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

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I am actually curious about this. Did WB do their own encode of the audio or was it done someplace else?

Maybe it goes like this.

WB to producers: "Ok guys. That was a great show. We've earned millions of dollars. Now let's bring this over to DVD and Blu-ray. Here is the VC-1 encoder for your video and here is the Dolby TrueHD encoder for your audio. If you want to use anything else, you'd have to pay for your own.

I'm just guessing here.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

The core performance of 640kbps DD is pretty much the same as DTS @1536kbps and *better* than 754 DTS.

While I'm a fan of DD 5.1 at 640kbps, I'm personally not prepared to equate it with lossless or with the DTS core at the maximum legacy bitrates. I find the PCM track on Black Hawk Down clearly superior to the 640kbps DD 5.1 track, for example.

DTS claims transparency to the original for its legacy core tracks while Dolby does not. In my experience, I don't find lossless any better than the DTS core. But, to me, it sometimes sounds better than max bitrate DD 5.1.

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Dolby TrueHD doesn't have a "core." There's a seperate Dolby Digital track that doesn't get incorporated into the Dolby TrueHD track.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's a companion track. The TrueHD track is discrete and not built on top of anything.

Not to quibble, but...

It's true that the DD 5.1 track in a TrueHD encode is seperate and that none of the lossy data is used to create the lossless output. However, it is also true that TrueHD uses a core and the multichannel tracks are, in fact, built on top of something. Dolby simply uses a different core + extension approach than DTS.

Dolby's core is not a lossy 5.1 track. Rather, it is a high resolution stereo mix. The 5.1 version "deconstructs" the stereo L/R channels and adds the data for the other four channels. The 7.1 version removes some of the data from the 5.1 surrounds and adds the two rear channels.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Currently I believe the PS3 is the only player using the lossless tracks when mixing with secondary (PiP or audio commentary) audio.

The Samsung players also do lossless decoding while mixing secondary audio. The Sony S550 decodes TrueHD in Mix mode, but uses the DTS core instead of dts-MA. I think that's it for the moderately priced players.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BIslander

DTS claims transparency to the original for its legacy core tracks while Dolby does not. In my experience, I don't find lossless any better than the DTS core. But, to me, it sometimes sounds better than max bitrate DD 5.1

Well, I find the lossless outstrips the lossy cores of both codecs a lot of the time. Dolby's not arrogant enough to claim complete transparency either for DD, for one thing it would take away from the effort to market their lossless codec.

Dolby's core is not a lossy 5.1 track. Rather, it is a high resolution stereo mix. The 5.1 version "deconstructs" the stereo L/R channels and adds the data for the other four channels. The 7.1 version removes some of the data from the 5.1 surrounds and adds the two rear channels.

Not exactly, the 2-ch "block" of the TrueHD signal is downmixed from the original, the 5.1 is not built up from.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

It might not drop to 0 very often, but I have seen it in the 800kbps range quite a bit which is a pretty big difference between that and 1.5.

not if it is accompanied by a 640kbps DD track

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, I find the lossless outstrips the lossy cores of both codecs a lot of the time. Dolby's not arrogant enough to claim complete transparency either for DD, for one thing it would take away from the effort to market their lossless codec.

To each his own, which is all we have to go by in the absence of rigorous, independent listening tests. My experience differs from yours. I only posted about this because you appeared to making a claim of fact ("The core performance of 640kbps DD is pretty much the same as DTS @1536kbps") rather than offering a personal opinion.

Not exactly, the 2-ch "block" of the TrueHD signal is downmixed from the original, the 5.1 is not built up from.

Not according to Roger Dressler of Dolby and others whose knowledge I have come to respect. That's one of the advantages of the Dolby approach, btw. There's a genuine stereo mix, not a downmix of the multichannel tracks. It is my understanding that the TrueHD package begins with the stereo mix, not the 5.1 mix, and builds from there.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by BIslander

It is my understanding that the TrueHD package begins with the stereo mix, not the 5.1 mix, and builds from there.

From what I've been told it begins with the 5.1 original master.

[LembasBread]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

From what I've been told it begins with the 5.1 original master.

Which is then encoded into an LT RT two channel mix either by the TrueHD encoder or separately. Which then the separate discrete 5.1 mix is built upon.

It's hard to imagine that 5.1 TrueHD is matrixed and repurposed in the decompression processes from a two channel mix. The two channel mix is there most likely for the downmixing to stereo outputs for those who don't multichannel surround sound.

[BIslander]

Let me clarify/amend my explanation a bit.

TrueHD begins with the 5.1 or 7.1 original. 7.1 is downmixed to 5.1 and 5.1 is downmixed to stereo. The reconstruction process begins with the "core" two channel mix.

The TrueHD package consists of the two channel mix, Extension A (the 3.1 channels plus rematrixing data needed to produce 5.1), and Extension B (the two rear channels plus rematrixing data needed to produce 7.1). This is how Dolby describes it:

If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the above reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two-channel extension B substream.

TrueHD also allows for a separate, independent stereo mix which is not produced by the downmix. But, that mix is not used as the foundation for the 5.1 or 7.1 presentations.

This is covered in the "Dolby Audio Coding for Future Entertainment Formats" white paper here:

http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...whitepaper.pdf

[Deciazulado]

whole lotta shaking going on?

[Tok]

Originally Posted by BIslander

DTS claims transparency to the original for its legacy core tracks while Dolby does not. In my experience, I don't find lossless any better than the DTS core. But, to me, it sometimes sounds better than max bitrate DD 5.1.

dts made that claim before they had a lossless system available and it is a CLAIM. In my world, it can be summed up as marketing. Again the biggest difference between most dts and Dolby tracks is the difference in reference volume.

[davcole]

The fair dts/dd comparison would be those who have the Paramount Bd's with both formats. The Paramount titles I have are on HD DVD and contain DD+ and DTS. Bitstreaming both formats via HDMI, i'd have to rank the DTS core, the preferred codec.

The two titles I have are:

FACE/OFF
FOUR BROTHERS

[Monkey]

I a little bit of movement (stretch out the decimals it is there ) since 6-23-09


6-23-09: 779 (85% = 0.8598234) to 127 (15% = 0.1401766)
7-15-09: 829 (85% = 0.8564050) to 139 (15% = 0.1435950)

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by davcole

The fair dts/dd comparison would be those who have the Paramount Bd's with both formats. The Paramount titles I have are on HD DVD and contain DD+ and DTS. Bitstreaming both formats via HDMI, i'd have to rank the DTS core, the preferred codec.

The two titles I have are:

FACE/OFF
FOUR BROTHERS

Well technically it's not the DTS core since there's no lossless track on those titles.

But in all seriousness, my HD DVD player is no longer connected (couldn't get the thing to finish 90% of the movies I put in) so the only way I can compare is the DD tracks on Paramount titles that have DTS as well on Blu-ray. I believe Face/Off and Four Brothers both have a DD 640kbps track and a DTS 1.5mbps track. I did notice the DTS track was a little louder and something did seem slightly different on both releases (not sure if Face/Off was due to the extra discrete channel in the back or not) but I wouldn't go as far as saying the DTS is better.

Interestingly enough, I did test Fast and Furious on HD DVD back in the day and the DTS 768kbps track on the DVD seemed to have deeper bass. I'm not sure if that's due to them "juicing" the mix or not, but I've always said DD+ sounds weak to me for some reason and I am starting to think it's the player's internal decoder. I have an HD-A1 and something just seems... restrained. I've checked to see if DRC is enabled and it's not... maybe I just have a bad player or something.

[saprano]

Love your new avatar clayton. it's all about neutrality

[davcole]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Well technically it's not the DTS core since there's no lossless track on those titles.

Technically....

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dolby's core is not a lossy 5.1 track. Rather, it is a high resolution stereo mix. The 5.1 version "deconstructs" the stereo L/R channels and adds the data for the other four channels. The 7.1 version removes some of the data from the 5.1 surrounds and adds the two rear channels.

Could this be the reason why most films on BD are in 5.1 where they have been on Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES Matrix and Discrete on DVDs previously? Over-complicated encoding set ups? =\

Either way, the main gist for TrueHD is, it's lossless. And it has delivered in many films on BD to date. The technical specifics shouldn't affect your choice of purchasing a BD. It's the presentation. The film experience. The actual seeing of the visuals with your own eyes, the actual hearing of the audio with your own ears. Sony has nothing to gain from picking one codec over another. Their purpose for this poll has left me very curious.

Originally Posted by davcole

The fair dts/dd comparison would be those who have the Paramount Bd's with both formats. The Paramount titles I have are on HD DVD and contain DD+ and DTS. Bitstreaming both formats via HDMI, i'd have to rank the DTS core, the preferred codec.

The two titles I have are:

FACE/OFF
FOUR BROTHERS

Well, to be fair, we're not sure if they both use the same master source. Or whether there were additional adjustments made to each individual encoder.

And then there's the difference between the two decoders. One has been around for years and has probably been perfected by your AVR, but the other for just...months?

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Well technically it's not the DTS core since there's no lossless track on those titles.

But in all seriousness, my HD DVD player is no longer connected (couldn't get the thing to finish 90% of the movies I put in) so the only way I can compare is the DD tracks on Paramount titles that have DTS as well on Blu-ray. I believe Face/Off and Four Brothers both have a DD 640kbps track and a DTS 1.5mbps track. I did notice the DTS track was a little louder and something did seem slightly different on both releases (not sure if Face/Off was due to the extra discrete channel in the back or not) but I wouldn't go as far as saying the DTS is better.

Interestingly enough, I did test Fast and Furious on HD DVD back in the day and the DTS 768kbps track on the DVD seemed to have deeper bass. I'm not sure if that's due to them "juicing" the mix or not, but I've always said DD+ sounds weak to me for some reason and I am starting to think it's the player's internal decoder. I have an HD-A1 and something just seems... restrained. I've checked to see if DRC is enabled and it's not... maybe I just have a bad player or something.

According to High Def Digest, Face Off and Four Brothers have Dolby Digital Plus 1.5Mbps and DTS 1.5Mbps tracks.

And like I was telling davcole above, there's too many missing links in between to make definite conclusions. We're not sure if both tracks used the same master source for encoding. We're not sure if there has been modifications made between the two. Or a tiny setting made to the encoder that was overlooked. Or perhaps the Dolby Digital Plus decoder is still working out its kinks.

Or maybe they're really both the same but our minds tells us to think sideways.

[DRC72]

Both Dolby True HD and DTS HD Master Audio sound awesome, but I would still give DTS a slight advantage.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Could this be the reason why most films on BD are in 5.1 where they have been on Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES Matrix and Discrete on DVDs previously? Over-complicated encoding set ups? =\

Either way, the main gist for TrueHD is, it's lossless. And it has delivered in many films on BD to date. The technical specifics shouldn't affect your choice of purchasing a BD. It's the presentation. The film experience. The actual seeing of the visuals with your own eyes, the actual hearing of the audio with your own ears. Sony has nothing to gain from picking one codec over another. Their purpose for this poll has left me very curious.

Well, to be fair, we're not sure if they both use the same master source. Or whether there were additional adjustments made to each individual encoder.

And then there's the difference between the two decoders. One has been around for years and has probably been perfected by your AVR, but the other for just...months?

According to High Def Digest, Face Off and Four Brothers have Dolby Digital Plus 1.5Mbps and DTS 1.5Mbps tracks.

And like I was telling davcole above, there's too many missing links in between to make definite conclusions. We're not sure if both tracks used the same master source for encoding. We're not sure if there has been modifications made between the two. Or a tiny setting made to the encoder that was overlooked. Or perhaps the Dolby Digital Plus decoder is still working out its kinks.

Or maybe they're really both the same but our minds tells us to think sideways.

I test U-571 (after hooking my HD DVD player back up in the theater room)... The DTS track on the HD DVD had better bass response and sounded more solid to me. The DD+ track seemed to be lacking in the low deep bass and the surrounds didn't seem quite as loud. It's really making me think that my HD DVD player isn't decoding DD+ properly. And then of course the DTS-HD MA on the Blu-ray was better than the DTS track on the HD DVD.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I test U-571 (after hooking my HD DVD player back up in the theater room)... The DTS track on the HD DVD had better bass response and sounded more solid to me. The DD+ track seemed to be lacking in the low deep bass and the surrounds didn't seem quite as loud. It's really making me think that my HD DVD player isn't decoding DD+ properly. And then of course the DTS-HD MA on the Blu-ray was better than the DTS track on the HD DVD.

You know, I think that they never changed the decoder then, because that same condition plagued ALL the hd-dvd players I had (hd-a2, hd-a35, and hd-xa2). That's not to say that DD+ tracks were terrible, but they were obviously not as good as lossless audio, unless the master itself was just weak to begin with (like Liar, Liar was not going to be that much better in DTS-HDMA). Still, I noticed that DD+ really didn't have the bass punch that comes with DTS, and this is with sound leveling.