Fox and DTS HD-MA

[PeterTHX]

I know people have called HD HR and HD MA "extensions," but they ARE NOT extensions... in any way, shape or form. There's sinply a full or half bitrate standard DTS track placed alongside either the HR or MA track, and treated as a single track on a disc. You CANNOT create a lossless track from a lossy core at any rate, so I'm not sure how people thought this worked.

It's extensions, I verified this with DTS engineers at CES. Dolby uses companion tracks. DTS uses core+HD ext+MA ext = DTS-HD Master Audio.

All you are saying is that Dolby Digital AC-3 is more efficient than DTS... which you will get no argument over. That doesn't make it at all superior. Why do you think music labels almost exclusively prefer DTS. For quality in a lossy codec... DTS still reigns supreme.

Music labels? DTS has it's own music label. Otherwise they're SACD/DVD-Audio/DualDisc.

Efficiency is part of it. But if DTS was a better CODEC than it would sound better at the same or even lower bitrates, much like AAC over MP3. AAC @128kbps sounds as good as MP3 @192kbps and AAC @192 is much better than MP3 @192 (Dolby helped design AAC 'natch).

Fact is that DTS cannot sound better or even decent @448kbps. So on many DVDs I have close to a megabit of bandwidth and a gigabyte of storage wasted for a box selling bullet point.

They absolutely know that the PS3 crowd is their target market right now. They choose to use DTS-HD MA. Do you think they include that track just to piss you off... or do you think they've been promised PS3 support by Sony?

Or DTS made a deal with Fox. I still think Fox should offer TrueHD and DTS-MA (like Sony did with Close Encounters), they have the bandwidth for it.