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

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by trans22

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 ?

Pray tell what is a "Dolby Membership Board"?

Dark Knight is the biggest selling BD title (to date).

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by ganthc

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

That's one. I'm sure there are others. But, if davcole's speculation on this issue is correct, then dts-MA should be the norm for discs with lossless foreign language tracks.

[Tok]

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.

Personally other than the original language track, I don't give a darn if they use a lossless codec. Even if I don't speak the language I would rather watch with that language in lossless and turn the subtitles on.

And there is nothing preventing Sony from going with the 754kbps dts core. Master Audio can be built off of that core as well. But since MA is built off of the core, I have a feeling that the final datarate between using a 1.5Mbps or 754kbps core is about the same. At least with Dolby if they choose to go with a lower rate lossy encode that is a real data bandwidth and space savings.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by davcole

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

I could throw that argument right back at you replacing TRUEHD with dtsMA.

Dolby has many other technologies that they are developing. dts on the other hand desperately needs dts-HD to become the defacto standard to remain relevant at least in consumer products.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by CraigW

I could throw that argument right back at you replacing TRUEHD with dtsMA.

Dolby has many other technologies that they are developing. dts on the other hand desperately needs dts-HD to become the defacto standard to remain relevant at least in consumer products.

I've already conceded your points, no need to go further. You are correct that DTS absolutely needs BD to insure it's survival. However the question remains so far as TRUEHD, if it's not successful on BD, where will it be used?

[Tok]

Originally Posted by davcole

I've alread conceded your points, no need to go further. You are correct that DTS absolutely needs BD to insure it's survival. However the question remains so far as TRUEHD, if it's not successful on BD, where will it be used?

The fact is that enough software has already been issued with both codecs that neither can go away. The TrueHD engine was built upon the proven MLP algorithm with some updates so it is proven technology and it is cheap now. Plus with so many other Dolby technologies being included in consumer equipment, Dolby would probably just lump its licensing use in with other new technologies. We already are seeing low price AVRs include both TrueHD and dts-HD decoding. I have to say I was surprised at how many sub-$1k AVRs included these new algorithms a couple of years ago.

Again neither is going away, just don't be too confident that winds of change won't blow again.

And I have not heard definite proof that Warner is switching other than a single title and it did occur a couple times in the past where a few Warner issued DVDs had a dts track. And Paramount seems to be committed to TrueHD as well. And at the moment Sony has said nothing publically about switching. So until they do, it appears that Dolby and dts are about equally split in the lossless department.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by CraigW

The fact is that enough software has already been issued with both codecs that neither can go away. The TrueHD engine was built upon the proven MLP algorithm with some updates so it is proven technology and it is cheap now.

I agree with that. I don't think either will go away. I think they will co-exist. As a DVD- Audio collector I love the advantages that MLP created. The fact that they ushered in a lossless era in high-def music.

[Krelldog1977]

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.

I'm curious as to why Iron Man is considered to be a huge letdown in terms of sound. Someone please inform me as to how this movie sounds worse than other True HD titles...

I watched Iron man on my system yesterday and it sounded great......nice demo material for LFE fanatics like myself! where's the dissapointment??

This forum is going to lose it's credibility fast if so called " expert members " are passing on their opinions as facts...
Before people start to criticize TrueHD they should first take a look at the quality of equipment they are using.

If you spent more $ on Blu-rays than on your entire surround system, I'd suggest you keep your opinions on sound quality to yourself.

Thanks

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

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.

I would disagree with this, because I can tell you there was a marked improvement in HD-DVD movies that had the 1.5mbps DD+ tracks with the same movies that the standard 640kbps DD tracks on Blu-ray (as was common with Paramount). I can list quite a few examples where the higher bitrate DD+ tracks on the hd-dvd movie were superior to the DD tracks on Blu-ray:

Freedom Writers
Black Snake Moan
Shooter
Black Rain (the Blu-ray's DTS 1.5mbps was better than the DD track)
Flags of Our Fathers

If given the lossy option between DTS-HD and DD+ (at 1.5mpbs) or standard DD (at 640kbps), I would choose the DD+ option.

[D]

Originally Posted by BIslander

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

Don't put your foot in your mouth. You don't know who does or does not have experience here. My point was with the original context of the poll. Who wants dts ma? The majority have voted in favor of it, for whatever reasons. Those opinions have the same value as any other, leave it at that.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by BIslander

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

I'm the expert when it comes to my own hearing.

[cembros]

i mean you have said that the true hd track on the hulk sounds inferior but i have heard from many others that this is not the case, and this seems to be the only example you have provided

[saprano]

But krell, eventually everybody is going to have spent more money on bluray movies than their HT. are you never going to buy another movie again?

Also people do upgrade.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by cembros

i mean you have said that the true hd track on the hulk sounds inferior but i have heard from many others that this is not the case, and this seems to be the only example you have provided

Another guy also said that the UK DTS version of TWISTER was better than the US TRUEHD version, lots of people think DTS is better than TRUEHD but nobody seems to think TRUEHD is better than DTS.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by trans22

most DTS blu-ray tracks sound alot better than TRUEHD.

Originally Posted by trans22

either a movie sounds good or it doesn't, and in my experience DTS sounds better than TRUEHD.

Originally Posted by trans22

Another guy also said that the UK DTS version of TWISTER was better than the US TRUEHD version, lots of people think DTS is better than TRUEHD but nobody seems to think TRUEHD is better than DTS.

I thought we'd been through this whole process before earlier in this thread - establishing that comparisons are meaningless unless they involve the same movie taken from the same source and played on the same equipment where the two outputs are level matched. Then, and only, then can you compare codecs. (The listening tests should be blind as well, of course.) The 30th Anniversary edition of Close Encounters appears to be one of the few discs around that can be used for such testing.

From what you have posted, it wouldn't appear that any of these criteria have been met. You are entitled to your own opinions. But, don't you feel at least some obligation to eliminate the other variables beyond the codecs that could affect what you hear?

[cembros]

Originally Posted by BIslander

I thought we'd been through this whole process before earlier in this thread - establishing that comparisons are meaningless unless they involve the same movie taken from the same source and played on the same equipment where the two outputs are level matched. Then, and only, then can you compare codecs. (The listening tests should be blind as well, of course.) The 30th Anniversary edition of Close Encounters appears to be one of the few discs around that can be used for such testing.

From what you have posted, it wouldn't appear that any of these criteria have been met. You are entitled to your own opinions. But, don't you feel at least some obligation to eliminate the other variables beyond the codecs that could affect what you hear?

trans was kind enough to agree to send me his copy of the true hd hulk. I will analyse and provide my conclusion. Once i have done so i will sedn the disc to anyone that wishes to do the same.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by saprano

But krell, eventually everybody is going to have spent more money on bluray movies than their HT. are you never going to buy another movie again?

Also people do upgrade.

Well, not everybody. Serious audiophiles will have invested far more in their HT gear than on discs.

..unless of course you own 500+ blu-rays which is extremely rare.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

Well, not everybody. Serious audiophiles will have invested far more in their HT gear than on discs.

..unless of course you own 500+ blu-rays which is extremely rare.

What is your definition of "serious" when you say serious audiophiles? Is it a certain $ amount spent on gear, more related to the finances and what one is able to afford? Or can a person be considered a serious audiophile in your mind even if they can only afford to invest a couple thousand for their gear?

[blujacket]

Originally Posted by Krelldog1977

Well, not everybody. Serious audiophiles will have invested far more in their HT gear than on discs.

Audiophiles don't have much interest in home theater. 2 channel,vinyl,and tube amps are their cup of tea.

[Krelldog1977]

Originally Posted by Monkey

What is your definition of "serious" when you say serious audiophiles? Is it a certain $ amount spent on gear, more related to the finances and what one is able to afford? Or can a person be considered a serious audiophile in your mind even if they can only afford to invest a couple thousand for their gear?

To put it simply Monkey...

A serious audiophile would invest more on hardware than on software because it's the hardware which impacts sound quality.


If someone spent $3,000 so far on blu-rays, and their HT gear cost $1,500, then he is NOT considered an audiophile...he is considered a movie enthusiast/collector.

BUT, If the same guy had spent $500 so far on blu-rays, and his HT cost $4000, he WOULD be considerd an audiophile.