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

[Blu-Curry]

I'm currently using an older receiver that can only perform Dolby Digital, no DTS, so i went with no.

[neo_reloaded]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

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.

I'm not directing this at you. It was in response to posts like the one by aurora71 a couple above mine.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

I've got a pretty basic setup other than the fact that I don't have my subwoofer plugged in. I haven't jacked with any of the settings on the receiver so neither format is receiving any kind of manipulation on the receiver side of things.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by natedog543

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.
...
Really, I've just been looking for explanations this whole time. Nothing more.

If you accept the notion that the math and science are valid - that the outputs of two lossless codecs must be identical. And, if you also believe what you hear, then it seems like you should search for the answer somewhere other than differences in the codecs. Yes?

The movies may be mixed differently. Or, you may simply prefer movies that co-incidentally happen to use dts-MA. The outputs levels may not be equal. Your equipment may be processing them a bit differently.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by natedog543

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

No apology necessary...I am likewise confused. It has been shown that people tend to perceive louder as "better" in the form of more dynamic, punchier sound, but people are claiming that even after level matching DTS-MA is superior. I can't understand that, as it's a phenomenon that shouldn't occur. There's just too many variables for us consumers to figure it out for sure though...which is why threads like this will always exist. By the same token, one review (maybe it was the one here?) on (I think) the 2L TrondheimSolistene record seemed to assert an accentuation of treble frequencies in DTS-MA. Every other review has found all the encodings to be identical. So I dunno...

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I've got a pretty basic setup other than the fact that I don't have my subwoofer plugged in. I haven't jacked with any of the settings on the receiver so neither format is receiving any kind of manipulation on the receiver side of things.

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. Dolby and DTS use psychoacoustics to make decisions about what data to remove in lossy codecs. You may simply prefer the decisions that DTS makes, just as you might prefer a Marantz receiver to a Yamaha. Other people will have different preferences. But, that's all about lossy. And this poll is about lossless.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I'm not sure how that relates to what I said. Dolby and DTS use psychoacoustics to make decisions about what data to remove in lossy codecs. You may simply prefer the decisions that DTS makes, just as you might prefer a Marantz receiver to a Yamaha. Other people will have different preferences. But, that's all about lossy. And this poll is about lossless.

Yes, the poll is about lossless and since I don't have lossless, I picked the lossy format that has consistently sounded better to me. If I had lossless I wouldn't care one way or the other.

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

No apology necessary...I am likewise confused. It has been shown that people tend to perceive louder as "better" in the form of more dynamic, punchier sound, but people are claiming that even after level matching DTS-MA is superior. I can't understand that, as it's a phenomenon that shouldn't occur. There's just too many variables for us consumers to figure it out for sure though...which is why threads like this will always exist. By the same token, one review (maybe it was the one here?) on (I think) the 2L TrondheimSolistene record seemed to assert an accentuation of treble frequencies in DTS-MA. Every other review has found all the encodings to be identical. So I dunno...

so I'm just wondering now, have you never experienced this "phenomenon"? Have you never noticed that DTS has more kick with less "effort"? as someone jus replied to me (thank you) it may just be the certain movies or my set up but it's crazy how many ppl experience this. Thus my *ears* deceive me?how bout yours

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by BIslander

From the item on the home page, posted by Juan Calonge (emphasis added):

"The eventual choice of DTS-MA over TrueHD won't affect owners of a player that supports both formats. The sound quality of a lossless track doesn't depend on the codec used, just like a compressed computer file will be identical once opened, whether it came in a .zip or .rar file. However, for owners of earlier players (some of which can decode Dolby TrueHD but not DTS-MA), the use of DTS-MA may limit their access to lossless audio.

The PS3 decodes both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-MA, but can't bitstream any of them over HDMI to an AV receiver for it to decode the audio. Most of the latest-generation standalone players can both decode and bitstream TrueHD and DTS-MA.

The issue can be further compounded technically if we bring up codec efficiency (how big the respective audio files get), authoring, processing power needed for decoding, and other factors. "

Tell me how much of Blu-ray owners do still own 1st generation and even 2nd generation Blu-ray which is not capable of decoding DTSHD master audio,Do you know exactly the approximate numbers!!! What's wrong if now we can get DTSHD master audio on Sony titles and as soon as possible they can changed their players.Do you think if Sony decides to go with DTSHD master audio is going to happened between night and day,No they will wait a little bit maybe in 2010 they will shift and begins a new era of technology, In 2010 who is still going to have 1st and second generation Blu-Ray players.At the end of 2009,they can find a blu-ray player which can decode everything below $150,even now a reputable player like panasonic cannot cost you too much.

What's wrong now with PS3,i have a PS3 which can decode DTSHD master audio identically to my new Panasonic blu-ray without any significant difference.So who cares about bitstreaming just to have a light on your receiver showing the lossless sound decoded inside AVR. PS3 as it is now still the number one player ever exist even can't bitstream Lossless sound to a new receiver.Try it and you will never be disappoint.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by natedog543

so I'm just wondering now, have you never experienced this "phenomenon"? Have you never noticed that DTS has more kick with less "effort"? as someone jus replied to me (thank you) it may just be the certain movies or my set up but it's crazy how many ppl experience this. Thus my *ears* deceive me?how bout yours

I haven't. But then, I've only been DTS-MA equipped for a week, so I've only watched a few MA movies. However, Close Encounters has both, and doing A/B I couldn't tell a difference. I can say that TrueHD tracks do require about an extra five "ticks" on my receiver's volume control to match MA, and I can also say that the difference between DTS core and DTS MA is quite noticeable when the effects ramp up. However, I can't say that I have yet experienced the phenomenon that DTS actually sounds "better" or more dynamic or punchier than its other lossless counterparts. I will of course post if I encounter such phenomenons.

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by BIslander

If you accept the notion that the math and science are valid - that the outputs of two lossless codecs must be identical. And, if you also believe what you hear, then it seems like you should search for the answer somewhere other than differences in the codecs. Yes?

The movies may be mixed differently. Or, you may simply prefer movies that co-incidentally happen to use dts-MA. The outputs levels may not be equal. Your equipment may be processing them a bit differently.

it may very well be the movies I've seen. Or maybe the Dolby films I've seen were need stellar/reference material. I can't remember off hand the specific movies that have either formats but I had thought it was a clear choice for which was best... then I came into the forums lol

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

I haven't. But then, I've only been DTS-MA equipped for a week, so I've only watched a few MA movies. However, Close Encounters has both, and doing A/B I couldn't tell a difference. I can say that TrueHD tracks do require about an extra five "ticks" on my receiver's volume control to match MA, and I can also say that the difference between DTS core and DTS MA is quite noticeable when the effects ramp up. However, I can't say that I have yet experienced the phenomenon that DTS actually sounds "better" or more dynamic or punchier than its other lossless counterparts. I will of course post if I encounter such phenomenons.

well please do! and alert me about it too! lol. we'll see how it goes...

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by BIslander

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.

Anyone who says that bitrate does not matter, is drunk as hell. It matters a lot. All one has to do is listen to DTS at 754kbps, and listen to the same track at 1509kbps. Or listen to a Dolby encoded track at 384kbps, and then listen to Dolby at 640kbps. At my studio, we found bit rates DO make a difference.

DTS was able to demonstrate time and time again high bitrate DTS (1509kbps) was indistinguishable from the master. Dolby cannot say the same thing about DD at 448kbps or 640kbps, and they have never attempted to do so.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

DTS was able to demonstrate time and time again high bitrate DTS (1509kbps) was indistinguishable from the master. Dolby cannot say the same thing about DD at 448kbps or 640kbps, and they have never attempted to do so.

I haven't ever heard DTS-HD, but I would hope it's demonstrably better than 1.5 Mbps core DTS. What would be the point of DTS-HD if it's indistinguishable from a core track at 1.5 Mbps? That being said, I may still be stuck in the lossy era but I can tell a difference between 1.5 Mbps DTS and 640 kbps Dolby.

[aygie]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Anyone who says that bitrate does not matter, is drunk as hell. It matters a lot. All one has to do is listen to DTS at 754kbps, and listen to the same track at 1509kbps. Or listen to a Dolby encoded track at 384kbps, and then listen to Dolby at 640kbps. At my studio, we found bit rates DO make a difference.

DTS was able to demonstrate time and time again high bitrate DTS (1509kbps) was indistinguishable from the master. Dolby cannot say the same thing about DD at 448kbps or 640kbps, and they have never attempted to do so.

So what did Sir T vote for?.....

[CAB]

I voted for the DTS option. I'm probably not the typical customer because my 09FD is doing the decode to PCM the D to A, and the analog directly to my preamp. I won't get caught up in the discussions about one sounding better than the other because I can't find a single title that has both the TrueHD and a DTS HD MA to make a fair comparison. I don't doubleblind my own gear even on titles that have TrueHD and PCM. I do believe my reasons are practical ones.

I like the fact that I don't have to make an audio selection because it always defaults to the DTS track which contains a lossy core for those that don't have HD processing and the lossless that my gear will process and output. (Didn't we already set up the audio processing and outputs in the player setup?)

I don't like having the software default to a lossy DD track and I have to go through menus to choose the lossless.

I don't know if it's fact but it seems that it would take up less space having a single track per language leaving more space available for extras, other languages, alternate (Full Profile) experiences, and perhaps less compression in the video.

* Shrug * if they both are truly lossless and on a given mix, there's no difference between the before it was put into the package and after it's taken out. I'll choose the one that has most other advantages. I can't see any "advantage" in the TrueHD. Is it cheaper to do those encodes? Licensing? I'm sure I don't have all the info.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by Aygie

So what did Sir T vote for?.....

Sir Terrence wants Sony to shift to DTS-HD MA if they consider Blu-ray to be superbit of HD.

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Sir Terrence wants Sony to shift to DTS-HD MA if they consider Blu-ray to be superbit of HD.

Love it

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by natedog543

so I'm just wondering now, have you never experienced this "phenomenon"? Have you never noticed that DTS has more kick with less "effort"? as someone jus replied to me (thank you) it may just be the certain movies or my set up but it's crazy how many ppl experience this. Thus my *ears* deceive me?how bout yours

I have heard this "effect" when I did not make volume adjustment to match both codecs. When you actually match volumes, there is no night and day difference between the codecs. Refinement and clarity is the best you are going to get once you match levels between them. You must account for the effect of dialog normalization before any comparison is even somewhat valid.

Once again to all of you. Your house is a very poor listening lab. The ambient noise levels of the typical home will mask low level detail, and the equipment quality is not even close to what we use in the studio. Acoustical control is nil in most homes, and quite a few folks system is not properly calibrated in the first place.

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by TTUBatfan2008

I haven't ever heard DTS-HD, but I would hope it's demonstrably better than 1.5 Mbps core DTS. What would be the point of DTS-HD if it's indistinguishable from a core track at 1.5 Mbps? That being said, I may still be stuck in the lossy era but I can tell a difference between 1.5 Mbps DTS and 640 kbps Dolby.

I did not say that DTS-HD was indistinguishable from the core track did I? In DTS's demo's, DTS lossy at 1509kbps was "perceptively" indistinguishable(which means you cannot hear the difference in a A/B comparison) from the master. DTS-HD MA takes that further by making the audio bit for bit identical to the master, not just perceptively identical.