Is Warner changing to DTS-HD Master Audio too?

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I don't really understand what you're saying, but can you show me where WB cares? Bottom line, there are a lot of complaints and issues with the audio. Doesn't matter which players do what. The track is getting bad feedback from quite a few consumers so you better hope that WB tries DTS on a different title and doesn't just go by this experience (which was the entire point of what I was saying).

I know the issues probably have nothing to do with it being in DTS. But do you think all of the people complaining know it's not DTS's fault?

Bought the disc and watched it last night.

The sound was flawless.

Playback was on a Sony 550, HDMI, decoded within the player and sent down as PCM.

Folks probably need to update their players, wouldn't be the first time this is the problem.

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Bought the disc and watched it last night.

The sound was flawless.

Playback was on a Sony 550, HDMI, decoded within the player and sent down as PCM.

Folks probably need to update their players, wouldn't be the first time this is the problem.

But my point is, people wont see it that way. I know they need a firmware upgrade, it's pretty obvious. But if you look through the thread, there's a few complaints about it being in DTS.

[Stephan.klose]

It's funny though. I just watched "Watchmen" last night and checked the bitrates. The DTS HD Track usually hovers around 4mbit/s. Which is not very much.
For instance the recent releases of the Star Trek Movies all had Bitrates (in True HD though) around 15 mbit/s.

Although the sound was very, very good..

[Stephan.klose]

Originally Posted by Canada

The reason for that is because unlike Blu ray where Dolby True HD and DTS MA should theoretically sound the same all Dolby Digital 5.1 are encoded at 640 kbps, DTS is encoded at rate of 768 kbps. So higher bitrate means better sound.

If higher bitrate means better quality then why is this topnotch release of "Watchmen" encoded with such a low bitrate: I watched the bitrate constantly and it never got over 5 mbit/s..

Although it really sounded great..

In theory higher bitrate equals better sound but it also has a lot to do with encoding. You could for instance encode an older title with a constant bitrate of 15-20 mbit/s in DTS HD MA and it still wouldn't sound as good as the movie we are talking about..

[Stephan.klose]

Since there are people that would prefer DTS HD Master to become the industry standard just because their old receivers can only play the core which is of course higher with DTS you could say that there are plenty of BD Players out there that can convert a Dolby TrueHD Sound into DTS so that you at least get the 1,5mbit/s..

I don't know if that's a valid point though because if DTS were the standard you wouldn't need players that can convert True HD to regular DTS in the first place.. But also there are plenty of people who need their HD Sound converted in PCM and there are a hell of a lot more players out there that can do that with True HD and only a handful that can do it with DTS HD.

[BStecke]

Originally Posted by Blu-Dog

Let's be careful with terminology here. Your statement should read, "To get truly lossless audio, you need to change the volume for Dolby encodes."

So what you're saying is, listening to an audio track at a lower volume makes it not lossless? What if I turn it up higher? Does that make it super lossless?

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

It's funny though. I just watched "Watchmen" last night and checked the bitrates. The DTS HD Track usually hovers around 4mbit/s. Which is not very much.
For instance the recent releases of the Star Trek Movies all had Bitrates (in True HD though) around 15 mbit/s.

Although the sound was very, very good..

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

If higher bitrate means better quality then why is this topnotch release of "Watchmen" encoded with such a low bitrate: I watched the bitrate constantly and it never got over 5 mbit/s..

Although it really sounded great..

In theory higher bitrate equals better sound but it also has a lot to do with encoding. You could for instance encode an older title with a constant bitrate of 15-20 mbit/s in DTS HD MA and it still wouldn't sound as good as the movie we are talking about..

Oh man. Dude, Watchmen is compressed losslessly. The bitrate is nothing more than the amount of compression used for that very one second of the soundtrack. But in the end, the resulting audio is exactly the same as its original LPCM master.

If you are talking about legacy DTS 5.1 (or now known as DTS-Core 5.1), a lossy compression, then yes, theoratically 1.5Mbps will sound better than 768kbps.

Bitrates have absolutely nothing to do to dictate the quality of the audio with Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio.

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

Since there are people that would prefer DTS HD Master to become the industry standard just because their old receivers can only play the core which is of course higher with DTS you could say that there are plenty of BD Players out there that can convert a Dolby TrueHD Sound into DTS so that you at least get the 1,5mbit/s..

For this to actually happen, it would require a player that includes a DTS-Encoder inside, which will jack the price of the player up unneccessarily.
The PS3 at one point did this, but only for converting SACD DSD to DTS 1.5Mbps to be streamed out via Toslink/SPDIF. I'm not sure if this is still around (for the older models of course)

Besides, Dolby has already mandated that for every Dolby TrueHD track that is stored on a BD, a companion Dolby Digital track (now commonly encoded at 640kbps) have to be stored in it too.

(Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, does Dolby have this same mandate with Dolby Digital Plus too?)

[Dyana B]

I think that all studios should release their bluray titiles with lossless audio. In my humble opinion, if I wanted to listen to a lossy track, I'd stick with my regular dvd's. Some bluray titles are expensive and some not so much, however, we can all agree that we want quality for what we've paid for...

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Rik1138

And this is why I keep stating, over and over and over, that you have to ADJUST YOUR SOUND SYSTEM SEPARATELY FOR DOLBY AND DTS. This is done to compensate for this 4db difference, effectively eliminating the dialnorm affect. Without making these adjustments then, of course, one is going to sound different than the other.

If your system only has one volume that you can adjust, then you will never be equally happy with both formats. Unfortunately, this is probably the case with most consumer level A/V equipment. At the very least, using a calibration disc of some kind, find out what the difference in volume is to make them sound similar. You need the exact same audio encoded in both formats to adjust your system properly. The other problem might be if you are letting your Blu-Ray player decode the streams into PCM and outputting that. Then your receiver has no idea if it's a DTS or THD stream in the first place. In that case, you will have to adjust the volume for each type of stream.

DTS-HD MA and THD _can_ sound exactly the same if you can set up your equipment properly...

But, I do agree that Dolby is only hurting themselves... While it is possible to make them sound the same, it's obvious from this thread that many people haven't (or can't) make the adjustments necessary. Thus, the one format that 'just works' is, naturally, the preferred one (that being DTS).

With DTS being a mandatory format now in Blu-Ray players, maybe it is time to just stop using the -4db/dialnorm setting on Dolby/THD... It's not being done in DTS obviously, and people have a natural tendency to like that sound better... And they already have to deal with the different volume levels from film to film. Time for some tests maybe...

Rik, I have a question about this whole DialNorm issue.

Let me be honest here, I was initially very confused over DialNorm at first and it isn't until now that I started reading in-depth of this whole issue. My primary source of knowledge of this topic are from here and here

These were written during the legacy Dolby Digital times but I believe it shouldn't matter in this case.

Taking this paragraph without considering DRC. From what I've understood so far, DialNorm is nothing more than a mere metadata before encoding, to instruct the AC3 decoder to attenuate (to reduce) the overall volume by 4dB. This metadata would otherwise not affect the quality of the compressed audio, be it lossy or lossless, right?

Secondly, if I am to really get what many people are complaining, the real reason why Dolby Digital (or Dolby TrueHD) seems to 'lack punch' in their subwoofers, etc. is because of this (can I say stupid?) metadata called DRC? (Edit: Also, this is disregarding the actual nature of the sound mix)

And lastly, what exactly is all this fuss with the Watchmen DTS-HD MA soundtrack and DialNorm -4dB when all it takes is a little adjustment (upwards) to match the original reference level?

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Dyana B

I think that all studios should release their bluray titiles with lossless audio. In my humble opinion, if I wanted to listen to a lossy track, I'd stick with my regular dvd's. Some bluray titles are expensive and some not so much, however, we can all agree that we want quality for what we've paid for...

Yes, we'd all love that to happen.
However, Sony had decided right from the very start to only mandate Dolby Digital, DTS and LPCM.

And sadly, a lot of damage has been done by Warner with too many of their titles released in Dolby Digital.

[Hunter]

Originally Posted by Stephan.klose

It's funny though. I just watched "Watchmen" last night and checked the bitrates. The DTS HD Track usually hovers around 4mbit/s. Which is not very much.
For instance the recent releases of the Star Trek Movies all had Bitrates (in True HD though) around 15 mbit/s.

Although the sound was very, very good..

Not a valid comparison, the Star Trek Movies are 7.1 that's why the bit rate is higher.

+1 to BozQ, it's lossless so it really doesn't matter what the bit rate is in the end, actually less of a bit rate is better since it's saving space and "lossless".

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by BozQ

From what I've understood so far, DialNorm is nothing more than a mere metadata before encoding, to instruct the AC3 decoder to attenuate (to reduce) the overall volume by 4dB. This metadata would otherwise not affect the quality of the compressed audio, be it lossy or lossless, right?

Close. Dialnorm is a value identifying the loudness of average dialog expressed as a negative number from -1 to -31 dBs below full scale. Full scale is 105dB. So, a dialnorm value of -27 means average dialog is at 78dB. A value of -31 means average dialog is at 74dB. Dolby decoders are set to output average dialog at -31. So, if the DN value is -27, the decoder will attenuate loudness by 4dB. But, if DN is set at -31, the decoder won't attenuate at all. Presumably, DTS decoders do the same if dialnorm values other than -31 are entered during encoding.

Secondly, if I am to really get what many people are complaining, the [b]real[/bl] reason why Dolby Digital (or Dolby TrueHD) seems to 'lack punch' in their subwoofers, etc. is because of this (can I say stupid?) metadata called DRC?

Nope. Dynamic Range Control is an option that must be turned on in the decoding device. It reduces dynamic range by lowering the volume of the loudest passages and increasing the volume of the quietest ones. People use it for night viewing and other situations where they want to make dialog easier to hear. DRC is hardly stupid. It is quite useful for some people in some situations. Use it as needed.

And lastly, what exactly is all this fuss with the Watchmen DTS-HD MA soundtrack and DialNorm -4dB when all it takes is a little adjustment (upwards) to match the original reference level?

Good question. It's the same question asked about TrueHD tracks with dialnorm offsets.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Hunter

Not a valid comparison, the Star Trek Movies are 7.1 that's why the bit rate is higher.

+1 to BozQ, it's lossless so it really doesn't matter what the bit rate is in the end, actually less of a bit rate is better since it's saving space and "lossless".

I have no idea where he got the 15Mbps for the audio.
Assuming the Star Trek films he's referring to are Dolby TrueHD 7.1, 24-bit, 48kHz.

Then LPCM 7.1, 24-bit, 48kHz is only 9216kbps or roughly 9.2Mbps. So how exactly did he get 15Mbps?

Also, assuming that was a genuine typo mistake on his part, and he meant 1.5Mbps, it still doesn't prove anything whether the audio quality is better or worse than DTS-HD. Dolby TrueHD is a full quality track on its own, unlike DTS-HD which uses a Core+Extension form of compression. So that would explain the differences in file sizes.

But it still doesn't mean DTS MA is better than Dolby TrueHD.
*breathes in*
*breathes out*
Not directing at you Hunter.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Nope. Dynamic Range Control is an option that must be turned on in the decoding device. It reduces dynamic range by lowering the volume of the loudest passages and increasing the volume of the quietest ones. People use it for night viewing and other situations where they want to make dialog easier to hear. DRC is hardly stupid. It is quite useful for some people in some situations. Use it as needed.

Yes, I understand the purpose for DRC.
Let me try and rephrase what I meant. I'm sure you've seen many complaints from people that Dolby soundtracks are 'not aggressive enough' and similar lines like that.
Am I correct to say many of these conclusions could be based on the fact that receivers have defaulted this option to 'on', therefore compressing the dynamic range, and affecting the overall opinion of Dolby's compression methods?

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Dolby TrueHD is a full quality track on its own, unlike DTS-HD which uses a Core+Extension form of compression. So that would explain the differences in file sizes.

Dolby also uses a core + extension approach with TrueHD. But, the core is lossless stereo rather than the lossy 5.1 that DTS uses. TrueHD does not contain a "full quality" lossless 5.1 track of its own.

The original 5.1 track is downmixed to stereo, which is placed in the TrueHD package as the core. Extension A includes the data needed to convert the two channel mix back into the original 5.1. Extension B is used for 7.1 to add the data for the rear channels.

The TrueHD package may also have a separate stereo mix that is not produced by downmixing. And, on Blu, it includes a separate lossy DD 5.1 track for backwards compatibility.

[BIslander]

Originally Posted by BozQ

Yes, I understand the purpose for DRC.
Let me try and rephrase what I meant. I'm sure you've seen many complaints from people that Dolby soundtracks are 'not aggressive enough' and similar lines like that.
Am I correct to say many of these conclusions could be based on the fact that receivers have defaulted this option to 'on', therefore compressing the dynamic range, and affecting the overall opinion of Dolby's compression methods?

Yes, I suppose that's possible, although I'm not aware that many receivers or players have DRC on by default.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Dolby also uses a core + extension approach with TrueHD. But, the core is lossless stereo rather than the lossy 5.1 that DTS uses. TrueHD does not contain a "full quality" lossless 5.1 track of its own.

The original 5.1 track is downmixed to stereo, which is placed in the TrueHD package as the core. Extension A includes the data needed to convert the two channel mix back into the original 5.1. Extension B is used for 7.1 to add the data for the rear channels.

The TrueHD package may also have a separate stereo mix that is not produced by downmixing. And, on Blu, it includes a separate lossy DD 5.1 track for backwards compatibility.

Thank you BIslander, for taking time to explain this.
I've always thought this Ext. A and Ext. B only applied to Dolby Digital Plus until I read the white paper again.
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/z...whitepaper.pdf

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

But my point is, people wont see it that way. I know they need a firmware upgrade, it's pretty obvious. But if you look through the thread, there's a few complaints about it being in DTS.

Considering the early foulup on DTS 7.1 titles (Hellboy II, Shoot 'Em Up, etc.) I expected the problem would be a bad encode - some newfangled flag that isn't correctly implemented in firmware.

But this is a 5.1 movie - pretty much shake'n'bake by now. I can't figure out how folks would have sync issues, that's just odd.

The first step is upgrading firmware, especially with this seeming to be limited to Samsung and LG players. I'm not an LG fan, but the Samsung's are all right, if they're updated.

Didn't folks have headaches getting timely updates a few months back? I'm thinking most of them probably blew it off, and now they're a bit behind. But I can't figure out why they're having problems, it's all pro forma stuff on Watchmen. I would think.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BStecke

So what you're saying is, listening to an audio track at a lower volume makes it not lossless? What if I turn it up higher? Does that make it super lossless?

Nope, what I'm saying is that if I order a large pizza, and I get a medium pizza that tastes just as good, I don't want to hear that stretching the mozzarella makes it as big as my original order.

Simple logic test:

Play the PCM track.

Then play the decoded Dolby track, without fiddling with anything, on the same gear.

If ANYTHING sounds different - including the volume - the decoded track is, by definition, not "lossless". Something just ain't there.

Terminology is not reality. It's terminology.

Don't be fooled. Unless you want to be.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by BIslander

Yes, I suppose that's possible, although I'm not aware that many receivers or players have DRC on by default.

I don't know about receivers - my Elites have it set to OFF by default - but both of my Sony players had it set to ON by default, and it had to be disabled.

What was odd is that the setting is not On or Off; it's Dolby Lingo, Standard or Wide (meaning range), with Wide being Off.

Clear as mud.

Most people have it set to On for their players, not even knowing it's in there pitching. No telling what the encode is doing, there's no warning signal.