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

[davcole]

Originally Posted by cembros

i doubt that most could even hear a difference between 16bit and 24 bit. Plus a 448 track leaves more space on the disc for the video

Wait, are you really suggesting that 16bit/Truehd and 448DD are sonically equivalent?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Blu-Dog, you clearly do not understand that DTS Speaker Remapping alters the original sound mix.

You clearly do not understand that I see you're over-reacting about this.

Originally Posted by BIslander

In its current implementation, it is the only "feature" of Dolby or DTS lossless encode/decode processing that changes the final output in ways that the end user cannot prevent.

Man, all this drama...seven movies, by your count, have an error in mapping speakers. Why are you trying to drag me into this Chicken Little mode?

Speaker remapping is clearly an option that can be selected, and has shown bugs in a few movies. I could not detect them, even in movies I own.

Dolby's DRC and Dialnorm games are so pervasive, and so apparent to most film owners, that they've requested a switch to DTS at a rate of about 10:1. Many major studios now use it, with no discernable problems.

Just calm down, man.

Originally Posted by BIslander

And, DTS requires player manufacturers to change the final lossless output of 5.1 releases to 7.1 using channnel duplication. Given your lack of understanding and seeming unwillingness to learn, there's no point in further discussion.

You've said it fifty times - thanks for dropping it.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by LembasBread

Though Dialnorm and DRC are relatively a "nuisance" they can be compensated for via turning up the volume and turning of the DRC. When a 7.1 DTS-HD MA track isn't decoded properly, there's nothing the end user can do to compensate to get the discrete 7.1 channels back.

We are discussing consumer products here, not the control panel on the Space Shuttle. I am not interested in twiddling this and adjusting that (possibly anathema on a discussion site like this; but there it is) based on arbitrary settings by the encoding tool.

Some folks like fiddling around, watching an entire film with a remote in hand, or perched on their knees changing setting on a receiver, player, or both. I think it's the height of absurdity. It's also absurd to listen to the first few moments of a film, and attempt to "adjust the volume to compensate"; why should anyone have to go through such nonsense? Just leave the original mix alone, what is the problem with that?

As far as an "improper" 5.1 decode, I've seen two scenarios: One, where speaker remapping is invoked that isn't figured out by the decoder - not a big deal, the engineer can turn it off; and this horrifying sin of duplicating side surround signals on the rear surrounds, bypassing robot mode 7.1 rear surround processing.

Oh, the horror.

Oh, the humanity.

No, it's not a big deal. Purists should be turning off the rears anyway.

Originally Posted by LembasBread

There has been one documented case of auto DRC enabled on a Dolby TrueHD encode. 7 documented cases of faulty DTS-HD MA encodes. I'd say from that track record, Dolby is the more ideal encode option with less bugs for the end user to deal with.

There is one documented case of this that I know of; I got suckered into buying Iron Man, a very overhyped film in any case, with a horrible sound mix even when the flubs in dialnorm and DRC are turned off.

I'd say from Dolby's track record - listen to the comments around here - most people prefer DTS sound by an overwhelming margin, myself included. I have no clue how many times they've set DRC to On, or sucked all the air out of the mix with Dialnorm, or what kind of nonsense has gon on.

I do know that most DTS mixes sound better, as do PCM mixes, and I think Dialnorm and DRC are the culprits.

In my own case, I have terrific concert Blu discs that were done in Dolby, so I know it's capable of excellent performance. I'm sure special care was taken in the audio schema for each disc. I have no idea why this isn't done for film; I hear incessant denial of Dolby as the culprit, with complex discussions about bitrate and other issues as reasons why Dolby is coming up a constant second.

Whatever reasons are there for Dolby screwing the pooch, they need to get it together very, very soon. This many subjective feelings about Dolby vs. DTS are not the result of fanboyism, placebo effect, crappy HTIB gear, etc.

It's the result of:

- Lousy masters being encoded
- Engagement of non-audiophile and unnecessary features such as DRC and Dialnorm (with apologists acting as if the inclusion of this junk is some kind of law of nature, that everyone must simply deal with under the Rules Of Dolby)

Somethings got to give. If Dolby would knock off this foolishness, at least with Blu, I doubt there'd be an issue at all.

[lgans316]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm about to watch that and see if it compares with the review. However 16bit and 448DD is a bit of a disappointment when you think of how it could potentially sound.

Anaconda - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 2917 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2917 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)

The International - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1412 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1412 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

Here comes the worst of all.

Casino Royale: Collector's Edition: Yes Collector's Edition. I repeat Collector's Edition. - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1698 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1698 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

[cembros]

Originally Posted by davcole

Wait, are you really suggesting that 16bit/Truehd and 448DD are sonically equivalent?

what, someone cant read

[cembros]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Anaconda - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 2917 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2917 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)

The International - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1412 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1412 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

Here comes the worst of all.

Casino Royale: Collector's Edition: Yes Collector's Edition. I repeat Collector's Edition. - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1698 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1698 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

i dont get why the lossy bitrate matters to you,i personally want the lowest bitrate used on the lossy track, that way more disc space is available for the video. All im worried about is the true hd track.

[BIslander]

TrueHD should include a 640kbps companion track to maximize quality over S/PDIF connections. I can't think of a good reason to use 448 instead. Space certainly can't be a consideration on Blu. Likewise, the DTS core should be 1509, not 768 or 754. Studios usually use the maximum legacy bitrates, but not always.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by lgans316

Anaconda - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 2917 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2917 kbps / 24-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)

The International - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1412 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1412 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

Here comes the worst of all.

Casino Royale: Collector's Edition: Yes Collector's Edition. I repeat Collector's Edition. - Dolby TrueHD Audio English 1698 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1698 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 448 kbps)

Ohhh now I remember you! You're the guy that posts this on Amazon.com saying it's a review!!! But I am curious, what does this apply to? You're not responding to the questions people are asking you, you just are posting these stats. Do you not listen to the TrueHD track and that's why you're upset about the 448kbps Dolby Digital track?

And why are people complaining about DialNorm and DRC saying those are harder to get rid of than anything and it's soooo complicated... but then pass off downmixed tracks (or even possibly dropped channels) that YOU CANNOT FIX like it's nothing. Apparently it takes rocket science to turn the sound up 4db. I wont even address DRC as there was only one title that was messed up (compared to 7+ DTS-HD MA tracks, that's not too bad).

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BIslander

TrueHD should include a 640kbps companion track to maximize quality over S/PDIF connections. I can't think of a good reason to use 448 instead. Space certainly can't be a consideration on Blu. Likewise, the DTS core should be 1509, not 768 or 754. Studios usually use the maximum legacy bitrates, but not always.

100% agree!

640kbs DD should be standard legacy rate as everyone with a DD legacy system will be able to get full enjoyment instead of compromised audio.

640DD should be the standard legacy as well as 1.5 DTS for the legacy track.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Buddy go back and the read what I said.... 'dts on DVD' is DEAD. Not DVD is DEAD. Give me a list of major DVD releases in the last year that featured dts audio.

Again their only hope is to have dts used primarily on Blu-ray because major content providers are not encoding DVDs with dts any longer.

Yeah, read what you quoted me saying in black. It's exactly what you just posted. I was merely giving a reason as to why the DTS track was not on the DVD. No accusations against you, trust me.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

And why are people complaining about DialNorm and DRC saying those are harder to get rid of than anything and it's soooo complicated... but then pass off downmixed tracks (or even possibly dropped channels) that YOU CANNOT FIX like it's nothing. Apparently it takes rocket science to turn the sound up 4db. I wont even address DRC as there was only one title that was messed up (compared to 7+ DTS-HD MA tracks, that's not too bad).

I don't think we need to keep score on how many releases are fouled up in either format. I have no idea how many releases are Dialnormed to death; I'm sure that we don't have enough fingers and toes between us to count them up, even if you're from Mars and have a few spares.

What has me astounded is how everyone begs the question. Why are these needless formats pounded into every encode in the first place? You treat it as a law of nature, which makes no sense.

I've placed my equipment in a cabinet, where it's not readily visible. It makes little sense to run over every time I start a movie, to go over, open it up, and start jiggling the volume to compensate for Dialnorm foolishness that may (or may not) be encoded onto the disc.

Worse, this notion that "all you have to do is adjust the volume every time" leads to the obvious question: Where do you set the baseline? At what point in the film do you say, here's where I set the reference level? When two crooks are whispering in a bank vault? When a nuclear weapon is detonated? When a crowd is cheering? During the opening studio logo trumpeting? When does this "just adjust the volume" take place?

It appears that some folks just have to hold onto a remote during an entire film, and thinks everyone else should be just as goofy.

Finally, I've seen the pocket-protector types do this "yer an idiot if you can't figure out the DRC menu" many times. I'm pretty savvy, technically; but I was not aware of the DRC problem, and I suspect that it's occurred far more times than the egregious example found in Iron Man. I truly suspect that it's at the heart of the "DTS just sounds better" claims of the crowd, and there's no light or indicator that flashes up saying it's invoked.

Bottom line: No Dolby proponent here has even tried to defend either Dialnorm or DRC. I don't blame them. What is truly amazing is that Dolby proponents can't do more than tear down a single recent mis-applied option in DTS, as some over-arching reason to stay with a format that has really been a headache and non-preference for a whole lot of people.

If anyone is upset with DTS and the speaker re-mapping option, I can definitely understand it; I even understand being vocal about it. But blind defense of features in Dolby that really defeated it in this poll fails the logic test.

One last time: If Dolby dropped Dialnorm and DRC on Blu discs, there would be no issue. I believe the audio experts who say that a lossless encode is simply that; and I can see that if features are bolted onto that encode, it is not the same as the master that was encoded.

We all know it's true. Perhaps the studios are listening, and perhaps Dolby is listening. I'm curious as to why all of the proponents of the status quo can't seem to get the message.

Talk about fanboys...

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

I don't think we need to keep score on how many releases are fouled up in either format. I have no idea how many releases are Dialnormed to death; I'm sure that we don't have enough fingers and toes between us to count them up, even if you're from Mars and have a few spares.

What has me astounded is how everyone begs the question. Why are these needless formats pounded into every encode in the first place? You treat it as a law of nature, which makes no sense.

I've placed my equipment in a cabinet, where it's not readily visible. It makes little sense to run over every time I start a movie, to go over, open it up, and start jiggling the volume to compensate for Dialnorm foolishness that may (or may not) be encoded onto the disc.

Worse, this notion that "all you have to do is adjust the volume every time" leads to the obvious question: Where do you set the baseline? At what point in the film do you say, here's where I set the reference level? When two crooks are whispering in a bank vault? When a nuclear weapon is detonated? When a crowd is cheering? During the opening studio logo trumpeting? When does this "just adjust the volume" take place?

It appears that some folks just have to hold onto a remote during an entire film, and thinks everyone else should be just as goofy.

Finally, I've seen the pocket-protector types do this "yer an idiot if you can't figure out the DRC menu" many times. I'm pretty savvy, technically; but I was not aware of the DRC problem, and I suspect that it's occurred far more times than the egregious example found in Iron Man. I truly suspect that it's at the heart of the "DTS just sounds better" claims of the crowd, and there's no light or indicator that flashes up saying it's invoked.

Bottom line: No Dolby proponent here has even tried to defend either Dialnorm or DRC. I don't blame them. What is truly amazing is that Dolby proponents can't do more than tear down a single recent mis-applied option in DTS, as some over-arching reason to stay with a format that has really been a headache and non-preference for a whole lot of people.

If anyone is upset with DTS and the speaker re-mapping option, I can definitely understand it; I even understand being vocal about it. But blind defense of features in Dolby that really defeated it in this poll fails the logic test.

One last time: If Dolby dropped Dialnorm and DRC on Blu discs, there would be no issue. I believe the audio experts who say that a lossless encode is simply that; and I can see that if features are bolted onto that encode, it is not the same as the master that was encoded.

We all know it's true. Perhaps the studios are listening, and perhaps Dolby is listening. I'm curious as to why all of the proponents of the status quo can't seem to get the message.

Talk about fanboys...

Actually here's how I look at it. WB or Paramount release, turn the volume up for it. It is not nearly as "woe is me" as you're making it out to be.

The reason I will point out the problems with DTS is because YOU'RE pointing out the "problems" with Dolby. And if you're looking for someone to defend what DialNorm and DRC offer, simply look for Peter's posts.

DRC is OPTIONAL. It's something that's great to have for late night viewing if you don't want to wake the other people in the house. The ONLY title that had an issue was Iron Man and that was if you were bitstreaming and had DRC set to auto. It hasn't been engaged on any other title dispite what you claim. What is more likely is that people aren't level matching. Even you yourself said that you don't know how to level match.

And DialNorm is more for people still using TV speakers. HOWEVER. DIALNORM DOESN'T APPLY TO SONY TITLES. They have gone on record saying they do not use DialNorm and have tried to stay away from it. So bringing it up in the conversation is useless. Just like bringing up the whole speaker remapping is useless as I seriously doubt Sony is going to start altering tracks to make 7.1 mixes. The only reason we bring it up is because Scorxpion was trying to say it's a reason to go with DTS over Dolby when it isn't.

Also, as I said earlier, it's pretty simple figuring out where to set the levels. You have your basic setting (mine is ussually around -13db). For a WB title, you'd want to turn it up to around -9db to level match. It's truly not rocket science. DialNorm doesn't make the sound level fluctuate throughout a movie. It's the whole soundtrack that's (normally) 4db lower. So it'd be at the beginning of the movie that you'd make these adjustments.

Having said that, there are actually differences in Mixes. I did have to turn Gran Torino up more than usual just because it's hard to understand Clint. DTS wouldn't have changed that one bit.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

We are discussing consumer products here, not the control panel on the Space Shuttle. I am not interested in twiddling this and adjusting that (possibly anathema on a discussion site like this; but there it is) based on arbitrary settings by the encoding tool.

And yet you have trouble hitting one button to turn off DRC. Do you complain to the BD makers you have to hit "select" or "play" to get the movie to run, since you have such trouble with one setting and turning up the volume control a bit (and seemingly never alter it, for any source, ever)?

I suppose things like switching on commentary, scene selection, or subtitle options are a bad thing as well.

Some folks like fiddling around, watching an entire film with a remote in hand, or perched on their knees changing setting on a receiver, player, or both. I think it's the height of absurdity. It's also absurd to listen to the first few moments of a film, and attempt to "adjust the volume to compensate"

And yet there are thousands of people who have to do that with DTS encoded DVDs and BDs because they don't want it getting "too loud".

Oh, the horror.

Oh, the humanity.

No, it's not a big deal. Purists should be turning off the rears anyway.

So folks should be drilling into their receiver setup menus, and turning on and off the rear channels all the time, yet you can't be bothered to adjust volume or turn off DRC. Right.

There is one documented case of this that I know of; I got suckered into buying Iron Man, a very overhyped film in any case, with a horrible sound mix even when the flubs in dialnorm and DRC are turned off.

Yet somehow everyone else likes the sound, it was nominated for an Oscar for Sound Editing.

listen to the comments around here - most people prefer DTS sound by an overwhelming margin, myself included.

.

The MP3 generation has spoken.

[BIslander]

Well put, ClaytonMG.

I would like to clarify one point, however:

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

bringing up the whole speaker remapping is useless as I seriously doubt Sony is going to start altering tracks to make 7.1 mixes. The only reason we bring it up is because Scorxpion was trying to say it's a reason to go with DTS over Dolby when it isn't.

You are correct that the most recent posts were in response to Scorxpion. But, that aside, there is actually a more significant remapping issue with 5.1 releases than a few problematic 7.1 discs. And, studios can't prevent the problem on the encode side.

DTS-HD decoders in the Panasonic and Pioneer players expand DTS 5.1 discs to 7.1 using channel duplication. The new Oppo does the same thing for analog output. It's not an option or a setting. It happens per DTS mandate, according to the manufacturers.

That means many people with 7.1 systems cannot listen to the soundtrack the way it was mixed unless they reconfigure their systems for 5.1. And, they cannot use matrixing techniques such as PLIIx or Logic7 to create rear channels, if they prefer those DSPs to channel duplication. If Sony goes to dts-MA, then those people will be hosed.

Truth be told, I suspect most people with 7.1 systems won't notice or even care that they're getting duplicated rear channels. But, it's a problem that can't be fixed for those who do care.

[srrndhound]

Originally Posted by BIslander

DTS-HD decoders in the Panasonic and Pioneer players expand DTS 5.1 discs to 7.1 using channel duplication. The new Oppo does the same thing for analog output. It's not an option or a setting. It happens per DTS mandate, according to the manufacturers.

It's sort of funny that they use duplication to fill out the back channels in a player that has a PLII decoder. It would be a cinch to perform PLIIx--and let consumers with 7.1 analog inputs have another option.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Well put, ClaytonMG.

I would like to clarify one point, however:

You are correct that the most recent posts were in response to Scorxpion. But, that aside, there is actually a more significant remapping issue with 5.1 releases than a few problematic 7.1 discs. And, studios can't prevent the problem on the encode side.

DTS-HD decoders in the Panasonic and Pioneer players expand DTS 5.1 discs to 7.1 using channel duplication. The new Oppo does the same thing for analog output. It's not an option or a setting. It happens per DTS mandate, according to the manufacturers.

That means many people with 7.1 systems cannot listen to the soundtrack the way it was mixed unless they reconfigure their systems for 5.1. And, they cannot use matrixing techniques such as PLIIx or Logic7 to create rear channels, if they prefer those DSPs to channel duplication. If Sony goes to dts-MA, then those people will be hosed.

Truth be told, I suspect most people with 7.1 systems won't notice or even care that they're getting duplicated rear channels. But, it's a problem that can't be fixed for those who do care.

I actually didn't know that. Why would they do something like that?

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by srrndhound

It's sort of funny that they use duplication to fill out the back channels in a player that has a PLII decoder. It would be a cinch to perform PLIIx--and let consumers with 7.1 analog inputs have another option.

Yeah, seems like a funny (bad) idea to me...

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I actually didn't know that. Why would they do something like that?

I keep looking for an answer to that question, but so far no luck.

The CEs say it's a DTS remapping requirement, although I can't find anything even remotely related to 5.1 "expansion" in the DTS-HD White Paper. Meanwhile, the Sony, Denon, and Samsung players don't duplicate channels. Oppo doesn't either for HDMI. So, whatever the DTS requirement, it doesn't seem to apply to everyone.

Chris Walker, the Pioneer product developer who posts as AVS, said the requirement is related to the remapping layout used by the decoder - one layout has to duplicate while others don't. If true, that adds another troubling wrinkle to the discussion. It suggests that players may decode the same dts-MA differently - some may optimize the output for surround speakers in the usual side position while others may maximize for surrounds pulled farther back. Is it possible that you get different outputs from the same dts-MA soundtrack depending on the player you are using? Does it mean you need to choose a player whose remapping layout matches your speaker layout, if you can even find out which player that would be?

I sure wish DTS would explain how remapping is being applied right now.

[child of the sun]

I do not have a 7.1 set up I have always had 5.1. But ever since DVD I have always prefered DTS. I obviously voted for DTS. lol. However I must say that IF Dolby could produce better Audio Masters I would prefer that (after reading here about rear duplication, etc.).

Can I get a re-vote? lol

[cembros]

Originally Posted by child of the sun

I do not have a 7.1 set up I have always had 5.1. But ever since DVD I have always prefered DTS. I obviously voted for DTS. lol. However I must say that IF Dolby could produce better Audio Masters I would prefer that (after reading here about rear duplication, etc.).

Can I get a re-vote? lol

neither dolby or dts produce masters, the masters are a part of the film. Dolby and dts in the case of lossless simply compress these masters in a way that they are bit for bit identical.