Fox and DTS HD-MA

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by JadedRaverLA

It's not needlessly complicated and not in any way required. Your example does not exist and cannot exist (a DTS core + and HD extension + the MA lossless data). The "lossless data" and the HD "extension" are mutually exclusive and cannot be used together. The HD "extension," for DTS HD-HR requires a DTS core and cannot be "combined" with a lossless track. The lossless track, on the other hand, can optionally use a DTS "core" for determining difference information to conserve space, but doesn't require one. Having both DTS HD-HR and DTS HD-MA on the same disc would require two completely separate tracks... which, to the best of my knowledge has never been done.

Anyway... my point was that "DTS' method of a core, followed by a HD extension, followed finally by the MA lossless data" was an incorrect interpretation of how DTS works. This can be blamed partially on DTS marketing which has taken to calling everything an "extension," despite that being a poor term for what is actually happening in some cases.

Well, except that IS how it works. Players like the Panny BD-10 and PowerDVD will read the core+HD extension of any DTS-HD Master Audio track. They are all built on top of each other

Originally Posted by WriteSimply

From DTS' website:
At CES 2008, DTS will feature:

* Next generation A/V receivers, as well as HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc players featuring lossless DTS-HD Master Audio, from Pioneer, Onkyo, Denon, Samsung, Yamaha and others.
* Live “A/B” demonstrations of DTS’ new Surround Sensation headphone technology (simulated surround sound via two-channel speaker sources.)
* Prototype PC software products featuring DTS Surround Sensation technology.
* XStreamHD for digital delivery of movies and music featuring lossless 7.1-channel DTS-HD Master Audio with HD 1080p-quality video.
* New PC software products featuring DTS-HD Master Audio.
* DTS point-of-sale and informational videos.

fuad

Well, DTS didn't have any software PC demos. They did have the headphones and some prototype hardware (like the Denon BD players) and some receivers.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Well, except that IS how it works. Players like the Panny BD-10 and PowerDVD will read the core+HD extension of any DTS-HD Master Audio track. They are all built on top of each other

We'll agree to disagree for now, then. My understanding (based on DTS' whitepaper and talking with audio engineers) is that you are not correct. The BD10 and PowerDVD both recognize that DTS-HD MA data is present, but they don't actually do anything with it. All either actually does is deal with the "core" DTS track.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

I actually find DTS to be "smoother" and more laid back with more natural timbers compared to the flatter sound of DD.

Not to be rude and I can understand why some feel the lossy version of full datarate dts is better than lossy full datarate DD, but I at this point I am only concerned with the lossless algorithms. I never claimed DD@640kbps was better than dts@1.5Mbps. I just said that you just can't look at the data rate since they are based on different data reduction principles related to the science of human hearing.

DolbyTrueHD is more commonly found and like PeterTHX said is easier to implement than dtsHDMA. Look I can understand why someone who has not gone to upgrade equipment yet would prefer dtsHDMA being used to get fullrate lossy dts, but at some point they are going upgrade so who really cares what lossy codec is present. Lossy is just a stop gap until the majority of hardware in use supports lossless.

Again the PS3, the most popular BD player, has supported DolbyTrueHD since day one and several players like the Sony BDP-S1 and Panny BP10 were updated to support DolbyTrueHD. Lossless is lossless and many more BD users have the ability to decode TrueHD.

David I hope you are right about what paidgeek said regarding dtsHDMA decoding for the PS3. I am just getting upset for it taking so long and why FOX uses dtsHDMA exclusively when so few can enjoy it.

But as far dtsHDMA being more efficient, I don't buy it. We are probably talking a very small improvement, so small it is statistically insignificant when compared to the BD datarate and disc space.

[Tok]

Let me just say this topic is being discussed much more logically here than some of the comments I saw when trying to get debate going at AVS.

Maybe I am being too hard on some with the analogy to Monster cable, but I saw way too many illogical arguments for dts at AVS. 'dts HDMA. It freakin' rocks' Probably much of it related to people being trained/marketed to believe dts was a higher quality codec. But again in this thread I consider lossy yesterday's tech and not relevant to the discussion on lossless audio codecs at hand.

The only thing I am really trying to point out is that the lossless algorithms for both codecs should produce the same end result. Factoring in the PS3 probably being the most common BD player for the next several years, why are studios producing discs that will not satisfy the largest user base?

Again if the PS3 ever decodes it, it is a moot issue, but I really have doubts about it.

decoded DolbyTrueHD = decoded dtsHDMA = Uncompressed PCM. In the end they are all the exact same soundtrack.

[PeterTHX]

The BD10 and PowerDVD both recognize that DTS-HD MA data is present, but they don't actually do anything with it. All either actually does is deal with the "core" DTS track.

No, because of the extension, you get DTS-HD from the MA tracks, just not the full lossless. Watch the PowerDVD readout and you'll see bitrates in the 4-6Mbps range. Does that "sound" like just the core to you?

but I saw way too many illogical arguments for dts at AVS. 'dts HDMA. It freakin' rocks'

They mistake the quality of the *mix* vs. the codec. Truth is that stuff like Live Free or Die Hard or The Day After Tomorrow would sound equally amazing in Dolby TrueHD.

[Clark Kent]

I would really like it if every studio used DTS-HD MA like Fox and New Line. The decoding situation is temporary and will most likely not be a problem by Q4 of this year. The software(ie movies) may be around ten to fifteen years though.

DTS-HD MA provides the full lossless soundtrack with the best lossy core at the same time. This is indisputable. It's the most elegant solution to a host of problems. By including it everyone's player automatically plays what it is most capable of without any action required by the user, which is not true for the other lossless solutions. It also requires less space than PCM and apparently less bandwidth than either Dolby TrueHD or PCM.

The only argument that can be made against DTS-HD MA is that few players decode it right now(zero as of this moment). But this will change and I have no doubt that within six months the PS3 will decode it, which means overnight with a firmware update that 90% of all blu-ray players could play the full lossless soundtrack.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by CraigW

Let me just say this topic is being discussed much more logically here than some of the comments I saw when trying to get debate going at AVS.

Sadly, I think that's true of all debates at AVS lately.

Originally Posted by CraigW

Maybe I am being too hard on some with the analogy to Monster cable, but I saw way too many illogical arguments for dts at AVS. 'dts HDMA. It freakin' rocks'

I know I called you out on that, but I think I understand at least where you were coming from now. If I had been putting up with nonsense arguments, then I'd get annoyed, too. Just understand that some of us see benefits to lossy DTS, irrespective of the fact that lossless=lossless.

Originally Posted by CraigW

The only thing I am really trying to point out is that the lossless algorithms for both codecs should produce the same end result. Factoring in the PS3 probably being the most common BD player for the next several years, why are studios not trying to produce discs that will satisfy the largest user base?

Again if the PS3 ever decodes it, it is a moot issue, but I really have doubts about it.

Which is the real crux of your argument... the chicken and the egg problem. The software exists, but the hardware is limited. But my point is that its in the spec and the hardware is coming (including an update for the PS3). It's easy to be upset by what seems like a dumb decision (using a codec no one can hear) when you don't have all the "inside" information those who made the decision have. Fox knows most Blu-ray owners use a PS3... and I would think is pretty certain that decoding capabilities will be coming. Add to that information provided here by insiders and I would say you can bet on decoding coming once the BD50 is out.

Originally Posted by CraigW

decoded DolbyTrueHD = decoded dtsHDMA = Uncompressed PCM. In the end they are all the exact same soundtrack.

See... now we all agree on something! Lossless = lossless (putting aside DialNorm, Speaker Remapping, Multiple Audio Assets, etc)

[PeterTHX]

Fox knows most Blu-ray owners use a PS3... and I would think is pretty certain that decoding capabilities will be coming.

Fox was probably promised the same way the DVD Forum was promised back in 1996. DTS didn't have their solution together in time then and neither did they in 2006. Unfortunately for Fox they were already deep into the pool by the time they realized they were promising the sky and delivering little.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

No, because of the extension, you get DTS-HD from the MA tracks, just not the full lossless. Watch the PowerDVD readout and you'll see bitrates in the 4-6Mbps range. Does that "sound" like just the core to you?

It sounds like the "readout" is just giving you information on what's being read as opposed to what's being processed. But all means, show me a player that outputs a DTS HD-HR bitstream from a disc encoded as DTS HD-MA. You won't find one because its not possible.

There are four types of "extensions" involved in DTS for Blu-ray... though two aren't relavent to our discussion. The two that are relavent are:

• XLL -- the lossless track (or "extension")
• XBR -- "HR" high-bitrate lossy extensions

These two types of extension aren't used together. They signify which format of DTS-HD is being used. If you encode a stream using the XLL extension, an XBR extension is NOT used and vice-versa. Also, the XLL "extension" can be used WITHOUT a core (which is partially why it really shouldn't be called an extension) for DTS-HD MA... in which case you can't even get a 1.5M core track out of it... much less the HR track that you think you can.

[DaViD Boulet]

Fox was probably promised the same way the DVD Forum was promised back in 1996. DTS didn't have their solution together in time then and neither did they in 2006. Unfortunately for Fox they were already deep into the pool by the time they realized they were promising the sky and delivering little.

At this point DTS isn't the problem (though they were initially).

Onkyo receivers have had DTS-HD MA decoding for months... for sale (which means that the software solution had to have been provided months earlier).

The delay getting the update for the PS3 is probably partly political. Some have reasoned it's to give stand-alone players bragging rights for a time with DTS-HD MA decoding (the PS3 can't do *everything* better than the stand-alones... it wouldn't be fair). Probably also why the PS3 isn't yet ready for profile 2.0 upgrading: gotta let Panny get that BD50 out to market first and make some hardware sales before the PS3 does the same with a free upgrade.

[beavis667]

The way I look at it, Dolby during the dvd era was an inferior product to DTS. DTS now has the more efficient product. They are innovators. Their product has been best for one reason or another through a couple different products. They deserve the business for being so innovative.

[PeterTHX]

Seeing as DTS engineers (one with a cool Irish brogue) told me that DTS-MA plays as DTS-HD from the Panny 10 and PowerDVD...*and* the Taiwnese engineer telling me about PowerDVD and DTS-HD using Fox discs (Sunshine)...the HD ability was a recent update, before PowerDVD only output the 1536kbps core like the PS3 does now. They feel it's a decent stopgap measure until they can add full MA extension decoding.

CA+XBR+XLL = DTS-HD Master Audio. Believe it.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by beavis667

The way I look at it, Dolby during the dvd era was an inferior product to DTS. DTS now has the more efficient product. They are innovators. Their product has been best for one reason or another through a couple different products. They deserve the business for being so innovative.

Innovators?

They provided a solution over a year after introduction (though they promised the DVD Forum members in Japan otherwise). They at first promised a VBR (variable bit rate solution), then required full bitrate and THEN the 768kbps solution (which required some decoders to be updated).

Meanwhile Dolby introduced DD as a solution in everything from HDTV to DVD to BD. My Yamaha DDP-1 will decode the 640kbps BD tracks. Working with Meridian they standardized MLP on DVD-Audio and now improved it to TrueHD. Dolby Plus is actually 9 channels encoded so you get an optimized mix for either 5.1 or 7.1 setups...no decoding tricks or demuxing.

Dolby Digital, DTS follows with Coherent Acoustics...years later.
Dolby EX...DTS follows with DTS-ES
Dolby Plus...DTS follows with DTS-HD
Dolby TrueHD...DTS follows with DTS-HD MA.

Innovation is leading, not following with your own version months to years later. And it's NOT more efficient. It requires more horsepower and is still vaporware for most users.

[JadedRaverLA]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

CA+XBR+XLL = DTS-HD Master Audio. Believe it.

No. And again... we'll have to agree to disagree.

[WickyWoo]

No. DTS doesn't "mix their tracks". That was in the days of LD.

DTS did all the DVD encodes at least up to an including Private Ryan, and yes they were often sweetened mixes to boot

It was only after Private Ryan and the 768k encodes that they started selling encoders

Huh? The production companies that create music-oriented DVDs (and now Blu-rays) by and large prefer DTS to Dolby. I guess I wasn't clear on what I meant.

What they really like is PCM, until Blu they didn't have any other options if they wanted surround.
TrueHD does just fine as demonstrated by the Dave Matthews disc.

In my opinion, not backed up by any scuttlebutt or rumors, DTS has paid New Line and Fox in a last ditch attempt to avoid obsolescence. It's redundant, far more prone to decoding errors, and in the end the same thing as TrueHD or PCM audio that's already standard. If they followed standard procedure, they're doing Fox's encodes for free (or close to it) in an effort to push the DTS HDMA recievers, a product that's a year late to the market. I'm certainly not the only person that feels that way, quite a number of people in the enthusiast print media are pretty disgusted with them as well. If they can't get a lot more studios using it, and a lot more recievers supporting it, it's trouble

Low end DVD players have been dropping DTS support for the last year or so to save themselves the dollar or whatever it costs to include the codec. That can't be helping their bottom line as those are the best sellers.

They mistake the quality of the *mix* vs. the codec. Truth is that stuff like Live Free or Die Hard or The Day After Tomorrow would sound equally amazing in Dolby TrueHD.

I've always felt that was the root of most of the DTS love out there, along with that little red light making people feel special.

[darkedgex]

DTS HD MA and Dolby TrueHD will sound identical (ignoring dialog normalization and other Dolby metadata tweaks).

Now, with that out of the way:

I still prefer dts HD Master Audio over Dolby TrueHD. dts HD MA uses less space and a lower bitrate to achieve the same result as Dolby TrueHD. In so far as dts is more "innovative", I believe they are because while dts HD MA was developed from the ground up to be a modern lossless codec, Dolby TrueHD was merely a rebadged Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) codec.

Lossless sounds the same as any other lossless format (again, ignoring things that might "adjust" the output post-decompressing, such as metadata), but lossless encoding will always improve over time. Look at data archiving algorithms such as ZIP, which was succeeded by RAR, and is now being succeeded by 7z. It's my hope that while storage space continues to increase, the space needed to store the same type of data (in this case, digital audio) grows less and less, allowing more content (or higher quality content in the case of 24/96 or 24/48 audio) to be stored on whatever storage medium we use ten years from now.

That's my 25 cents. :P

[PeterTHX]

I still prefer dts HD Master Audio over Dolby TrueHD. dts HD MA uses less space and a lower bitrate to achieve the same result as Dolby TrueHD. In so far as dts is more "innovative", I believe they are because while dts HD MA was developed from the ground up to be a modern lossless codec, Dolby TrueHD was merely a rebadged Meridian Lossless Packing (MLP) codec.

The notion DTS-MA is more efficient is inaccurate.

DTS-MA in typical action sequences: 4.8-5.2Mbps, with peaks as high as 5.8-5.9 Mbps.
In quiet scenes it never dipped below 3.6Mbps.

TrueHD 24-bit (adding 640 DD core): 4.2-4.9Mbps, with 5.6Mbps peaks (mind you I've added the 640 core). Quiet scenes: about 3.6Mbps (the SAME)

DTS-MA was not innovative so much as "how can we make our existing codec and make it lossless"...keep in mind DTS did not develop Coherent Acoutics, they bought it and refined it. Dolby refined MLP and it is much more sophisticated in TrueHD. Yet it requires relatively little horsepower to implement, so millions of PS3s, PCs, and the majority of standalone BD players can decode it. Can DTS claim this?

THAT is the proof in the pudding.

[Kayne314]

I'm a bit of a fish out of water posting on this thread, as I clearly don't have the level of expertise of the other posters. WOW! You guys know your stuff. Very educating.

I feel a need to throw my $0.02 in here though. My lack of technical knowledge will become clear shortly.

I have the Panasonic BD30, and bitstream my audio to an Onkyo SR705. I have been blessed by hearing PCM audio as intended. Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA decoded beautifully by my receiver. Based on what I have learned, all things being equal the three different types of audio "should" be identical.

This is where it is weird. I know it shouldn't be, but DTS-HD MA has become my preferred audio format. There is clearly more separation of sound, and an overall cleaner sound presentation. Nuances in the audio that I would usually miss, or have to crank the volume to hear in other formats, rise effortlessly from the DTS-HD MA mix.

The sub also performs better. Machine gun fire that is usually a wash of thunderous cannon blasts that rattle the walls, is heard instead as rapid fire blasts whipping by my head, tightly controlled. For some reason the sub works better WITH the sound rather than overpowering it.

Perhaps I merely have come to prefer the quality of work of the sound engineers that are employed by Fox.

Because of my experience I have to disagree that Fox should start releasing Dolby TrueHD or PCM tracks. The DTS core (though lossy) is a good solution for the time being. Blu-ray is a growing format, and more and more players will support DTS-HD MA in the future.

I have a PS3 as well, but was never under the delusion it was a complete BD player. The benefit with the PS3 for me was that it could upgrade its BD functions as time went on. And if it couldn't upgrade, well it is still the most advanced game machine on the market.

Perhaps in the future machines like the PS3 will make stand alone players obsolete. For now though, standalone players have some advantages that can't be ignored.

I hope more studios will come to use DTS-HD MA as the technology for decoding becomes more common.

There. Now my lack of technical knowledge is on display for everyone to see. Go easy on me, I'm fragile.

[NutsAboutPS3]

I prefer DD over DTS for one simple reason - night mode.

I live in a flat and do not want to disturb my neighbours. Night mode lets me hear the dialog clearly while not making the other aspects of the soundtrack too loud.

Whenever I listen to a movie that only has DTS, I have to watch it with the receiver remote in my hand, constantly turning the volume up for quiet dialog bits, then down for louder action sequences. This is a huge pain and has a big negative effect on my enjoyment of the movie.

I know audiophiles must object to night mode, but it's simply an essential practical consideration for me, I don't regard it as an option to have loud noises passing through to my neighbours' flats (and I expect, and receive, the same considerate behaviour from them in return).

[JAGUAR1977]

IMO lossy core tracks are as equally important as lossless tracks, as this is the track the vast majority of mainstream, even early adopter, consumers will have access to.

IMO DTS core tracks are superior to DD, I'm happy to see New Line adopting this codec.