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

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by 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.

I ran two Pioneer Elite 84's, didn't decode diddly, but sounded terrific. I decoded Dolby with my museum piece Sony 300, sounded fine once they got the decoder straightened out.

DTS, I let the receivers decode in lossy mode. One ran with the Sony, the other with an HTPC. Both sounded just fine - I often used the regular DVD of Master and Commander for demos, using the DTS track.

I think most Dolby proponents here don't have the gear to decode DTS reliably, in hi-def mode. Virtually everything can do Dolby. It bugged me, too, until I finally broke down and got a Sony 550; problem solved, no receiver change needed.

I was pretty surprised at how vituperative the discussion got at times, with real anger and outrage. Some of the best material I have - music Blu's - are in Dolby, and I really don't have a problem with quality encodes.

Many, however, are distinctly sub-par, and the jiggling of volume to guess at what reference volume is makes no sense at all. My main home theater rig is cabinet mounted, out of sight, and even with a Harmony 1100, there's no feedback on where the volume is set.

Makes no sense to me to go running off and opening up a cabinet to see if I've raised the volume for a Dolby track by the requisite 4db attenuation that is absolutely needless for Blu playback.

It's gotten to the point where Dolby adherents, claiming that there is no difference in the formats, remind me of car enthusiasts defending carburation over fuel injection - they prefer the fiddling and adjustment, scratching around changing floats and needle valves, and jeering at something that is automatic and immune to drift. I understand the sentiment, but find it to be ultimately anti-technical, like having the fastest piston-driven propeller plane.

Dolby will sound identical, once various modes are properly disabled, and volume raised to balance out the needless 4db attentuation, and so on. It just shows why the poll results were no fluke.

More interesting, critics seem determined to castigate anyone who disagrees as "uninformed", as if knowledge of Dolby's characteristics are tatooed inside the eyelids of home theater enthusiasts at birth (or, even less likely, that they are informed of these features by the folks who sell them the gear at a box store) and the poor brainless creatures can't seem to figure out how to make both formats sound the same.

Such information, once looked at dispassionately, is even less valuable than knowing how to crank-start a Model A Ford. Why should anyone have to go through such gyrations, simply to hear high fidelity sound as advertised on the package?

If Dolby will eschew the gimmicks - slammed into place in a last-ditch attempt to validate the woeful "features" broadcast television is saddled with - their ability to compress clean, lossless sound may actually be preferable. Until then, it will be the early adopters who don't want to upgrade to DTS capable decodes who will be the harshest critics of DTS.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

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

Yep...they are.

[davcole]

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.

But even at 16bit TRUEHD it requires a 640/448kbs companion track for each lossless track that takes up additional bandwidth. DTSMA could do the same for 16bit and it doesn't need a companion track.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by Uncle Leo

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

Thats the main reason people prefer DTS (mysely included), on DVD the volume of most movies was roughly about the same but on BLU-RAY the volume levels are all over the place, PCM and DTS are usually ok but DOLBY is way too quiet at times.

[BozQ]

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.

You know, I'dve told you to read my previous post, about if the original master soundtrack is 24-bit, then converting it to 16-bit will downgrade the audio quality.

But then again, you said "no appreciable difference". Which I have to agree with you there. In all case scenarios (24-bit to 24-bit, 24-bit to 16-bit, 16-bit to 24-bit, etc.), will they all sound the same?
It's almost similar discussion as "Dolby vs DTS", only this hasn't escalated to that level yet, or will just be completely overlooked forever.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

But even at 16bit TRUEHD it requires a 640/448kbs companion track for each lossless track that takes up additional bandwidth. DTSMA could do the same for 16bit and it doesn't need a companion track.

It still requires a core, which makes it roughly the same size.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It still requires a core, which makes it roughly the same size.

Yes, but doesn't require a companion track. What you have to account for is there are times when the core will run completely lossless excluding the extension data.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by davcole

Yes, but doesn't require a companion track. What you have to account for is there are times when the core will run completely lossless excluding the extension data.

The difference in file size is very minor to make a significant impact on the video.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

Yes, but doesn't require a companion track. What you have to account for is there are times when the core will run completely lossless excluding the extension data.

But when you still add the TrueHD track ad the companion track it is still roughly the same size as the DTS-MA track.

Foe a quiet film like Gran Torino, the TrueHD track actually averages less than the DTS core by itself (1100kbps vs 1536kbps)!

For times of near silence the TrueHD track can and will drop to near zero while the DTS core is still 1536kbps.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Foe a quiet film like Gran Torino, the TrueHD track actually averages less than the DTS core by itself (1100kbps vs 1536kbps)!

Make sure to add 640kbs companion track to that total.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BozQ

The difference in file size is very minor to make a significant impact on the video.

I think that also, the difference wouldn't affect video quality. Now if you are doing multiple lossless tracks (foreign language, soundtrack) then the bandwidth could be affected.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by davcole

Make sure to add 640kbs companion track to that total.

Even so a DTS version will still average the same or more with the DD added in.

There's a thread on another board that compares imports (a lot of Chinese discs seem to like having both formats) and the DTS-MA + TrueHD with companion is about the same.

Even with Close Encounters here in the states, the DTS version's bitrate is almost always a megabit more, which is still more than 640kbps (the DD companion track on that one is just 448kbps though).

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Even so a DTS version will still average the same or more with the DD added in.

There's a thread on another board that compares imports (a lot of Chinese discs seem to like having both formats) and the DTS-MA + TrueHD with companion is about the same.

Even with Close Encounters here in the states, the DTS version's bitrate is almost always a megabit more, which is still more than 640kbps (the DD companion track on that one is just 448kbps though).

Yup! Exactly!
Let's take Ip Man for example (many thanks to the person for this info)

LPCM Audio Cantonese 6144 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 6144 kbps / 16-bit
DTS-HD Master Audio Cantonese 2681 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 2681 kbps / 16-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 16-bit)
Dolby TrueHD Audio Cantonese 1766 kbps 7.1 / 48 kHz / 1766 kbps / 16-bit (AC3 Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 640 kbps)


The Cantonese track is in LPCM, Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio. only.

Let's assume the LPCM, TrueHD, and DTS MA 16-bit tracks are all identical. There is absolutely no enhancement made whatsoever to give one track the edge.

The runtime for this film is approx. 107 minutes

DTS-HD + DTS Core = 2GB exactly
Dolby TrueHD + Dolby Digital 640kbps = 1.798GB

That's a mere 200MB difference. Way too little to make any form of impact on the video itself. Oh and let's not forget, if DTS-HD is being used to encode in 24-bit, the filesize will be much larger than 2GB too.

So the arguement about Dolby requiring a seperate companion track and wasting disc space is moot. In most likely cases, Dolby TrueHD will still require lesser amount of disc space. But like I said earlier, the differences is way too minor to affect the video in any significant way.

PS: There is A LOT of calculations made to arrive at the two filesizes for DTS-HD and Dolby TrueHD. But I'm not going to post the formula here unless you really want me to do so. I've also taken the DTS-Core has part of DTS-HD stream into the calcuations as well. So as far as I can help it, that is the accurate file szie.

[Uxi]

I miss LPCM.

[ClaytonMG]

To the people whining about DialNorm, what do you all think about Watchmen being in DTS-HD MA and being 4-5db lower than normal?

And lets not get into a debate about how smart you have to be to dissable DRC. We've gone over plenty of times that there's only been one title to accidently enable it.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Uxi

I miss LPCM.

*sigh* *sob*
Have to agree with you there. It's so fuss free.
Just take a look at Pirates of the Caribbean. Did any of the video looked sub-par? Nope. There is much more than enough disc space for video. Oh, and that was 24-bit/48KHz 5.1 too.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

To the people whining about DialNorm, what do you all think about Watchmen being in DTS-HD MA and being 4-5db lower than normal?

And lets not get into a debate about how smart you have to be to dissable DRC. We've gone over plenty of times that there's only been one title to accidently enable it.

I'm personally not in favor of either codec doing dialnorm. I'd like to see both formats leave that alone.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

To the people whining about DialNorm, what do you all think about Watchmen being in DTS-HD MA and being 4-5db lower than normal?

And lets not get into a debate about how smart you have to be to dissable DRC. We've gone over plenty of times that there's only been one title to accidently enable it.

I dont think watchmen had any dialnorm. i've never seen a DTS movie with dialnorm before. DVD or bluray.

Other than that the watchmen DTS soundtrack was out of this world!

[Apophis906]

Originally Posted by saprano

I dont think watchmen had any dialnorm. i've never seen a DTS movie with dialnorm before. DVD or bluray.

Other than that the watchmen DTS soundtrack was out of this world!

Actually it does have dialognorm. The Watchmen DTS track is at -4, which equals to a Dolby -27. Also First Blood has dialognorm set at -4 for its DTS track.

[saprano]

Originally Posted by Apophis906

Actually it does have dialognorm. The Watchmen DTS track is at -4, which equals to a Dolby -27. Also First Blood has dialognorm set at -4 for its DTS track.

And how do you know this?

Well that explains why i thought the dialog was low at the usual volume i listen to DTS tracks with. its was clear, just a bit on the low side. or it could be because thats how they recorded it.