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

[unreal1080p]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Because lower bitrate (more efficient) plus DD @640kbps = less space than DTS-MA.

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

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Umm, how about engineers at DTS themselves (talked to a few at CES, including the guys from Ireland)? Every DTS-MA track is DTS-HD as well.

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.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Being able to play the track at any time under any conditions is not a "gimmick".

To each his own

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Then why did DTS add it? (DialNorm)

I allready answered that in my previous post: purely for marketing purposes.

Borat --> "I get window from a glass... he get's window from a glass... he's pain in my *******s"

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Yet (despite DTS zealot FUD) DialNorm has no appreciable difference in the sound quality anyway!

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

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

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

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

As I said, HDD gets it wrong almost as often as they get it right. Juno will have a DD 5.1 English track.

Sadly that may be true (it would be nice to have a 100% solid authority for Disc Specs ).

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not everyone has a HDMI ready receiver, and they have an optical cable going to a standard (DD/DTS/PCM) receiver. You think those 6 million PS3s are all hooked up to HDMI receivers???

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.

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Reality is, DTS-HD MA was late to the game, they offer no advantage over TrueHD and Fox should have not taken the offer from them. Otherwise the VAST majority of BD owners could have heard their soundtracks in lossless for well over a year now. Even when the PS3 gets it, when will PC owners get it? How about everyone else with a standalone BD player that doesn't stream HDMI 1.3a?

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

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.

3) PC owners and owners of BD players that aren't "fully featured" can (and probably will) purchase new equipment. This is the way the wheel turns(companies need to sell new stuff). Same thing happened with DVD players: single layer, dual layer, DTS, progressive scan, upconversion (720p/1080i) and now we have SUC

I personally purchased a PS3 because of it's future compatibility advantages. The upcoming Panasonic BD50 player will be the FIRST stand alone player that I will seriously consider purchasing.