Has DTS MA won?

[kristoffer]

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

[RBBrittain]

Actually, it seems to me that TrueHD has made a small comeback in the last year or two. DTS-HD MA was built for backwards compatibility; TrueHD had to be tweaked for it. Besides, Dolby still has a theatrical sound business, along with new technology (Atmos), to sell to the studios in a nice, bundled package with TrueHD; DTS doesn't. (It doesn't hurt that Dolby bought the naming rights to the Oscars' theater after Kodak abandoned it in Chapter 11, either.)

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

Both are lossless compression, which means they will sound identical to the original audio mix which will be in PCM format.

DTS-HD Master Audio does not provide better quality sound over TrueHD (remembering that you cannot compare different sound tracks (films) and come to the conclusion that DTS-HD MA sounds better).

Dolby TrueHD has always been accompanied with an embedded lossy DD track, so backwards compatibility is a none-issue, what the difference is, is the feature set and how the encoder/decoder is incorporated in the equipment, for example both codecs have their problems. DTS have a cut down version which is called DTS-HD Master Audio Essentials which a lot of BD players and some receivers have, this doesn't support all DTS technologies i.e. it does not support DTS 96/24, ES information, will output 5.1 tracks at 7.1 without choice and I believe it doesn't support 192kHz sampling rate at any channel number, thus it outputs 96kHz when decoding. Bitstreaming to a component with full DTS-HD MA decoding capability will avoid this.

The reason I believe that DTS-HD MA is found on more disc's maybe down to cost and that studio's have cottoned on to the fact that the majority of people think DTS is better and will base their purchases on this.

[pentatonic]

Originally it was also based on the fact that DTS-HD MA was faster and also cheaper to author as the PCs needed were already found at those houses. True HD then called for a beefier station, was longer also to author and hence more expensive and much more time consuming. Now I'm sure it isn't a factor anymore but once they got setup for it I guess they just continued using DTS.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Both are lossless compression, which means they will sound identical to the original audio mix which will be in PCM format.

DTS-HD Master Audio does not provide better quality sound over TrueHD (remembering that you cannot compare different sound tracks (films) and come to the conclusion that DTS-HD MA sounds better).

Dolby TrueHD has always been accompanied with an embedded lossy DD track, so backwards compatibility is a none-issue, what the difference is, is the feature set and how the encoder/decoder is incorporated in the equipment, for example both codecs have their problems. DTS have a cut down version which is called DTS-HD Master Audio Essentials which a lot of BD players and some receivers have, this doesn't support all DTS technologies i.e. it does not support DTS 96/24, ES information, will output 5.1 tracks at 7.1 without choice and I believe it doesn't support 192kHz sampling rate at any channel number, thus it outputs 96kHz when decoding. Bitstreaming to a component with full DTS-HD MA decoding capability will avoid this.

The reason I believe that DTS-HD MA is found on more disc's maybe down to cost and that studio's have cottoned on to the fact that the majority of people think DTS is better and will base their purchases on this.

You're correct that there's no difference between DTS-HD MA, TrueHD & LPCM, all things being equal (i.e., same soundtrack, no dialnorm). However, the earliest TrueHD tracks weren't configured properly for full compatibility; the studios tended to reuse their old DVD-quality DD 5.1 tracks (not even full 640 kbps DD bitrate) and authored their discs to default to those even on TrueHD-capable players (much like the early LPCM discs). DTS-HD MA's default setting has always been full compatibility -- full 1.5 Mbps DTS core plus MA extensions to lossless quality, with the latter as default if the decoder supports it.

Bringing up DTS-HD MA Essentials is a red herring. First, that's a limitation on decoders, not discs. Second, all that means is the player doesn't support DTS extensions between core and MA, which frankly has more impact on DVD than BD; DTS-ES tracks play as core DTS, but DTS-HD MA tracks play with full fidelity. (Edit: I also don't think there's many 192 kHz tracks out there, especially with DTS-HD MA.)

DTS-HD MA pulled in front because it was seen as providing the best of both worlds -- lossless audio for those with the appropriate decoders (including Essentials), with full-bitrate DTS for everyone else. Now that it's clear TrueHD can provide virtually the same thing -- with more backwards compatibility since more legacy equipment supports DD than DTS -- it's more a matter of DTS inertia vs. Dolby marketing (i.e., sweetheart deals on TrueHD when bought together with Atmos).

[Tech-UK]

@RBBrittain. I know its a limitation with regards to the decoder, which is why I brought it up. Less feature set support, of which essentials gives you. Just trying to make a point that DTS isn't better than Dolby when it comes to the whole process.

I believe TrueHD decoders have full support of Dolby's technologies, but again in the PS3 (3D playback) and some Blu-ray players, it will not support 7.1 TrueHD when decoding, only 5.1, whether this is indeed decoder related or down to the software, firmware or even hardware of the device, that is limiting it.

If your referring to the early WB releases, they actually did include an embedded DD track with the TrueHD track at full 640kbps, plus a separate DD track as well, which it defaulted to.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...69e0116e#specs

If you know of any title of which doesn't include an embedded DD track, it would be useful to the discussion.

I believe the reason for defaulting to DD on TrueHD and PCM encoded tracks was that most people were connecting their equipment via S/PDIF back in the day. And to provide instant compatibility that's what they did. DD is mandatory and the mandatory track must be used as the primary soundtrack (nowadays its different), most people back in the early day's were not aware of these different codecs and how they should set their equipment up, so the easiest thing to do is for it to default to the most widely known home media codec.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

@RBBrittain. I know its a limitation with regards to the decoder, which is why I brought it up. Less feature set support, of which essentials gives you. Just trying to make a point that DTS isn't better than Dolby when it comes to the whole process.

I believe TrueHD decoders have full support of Dolby's technologies, but again in the PS3 (3D playback) and some Blu-ray players, it will not support 7.1 TrueHD when decoding, only 5.1, whether this is indeed decoder related or down to the software, firmware or even hardware of the device, that is limiting it.

If your referring to the early WB releases, they actually did include an embedded DD track with the TrueHD track at full 640kbps, plus a separate DD track as well, which it defaulted to.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...69e0116e#specs

If you know of any title of which doesn't include an embedded DD track, it would be useful to the discussion.

It's still not a 'core' track though, because TrueHD doesn't use core + extension in the same way as DTS HD. It's simply a hidden lossy track.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

It's still not a 'core' track though, because TrueHD doesn't use core + extension in the same way as DTS HD. It's simply a hidden lossy track.

Now Geoff, I said embedded not core.

TrueHD and the hidden DD track can take up less space than a DTS core + extension of the same soundtrack.

Example here:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...b4a48b2c#specs

The DTS-HD Master Audio tracks average bitrate includes the core + extension data.

The TrueHD track as you said isn't based on core + extension, but if you take the average bitrate and add the DD rate of 640kbps it is still less than the DTS-HD MA track. Thus more efficient, but provides the same AQ plus backwards compatibility.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

@RBBrittain. I know its a limitation with regards to the decoder, which is why I brought it up. Less feature set support, of which essentials gives you. Just trying to make a point that DTS isn't better than Dolby when it comes to the whole process.

I believe TrueHD decoders have full support of Dolby's technologies, but again in the PS3 (3D playback) and some Blu-ray players, it will not support 7.1 TrueHD when decoding, only 5.1, whether this is indeed decoder related or down to the software, firmware or even hardware of the device, that is limiting it.

If your referring to the early WB releases, they actually did include an embedded DD track with the TrueHD track at full 640kbps, plus a separate DD track as well, which it defaulted to.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...69e0116e#specs

If you know of any title of which doesn't include an embedded DD track, it would be useful to the discussion.

I believe the reason for defaulting to DD on TrueHD and PCM encoded tracks was that most people were connecting their equipment via S/PDIF back in the day. And to provide instant compatibility that's what they did. DD is mandatory and the mandatory track must be used as the primary soundtrack (nowadays its different), most people back in the early day's were not aware of these different codecs and how they should set their equipment up, so the easiest thing to do is for it to default to the most widely known home media codec.

Isn't a 16bit track a bit of a cheat, cause you can run a TruHD track at 640 or lower, however when you move up to 24 bit, that DD track plus the TRUEHD track will likely run more data than just the DTSMA track.

[Tech-UK]

Davcole, TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both lossless codecs, meaning both produce the exact same PCM signal when decoded, thus both will produce the same sound as long as both encodes are from the same source. DTS-HD MA may "sound" better due to them being at a higher volume, once matched will sound identical. What does differ is the feature set and how the codec is built, but at the end of the day if you have a 96/24 TrueHD track and a 96/24 DTS-HD MA track, both will produce the same PCM signal that went into the encoder.

The lossless codecs are VBR, thus they do not stay at the same bitrate, 640kbps is the bitrate of lossy DD, depending on the bit depth i.e. 16 or 24-bit, will have an affect on the bitrate of a lossless track but not a lossy track. 24-bit will increase the bitrate of a lossless track.

Due to how DTS-HD MA is structured the lossy DTS core is normally 1.5Mbps (can be lower), then extension data is added to this to create a lossless track, this means that DTS-HD MA tracks cannot go below 1.5Mbps, but for TrueHD, it doesn't have a core, only an embedded lossy DD companion track, thus TrueHD can achieve lower bitrates, but all Blu-rays as discussed are accompanied with a lossy DD track, which is always 640kbps or 448kbps (rare to see), when you add the size of the DD track and the size of the TrueHD track it actually takes up less room than a DTS-HD MA track, including its DTS core, whether that's 16-bit or 24-bit, but obviously both the TrueHD and MA tracks need to feature the same bit-depth.

[MRP4BLU]

My guess is it has to do with Cinevia and how the unbeatable copy protection is embedded within the DTS track. As far as I know Dolby does not do this.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

IIRC, Roger Dressler (retired from Dolby Labs) said it was a matter of QA economics. He said proofing a master with DTS was faster than proofing a master with Dolby because the DTS version required less passes therefore less time. Time = Money.

At work when we finished a program we had to screen for bad edits, color matching, audio levels, video levels, video blanking, closed captioning, etc. This involved several staff members and could take several hours to complete.

[MOONPHASE]

All of my Funimation titles use Dolby TrueHD.

[benji888578]

Originally Posted by kristoffer

All the new releases seem to be in DTS MA and not Dolby True HD. Why do you think that is? Not that I am complaining.

I don't know that I agree that DTS-HD MA won, but, it does seem like most of the titles I have or want are in this format.

I'm pretty new to blu, I thought it might be according to studios, but, that theory doesn't work: i.e. I thought Paramount only used Dolby True HD...Star Trek (2009) & Into Darkness (2013) are both Dolby True HD, (and some other Paramount titles), however, the older ST titles vary...while all the older Star Trek movies released on blu (2009) are in Dolby True HD, the Next Generation TV series is being released in DTS-HD MA (as well as the original TV series). ...Batman Begins & Dark Knight are Dolby True HD, but, DK Rises is DTS-HD MA, all WB releases.

I'm not sure that any of the arguments presented, so far, match up, especially since it does seem that the most recent releases are more likely to be in DTS-HD MA, so, maybe Tech UK has a point, maybe there is some perception it is better. ...But, what happens when Dolby Atmos spreads to more theaters? (And shows up in home decoders?)

Originally Posted by Trekkie313

All I know is that I can actually hear the dialogue with Dolby HD at lower levels, whereas DTS just wants to bombard me with effects and music.

I have noticed this also, however, for me, at this point in time, I only have a Dolby Digital 5.1 decoder, using optical connection. I got no sound from DTS movies, until I set my blu-ray to convert DTS versions to PCM, which brings it down to Dolby Pro Logic II, which gives me sound, but, quality is lower, separation is not so hot, and LFE also seems "lifeless", (that is to say, softer in volume, or not all there). ...In any case, if you don't have DTS-HD MA compatibility, your audio decoder or TV may be using DTS or auto-converting to something your decoder can output. (...Personally, those studios making DTS-HD MA BDs, I wish they would include at least some kind of DD5.1 track for those of us yet to catch up.)

Call me crazy, but, I swear my pre-True HD Dolby decoder sounds better when playing a blu ray with True HD as opposed to one with DD5.1 track (and no, I don't mean Pro Logic).

[Tech-UK]

Benji,

S/PDIF both Optical and Coaxial only allows 2.0 PCM, so when your player is decoding any audio codec to PCM its also down converting it to 2.0, this is why your sound system is enabling PLII, which will then create a 5.1/7.1 sound field.

And if your outputting audio over S/PDIF your player will output the lossy DD embedded track that is attached to all TrueHD tracks on Blu-ray. Although pretty much all DD tracks on Blu-ray are 640Kbps compared to 448Kbps or less on DVD, so the lossy DD track on Blu-ray will sound superior.

It would be useful to know what your equipment is, and what movies you are comparing.

[benji888578]

OK, that explains the tech, but, concerning the OP (and I) also still would like to know why it seems there are more new releases with DTS-HD MA over Dolby TrueHD? As I stated before, I thought maybe each studio had a preference, but that just doesn't seem to be the case.

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Benji,

S/PDIF both Optical and Coaxial only allows 2.0 PCM, so when your player is decoding any audio codec to PCM its also down converting it to 2.0, this is why your sound system is enabling PLII, which will then create a 5.1/7.1 sound field.

And if your outputting audio over S/PDIF your player will output the lossy DD embedded track that is attached to all TrueHD tracks on Blu-ray. Although pretty much all DD tracks on Blu-ray are 640Kbps compared to 448Kbps or less on DVD, so the lossy DD track on Blu-ray will sound superior.

It would be useful to know what your equipment is, and what movies you are comparing.

I understood the first part. ...I might notice that blu DD is a bit better than DVD DD, I've always been a bit of an audiophile...right now, I'm just using a Klipsch 5.1 system made for computers, but, it sounds better than my older JVC DD5.1 home theater set-up I used to have. ...Eventually I'll have my dream home theater...this'll be moot.

[davcole]

It's a huge assumption that a DTS MA track will be larger bitrate than the TRUEHD/DD track, especially at 24bit depth. While the TrueHD can run lower than DTSMS, it's not always true the savings dependent the type of soundtrack ,when you have a 24bit depth, that's where the real savings of DTSMA come into play cause the legacy DTS track is already there, whereas you have to include a 640 (hopefully) DD to the bit rate on top of the bitrate for the TRUEHD which run concurrently!

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by davcole

It's a huge assumption that a DTS MA track will be larger bitrate than the TRUEHD/DD track, especially at 24bit depth. While the TrueHD can run lower than DTSMS, it's not always true the savings dependent the type of soundtrack ,when you have a 24bit depth, that's where the real savings of DTSMA come into play cause the legacy DTS track is already there, whereas you have to include a 640 (hopefully) DD to the bit rate on top of the bitrate for the TRUEHD which run concurrently!

TrueHD is independent of the DD track. Both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA can provide 16-bit or 24-bit.

Look back a page, I provided an example of DD vs DTS in terms of storage space.

Even when you add the lossy embedded DD tracks bitrate to the TrueHD track, the average bitrate is still lower than the DTS-HD MA plus its core, which is built into it, thus you don't add the DTS core's bitrate to that.

The only reason why an embedded DD track is included, is for backwards compatibility, as TrueHD is an optional audio format on Blu-ray.

DD+ on the other hand, is built upon a core plus extension, on Blu-ray, but not many Blu-ray's have DD+ tracks.

[BozQ]

I think the amount of storage needed between TrueHD and DTS-HD MA is irrelevant. If the authoring house is concerned over that, then why aren't there mamy Blu-rays that made use of the full 50GB disc for the main feature film? It's usually hovering around 35GB and crammed with extras.

Someone here in this forum and in another thread mentioned that why DTS-HD is the dominant audio format on Blu-ray is because there isn't a Windows version of the Dolby Encoder. Dolby is only available on Mac, while DTS is available on both platforms.

Considering how we're squeezing Blu-rays and DVDs out within 4 to 6 months from its theatrical release, it's a fair guess the authoring houses split their resources to author the DVD Dolby Digital soundtrack on Mac workstation, and Blu-ray DTS-HD on Windows.

All things considered, the different approaches between Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD to achieve the goal of lossless soundtracks is the same.

I believe time is a bigger issue than storage in this case.

[David M]

Don't quote me on this - I always use DTS HD MA on my own discs - but I believe licensing had something to do with it. In order to gain foothold, DTS waived any licensing fees for use of the codec on BD.

I could be talking BS though - the same could be true for Dolby (anyone know?)