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

[Sir Terrence]

Originally Posted by Aygie

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

PCM?

[BIslander]

I must not have made myself clear in that post.

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.

I do not mean to say bitrates never matter. Like you, I hear significant improvements going from DTS at 754 to DTS at 1509. The same goes for DD 5.1 at the rates used on DVD and the max 640 used on BD.

What I mean to say is that DTS at 754 does not sound better than DD 5.1 at 384 or 448, just because of the higher bitrate. Dolby and DTS use different techniques that come into play here.

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.

Again, I agree that DTS 1509 rivals lossless, although I catch lots of grief in forums for holding that belief. And, since lossless uses much higher bitrates, this is another example where bitrate comparisons don't tell the story. While I am also quite impressed by DD 5.1 at 640kbps, I won't dispute that it may fall a bit short short. I certainly prefer the PCM track on Black Hawk Down to the DD 5.1 one, which I believe was encoded at 640 kbps.

[Bizi Jones]

doesn't matter...if there's incentive to go with DTS, so be it...so long as its lossless, it makes not diff to me

[natedog543]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

hmm. I'm learning, I'm learning. So my question to you would be, is DTS better at changing the audio levels during different scenes than Dolby? like you said, once you match levels, I have no doubt there isn't any difference. But to me Dolby stays the same level throughout the entire film. Imo, it doesn't varry for different sequences like DTS

[andyman1970]

Originally Posted by markjdye

Quit paying royalties to Dolby and DTS. Go back to the first Blu-rays and make everything from here on out Uncompressed PCM. The price of Blu-rays would go down and you'd get the best unmessed-with sound.

I hated the PCM codecs and I think DTS sounds better. Plus, if they did that then you would suffer a loss of PQ on some titles since PCM takes up more disc space the DTS MA and Dolby True HD. DTS is supposed to take up the least amount of disc space while providing a clear lossless multi channel experience.

Originally Posted by trans22

couldn't agree more DTS always seems to sound better, for those who say truehd sounds the same as PCM then have a listen to 300 and SUPERMAN RETURNS, the PCM mixes are significantly better. also why does STEVEN SPIELBERG support DTS over TRUEHD?

I think it's because he realizes that DTS is superior and maybe he owns stock in the company.

[Blu-Malibu2009]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

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.

You initially said indistinguishable, not "perceptively" indistinguishable. And if DTS-HD is identical to the master, then stating that the 1.5 Mbps DTS-core track is indistinguishable or "perceptively" indistinguishable from the master is the same as saying it's indistinguishable or "perceptively" indistinguishable from the DTS-HD track.

[darkblueme]

Every dts-hd ma audio track I've heard sounds phenominal. Only some Dolby TrueHD tracks sound as good, not all.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that dts-hd ma is the "Criterion" of the lossless audio world because I feel that every track with the dts-hd ma label is an audio exhilaration. I would say Dolby TrueHD is the "Warner" of the lossless audio world because while each track SHOULD sound awesome, only some do.

Why? I have no idea. But it doesn't matter because I don't feel the need to back it up with science or technology. I know what sounds better to me, perceived or not, and I voted for dts-hd ma all the way.

If only for their awsome logo at the beginning of My Bloody Valentine. It shook my entire house. WHOA!!!

[blu2]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

I hated the PCM codecs and I think DTS sounds better.

Yikes. Now DTS is better than the real thing.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

I think it's because he realizes that DTS is superior and maybe he owns stock in the company.

Yes, superior because dts allows you to use one copy of the film and just make discs for different languages, whereas SDDS and Dolby were encoded on the film strip, requiring multiple copies of the film for multiple language regions.

[LordConrad]

PCM is the best. Blu-ray discs have plenty of room, let's use it!

[mzab24]

So if you add it up Dropping Dolby HD and not mattering either way its 89% for

Thats remarkable IMO

[DeadDog]

Originally Posted by mzab24

So if you add it up Dropping Dolby HD and not mattering either way its 89% for

Thats remarkable IMO

Agreed. I understand the science behind the arguments, but there is no arguing with people's preferance.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by natedog543

hmm. I'm learning, I'm learning. So my question to you would be, is DTS better at changing the audio levels during different scenes than Dolby? like you said, once you match levels, I have no doubt there isn't any difference. But to me Dolby stays the same level throughout the entire film. Imo, it doesn't varry for different sequences like DTS

I might have a solution for that... Is your Dynamic Range Compression turned on? That would cause Dolby to level out more than DTS.

I voted that it doesn't matter because it doesn't no matter what the fanboys say. Sony, and Paramount for that matter, have yet to show us a bad Dolby TrueHD track. And they're also the same level as DTS-HD MA tracks.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by mzab24

So if you add it up Dropping Dolby HD and not mattering either way its 89% for

Thats remarkable IMO

Uhhh, people selected "Wouldn't matter to me either way," not "Wouldn't matter to me either way so I choose DTS-HD MA." Just because they selected it doesn't mean they're automatically for it.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by blu2

Yikes. Now DTS is better than the real thing.

It just goes to show you who's voting in these polls and how much the general public knows.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by bluseminole

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

But weren't we told by these audio mixers that DD+ at 1.5mbps audio tracks were perceptually, if not mathematically lossless? Transformers was the one I heard this the most when argued by the hd-dvd'ers about how lossless was not that important, and lossy tracks were fine because the human ear can't hear all the range that lossless has to offer anyways. The placebo effect was the rallying cry at the time for those people that wanted lossless. Are we to say that the audio mixers are the end-all deciders on this? If so, I guess we can just revert everyone to DD+ 24bitkhz/48khz soundtracks, because the engineers tell us it's "virtually lossless" to the master, and the rubes out here in consumer land should just shut up about it. We go back to the arguments of Amir who said that we are just gullible audiophiles to the marketing prowess of lossless versus the actual science of what is being heard. Because after all, if there is no "difference" based on what the sound engineers have heard from the actual master, then we really don't need lossless at all.

[saprano]

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.

Finaly a final confirmation from somebody, an actual somebody. i dont know why people kept saying it didn't matter.

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence

Your information is not correct here. DTS does not master sound tracks hotter than the original master, and since you have no access to the master you cannot quantify this statement. Dolby Digital TrueHD with the effect of dialog normalization lowers the volume based on the offset setting of the encoder. All of the tracks I have mixed and have been encoded to DTS - the volume of the encode matches my master exactly.

Yes, I would have to agree with this statement as well. The encoding is just the compression of the audio bits (in a lossless encode). Unless a change is made to the master mix before the encoding takes place, then the final audio should not show up with any difference between DTS-HD MA or DD TrueHD. All the same 1s and 0s are still there, bit-for-bit.

"Dialnorm" adjustments also affect the entire volume of a TrueHD track, not just any particular channel or specific frequencies, and it's not always the same value, either. Also, for the comparison of the two, all audio Dynamic Range Compression should be turned off on both the player and receiver. Just thought I would mention that.

That said, there may be one explanation as to why some claim DTS-HD Master Audio sounds superior to DD TrueHD, and the explanation lies in your relative volume setting and your receiver.

If a receiver is equipped with a form of loudness compensation, it will provide greater augmentation of the frequency extremes (lows and highs) when the volume is not turned up as high, as would be the case with the claim for DTS-HD MA, so the audio may indeed sound "brighter" in the high frequencies, and "punchier" in the low frequencies. This is because the effects of loudness compensation decreases as the volume control is turned up. Now, we may be talking about only a few decibels, but it could be enough to bring out a perceived difference in the quality of the two audio formats.

I hope this makes sense, because I will stand by the claim that there is no bit-for-bit difference in the encode between the two lossless formats. If there was, then is not the encode that creates that, but a change in the master channel levels or equalization before encoding.

[bluseminole]

Originally Posted by ganthc

But weren't we told by these audio mixers that DD+ at 1.5mbps audio tracks were perceptually, if not mathematically lossless? Transformers was the one I heard this the most when argued by the hd-dvd'ers about how lossless was not that important, and lossy tracks were fine because the human ear can't hear all the range that lossless has to offer anyways. The placebo effect was the rallying cry at the time for those people that wanted lossless. Are we to say that the audio mixers are the end-all deciders on this? If so, I guess we can just revert everyone to DD+ 24bitkhz/48khz soundtracks, because the engineers tell us it's "virtually lossless" to the master, and the rubes out here in consumer land should just shut up about it. We go back to the arguments of Amir who said that we are just gullible audiophiles to the marketing prowess of lossless versus the actual science of what is being heard. Because after all, if there is no "difference" based on what the sound engineers have heard from the actual master, then we really don't need lossless at all.

If you aren't going to trust the mixers, then who ARE you going trust? Joe Schmo with even a very nice $20,000 consumer setup? $200,000? You have to pick somebody. So yes, I would say the engineers are the people we should be trusting. And there's a difference here....the argument you refer to was one motivated by an intense format war. The engineers in question were likely not free to express reservations to the public about not including a lossless track. I'm not saying business motives aren't in play here, but there is significantly more latitude. Not to mention, the argument you reference utilizes qualifications that add a level of subjectivity..."perceptually" and "virtually" lossless are substitutes for saying "not completely" lossless. It's a "cover-the-company's ass" way of saying "it's good enough." However, an engineer who says, "There is absolutely no difference" leaves no room for interpretation. And engineers have said that.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by darkblueme

Every dts-hd ma audio track I've heard sounds phenominal. Only some Dolby TrueHD tracks sound as good, not all.

RoboCop? Pinnochio? The Fly? Edward Scissorhands? Battle of Britain? Hoosiers? Dr. No? Goldfinger? Rambo II?

Phenomenal???

Talk about a placebo effect!

This is why these polls are the very definition of unscientific.

Not to mention the "phenomenal" titles would sound exactly the same to him in TrueHD...as long as he doesn't know what codec it really is.