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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by saprano

I hope you were just trying to be stupid.

No, you've got that department well in hand.

how many times was the DTS 1.5 megabit core brought up as one of the reasons to switch to DTS-MA?

Infact you agreed to that being a good reason!

Originally Posted by Hep

Excuse me, but I believe that wanting the core DTS track for those without lossless is a compelling, educated argument.

Seeing as DD @640kbps is every "bit" the equal of DTS @1536kbps the "core" argument holds no water. You throw in the compatibility argument (HDTVs, PCs, etc) then it's no contest there either, DTS loses big time.

Even FOX and LionsGate see fit to add DD tracks to major releases, even though "only" at 448, but X2: X-MEN UNITED had it's DD track @640kbps!

And don't bring up the DVD comparisons either. 448kbps is not the same quality as 640.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And don't bring up the DVD comparisons either. 448kbps is not the same quality as 640.

I fully agree with that statement! I think 640kbs is a quantum jump in quality so far as DD.

That's why I wish that Dolby wouldn't downgrade to 448kbs just to have multiple TRUEHD tracks.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

I fully agree with that statement! I think 640kbs is a quantum jump in quality so far as DD.

That's why I wish that Dolby wouldn't downgrade to 448kbs just to have multiple TRUEHD tracks.

Dolby doesn't make that decision, the studios mastering them do.

You can believe that if it were up to them they'd be at 640kbps.

[D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

They are also monitoring why they should switch, and so far nobody has made a compelling, educated argument to switch other than some fanatics on a message board want to.

I left this thread quite sometime ago, due to people being told that their opinions are of no value. Again, here is a prime example of blind arrogance, because we don't subscribe to the well informed view.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by db01

I left this thread quite sometime ago, due to people being told that their opinions are of no value. Again, here is a prime example of blind arrogance, because we don't subscribe to the well informed view.

So instead of presenting a compelling argument you'd rather call people "arrogant"...

Argument 1:
DTS-MA sounds better than TrueHD: false

Argument 2:
Core: people are still comparing DVD bitrates to BD bitrates.

Argument 3:
No cost savings, no sales incentive: the biggest selling BD titles are TrueHD (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Transformers).

Argument 4:
Compatibility: The TrueHD/DD combo wins again.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by davcole

...with the studios increasingly moving towards DTSMA, TRUEHD needs to come up with a compelling aspect quick. I don't think the story of DTS bribing each studio is going to work any longer.

It's getting scary out there for Dolby:

Universal
Disney
Fox/Mgm
Criterion
Eagle Vision
Lionsgate
Universal Music
Image
CBS Video

all exclusive or moving towards DTSMA, it's time Dolby get it's "----" together or they could get left behind

Dolby is the exclusive multichannel format for broadcast. DD+ has been adopted as the higher bitrate choice for HDTV in the future. DTS has no role in broadcast.

Every theatrical release gets a Doby encode. Some also get DTS.

Dolby is a required format on DVD. DTS was used occasionally in the past and even less often these days.

DTS would seem to be the leader now on Blu-ray and that has to concern Dolby. But, BD is hardly a big market item yet and who knows if that will ever happen. Blu won the war with HD-DVD. But, it still has to overtake DVD for disc playback and hope that the public doesn't decide downloading is better. Blu might still end up a niche format like SACD.

From where I sit, Dolby seems to winning most of the battles with DTS.

I bet you that Dolby wishes that TRUEHD was built upon their lossy codec.

It appears you think the DTS structure using a lossy core is responsible for its success on Blu. I'm curious as to why you came to that conclusion.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Ryu77

So you would rather fill the disc with extras as opposed to improving the quality of the movie?

I care about quality, I listen to the lossless track, if someone is listening to the lossy then obviously they don't care that much about quality so why sacrifice everything else. It does not need to be only extras, it could be extra audio tracks, it could be better video, obviously better video would be my first option but the point was that there is no such thing as too much capacity so why not waste it giving quality to someone that does not care.

Huh? For every two you can add a third what? That statement is very confusing. Are you saying it makes more sense to sacrifice a third of the legacy audio bitrate to add another 200Kbs to the 35,000Kbs video track???

yes, but what I was also pointing out is that sacrificing 1/3 of the audio bitrate on two lossy tracks (don't forget there is also a lossless) means that they could add a third lossy one at around the same quality. For example most films sold here have English, French and Spanish (if they don't have more languages) so 3*448=1344~1280=2*640 the third language has almost no cost to the BR meter.

It takes my PC no more than 10 minutes to re-encode a multi channel legacy audio track from a lossless source. Cost would be minimal.

minimal is in the eye of the beholder. There is a cost with no benefit

[D]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

So instead of presenting a compelling argument you'd rather call people "arrogant"...

Argument 1:
DTS-MA sounds better than TrueHD: false

Argument 2:
Core: people are still comparing DVD bitrates to BD bitrates.

Argument 3:
No cost savings, no sales incentive: the biggest selling BD titles are TrueHD (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Transformers).

Argument 4:
Compatibility: The TrueHD/DD combo wins again.

Let's forego the technical debate, and get to what the poll originally asked. Who wants dts ma? For whatever the reasons, it is not for you, or anyone else to disregard anyones opinion for their choice for dts ma, nor for the reason. Again, the opinions are relevant, because they exist. Period.

[trans22]

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.

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.



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.

couldn't agree more, some people are far too technical on this forum but most DTS blu-ray tracks sound alot better than TRUEHD.

[trans22]

I just want to say something, i've got a copy of THE INCREDIBLE HULK blu-ray which is an australian import on sale on EBAY.CO.UK, it has dolby TRUEHD, the reason i'm mentioning this is because i'm finding it quite hard to sell, i'm selling for a decent price but when you consider that the UK version has DTS (which sounds better) it seems that nobody wants to buy the TRUEHD version. It seems if people have a choice of either then they will buy the DTS version. If it doesn't sell contact me and i will give it away for free.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

So instead of presenting a compelling argument you'd rather call people "arrogant"...

Argument 1:
DTS-MA sounds better than TrueHD: false

Argument 2:
Core: people are still comparing DVD bitrates to BD bitrates.

Argument 3:
No cost savings, no sales incentive: the biggest selling BD titles are TrueHD (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Transformers).

Argument 4:
Compatibility: The TrueHD/DD combo wins again.

rubbish! CASINO ROYALE (PCM) and POTC:CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL are 2 of the biggest sellers, are you on the dolby membership board or something ?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BIslander

It appears you think the DTS structure using a lossy core is responsible for its success on Blu. I'm curious as to why you came to that conclusion.

I absolutely do!

As we all know, any bandwidth and file savings are crucial to the success of a product. Because DTSMA gives an "all in one" solution, I feel is what is leading to it's success on BD. Despite the protests of some, from a bandwidth standpoint, DTSMA saves because you don't need to have a companion track for each language.

I've stated earlier, that is my belief in Sony's interest in the codec.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Argument 1:
DTS-MA sounds better than TrueHD: false

Argument 3:
No cost savings, no sales incentive: the biggest selling BD titles are TrueHD (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Indiana Jones, Transformers).

I agree with 1 and 3.

While i've always stated, to me that DTSMA gives more of a smoothness than TRUEHD, I won't definitively state it sounds better.

I agree, I don't see it as a sales incentive, not like back in the DVD days.

[GoodToGo]

Originally Posted by davcole

I agree with 1 and 3.

While i've always stated, to me that DTSMA gives more of a smoothness than TRUEHD, I won't definitively state it sounds better.

I agree, I don't see it as a sales incentive, not like back in the DVD days.

Umm Ironman and Dark Knight had huge followings in cinemas which spilled over in Blu Ray. They did not sell well because of TrueHD. In fact, IronMan was one of the biggest letdowns as far as sound goes. Here was a movie with tremendous potential to sound good and it didn't.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by trans22

couldn't agree more, some people are far too technical on this forum

Yes. Don't you hate it when people report facts, take measurements, and quote professionals who actually know something about the subject?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dolby is the exclusive multichannel format for broadcast. DD+ has been adopted as the higher bitrate choice for HDTV in the future. DTS has no role in broadcast.

Every theatrical release gets a Doby encode. Some also get DTS.

Dolby is a required format on DVD. DTS was used occasionally in the past and even less often these days.

Can't argue Dolby's success in the Broadcast market. For the current system, DD is standard. I am curious where DD+ is going to be used?

I haven't bought a DVD in years so I take your word that DTS isn't being used on that format anymore.

I'd still counter that DTS is still released on theatrical film prints as well as Dolby Digital.

I know there is this one proposed HD "on demand" system (can't remember the name) where the lossless standard is DTSMA.

In the future of E-Cinema, Dolby and DTS are both fighting a niche as the lossless standard is PCM.

As for TRUEHD, if it doesn't succeed on BD, where is it's likely use?

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by davcole

I absolutely do!

As we all know, any bandwidth and file savings are crucial to the success of a product. Because DTSMA gives an "all in one" solution, I feel is what is leading to it's success on BD. Despite the protests of some, from a bandwidth standpoint, DTSMA saves because you don't need to have a companion track for each language.

I've stated earlier, that is my belief in Sony's interest in the codec.

I was wondering whether you had anything to support your speculation - something from a studio, measurements showing the space savings and how they are used, things of that sort.

Are foreign languages encoded using dts-MA? I don't look at those formats very often, but I don't recall seeing lossless DTS in foreign languages on Region A discs. I see discs with dts-MA main tracks accompanied by DD 5.1 foreign language tracks. And, I see some discs with two or three TrueHD tracks.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I was wondering whether you had anything to support your speculation - something from a studio, measurements showing the space savings and how they are used, things of that sort.

Are foreign languages encoded using dts-MA? I don't look at those formats very often, but I don't recall seeing lossless DTS in foreign languages on Region A discs. I see discs with dts-MA main tracks accompanied by DD 5.1 foreign language tracks. And, I see some discs with two or three TrueHD tracks.

If a DTSMA english language file is smaller and less bandwidth than truehd with it's companion DD track is used, wouldn't the same apply to the foreign language tracks?

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I was wondering whether you had anything to support your speculation - something from a studio, measurements showing the space savings and how they are used, things of that sort.

Are foreign languages encoded using dts-MA? I don't look at those formats very often, but I don't recall seeing lossless DTS in foreign languages on Region A discs. I see discs with dts-MA main tracks accompanied by DD 5.1 foreign language tracks. And, I see some discs with two or three TrueHD tracks.

There is "Let the Right One In" which has 5.1 DTS-HDMA tracks for English and Swedish.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by GoodToGo

Umm Ironman and Dark Knight had huge followings in cinemas which spilled over in Blu Ray. They did not sell well because of TrueHD. In fact, IronMan was one of the biggest letdowns as far as sound goes. Here was a movie with tremendous potential to sound good and it didn't.

That was the point.

Sony won't sell more copies for switching to DTS-MA.