Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HDMA Audio Levels

[MrRoy]

I hope this is the right area to post this. If not, please forgive me...

I kind of read a thread talking about this, but I wanted to start my own. I have a Sony BDP-S350 connected to an Onkyo SR605. I have noticed that when listening to TrueHD I have to turn the receiver up more than uncompressed PCM or DTS-HDMA. Has anyone else experienced this as well? Any other input here is appreciated. Thanks!

[Entertainment72]

same here.

[Blu-ray Fanatic]

Even though I don't have a receiver/surround sound, I still know the difference between TrueHD and PCM/HDMA based on your experience. I'm still wondering why its called TrueHD when its not that great.

[Bean79]

I have noticed this as well. I even compared the two on the opening scenes of Top Gun and DTS-MA had a more defined sound that didn't require a volume up adjustment.

[blurayisking]

Try Resident Evil - Extinction for the Dolby TrueHD and see if you still feel the same way about the sound level.

[blurayisking]

Or, try Nightmare Before Christmas.

There's nothing the matter with the sound level !

[Sonny]

ya, truHD sux...but not all the time :-)

[XSilentCobraX]

Batman Begins was quit low too, but when turned up, its quite amazing :P

Id say Warners TrueHD tracks are lower, noticed this with batman Begins, V for Vendetta, Perfect Storm, the PCM track warner used before, were better ..

[ganthc]

I believe that Dolby TrueHD has some sort of Dialogue Normalization that makes you need to turn up the sound to bring it to the same levels as PCM or dts-hdma. I will say that THD tracks seem to be less exciting, but I can't say that across the board, because there are some tracks that are incredible in TrueHD. I think it depends on the mixing involved and the sound design. I think a lot of Sony movies are still very impressive in TrueHD. But if given the choice, I am now a huge fan of DTS-HDMA. I think that it is more effecient than PCM, but it still delivers huge output when needed. I've seen dts-hdma tracks spike to 6.9mbps.

But really, I am fine with either of the three as long as Dolby Digital lossy isn't used (ahem...Warner).

[aramis109]

I wouldn't say they're dialnormed or less dynamic. I would say that of all the "quiet" tracks in my BD collection, it seems they're all TrueHD which could give the perception of them being less dynamic.

I watched Spiderwick Chronicles last night with my family- I've never had to turn up the receiver that loud for a BD before. However, once I did it was fine, and the effects were even more pronounced thanks to the extra oomph.

[Maul]

I agree with everyone else! Some movies TrueHD are awesome(sony), some you will have to turn the volume up a little, I encountered this with Transformers, at my regular listening volumes, the sound was not where I was expecting it to be! I forgot that it was TrueHD and turned it up a little, and it was amazing! I have no problem with this but PCM,DTSHDMA > TrueHD (IMHO)

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Maul

I agree with everyone else! Some movies TrueHD are awesome(sony), some you will have to turn the volume up a little, I encountered this with Transformers, at my regular listening volumes, the sound was not where I was expecting it to be! I forgot that it was TrueHD and turned it up a little, and it was amazing! I have no problem with this but PCM,DTSHDMA > TrueHD (IMHO)

PCM = DTS-HD MA = TrueHD. It's just a matter of the encoding process and equalizing the volume.

[BTBuck1]

they really all should try and get on the same playing field as far as volume.

You can see as much as a 15 db difference between codecs at times.

However, it's usually the implementation of the codec that makes the difference. Spiderman 3's trueHD track rocks the house!

[Anti-SD]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

they really all should try and get on the same playing field as far as volume.

You can see as much as a 15 db difference between codecs at times.

However, it's usually the implementation of the codec that makes the difference. Spiderman 3's trueHD track rocks the house!

Did you prefer that to the linear PCM track? Personally I thought the PCM was a bit louder and more refined. But that was just my opinion.

Btw how far did peoples Batman Begins TruHD track spike up to? Mine seemed to linger at just 1.7mpbs, even at action scenes. thats like a core DTS soundtrack. Surely at TrueHD it should be around 3.5-4??

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by Anti-SD

Did you prefer that to the linear PCM track? Personally I thought the PCM was a bit louder and more refined. But that was just my opinion.

Btw how far did peoples Batman Begins TruHD track spike up to? Mine seemed to linger at just 1.7mpbs, even at action scenes. thats like a core DTS soundtrack. Surely at TrueHD it should be around 3.5-4??

WB takes the 24-Bit master, and makes it 16-Bit. They also use the DialNorm function (which shouldn't effect the bitrate). But the 16-Bit thing is what dropped the bitrate. But you have to remember, with a 1.5mbps DTS track, that 1.5mbps is going to ALL the speakers. With Dolby TrueHD, the 1.7mbps is going to the speakers that are active and require the higher bitrate. So while it might only be 1.7mbps, if there's 2 speakers active at that time, it's 1.7 divided by 2. For DTS, it'd be 1.5 divided by 5 (or would it be 6 with the sub? I think it's only 5...). So naturally, the Dolby TrueHD track has a higher bitrate. However, they should be using the original 24-Bit master and not DialNorming...

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by Anti-SD

Did you prefer that to the linear PCM track? Personally I thought the PCM was a bit louder and more refined. But that was just my opinion.

i used to feel that way when i had the ps3 decoding the audio.

HOWEVER,

Sony bdps350 bitstreamed to my yammy 663 the 24bit trueHD track is leaps & bounds better than the 16 bit PCM track.

This is what really got me thinking, how much better these lossless compression codecs sound decoded by a receiver rather than "in-player".

[walmat]

I'm no audio expert but I've always found DTS to sound better than DD in the past and now I find DTS HD to sound better than Dolby Tru Hd. And when I check the bit rate from the ps3 there always seems to be more info for the old DTS and the newer DTS HD compared to old and new DD.
To me it's a disappointment when I look at the specs for a blu I want to buy (Ironman for example) and find that it's Dolby truHD and not DTS HD.
Just my opinion.

[Anti-SD]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

i used to feel that way when i had the ps3 decoding the audio.

HOWEVER,

Sony bdps350 bitstreamed to my yammy 663 the 24bit trueHD track is leaps & bounds better than the 16 bit PCM track.

This is what really got me thinking, how much better these lossless compression codecs sound decoded by a receiver rather than "in-player".

Rite, and youve got me thinking that I may have to buy another blu-ray player lol. I mean the PS3 is great for what it is, and the HD sound it decodes is 100X better than the lossy codecs, but if they can sound better than they do then I want it now!!

[saprano]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

WB takes the 24-Bit master, and makes it 16-Bit. They also use the DialNorm function (which shouldn't effect the bitrate). But the 16-Bit thing is what dropped the bitrate. But you have to remember, with a 1.5mbps DTS track, that 1.5mbps is going to ALL the speakers. With Dolby TrueHD, the 1.7mbps is going to the speakers that are active and require the higher bitrate. So while it might only be 1.7mbps, if there's 2 speakers active at that time, it's 1.7 divided by 2. For DTS, it'd be 1.5 divided by 5 (or would it be 6 with the sub? I think it's only 5...). So naturally, the Dolby TrueHD track has a higher bitrate. However, they should be using the original 24-Bit master and not DialNorming...

Is all this true?

i knew about the dial norm but i didn't know dolby splits up the the mbps.

[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