DTS MA-HD: What's the big deal?

[jaukerma]

Originally Posted by Maxell

Sorry if this has been asked before.

What is the big deal with DTS MA-HD and getting it on the PS3? Is it that much better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD? What titles even offer DTS MA-HD that doesn't offer one of the other?

All I can say is that in theory, yes, DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio should be better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD. I can't say from experience because all I have is a PS3, so I have yet to hear DTS-HD on my system. I can say with confidence that Dolby TrueHD and PCM are much better than the 1.5 Mbit/s "core" track that the PS3 pulls from movies that have a DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio track. I'm expecting DTS-HD MLA to blow PCM and Dolby TrueHD out of the water when I can actually hear it, but even if it is simply on par with the other next gen audio tracks, then it'll be a very worthwhile upgrade.

I think most, if not all Fox titles have DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio.

Anyway, hope that helps.

[jaukerma]

Sorry, should've read the rest of the answers before I posted. My bad.

[JasonR]

Originally Posted by jaukerma

All I can say is that in theory, yes, DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio should be better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD. I can't say from experience because all I have is a PS3, so I have yet to hear DTS-HD on my system. I can say with confidence that Dolby TrueHD and PCM are much better than the 1.5 Mbit/s "core" track that the PS3 pulls from movies that have a DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio track. I'm expecting DTS-HD MLA to blow PCM and Dolby TrueHD out of the water when I can actually hear it, but even if it is simply on par with the other next gen audio tracks, then it'll be a very worthwhile upgrade.

I think most, if not all Fox titles have DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio.

Anyway, hope that helps.

Why?

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by jaukerma

All I can say is that in theory, yes, DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio should be better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD. I can't say from experience because all I have is a PS3, so I have yet to hear DTS-HD on my system. I can say with confidence that Dolby TrueHD and PCM are much better than the 1.5 Mbit/s "core" track that the PS3 pulls from movies that have a DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio track. I'm expecting DTS-HD MLA to blow PCM and Dolby TrueHD out of the water when I can actually hear it, but even if it is simply on par with the other next gen audio tracks, then it'll be a very worthwhile upgrade.

I think most, if not all Fox titles have DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio.

Anyway, hope that helps.

DTS-HD MA = DoblyTrue HD = PCM, bit for bit

[un4gvn94538]

Originally Posted by MarekM

DTS-HD MA = DoblyTrue HD = PCM, bit for bit

which doesnt matter when i titled has one or the other. and when it has dts ma, a lot of us only get dts 5.1

[MarekM]

Originally Posted by un4gvn94538

which doesnt matter when i titled has one or the other. and when it has dts ma, a lot of us only get dts 5.1

yes, but I was writing that sencence because of this :

I'm expecting DTS-HD MLA to blow PCM and Dolby TrueHD out of the water

Marek

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by MarekM

yes, but I was writing that sencence because of this :



Marek

You ever watch Boston Legal. You remind me of Denny Crane. All he has to do to win a case is say his name... Denny Crane. The show is fantastic . James Spader and William Shatner have phenomenal chemistry. anyways, that's what it reminds me of.

[Alan Gordon]

All FOX/MGM (with the exception of the few MGM titles released by Sony) titles have DTS-HD MA.

All New Line titles have DTS-HD MA.

Lionsgate occasionally uses DTS-HD MA.

~Alan

[crackinhedz]

Notice the step right after decoding...converted back into PCM signal.

DTS-HD MA is not better than PCM, it is PCM.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

I still don't see how lower bitrates are an advantage:
DD 640kbps is inferior to DTS 1.5mbps. Why would it be desirable for a Lossless soundtrack to go below 1.5mbps

Industry pros would disagree that DD @640kbps is inferior. Dolby's codec is vastly more efficient. That's why DTS never bothered with theirs @448kbps (or even 384kbps for that matter). They probably could have been on a lot more releases if they did. For the record, Dolby @576kbps (the D-VHS rate) matches DTS @1536kbps.

Thank you for that info... was'nt aware that it also included it.
However, if I'm understanding the way DTS does their soundtracks, the DTS-HD soundtrack would be embedded within the DTS-HD MA soundtrack and not be over and above it... thefore space is not wasted... just needs a powerfull brain/processor to be able untangle/process the elaborate codec.

It still requires more DSP power (and more power than PCs can provide even after 3 generations of new CPU hardware). Cyberlink just recently added DTS-HD to their software. No word on MA.

It's also prone to errors. The encoding to Die Hard 2 was screwed up and if you have a HDMI 1.3 streaming player you get no sound. I had to put it in my PS3 to get the core (HD-MA extensions are ignored). Separate DD/TrueHD tracks are much easier to process and decode and avoid the above scenario. I'm *still* waiting for Fox to get back to me on a replacement. They've acknowledged the problem but have yet to reissue replacements.

To each his own

That may be, but the mass market requires otherwise. I predicted that HD DVD would fail because of the mass market back before anyone else said so (2005!).

Reviews of the movie "300" comparing the HD DUD Dolby True HD soundtrack vs. the Blu-Ray version's LPCM soundtrack would PROVE otherwize.

It's meaningless when it's not decoded by the same hardware. HD DVD players at that point had no way to pass the bitstream on to outboard processors, their decoding circuitry is not anywhere near the class that a lot of BD PCM D/A converters are. A better test is that 300 has *both* tracks on the disc, and you still need to volume match.

DialNorm has no appreciable difference in sound quality... when it's TURNED OFF!

Yes, and Sony does this. Warner does not. You can bet your bippy they would turn it ON for a DTS-MA encoding too.

If there truly was no apprecialble difference with DialNorm... then there would be no need for it to exist

It all has to do with the level the program was recorded at.

No... they don't necessarily need to have an HDMI receiver... they just need a receiver equipped with optical (or coaxial) so they can get the legacy DTS soundtrack embedded in the DTS-HD MA soundtrack.

But that still doesn't help the thousands (millions?) that have their PS3's or standalones going straight to the TV.

1) Late to the game they may have been but they should'nt be punished or shunned because of it.

They did the same with DVD. When Dolby had their solution ready ahead of time for HD media, DTS realized they were about to become completely irrelevant and promised their own solution, which many of us are STILL waiting for years later.

2) Offer no advantage? For every person that thinks that I will find you someone that thinks otherwize. Not being plagued with DialNorm is a HUGE advantage. The maximum bitrate for DTS-HD MA is also higher then the one for Dolby TrueHD (18mbps vs. 24.5mbps). Not sure if it's an advantage any of us will ever benefit from but generaly speaking the higher the better.

Since TrueHD is more efficient 18Mbps TrueHD = 24.5Mbps DTS-MA. Even Disney realizes that they don't have disc space to burn at the expense of video and have started to offer TrueHD instead of PCM. Sony too.

Originally Posted by crackinhedz

Notice the step right after decoding...converted back into PCM signal.

DTS-HD MA is not better than PCM, it is PCM.

Note that the diagram says "7.1, 96kHz". TrueHD spec can go to 192kHz for 7.1.

In the end I don't understand why anyone would not pick the more efficient, less CPU-intensive lossless codec, other than the specter of the DN bogeyman.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Since TrueHD is more efficient 18Mbps TrueHD = 24.5Mbps DTS-MA. Even Disney realizes that they don't have disc space to burn at the expense of video and have started to offer TrueHD instead of PCM. Sony too.

What are the compression ratio benefits of TrueHD and DTS-MA over LPCM?

From a consumer perspective I see very little use for them..more horsepower, more licensing, more audio stages/transformations, more effort in authoring (ie. multiple overhead of learning etc).. which all lead to higher costs for everyone involved. Plus more A/V purchases required for the consumer.

In this case I see very little technical benefits with a substantial downside all around.

So what is the compression ratio and GB's saved to make it all worthwhile?

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Industry pros would disagree that DD @640kbps is inferior. Dolby's codec is vastly more efficient. That's why DTS never bothered with theirs @448kbps (or even 384kbps for that matter). They probably could have been on a lot more releases if they did. For the record, Dolby @576kbps (the D-VHS rate) matches DTS @1536kbps.

I don't wish to further discuss legacy lossy codecs so I'll leave this one at that... even though DD5.1 has DialNorm and DTS does'nt...

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It's meaningless when it's not decoded by the same hardware.

How do we know the HDD guys did not use a LG combo player for the review?
But of course, you are correct that the reviews should be between the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack and LPCM soundtracks that are both available on the Blu-Ray release and done on the same player of course. When I reffered to the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack for 300 as being "HD DUD's", I meant that the both the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks on both 300 releases are identical and that the best the Dudders could get was Dolby TrueHD vs LPCM for the Blu-Ray. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yes, and Sony does this. Warner does not. You can bet your bippy they would turn it ON for a DTS-MA encoding too.

Not necessarily because Warner would have to make a CONSCIOUS decision to turn DialNorm "ON" for DTS-HD MA (since the default is "OFF").
IMHO, they make no such conscious decision when it comes to the audio encoding of their movies and they simply go with the default which is why their Dolby TrueHD releases are with DialNorm (since with that codec the default is "ON").

SONY actually made a conscious decision to disable DialNorm on their Dolby TrueHD releases as their earlier movies had it and, after receiving numerous complaints, they listened to their public and decided to turn it OFF
They are to be applauded for this

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

But that still doesn't help the thousands (millions?) that have their PS3's or standalones going straight to the TV.

Between you and me... I doubt those thousands would have any use for a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack either... but, if you say that DTS will not play via left/right "RCA" connections to the TV and Dolby Digital 5.1 will... i'll take your word for it (I've never tried it myself and not about to either).

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Since TrueHD is more efficient 18Mbps TrueHD = 24.5Mbps DTS-MA. Even Disney realizes that they don't have disc space to burn at the expense of video and have started to offer TrueHD instead of PCM. Sony too.

I have ZERO problems with Dolby TrueHD as long as DialNorm is turned OFF

Since there is no easy or reliable way to find this out... I prefer DTS-HD MA or LPCM but will gladly take Dolby TrueHD when no other option is available.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Note that the diagram says "7.1, 96kHz". TrueHD spec can go to 192kHz for 7.1.

The Masters are 96. I think we can both agree we will NEVER see 192kHz for a 5.1 or 7.1 movie soundtrack mix on a Blu-Ray from either codec.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

In the end I don't understand why anyone would not pick the more efficient, less CPU-intensive lossless codec, other than the specter of the DN bogeyman.

Because there will always be a "Coke" and a "Pepsi" in the audio codec world.
It's best to accept it and provide for yourself players and receivers that can handle both.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

How do we know the HDD guys did not use a LG combo player for the review?

Well, I assume for the reviews they were able to play the films in either format all the way through

But of course, you are correct that the reviews should be between the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack and LPCM soundtracks that are both available on the Blu-Ray release and done on the same player of course. When I reffered to the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack for 300 as being "HD DUD's", I meant that the both the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks on both 300 releases are identical and that the best the Dudders could get was Dolby TrueHD vs LPCM for the Blu-Ray. Sorry for the confusion.

OK, but even then the levels need to be matched.

Not necessarily because Warner would have to make a CONSCIOUS decision to turn DialNorm "ON" for DTS-HD MA (since the default is "OFF").
IMHO, they make no such conscious decision when it comes to the audio encoding of their movies and they simply go with the default which is why their Dolby TrueHD releases are with DialNorm (since with that codec the default is "ON").

Actually it is *always* on. Did you know that? What happens is that Sony leaves it at the minimum level and Warner sets it to their preferred level. So the fact that Warner has to set the level tells me they'd turn it on for DTS.

SONY actually made a conscious decision to disable DialNorm on their Dolby TrueHD releases as their earlier movies had it and, after receiving numerous complaints, they listened to their public and decided to turn it OFF
They are to be applauded for this

Sony has always had it at minimum level from the very beginning (Ghost Rider).

Between you and me... I doubt those thousands would have any use for a Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtrack either... but, if you say that DTS will not play via left/right "RCA" connections to the TV and Dolby Digital 5.1 will... i'll take your word for it (I've never tried it myself and not about to either).

They will, since DTS lossy is mandatory (thru RCA). I was referring to HDMI, and TVs do not decode DTS bitstreams. Most will decode Dolby Digital, mainly because it is HDTV spec. Some early HDMI TVs (like some Samsung DLPs) only do PCM thru HDMI.

Since there is no easy or reliable way to find this out... I prefer DTS-HD MA or LPCM but will gladly take Dolby TrueHD when no other option is available.

Well, with Warner it's set, Sony is not set, Disney...and only Fox/MGM and New Line use DTS-MA consistently...with Warner absorbing New Line I can see them switching to TrueHD as well.

The Masters are 96. I think we can both agree we will NEVER see 192kHz for a 5.1 or 7.1 movie soundtrack mix on a Blu-Ray from either codec.

Think Super hi-res music releases (DVD-Audio nor SACD supported more than 5.1).

Because there will always be a "Coke" and a "Pepsi" in the audio codec world.
It's best to accept it and provide for yourself players and receivers that can handle both.

Even Burger King switched to Coke products, after years of differentiating themselves from McDonald's by offering Pepsi.

I think one reason DTS bought Lowry was to simply survive. With Digital Cinema they are becoming irrelevant (Dolby has Dolby Cinema) and with the advent of HD media they are in danger of becoming that as well. Companies like using a known, widely used product with the most support and least difficulty. Without Fox, DTS would be in *big* trouble...how many DVDs do you see these days with DTS? Even Universal has stopped using them.

[darkedgex]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Dolby's codec is vastly more efficient.

Paidgeek has already indicated that dts HD MA is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray Disc. There's really no need for TrueHD, especially with DN being an issue with certain studios. dts HD MA is also better as far as backwards compatibility is concerned: people still using SPDIF receivers can get at a very high quality 1.5mbps "core" track, while anything from Dolby will be limited to 640kbps.

Hopefully Warner and Sony reevaluate the codec situation after the PS3 is updated and release more titles with dts HD MA tracks instead of LPCM/TrueHD tracks.

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by darkedgex

Paidgeek has already indicated that dts HD MA is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray Disc. There's really no need for TrueHD, especially with DN being an issue with certain studios. dts HD MA is also better as far as backwards compatibility is concerned: people still using SPDIF receivers can get at a very high quality 1.5mbps "core" track, while anything from Dolby will be limited to 640kbps.

Hopefully Warner and Sony reevaluate the codec situation after the PS3 is updated and release more titles with dts HD MA tracks instead of LPCM/TrueHD tracks.

And THIS is exactly why I ask for links and impartial article/facts rather then hearsay and DOLBY written rah rah articles about the "virtues" of Dolby TrueHD and DialNorm

If DTS-HD MA requires more brain power and is more complicated to process... it's then logical to think it's because it would be more efficient. Normally, the more efficient and more compressed the data is, the more powerfull the processor needed to decode it. I would tend to believe Paidgeek on this matter.

[PeterTHX]

And THIS is exactly why I ask for links and impartial article/facts rather then hearsay and DOLBY written rah rah articles about the "virtues" of Dolby TrueHD and DialNorm

Not my job to educate you, but the information is out there, including on this site. Needless to say to others it will look foolish if you keep posting the misinformation without backup.

Originally Posted by darkedgex

Paidgeek has already indicated that dts HD MA is more efficient than Dolby TrueHD on Blu-ray Disc.

He did nothing of the sort, especially when it's he doing the mastering work for his company that is switching from PCM to TrueHD full time.

There's really no need for TrueHD, especially with DN being an issue with certain studios

.

Again, no. Only one studio.

dts HD MA is also better as far as backwards compatibility is concerned: people still using SPDIF receivers can get at a very high quality 1.5mbps "core" track, while anything from Dolby will be limited to 640kbps.

Again, no no no.
Dolby @640 > DTS @1536. Dolby Digital is HDMI TV compatible. DD has night mode and other features CONSUMERS want/need. DD is backwards compatible with the *vast* majority of consumer devices. DTS does/is not.

Hopefully Warner and Sony reevaluate the codec situation after the PS3 is updated and release more titles with dts HD MA tracks instead of LPCM/TrueHD tracks.

Again, if Fox wasn't using it, more than likely DTS would be fast disappearing from the consumer world. With both Sony & Disney switching from PCM to TrueHD, the majority of consumer players & PC software decoding, we have a standard in HD lossless audio.

[Canada]

The full bitrate DTS MA-HD would meen better audio. They better make a firmwire update for this before Aliens come to Blu.

[savage1984]

Originally Posted by Canada

The full bitrate DTS MA-HD would meen better audio. They better make a firmwire update for this before Aliens come to Blu.

I predict MAY

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by jaukerma

All I can say is that in theory, yes, DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio should be better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD.

What theory would that be? Whatever it is, that person is clearly wrong.

I really don't know why these things get mucked up all the time. PCM is lossless in its raw form. DTS MA-HD and Dolby True HD are lossless compressed.

OK, think of it this way. We all know how the program Winzip works. Imagine 10 individual Microsoft Word documents. Now imagine those same documents zipped into one file with Winzip. The documents are still the same and nothing has changed about them. Winzip just compressed them without any data loss, and saved spaced in the process.

PCM = 10 Individual Microsoft Word Documents

Dolby True HD and DTS MA-HD = Winzip File

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by bassbone57

+1. DTS HDMA is better sounding than Dolby TrueHD IMHO. The reason DTS HDMA can sound better than PCM is DTS can make minor adjustments to levels to tweek things a little where PCM is just as the studio left it. While PCM with the true mix is ideal and great, don't knock DTS HDMA until you have heard it. I have access to all surround sound codecs and I must say that DTS Master is my personal favorite.

-K

Absolutely ridiculous. It should be transparent to the original master. DTS, nor Dolby for that matter, should "tweak" anything. Should compressionists "tweak" a movie so it looks "better" than what was intended by the filmmakers? Let's colorize Schindler's List while we're at it!

Originally Posted by unreal1080p

Both Lossless, therefore both sound the same but DTS-HD MA takes less space since it's a compressed format vs. LPCM. Also, the DTS-HD MA contains within it a regular DTS soundtrack for those who only have legacy A/V receivers and takes up even less space since there is no need to provide a seperate legacy audio track because it's included "built-in". DTS-HD MA is superior to Dolby TrueHD because it does'nt use Dialog Normalization + Dolby TrueHD does not contain Dolby Digital built-in and therefore the legacy soundtrack must be provided seperately requiring more waste of space on the Blu-Ray disc.

Untrue. Dolby TrueHD uses the MLP codec, which is more efficient and compresses better than DTS-MA (think WinZip vs WinRAR), and the legacy Dolby track uses 640kbps, vs DTS' 1.5Mbps. TrueHD frequently dips below 1.5Mbps on a lot of titles, whereas DTS-MA can never do this because of their core track. ALL studios, even Fox, want a Dolby track on there for compatibility with the millions of TVs & processors that cannot handle DTS in any form...and for functional reasons, like Night Mode, which DTS has yet to provide.

Originally Posted by jaukerma

All I can say is that in theory, yes, DTS-HD Master Lossless Audio should be better than PCM and Dolby TrueHD.

No, it should sound THE SAME.

I'm expecting DTS-HD MLA to blow PCM and Dolby TrueHD out of the water when I can actually hear it, but even if it is simply on par with the other next gen audio tracks, then it'll be a very worthwhile upgrade.

Don't mistake the MIX for the CODEC. Most of the Fox releases have been titles that stress both stellar video *and* audio mixes. Rest assured, if Fox had used TrueHD, those mixes would have been equally dynamic and enveloping.