Warner and Paramount the soundtracks are very lacking, titles such as "Transformers and the Matrix trilogy" while the sound is pretty good it does lack ambiance and bass response with explosions and weapon fire.

I understand that loud is not necessarily a good thing when it comes to soundracks but I think all action films should sound as rich and explosive as they do in the theatres and I think Dolby True HD lacks that quality.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by natedog543

yeah guy. did u read my last post? or first for that matter. From the beginning I said it wasn't about *quality*.
And I never thought of my opinion as the end all. The guy I was talking to seemed to feel that way though. That may be why my posts seemed a little strong. For him to say it was a placebo effect is absurd when you have new users noticing a difference even before they come in the forums.

But you're not the only one backing DTS-MA--my statement was in general. My reference to the 300 instance was only for the sake of example. Too many people DO believe that DTS-MA is in fact of a higher "quality", even though they acknowledge it's not mathematically possible in the same breath. The argument is basically, "my ears know better than the numbers do, and MA sounds better". I don't agree, but I also won't condescend to anybody by telling them what they hear. If I have accused you of contradicting the equality of QUALITY when you haven't, I apologize. However, many people ARE contradicting the equality of the quality, because they feel that their perception alone is justification for that. It's just like choosing speakers...soo many people perceive that Klipsch is the best, when I cannot stand the sound. That doesn't mean Klipsch is the highest (or lowest) quality (depending on whose side you take). Now the codecs obviously SHOULDN'T be perceived any differently. Apparently they are. However, that never has been and never will be a testament to the QUALITY of said codecs--which have been mathematically proven to be equal.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by natedog543

hey bluseminole, not trying to stimulate an argument but when u said it's like calling the sound engineers incompetent or deaf, does that mean everybody else here is incompetent because we *do* hear a differenece? "essintially" that is what you are saying

Yeah, that's pretty much the vibe I'm getting. BIslander, if core DTS isn't any different than core Dolby, then why is it that I notice a significant difference between the DTS and Dolby tracks for the new T2: Skynet Edition Blu-ray? The Dolby track is very good in its own right, but the DTS sounds quite a bit better to me.

[dobyblue]

It doesn't matter, as long as it's lossless.

Don't believe me? Buy the Divertimenti disc from 2L, it has 24/192 PCM, dts-ma and TrueHD tracks all from the same DXD source - they're identical.

[neo_reloaded]

If you are saying that DTS-HD MA is better than Dolby TrueHD - i.e., the same mix of the same movie's soundtrack would sound better when compressed with DTS-HD MA - then you are also saying that one of the companies is lying. They both advertise lossless audio which means bit-for-bit identical to the master. So for DTS-HD MA to be "better," you are saying that either DTS does something to enhance the quality of the mix used as input, or Dolby does something to decrease the quality of the mix used as input. In either one of those scenarios, the original mix is being altered and the compression of it is no longer lossless.

There are only two options here. Either both are identical, and the choice of which to use is irrelevant from a quality perspective, or one company is committing false advertisement when they say "lossless audio." Black and white - no gray area. So which company are you accusing of lying?

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by natedog543

well, of course, this can go in circles all day. I'll tell you I CAN actually hear a difference then you tell me somthing about the tech specs. But the fact is people can hear a difference.

Which movies have you watched with the same source available in more than one lossless option that has helped you reach your conclusion that one is better than the other sonically?

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by natedog543

hey bluseminole, not trying to stimulate an argument but when u said it's like calling the sound engineers incompetent or deaf, does that mean everybody else here is incompetent because we *do* hear a differenece? "essentially" that is what you are saying

Not at all. But we here have consumer equipment--some have very, very, very nice consumer equipment--but the sound engineers are the ones with the equipment the mix was actually mixed on. They have NO sources of error when they perform their comparisons...we aim to reproduce the original, but they hear THE original. So for me to say, "Well I hear a difference" to counter a sound engineer who has mixed that film and found there to be NO difference, is "essentially" an accusation of some sort against the engineer. Sound engineers back the theory of DTS-MA = TrueHD = PCM, so arguing against that theory is akin to contradicting the engineers. Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions--but consumer opinions aren't viable arguments regarding quality when you have the people who have CREATED the original source offering their word. Because quality is all about the faithfulness to the original source--and only the sound engineers can truly judge that.

And don't worry, I don't take it personally--I enjoy having a civil debate with an educated opponent

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by neo_reloaded

If you are saying that DTS-HD MA is better than Dolby TrueHD - i.e., the same mix of the same movie's soundtrack would sound better when compressed with DTS-HD MA - then you are also saying that one of the companies is lying. They both advertise lossless audio which means bit-for-bit identical to the master. So for DTS-HD MA to be "better," you are saying that either DTS does something to enhance the quality of the mix used as input, or Dolby does something to decrease the quality of the mix used as input. In either one of those scenarios, the original mix is being altered and the compression of it is no longer lossless.

So which company are you accusing of lying?

Who are you directing this at? I'm talking about the core, lossy Dolby and DTS tracks. I assume the lossless HD formats are identical.

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

But you're not the only one backing DTS-MA--my statement was in general. My reference to the 300 instance was only for the sake of example. Too many people DO believe that DTS-MA is in fact of a higher "quality", even though they acknowledge it's not mathematically possible in the same breath. The argument is basically, "my ears know better than the numbers do, and MA sounds better". I don't agree, but I also won't condescend to anybody by telling them what they hear. If I have accused you of contradicting the equality of QUALITY when you haven't, I apologize. However, many people ARE contradicting the equality of the quality, because they feel that their perception alone is justification for that. It's just like choosing speakers...soo many people perceive that Klipsch is the best, when I cannot stand the sound. That doesn't mean Klipsch is the highest (or lowest) quality (depending on whose side you take). Now the codecs obviously SHOULDN'T be perceived any differently. Apparently they are. However, that never has been and never will be a testament to the QUALITY of said codecs--which have been mathematically proven to be equal.

I understand where you and all the others are coming from. So to you, I apologize if I'm coming off too strong in here.
That's why this whole subject just perplexes me! I can't help it, to me, I truly beleive I can hear a defference. It's crazy, I know.
It posts like yours however that help the discusions in here. You havnt acted like your better or we're idiots. Really, I've just been looking for explanations this whole time. Nothing more. But like everyone, of course I will get a little defensive when I fell I'm being talked down to

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

BIslander, if core DTS isn't any different than core Dolby, then why is it that I notice a significant difference between the DTS and Dolby tracks for the new T2: Skynet Edition Blu-ray? The Dolby track is very good in its own right, but the DTS sounds quite a bit better to me.

I can't answer that question and would never attempt to do so. It's your equipment that you configured and you are listening with your ears in your room. Unlike lossless, there are actual differences between the lossy outputs of DD 5.1 and DTS. If you prefer one, then listen to it by all means. But, that doesn't mean it's going to better for me or for anyone else. And the difference in bitrates is all but irrelevant because there is so much more going on in the operation of those lossy codecs.