Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HDMA Audio Levels

[saprano]

Awaiting peterTHX to chime in.

he's probly sic of these discussion already.

[red_5ive]

Originally Posted by saprano

Awaiting peterTHX to chime in.

he's probly sic of these discussion already.

Heheh, that thought also crossed my mind while I was reading through this thread.

[kingofgrills]

Originally Posted by bw1605

dolby true hd is horrible and so is just regular dobly digital. any dts track is better and more crushing than any dolby track. i wish lucas would get a clue on that

You are really misinformed on this one. Like it has been stated repeatedly in this forum Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and linear PCM are all lossless audio codecs and on par with each other. In the past, regular DTS offered less compression than Dolby Digital, and there was an audible difference. With the lossless codecs of today, once you equalize volume levels (which has nothing to do with the codec quality) the level of detail offered and dynamic range should equal the master recordings.

[Pelican170]

Yea, ive always heard that lossless was lossless and that they are the same and any frequencys that arent dont matter because the human ear cant hear them anyways...

[Entertainment72]

Pcm > Dts Hd Ma > D Thd

[ClaytonMG]

The reason DTS's master audio codec has a higher bitrate is for 2 reasons. Most of the time when it's used, they're actually using the original 24-Bit master. The second reason (and the main reason) is due to the fact that the core is always there. Meaning that it will never drop below 1.6mps. That doesn't make it any "more lossless" than Dolby TrueHD.

When done properly:
Dolby TrueHD = DTS-HD MA = PCM

They should all sound the same. But sometimes, the tracks are altered and that isn't always true. Sony uses 24-Bit masters for their TrueHD tracks and 16-Bit for their PCM tracks. So it's not like one is better than the other, it's just different studios do different things to different tracks. To say Dolby TrueHD is inferior is idiotic and proves that who's ever saying it has not done their research and knows nothing of these advanced codecs.

Same goes for the video codecs. For instance, I know VC-1 is every bit as good as AVC. I do not judge VC-1 by WB's releases, I judge WB by their releases. I know VC-1 can perform perfectly fine (Deja Vu, 3:10 To Yuma, The Recruit to name a few). But unfortunately, WB has created a bad name for VC-1 do to their bitstarving and DNRing. The same applies to Dolby TrueHD, due to their DialNorming and changing 24-Bit masters to 16-Bit, people have gotten the impression Dolby TrueHD is inferior, when it's not.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

Pcm > Dts Hd Ma > D Thd

That's a perfect example of how misinformation spreads... I believe you've posted multiple times about how Dolby TrueHD is inferior without any examples and I believe the one time you gave examples I explained to you why you aren't even comparing the same things.

I think it's important for people not to listen to the people that don't actually give detailed responses. It's pretty obvious when people actually know what they're talking about and when fanboys (not sure that's even what you'd call them) are just spreading false information.

[Marine Mike]

This thread is pointless as they are all the same, just the encodes are different.


If you think that TrueHD is that bad, then listen to Cloverfield. Oh thats right I mentioned a Paramount release thats actually good? I think theres another thread saying that all their releases suck. Even if you don't like the movie Cloverfield, listen to it and see how TrueHD and MA and PCM are just as good, just each movie is encoded differently.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Marine Mike

This thread is pointless as they are all the same, just the encodes are different.


If you think that TrueHD is that bad, then listen to Cloverfield. Oh thats right I mentioned a Paramount release thats actually good? I think theres another thread saying that all their releases suck. Even if you don't like the movie Cloverfield, listen to it and see how TrueHD and MA and PCM are just as good, just each movie is encoded differently.

And to add to what you said, it's not just the encodes that are different, the mixes are as well. Trying to compare 2 different sound mixes is just pointless. Miami Vice has DTS-HD MA and it sounds like crap. Meanwhile Man on Fire also is in DTS-HD MA and sound pretty much perfect. Are either of those due to the codec? No, it's due to the mix.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

That's a perfect example of how misinformation spreads... I believe you've posted multiple times about how Dolby TrueHD is inferior without any examples and I believe the one time you gave examples I explained to you why you aren't even comparing the same things.

I think it's important for people not to listen to the people that don't actually give detailed responses. It's pretty obvious when people actually know what they're talking about and when fanboys (not sure that's even what you'd call them) are just spreading false information.

IF (and that's a big if) DTS-MA or TrueHD = PCM then I'm OK with not having PCM. The rest comes down to a business decision based on policy, cost, or religion.

My religion is - DTS-MA to uncompress to the same dPCM.

Why? - fit more languages of the same quality with one build and stiil preserve the better 1.5Mbps lossy for those players out there that don't process DTS-HD MA to PCM or out the analog-outs. It cuts costs and gives very high quality audio to all consumers. Fair compromise?

Thoughts?

Edit: Please allow me to add that I agree with you in that the equality depends on how it was processed and encoded. I'd prefer PCM but understand there is a cost factor and doing the same work multiple times is bad unless you'd like to outsource it to a second world an second-quality region.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by CAB

IF (and that's a big if) DTS-MA or TrueHD = PCM then I'm OK with not having PCM. The rest comes down to a business decision based on policy, cost, or religion.

My religion is - DTS-MA to uncompress to the same dPCM.

Why? - fit more languages of the same quality with one build and stiil preserve the better 1.5Mbps lossy for those players out there that don't process DTS-HD MA to PCM or out the analog-outs. It cuts costs and gives very high quality audio to all consumers. Fair compromise?

Thoughts?

Edit: Please allow me to add that I agree with you in that the equality depends on how it was processed and encoded. I'd prefer PCM but understand there is a cost factor and doing the same work multiple times is bad unless you'd like to outsource it to a second world an second-quality region.

That's a whole other thing. As far as quality goes, I'd say each one is the same. But as far as cores go, I'd say DTS-HD MA is the smart way to go. Before I had the capabilities of all the new codecs, I was very pleased with titles that had DTS-HD MA because I knew I could use their cores.

And I also agree that with PCM, there's less of a chance errors. However, it does take up more disc space and in the case of Sony, they use 16-Bit instead of 24-Bit PCM. I've actually been able to tell that there is an improvement using 24-Bit Dolby TrueHD to 16-Bit PCM. First movie I noticed it on was Surf's Up. The music sounded better on the TrueHD track.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

That's a whole other thing. As far as quality goes, I'd say each one is the same. But as far as cores go, I'd say DTS-HD MA is the smart way to go. Before I had the capabilities of all the new codecs, I was very pleased with titles that had DTS-HD MA because I knew I could use their cores.

And I also agree that with PCM, there's less of a chance errors. However, it does take up more disc space and in the case of Sony, they use 16-Bit instead of 24-Bit PCM. I've actually been able to tell that there is an improvement using 24-Bit Dolby TrueHD to 16-Bit PCM. First movie I noticed it on was Surf's Up. The music sounded better on the TrueHD track.

I think the technology and tools will mature to the point where we won't be able to tell the difference between PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA because we have competition and people (like you) who demand the best to drive that level of quality. I'm thankful for your informed and experienced posts. I was approaching this OP from a different stance and that one is which makes the most sense for the business because anything that can keep quality high and drive cost lower will end up winning over other alternatives - that is assuming the consumer cares about the high(est) quality. I hope Blu-ray keeps with the quality.

Cheers, mate!

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

The reason DTS's master audio codec has a higher bitrate is for 2 reasons. Most of the time when it's used, they're actually using the original 24-Bit master. The second reason (and the main reason) is due to the fact that the core is always there. Meaning that it will never drop below 1.6mps. That doesn't make it any "more lossless" than Dolby TrueHD.

When done properly:
Dolby TrueHD = DTS-HD MA = PCM

They should all sound the same. But sometimes, the tracks are altered and that isn't always true. Sony uses 24-Bit masters for their TrueHD tracks and 16-Bit for their PCM tracks. So it's not like one is better than the other, it's just different studios do different things to different tracks. To say Dolby TrueHD is inferior is idiotic and proves that who's ever saying it has not done their research and knows nothing of these advanced codecs.

Same goes for the video codecs. For instance, I know VC-1 is every bit as good as AVC. I do not judge VC-1 by WB's releases, I judge WB by their releases. I know VC-1 can perform perfectly fine (Deja Vu, 3:10 To Yuma, The Recruit to name a few). But unfortunately, WB has created a bad name for VC-1 do to their bitstarving and DNRing. The same applies to Dolby TrueHD, due to their DialNorming and changing 24-Bit masters to 16-Bit, people have gotten the impression Dolby TrueHD is inferior, when it's not.

Well said ClaytonMG

[Entertainment72]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

That's a perfect example of how misinformation spreads... I believe you've posted multiple times about how Dolby TrueHD is inferior without any examples and I believe the one time you gave examples I explained to you why you aren't even comparing the same things.

I think it's important for people not to listen to the people that don't actually give detailed responses. It's pretty obvious when people actually know what they're talking about and when fanboys (not sure that's even what you'd call them) are just spreading false information.

AND I gave you my example of 300 of which you blamed the studio which is all fine and dandy. I wasn't spreading misinformation I was spreading my opinion of which we all have and are entitled to.

I have yet to hear (50+ limited bd collection) a D THD mix that sounds better than any PCM or DTS HD MA mix I have, again my opinion and apparently the opinions of some others here.

24 bit, 16 bit, million bit.. I go by the ear bit.

[Drayton]

I seem to recall reading that some TrueHD tracks are mastered/mixed -4dB compared to PCM or DTS-MA and thus can sound "weak" unless one adjusts volume accordingly.

Was that just one studio that did that? Just one release? Am I even remembering that correctly?

[richterbon23]

Originally Posted by Marine Mike

This thread is pointless as they are all the same, just the encodes are different.


If you think that TrueHD is that bad, then listen to Cloverfield. Oh thats right I mentioned a Paramount release thats actually good? I think theres another thread saying that all their releases suck. Even if you don't like the movie Cloverfield, listen to it and see how TrueHD and MA and PCM are just as good, just each movie is encoded differently.

So spot on! Cloverfield sounds so unbelievable. Best audio track on blu-ray in my opinion.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Entertainment72

AND I gave you my example of 300 of which you blamed the studio which is all fine and dandy. I wasn't spreading misinformation I was spreading my opinion of which we all have and are entitled to.

I have yet to hear (50+ limited bd collection) a D THD mix that sounds better than any PCM or DTS HD MA mix I have, again my opinion and apparently the opinions of some others here.

24 bit, 16 bit, million bit.. I go by the ear bit.

You have yet to hear a Dolby TrueHD track produced the same way as a PCM track or a DTS-HD MA track. You have not heard the same mix in all three formats. You're basing this on 300, a track which was altered from the original and DialNormed. I explained all of this to you the last time you posted. I have close to 300 Blu-Rays and I have heard Dolby TrueHD equal the same quality as PCM and DTS-HD MA and in some cases (like Sony) the TrueHD track will sound better than PCM due to the fact that it's from the native 24-Bit master. So you are spreading misinformation as your proof, as you call it, isn't actually proof at all. The only thing it is proof of is that WB isn't using Dolby TrueHD properly as I explained in my previous post.

[sowecrazy]

i get that problem too, but if you turn up TrueHD loud then is sounds good, like twister, i think it depends on the bit-rate, like warners tru-hd is normally at like high ones to high 2s/3s which i always have to turn up and disney and sonys are more like high 3s/4s. i wish PCM would have been the standard for all blu-rays and they did-away with compressed-uncompressed sound which is what where getting with TrueHD/DTS-MA, but i'm happy with any codec as long as it isn't just plain old DD or DTS then i won't buy it.

[Canada]

I wish DTS MA would become the standard! DTS MA has a higher bitrate than DD True HD, and I swear to God I can hear a difference. I know I should not be able to but I'm telling you to me DTS MA sounds better than Dolby True HD.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by kingofgrills

You are really misinformed on this one. Like it has been stated repeatedly in this forum Dolby TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, and linear PCM are all lossless audio codecs and on par with each other. In the past, regular DTS offered less compression than Dolby Digital, and there was an audible difference. With the lossless codecs of today, once you equalize volume levels (which has nothing to do with the codec quality) the level of detail offered and dynamic range should equal the master recordings.

Yeah, should being the key word

300 sounds better in PCM than it does in Dolby True HD
Top Gun the DTS MA soundtrack sounds better than the Dolby True HD
Spiderman 3 has a PCM and Dolby True HD soundtrack, I'll be damned if I can tell a difference.