Is Warner changing to DTS-HD Master Audio too?

[RiseDarthVader]

My god no matter how much people are taught how DTS HD-MA has the same binary code and wavelength as Dolby TrueHD they still insist DTS HD-MA magically sounds better on their systems.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

The problems with comments like this are:

1- the processing of Dolby and DTS are handled separately in your receiver. You might have your Dolby decoder configured in a way that makes the sound seem 'duller'. After properly calibrating my system, I can't tell the difference between THD and DTSMA when I switch back and forth between them...

2- How many of these 'bland' TrueHD tracks have you compared, _directly_ with DTS-HDMA? You can't say they THD track on one movie doesn't sound as good as the DTS track on a completely different movie, and blame it on the audio encode. That's just stupid. You need to listen to the exact same audio track in both formats, and configure your system so both audio tracks sound the same. Then see if you still think THD sounds worse than DTSMA. There's demo and setup discs that can offer you this.
If you take a .WAV file, encode it to THD and DTSMA, and then decode back to WAV, you get a bit-for-bit perfect copy of the file.

Don't get me wrong, I prefer DTS-HDMA myself, but that's mainly because it's so much easier to work with on the production side (encodes 100s times faster than THD, there's a PC based encoder, only need to encode one stream, can easily make accommodations for seamless branching, etc...) THD really is a pain to work with. I wouldn't be surprised if that's one of the main reasons some studios are switching.

I don't care what ANYONE says, there are many people who hear a difference when volume matching. It's not just me. I find EVERY DTS HD track more prolific than TRUEHD CRAPS... I mean, tracks!

I seriously enjoy action films with TrueHD tracks, but even the simplist of DTS HD MA tracks sound more "true to life" than the most complex TRUEHD tracks. And I'm not the only one to notice. Like I said, I acknowledge that it may just be in my head, but that's the way I, and many others, like it. So, that's the way I prefer it to be for ALL releases.

[RiseDarthVader]

Basing the entire opinion of a lossless audio codec on a placebo effect huh? While I prefer DTS HD-MA for having it's core 1.5mps track built right into it and saving space I don't like it when someone goes on about how it is better because it sounds better when clearly it cannot.

[dannycj]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

Basing the entire opinion of a lossless audio codec on a placebo effect huh? While I prefer DTS HD-MA for having it's core 1.5mps track built right into it and saving space I don't like it when someone goes on about how it is better because it sounds better when clearly it cannot.

I just compared the True HD vs DTS-HD MA on the Australian version of Knowing. To me they sounded almost exactly identical once i matched the volume, the DTS had a little bit more punch on the bass side of things.
My friend is so confident that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD but
i am yet to be convinced that there is a great difference.

[trans22]

Originally Posted by dannycj

I just compared the True HD vs DTS-HD MA on the Australian version of Knowing. To me they sounded almost exactly identical once i matched the volume, the DTS had a little bit more punch on the bass side of things.
My friend is so confident that DTS-HD MA sounds better than TrueHD but
i am yet to be convinced that there is a great difference.

The main reason people think DTS is better is because it's louder, if someone releases a blu-ray with DTS and TRUEHD then most people will play the DTS with it being louder. I personally always play the PCM track on "300" because it,s louder than the dolby track, i know that sounds stupid but if i were to take a guess i would say most of you guys are exactly the same. The point i'm trying to make is if dolby didn't bother using that silly dial-norm function then most people wouldn't say there was any difference between DOLBY and DTS.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by trans22

The point i'm trying to make is if dolby didn't bother using that silly dial-norm function then most people wouldn't say there was any difference between DOLBY and DTS.

I agree with you. The concept of dialnorm is silly. However in the interest of fairness, DTSMA can engage dialnorm, though it is not it's default. I don't think most of those titles use them but i've a suspicion that Disney and Warner are using dialnorm as I have to adjust those titles louder than my normal DTSMA tracks.

[bfellow]

Originally Posted by RiseDarthVader

My god no matter how much people are taught how DTS HD-MA has the same binary code and wavelength as Dolby TrueHD they still insist DTS HD-MA magically sounds better on their systems.

They don't. They have different bitrates and sizes. Is a 16-bit TrueHD equivalent to a 24-bit DTS-HD MA? It's possible but 2 different companies most likely aren't going to have equivalent soundtracks. One could have more bass, decibel level, etc.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

I don't care what ANYONE says, there are many people who hear a difference when volume matching. It's not just me. I find EVERY DTS HD track more prolific than TRUEHD CRAPS... I mean, tracks!

I seriously enjoy action films with TrueHD tracks, but even the simplist of DTS HD MA tracks sound more "true to life" than the most complex TRUEHD tracks. And I'm not the only one to notice. Like I said, I acknowledge that it may just be in my head, but that's the way I, and many others, like it. So, that's the way I prefer it to be for ALL releases.

So you would lie to my face and tell me RoboCop's DTS-MA sounds better than Iron Man's TrueHD (even with DRC engaged!).

Coach Carter vs. Hoosiers...etc.

Remember, you said every DTS-MA is better than the most "complex" TrueHD...

Hopefully for the last time people will listen to reason and know that how a lossless track sounds depends on the original mix/master. Encoded to either format they will sound exactly the same, even if you may need to bump TrueHD up 4dB or so (as studio policy goes).

[UFAlien]

I'm going to reiterate a rational, factual point here - I prefer DTS-HD because it gives people without lossless setups (like me) a DTS core track, which is the best I'm gonna get in terms of surround, at least until I upgrade.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

I'm going to reiterate a rational, factual point here - I prefer DTS-HD because it gives people without lossless setups (like me) a DTS core track, which is the best I'm gonna get in terms of surround, at least until I upgrade.

Except that DD companion @640kbps is every "bit" as good as the DTS core (people need to stop using the DVD comparisons as reference).

[UFAlien]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except that DD companion @640kbps is every "bit" as good as the DTS core (people need to stop using the DVD comparisons as reference).

Isn't DTS core at 1.5mbps?

[davcole]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Except that DD companion @640kbps is every "bit" as good as the DTS core (people need to stop using the DVD comparisons as reference).

I agree that people need to stop using the DVD comparison. I personally think 640kbs DD rocks!! I don't know that i'd say it's as good as the DTS core, but it's pretty dang close.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by UFAlien

Isn't DTS core at 1.5mbps?

Yes but they use 2 different compression techniques, think MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 for video. DD is extremely efficient and can VBR it's channels independently, where DTS is CBR for all channels.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by davcole

The concept of dialnorm is silly.

Dialnorm serves two purposes, neither of which strikes me as silly. The first is to equalize volume levels across all media. The second is to provide an accurate "center point" for dynamic range control. The one thing I've never understood is why Dolby decided on a dialnorm value of -31 while dialog on films is generally at -27. That 4db difference is the cause of most of the complaints about DN.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by davcole

I agree with you. The concept of dialnorm is silly. However in the interest of fairness, DTSMA can engage dialnorm, though it is not it's default. I don't think most of those titles use them but i've a suspicion that Disney and Warner are using dialnorm as I have to adjust those titles louder than my normal DTSMA tracks.

But wasn't DN enabled on the Watchmen disc, but I don't know if the current decoders do anything with the DN setting.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by CraigW

But wasn't DN enabled on the Watchmen disc, but I don't know if the current decoders do anything with the DN setting.

I'm pretty sure that Warner engaged it for WATCHMEN. I had to turn that one up about 5 clicks over my standard for DTSMA, I have to boost Disney DTSMA tracks about 3 over my standard, so I think that those studios are engaging it.

I have no evidence of it though.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by davcole

I'm pretty sure that Warner engaged it for WATCHMEN. I had to turn that one up about 5 clicks over my standard for DTSMA, I have to boost Disney DTSMA tracks about 3 over my standard, so I think that those studios are engaging it.

I have no evidence of it though.

Dialnorm adjustments happen in the decoder. I'm not aware that DTS decoders act on dialnorm. It is my understanding they do not. If a particular disk has a lower playback level, it is likely just recorded that way.

[BozQ]

Sometimes I just wished Dolby didn't implement Dialnorm and DRC. Or at least default it to OFF.

[davcole]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Sometimes I just wished Dolby didn't implement Dialnorm and DRC. Or at least default it to OFF.

My feelings exactly on both, leave the defaults to OFF. Let the consumer elect wheter to engage.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dialnorm adjustments happen in the decoder. I'm not aware that DTS decoders act on dialnorm. It is my understanding they do not. If a particular disk has a lower playback level, it is likely just recorded that way.

Well the thing is that dts has been pretty loosey goosey with their decoders. Dolby has had a pretty firm spec on what the decoders should handle when they finalize a product. dts on the other hand has several different iterations of dts-HD decoders on the market. Some mix 7.1 to 5.1 even if you have a 7.1 setup. Others will repeat the side surround channels, ie. force 5.1 in a 7.1 setup which then locks the user out of applying their own soundfield choice like PLIIx or THX Cinema2.

So newer decoders may be applying the data while older 1st generation decoders do not. THX at one time forced a 4dB reduction on dts tracks. Not sure if they still do though, but I don't agree with that practice either.