Why do most New Releases use DTS-HD audio rather than Dolby TrueHD?

[MrHT]

Originally Posted by 42041

Don't know, don't care, as long as the same sequence of 1s and 0s is coming out of my PS3 it doesn't affect my life.

Well I don't have a particular preference, but what worries me is that they might stop putting Dolby TrueHD decoders on BD players and receivers since all studios stopped using that codec. So, that means we will have to re-buy some titles such as The Dark Knight and Transformers. Not good!

[jpthomas27]

Originally Posted by slimdude

PCM 5.1 (uncompressed) sounds just as good DTS-HD 5.1 MA, if not equal.

Directly for the department of redundancy department

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Exactly. There is no audible difference between Linear PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD Master Audio. Also, some of you need to remember that higher volume does not mean better sound, which tends to happen with DTS-HD MA tracks and then the sound is too low for dialogue.

There are thousands, if not 10's or 100's of thousands that will disagree with you. Since DTS soundtracks hit DVD this has been debated. It's been agreed that theoretically there should be no audible difference. But the truth is I (along with just about everyone else) do hear a difference and have on multiple formats.

[Mr. Movie Fan]

DTS used to always be better than Dolby, but now since they deliver the same bits DTS is the one that causes more user errors.

[Kryptonic]

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by jpthomas27

Directly for the department of redundancy department


There are thousands, if not 10's or 100's of thousands that will disagree with you. Since DTS soundtracks hit DVD this has been debated. It's been agreed that theoretically there should be no audible difference. But the truth is I (along with just about everyone else) do hear a difference and have on multiple formats.

There used to be millions of people that believed the Earth was flat. There is also several thousand people that believe NASA never went to the moon. As I said earlier, increased volume does not mean there is any difference.

[42041]

Even when comparing identical tracks encoded in these formats (which is more than most people here are doing, I assume) I think subjective audio quality comparisons of this sort are absolutely worthless. Placebo effect is strong with human hearing.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by 42041

Even when comparing identical tracks encoded in these formats (which is more than most people here are doing, I assume) I think subjective audio quality comparisons of this sort are absolutely worthless. Placebo effect is strong with human hearing.

Exactly. People comparing mixes from different movies aren't even comparing the two formats. If that's justified, then I'd like to argue that Dolby TrueHD is better, since The Dark Knight has a more aggressive soundtrack than The Nightmare Before Christmas, which has a DTS-HD track.

[jonant]

Nightmare before Christmas has a Dolby true HD track, not a dts HD track.

[RBBrittain]

Originally Posted by Fanboyz

DTS used to always be better than Dolby, but now since they deliver the same bits DTS is the one that causes more user errors.

You were going fine until you got into the DTS-hating part in bold.

In the DVD era, DTS was generally believed superior to DD by anyone who wasn't pushing Dolby's claim that 640-kbps DD was just as good as 1.5-Mbps DTS; but that's comparing lossy codecs, not lossless ones. (Besides, on DVD the actual bitrates were usually far lower.)

Today, other than after-applied affects (dialnorm, AVR optimizations, etc.), the lossless codecs are essentially just zip files for LPCM; the only user improvement either of them delivers over LPCM is reduced jitter and better support for after-applied effects. (Techs say raw LPCM over HDMI has more jitter, but still not enough to affect actual playback; however, the PS3's built-in TrueHD decoder allegedly doesn't support dialnorm.)

The chief reasons studios prefer DTS-HD MA are a simpler encoding process (a single pass generates both the DTS core & MA extension; Dolby requires two passes for TrueHD & DD--that is, unless you cheat and use the DD stream from the DVD, which is of lower bitrate and may be from an inferior master), a cheaper & more flexible platform (Macs generally don't support BD out-of-the-box and are harder to upgrade than PCs), and better backwards & forwards compatibility (unlike TrueHD & LPCM, you do NOT need a special script to make compatible BD players default to HD audio; also the fallback lossy track is 1.5-Mbps DTS, not 640-kbps DD). Though raw LPCM is even better than DTS-HD MA on the first two points, it also takes up far more disc space than either lossless codec; that's why no one uses LPCM anymore.

Your DTS "user error" claim, IMO, is nothing more than a fabrication by a TrueHD stan (though it could be whoever you heard that story from).

[Narcissus]

it's gotta be the cables

[stevo4264]

Originally Posted by Narcissus

it's gotta be the cables

OH NO! don't start the cable talk again

[Mr. Movie Fan]

Originally Posted by RBBrittain

You were going fine until you got into the DTS-hating part in bold.

In the DVD era, DTS was generally believed superior to DD by anyone who wasn't pushing Dolby's claim that 640-kbps DD was just as good as 1.5-Mbps DTS; but that's comparing lossy codecs, not lossless ones. (Besides, on DVD the actual bitrates were usually far lower.)

Today, other than after-applied affects (dialnorm, AVR optimizations, etc.), the lossless codecs are essentially just zip files for LPCM; the only user improvement either of them delivers over LPCM is reduced jitter and better support for after-applied effects. (Techs say raw LPCM over HDMI has more jitter, but still not enough to affect actual playback; however, the PS3's built-in TrueHD decoder allegedly doesn't support dialnorm.)

The chief reasons studios prefer DTS-HD MA are a simpler encoding process (a single pass generates both the DTS core & MA extension; Dolby requires two passes for TrueHD & DD--that is, unless you cheat and use the DD stream from the DVD, which is of lower bitrate and may be from an inferior master), a cheaper & more flexible platform (Macs generally don't support BD out-of-the-box and are harder to upgrade than PCs), and better backwards & forwards compatibility (unlike TrueHD & LPCM, you do NOT need a special script to make compatible BD players default to HD audio; also the fallback lossy track is 1.5-Mbps DTS, not 640-kbps DD). Though raw LPCM is even better than DTS-HD MA on the first two points, it also takes up far more disc space than either lossless codec; that's why no one uses LPCM anymore.

Your DTS "user error" claim, IMO, is nothing more than a fabrication by a TrueHD stan (though it could be whoever you heard that story from).

Explain the "Bitstream Bomb", The clipping some Mediatek decoders experience with Jurassic Park, and Silent Rear Surround Channels on 6.1 and 7.1 tracks. Obviously a fabrication.

Nobody cares how much work the encoder has to do to achieve a disc, less work always means more problems.

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by jonant

Nightmare before Christmas has a Dolby true HD track, not a dts HD track.

For some reason I assumed that every Disney title used the DTS-HD MA track. Well then, does the DTS-HD MA track of Wall-E qualify?

[Narcissus]

Originally Posted by stevo4264

OH NO! don't start the cable talk again

oh cmon......

[saprano]

Cause we made it happen-

https://forum.blu-ray.com/blu-ray-mo...by-truehd.html