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

[Scorxpion]

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

Still, I don't get this whole discussion. There are no notable differences between DTS HD MA and TrueHD..

Someone else said it would be better for the format to have a universal Soundformat. If so, it should be True HD because virtually every player out there can also decode it into pcm. While almost none can decode DTS HD by themselves. So for all those with an older receiver True HD would be better.

But since you mentioned "Watchmen".. Any idea why Warner included a DTS HD Soundtrack on that one? It was only the second time I saw a Warner Disc with DTS HD Master Track. The first one being the German BD of "Surveillance".

when you mean an old receiver,you mean a receiver can only decode Dolby Digital or DTS ,in this case this receiver doesn't have an HDMI cable to get through Lossless Sound.Here DTS is better than Dolby Digital.

Second, if you have an old receiver which is capable of passing Video and Audio through HDMI input but not capable of decoding Lossless Sound,tell me what they are doing with FOX TITLES,MGM,Disney,Lionsgate ,other Studios who are using DTSHD master audio to benefit from it ,I'm sure here most of them have at least a second player or just a PS3 which can do everything.

This excuse that more users can benefit from DolbyTrue HD is out of equation and useless.

Sony decides to join DTSHD master audio in Fall because everyone from now and on can benefit from both lossless Sound.Nobody is counting anymore on the first generation player and most BD early users was PS3 (can decode both of them) everyone has at least a second or third generation player which has capability at least to decode DTSHD master audio or just bitstream it.Don't forget you can buy a blu-ray player now under $100 which can bitstream DTSHD master audio.



Warner Choose DTSHD master audio for Watchmen as someone here mentioned because to gain more profit from sales because it was a catastrophe in Box Office and really did on BD.36% was unexpected.Or because the director wanna choose DTSHD master audio.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

Still, I don't get this whole discussion. There are no notable differences between DTS HD MA and TrueHD..

Someone else said it would be better for the format to have a universal Soundformat. If so, it should be True HD because virtually every player out there can also decode it into pcm. While almost none can decode DTS HD by themselves. So for all those with an older receiver True HD would be better.

But since you mentioned "Watchmen".. Any idea why Warner included a DTS HD Soundtrack on that one? It was only the second time I saw a Warner Disc with DTS HD Master Track. The first one being the German BD of "Surveillance".

It would be much easier for DTS to be the universal format because most of the studios are already using it.

[Monkey]

While almost none can decode DTS HD by themselves.

The #1 selling player (By a ridiculously massive margin) decodes DTS MA

[davcole]

I think it's nearly universal that the 2009 models decode DTSMA to PCM at minimum. Many of the 2008 models also do. Now if you go into the 2006/2007 models, you can make a strong argument against DTSMA.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by davcole

That's my question too! I do hope that Sony ups the bitrate to 24bit.

Do NOT confuse bit depth with bit rate! It's different!
And if the original master is 16-bit, converting it to 24-bit doesn't yield any benefit! Hand it to the wrong guy to convert and the audio will be poorer quality than it should have been.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Scorxpion

when you mean an old receiver,you mean a receiver can only decode Dolby Digital or DTS ,in this case this receiver doesn't have an HDMI cable to get through Lossless Sound.Here DTS is better than Dolby Digital.

Wrong since the majority of DD companion tracks are 640kbps, easily the equal of DTS core.

Second, if you have an old receiver which is capable of passing Video and Audio through HDMI input but not capable of decoding Lossless Sound,tell me what they are doing with FOX TITLES,MGM,Disney,Lionsgate ,other Studios who are using DTSHD master audio to benefit from it ,I'm sure here most of them have at least a second player or just a PS3 which can do everything.

They're listening either to the lossy core or the lossy core converted to 2.0 PCM.

This excuse that more users can benefit from DolbyTrue HD is out of equation and useless.

Again untrue since there are HTIBs, PCs, and even TVs that benefit from DD 5.1 tracks.

Sony decides to join DTSHD master audio in Fall because everyone from now and on can benefit from both lossless Sound.Nobody is counting anymore on the first generation player and most BD early users was PS3 (can decode both of them) everyone has at least a second or third generation player which has capability at least to decode DTSHD master audio or just bitstream it.Don't forget you can buy a blu-ray player now under $100 which can bitstream DTSHD master audio.

And they weren't already benefiting from TrueHD?

Warner Choose DTSHD master audio for Watchmen as someone here mentioned because to gain more profit from sales because it was a catastrophe in Box Office and really did on BD.36% was unexpected.Or because the director wanna choose DTSHD master audio.

Watchmen's success has nothing to do with the audio format. It has to do with the demographic for the film. 36% of that title's sales vs 20% of TrueHD on Dark Knight, yet Dark Knight sold millions of more copies overall (more BD copies). Again, nothing to do with the audio format.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Monkey

The #1 selling player (By a ridiculously massive margin) decodes DTS MA

And TrueHD from day one.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Do NOT confuse bit depth with bit rate! It's different!
And if the original master is 16-bit, converting it to 24-bit doesn't yield any benefit! Hand it to the wrong guy to convert and the audio will be poorer quality than it should have been.

Oops, thanks for the correction! Bit depth is exactly what I meant.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

And TrueHD from day one.

Perhaps he forgot to indicate he was referring to 2006, which would make his statement correct. kind of reminds me of "science fiction" statements from Amir M.

"While almost none can decode DTS HD by themselves. "

[CYMBOL]

Wow! I didn't realize this thread had anything left to debate. . .

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by dvd_mazter

DTS for me. I find it delivers a much more powerful and dynamic experience. I find True HD to be a little quiet sometimes too in some movies. ( Body of Lies is my best example, the sub never really worked up even during giant explosions unlike QoS which just rocked my house )

I agree.

[Mr. Joshua]

Just buy Bose speakers and you will hear sound as it was meant to be.... LOL

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by wsciv123

I agree.

Did you compare it to the TrueHD version of Quantum of Solace?

Apples & oranges to compare two different movies! Why oh why...

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

If you believe that the same exact PCM MASTER encoded in both TrueHD and DTS-MA will sound "better" in DTS-MA then, yes, you're uninformed.

Well...it will sound different...

It will be muffled by 4DB, at least.

[Uncle Leo]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Well...it will sound different...

It will be muffled by 4DB, at least.

Come on we all know that the db's are different.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

B of course, if they use the same exact master/mix. Were you expecting something else?

Yes.

Reduction in volume of 4DB, and if you're not very, very savvy about disabling it, DRC.

Thanks for asking!

[Uncle Leo]

Originally Posted by wsciv123

Just buy Bose speakers and you will hear sound as it was meant to be.... LOL

Funniest thing I've heard all day.

[Uncle Leo]

Originally Posted by wsciv123

I agree.

Can you distinguish "Mixes" from "Codecs"?

[Xorp]

The 16-bit TrueHD tracks Sony has been using is an excellent solution that I wish they would stick to. Since 16-bit TrueHD hovers around 1000-1400kbps, it is great for new movies releases that are stuffed with HD extras. 24-bit DTS-HD MA on the other hand is widely inefficient. It averages 4000-5000+kbps which is a huge jump in size for no appreciable difference. With new BDs that are completely maxed out in size with tons of extras like seamless branching, Java, hd bonus videos etc, that could lower the video bitrate, I would much rather have an extra 5mbps or so go towards the video, not have it sucked by inefficient audio compression.

[Uncle Leo]

Originally Posted by Xorp

The 16-bit TrueHD tracks Sony has been using is an excellent solution that I wish they would stick to. Since 16-bit TrueHD hovers around 1000-1400kbps, it is great for new movies releases that are stuffed with HD extras. 24-bit DTS-HD MA on the other hand is widely inefficient. It averages 4000-5000+kbps which is a huge jump in size for no appreciable difference. With new BDs that are completely maxed out in size with tons of extras like seamless branching, Java, hd bonus videos etc, that could lower the video bitrate, I would much rather have an extra 5mbps or so go towards the video, not have it sucked by inefficient audio compression.

Do you have the layman's interpretation?