I see the Hannah Montana Blu-Ray is DTS-HD MA 7.1.

Is Disney leaving PCM and Dolby TrueHD for DTS-HD now?

The Japanese release of Sleeping Beauty is marked as English/Japanese DTS-HD 7.1, while the American is LPCM 7.1. Thought it was kinda odd too.

Is Disney leaving PCM and Dolby TrueHD for DTS-HD now?Hard to tell from a single release. If 'Sleeping Beauty' ends up using DTS-HD MA for its 7.1 track, then it's likely they've switched over (at least for 7.1 releases).

Sanjay

Hard to tell from a single release. If 'Sleeping Beauty' ends up using DTS-HD MA for its 7.1 track, then it's likely they've switched over (at least for 7.1 releases).


I read you. I can't really trust their pre-announcements. I thought for the life of me Hannah Montana was going to be the first mainstream 7.1 Dolby TrueHD disc.

I thought for the life of me Hannah Montana was going to be the first mainstream 7.1 Dolby TrueHD disc.The specs at Blu-ray.com still said TrueHD 7.1 until around noon today (they've since been corrected). Whichever they use (PCM, TrueHD, DTS-HD MA), I'm glad Disney is doing 7.1 lossless.

I wish Paramount had offered a 7.1 re-mix for the BD release of 'Transformers'. Now there is a soundtrack that's primed for distinct rear-vs-side action in the surround field. By comparison, I don't know if 'Sleeping Beauty' is the kind of film that really takes advantage of 4 discrete surround channels.

Sanjay

I see the Hannah Montana Blu-Ray is DTS-HD MA 7.1.

Is Disney leaving PCM and Dolby TrueHD for DTS-HD now?

As long as they don't pull a Warner by going lossy they can use any lossless codec at any time on any title using a dart board as the deciding method.

As long as they don't pull a Warner by going lossy they can use any lossless codec at any time on any title using a dart board as the deciding method.

Lossy? That's legacy. At least Universal and Paramount used 1.5 Mbps DD+.

Speaking of Disney and home theatre:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6bPLAYLuwE

Sanjay

If so, it means we have a new format war! TrueHD vs DTS-MA

On the TrueHD side:
Sony
Warner
Paramount
Weinstein

On the DTS-MA side:
Fox
Universal
Lionsgate
New Line Cinema
Disney

If so, it means we have a new format war! TrueHD vs DTS-MA

Not really a format war.

Since both codecs are here to stay, even if one of them will be dropped by every studio, its still has a legacy so it will have hardware supported.

New Line are with Warner now so does that mean no more DTS-MA....Pity.

I like to see the underdog win and DTS is the underdog here.

New Line is kinda in limbo right now. Blow is TrueHD but Sex and the City is DTS 7.1.

New Line is kinda in limbo right now. Blow is TrueHD but Sex and the City is DTS 7.1.

The back cover was revealed for Sex and the City and according to that, the Blu-ray will have a 5.1 TrueHD track with no option for DTS-HD MA.

I'd like to see a converter box offered for those who use analog outputs. I'll never use a "receiver" to decode my audio. I don't even own a "receiver".

So that converter would need a HDMI input, and output 7.1 channels analog and pass thru HDMI to an output that goes into the TV.

I could always buy another player that decodes dts HD MA internally, but I have 4 hi-def players already. Well, maybe if Samsung offers one later I'll think about it, but I'm not getting a Sony.

The ting I don't like about DTS HD MA is that there are still many players bing made that do not internally decode DTS HD MA. What I do like is at least you can get the lossy DTS core.

The think I like about TrueHD is that it appears that there are more players out there that can internally decode it. The thing I don't like about TrueHD is if you player does not decode it, you may only get DD 640kbps.

Thing I like about LPCM is that my player can handle it and output over the analog outs. It can't do DTS HD MA or TrueHD, so I say we abandon all of these "higher end" codecs and use LPCM only. That way I won't be tempted to buy a new player. :rolleyes:

Thing I like about LPCM is that my player can handle it and output over the analog outs. It can't do DTS HD MA or TrueHD, so I say we abandon all of these "higher end" codecs and use LPCM only. That way I won't be tempted to buy a new player. :rolleyes:

As long as BD25 is a reality for many releases, its always better to use a more effective codec.

And for us that sometimes need nightmode, TrueHD is a better solution.

DTS MA 7.1 is a one time thing for Disney (or won't be used much) -Expect PCM for a while.

I like to see the underdog win and DTS is the underdog here.

Underdog? Like HD DVD was the underdog?

Unless Dolby has done something wrong here, and 40 years of innovation says otherwise, I don't understand your statement.

I always preferred...no, I still prefer DTS to Dolby on SD. One of the key things I look for on movies is a DTS soundtrack. I just don't think the difference is as noticeable on HD. I guess I just wish Disney would come out with more movies, period.

For me, I couldn't care less which lossless format is used. I do however see the benefits to each one for other users who possibly don't have all the equipment.

What I do know is there should not be a dts-ma vs truehd jig in the future. Anyone who does that crap should be banned from the internet. hehe

DTS MA 7.1 is a one time thing for Disney (or won't be used much) -Expect PCM for a while.

I thought Disney had switched over to DolbyTrueHD.

In the end though I really don't care if it is TrueHD or dts-HDMA. Lossless is lossless.

It seems to me there is already an organized fanboy campaign to suggest that the lossless variant of dts is better than Dolby's.
Lossless is lossless. Both codecs have dialog norm, DRC and other similar features.

dts has been trying to pass off that their encoder is more PURE than Dolby's. Sorry I ain't buying it. I have heard great dts tracks and great Dolby tracks and underwhelming tracks on both as well. In the end it is all about the quality of the mix.

Very true: Lossless is lossless, and differences are generally accountable to different mixes or indifferent mastering.

There are several other things to consider, though: Dolby TrueHD probably takes up the least amount of space; therefore, studios might prefer it. Also, DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 has been troubling a few receivers, causing a pop, either a major, speaker-damaging pop, usually once or twice during certain films, or minor, annoying pops after pausing and restarting. Firmware upgrades to the receivers have solved most of the popping problems, apparently, but not everyone reads these forums and knows anything about how to solve the problems.

So, in the long run, with uncompressed PCM taking up more disc space and DTS MA 7.1 being a little dicey, I suppose a lot of studios are going the "safer" route with TrueHD. But what do I know. I'm only guessing.

John

DTS is incredibly overhyped. Just because it is louder does not make it better.

Same ole DTS over the years. :)

Very true: Lossless is lossless, and differences are generally accountable to different mixes or indifferent mastering.

There are several other things to consider, though: Dolby TrueHD probably takes up the least amount of space; therefore, studios might prefer it. Also, DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 has been troubling a few receivers, causing a pop, either a major, speaker-damaging pop, usually once or twice during certain films, or minor, annoying pops after pausing and restarting. Firmware upgrades to the receivers have solved most of the popping problems, apparently, but not everyone reads these forums and knows anything about how to solve the problems.

So, in the long run, with uncompressed PCM taking up more disc space and DTS MA 7.1 being a little dicey, I suppose a lot of studios are going the "safer" route with TrueHD. But what do I know. I'm only guessing.

John

Dolby True HD has higher peaks so it actually consumes more bandwidth than DTS MA.

I for one favor DTS MA. It being louder means I don't have to push my system as much and even level matching, I always tend to choose the PCM/DTS MA over True HD.

Peaks are only part of the equation. I typically see the dts tracks having a higher average bitrate.

So it's six of one or a half a dozen of another.

I thought I knew the answer to this, but perhaps someone here really knows.

Does dts-HDMA use the lossy encode as part lossless decode? Or in other words, does the lossless decode require the lossy dts track to work or are the two flavors completely discrete meaning the lossless and lossy work independently?

Does dts-HDMA use the lossy encode as part lossless decode? Or in other words, does the lossless decode require the lossy dts track to work or are the two flavors completely discrete meaning the lossless and lossy work independently?The lossy core is required for lossles playback. When compressing the original master to make the lossy core, all the info that normally gets discarded is instead stored in an extension packet. Combine the core & extension packets and you end up with an exact copy of the original master.

Sanjay

Very true: Lossless is lossless, and differences are generally accountable to different mixes or indifferent mastering.
That is very much true. In digital domain that is.

In theory though, if you subscribe to such things as washing machines changing the sound of your audio, then there can be some differences in playback.

Got your interest? I thought so :).

All audio ultimately has to be converted back to analog. This process is subject to distortions introduced in the digital domain such as jitter. Many things contribute to jitter, one of which is the rest of the digital circuits in your player/processor.

In the process of decoding Dolby THD and DTS, very different code is running in the processor. That by definition changes the signature of the noise/jitter induced in the stream.

So in theory, one can sound different than the other. And such difference will be content dependent. And will vary from audio frame to audio frame!

Esoteric audio is well, esoteric! :).

Very true: Lossless is lossless, and differences are generally accountable to different mixes or indifferent mastering.

IF Dolby® TrueHD is set to -31 THEN it should be the equal of DTS HD MA. If not set to -31 then DRC COULD come into play and may cause an audible difference.

In theory though, if you subscribe to such things as washing machines changing the sound of your audio, then there can be some differences in playback.


Damn, I had a shirt washing on spin cycle when I listened to the Rolling Stones Blu-ray. It's time to revisit it. :D

Also, DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1 has been troubling a few receivers, causing a pop, either a major, speaker-damaging pop, usually once or twice during certain films, or minor, annoying pops after pausing and restarting. Firmware upgrades to the receivers have solved most of the popping problems, apparently, but not everyone reads these forums and knows anything about how to solve the problems.


I agree. After hearing/seeing stories about people losing their speakers or having the **** scared out of them because of a faulty DSP implementation of the decoder, I lost all trust in the technology. Future hardware may be immune to the problem, but it's unacceptable for it to have happened at all.

That is very much true. In digital domain that is.

In theory though, if you subscribe to such things as washing machines changing the sound of your audio, then there can be some differences in playback.

Got your interest? I thought so :).

...in theory, one can sound different than the other. And such difference will be content dependent. And will vary from audio frame to audio frame!

Esoteric audio is well, esoteric! :).

I have an audiophile friend who claims he's able to hear a one-decibel deviation in sound anywhere in the frequency spectrum from 20-20k Hz and pinpoint it to within one-third of an octave. Another audiophile friend can hear differences in the sound of his stereo system when it's plugged into different wall sockets in the same room. But barring the audiophile fringe, most of us with normal hearing probably aren't going to be interested in such things.

Yeah, like many of you, I, too, often hear a higher output from DTS (lossy or lossless) in the mid-bass range. I have yet another friend who swears that the folks at DTS purposely do this to get people's attention and impress them with a more dramatic sound than the competition. I dunno. Each camp has its own followers, so I'm not trying to take sides.

John

I thought I read somewhere that along with DTS-MA having lower peaks, it also has flexible headroom? Whereas something like TRUEHD you have to always allow for the peak bitrate, even when it's not being used and on DTS-MA you don't?

If that's the case in so far as lower peaks, that allows for more bandwidth which would be valuable when adding multiple audio tracks or Bonus View materials. Lastly seeing how the legacy track is part of the bitstream it would not only make it more efficent space-wise as you don't need a separate bitstream.

Sounds like a win-win for both peak efficency and space savings.

I thought I read somewhere that along with DTS-MA having lower peaks, it also has flexible headroom? Whereas something like TRUEHD you have to always allow for the peak bitrate, even when it's not being used and on DTS-MA you don't?

If that's the case in so far as lower peaks, that allows for more bandwidth which would be valuable when adding multiple audio tracks or Bonus View materials. Lastly seeing how the legacy track is part of the bitstream it would not only make it more efficent space-wise as you don't need a separate bitstream.

Sounds like a win-win for both peak efficency and space savings.

DTS-HD MA will always be 768kbps minimum (due to the core track), where TrueHD can go to zero if need be.

The legacy track also requires high DSP power (why so few standalones and PC decoders). It has to reconstruct the track where TrueHD is a relatively simple compression and much easier to decode (even some of the earliest BD players were firmware updated to decode it).

DTS-HD MA has in spec dynamic range options (night mode) but is never used. Whereas it is always used in TrueHD decoding (apt dwellers and us late-night guys appreciate this).

Finally, peaks & valleys are a non-issue. If you look at the specifications thread you'll find the DTS-HD tracks are almost always a megabit more and a couple GB more than the TrueHD version (a lot of import titles have both).

I thought I read somewhere that along with DTS-MA having lower peaks, it also has flexible headroom? Whereas something like TRUEHD you have to always allow for the peak bitrate, even when it's not being used and on DTS-MA you don't?...

That was bandied about back in the days of HD-DVD. It was argued that one would have to give up video bandwidth to support TrueHD and that due to the lower bitrate of HD DVD it would have an adverse affect on PQ but Blu Ray, with it's higher bitrate, would not suffer this. Now that the wars are over, moot point.

Peter, correct me if i'm wrong but I swear I read somewhere that DTS-MA does NOT always have to have a "core". I do think that's the case. I get lost in your reasoning when you state that it's "less efficient" when in fact for BD's requirements you would have to have BOTH a separate legacy along with a TRUEHD track to meet spec. Is that not correct? If that's the case how can one DTS-MA track containing both formats be less efficent than two separate required tracks?

As for bandwidth, when is that a moot point? If you are looking into multiple lossless language tracks (particularily if you are talking more than 5 channels or higher than 48khz) and possible score soundtracks then add in features like PIP that take up bandwidth, it can easily bite into the 40mbs peak for video.

As for dynamic compression or the lack of players than can decode or bitstream the format, I can't debate that.

I swear I read somewhere that DTS-MA does NOT always have to have a "core". I do think that's the case.

By nature of the way DTS-HD MA works, it has to have a core. That is by design and a selling point. I edited my post to reflect that there are a couple DTS-HD MA tracks that are 768kbps...rare, but they exist.

Our own FilmMixer said it best here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=14457889&postcount=1132

TrueHD doesn't really have a DD core, but a companion track that is either hidden (Sony titles) or not (Warner titles). It can be 640kbps, 448, or even 384kbps.

On page 5 of the white paper it says the core is not required but I doubt we'll ever see one.

On page 5 of the white paper it says the core is not required but I doubt we'll ever see one.

Thank you. I knew I wasn't going crazy? It would be interesting to see how efficent DTSMA would be without the core? I'm sure competitive with TRUEHD, however like you said, we'll never see one and honestly, why would they when you can send one stream containing both!

While I don't think there's really any difference aurally between codecs, I do think that DTSMA is quite ingenious. Now when it comes to marketing, that's a whole other story!

Thank you. I knew I wasn't going crazy? It would be interesting to see how efficent DTSMA would be without the core? I'm sure competitive with TRUEHD, however like you said, we'll never see one and honestly, why would they when you can send one stream containing both!

While I don't think there's really any difference aurally between codecs, I do think that DTSMA is quite ingenious. Now when it comes to marketing, that's a whole other story!

Sales department seems to be doing pretty well though. :)

They have 2 major studios, 1 minor studio (Lionsgate), various foreign studios, and a couple other major studios dabbling (Disney, Paramount). It looks as if they will lose New Line, but through no fault of their own IMO.

if you subscribe to such things as washing machines changing the sound of your audio, then there can be some differences in playback.

Or Dryers?
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v299/190/12/687770226/n687770226_3950993_3518.jpg

Sales department seems to be doing pretty well though. :)

They have 2 major studios, 1 minor studio (Lionsgate), various foreign studios, and a couple other major studios dabbling (Disney, Paramount). It looks as if they will lose New Line, but through no fault of their own IMO.

Hehe... that's true!!

Made even more interesting as HDD is now stating that PRINCE CASPIAN is being released in DTSMA 7.1.

By the way, what's the hold-up on TRUEHD 7.1 domestic releases?

Or Dryers?
http://photos-b.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v299/190/12/687770226/n687770226_3950993_3518.jpg

Cute find...

Question is, was the dryer plugged in? If not, then it doesn't count :D.

Cute find...

Question is, was the dryer plugged in? If not, then it doesn't count :D.

Actually, yes! There were three on stage, running constantly throughout the entire concert.

Even better, somewhere during the second set, they would grab a t-shirt from the dryer and throw it into the audience. Print on the shirt would say "I got this T-shirt from Dryer #2".

:)

Actually, yes! There were three on stage, running constantly throughout the entire concert.

Even better, somewhere during the second set, they would grab a t-shirt from the dryer and throw it into the audience. Print on the shirt would say "I got this T-shirt from Dryer #2".

:)

Oh man, that is so funny! Wonder if their sound lost some of its soundstage because of it ;) :).

Oh man, that is so funny! Wonder if their sound lost some of its soundstage because of it ;) :).

IIRC, it was done as a joke because, when their album "Vapor Trails" came out, the fans complained about severe clipping (due to either poor mastering or poor recording), and at some point, it was jokingly suggested that if you listen to the album in your laundry room, the sound quality would be much better.

:) Leave it to the crazy Canadians to lug around dryers on tour...

If so, it means we have a new format war! TrueHD vs DTS-MA

On the TrueHD side:
Sony
Warner
Paramount
Weinstein

On the DTS-MA side:
Fox
Universal
Lionsgate
New Line Cinema
Disney
Actually Paramount has done releases with DTS as well, so they're more neutral-ish IMO. As someone else noted, New Line seems to be moving towards TrueHD since Warner took over the show (though wasn't Elf announced with a DTS HD MA track?)..

Finally, peaks & valleys are a non-issue. If you look at the specifications thread you'll find the DTS-HD tracks are almost always a megabit more and a couple GB more than the TrueHD version (a lot of import titles have both).
According to paidgeek (Sony Pictures insider) DTS HD Master Audio is more efficient and offers smaller file sizes (read: better compression) than Dolby TrueHD. I'm also not a fan of dialog normalization which is used by most folks who use TrueHD.

According to paidgeek (Sony Pictures insider) DTS HD Master Audio is more efficient and offers smaller file sizes (read: better compression) than Dolby TrueHD. I'm also not a fan of dialog normalization which is used by most folks who use TrueHD.

Unfortunately Paidgeek's not been around for a while :(

Besides. I believe his words at the time was slightly, and if you peruse the spec threads here on AVS you'll see in practice the DTS-HD MA tracks have been always larger in both filesize & bandwidth, not to mention the DSP horsepower needed to decode them.

DialNorm has absolutely no effect on the sound itself. Volume too low? Turn it up.

Actually Paramount has done releases with DTS as well, so they're more neutral-ish IMO.

Nope, since going to back to Blu-ray they announced TrueHD only, and they have stuck to that (may see DTS on Saving Private Ryan since it's Spielberg, but Crystal Skull is TrueHD so probably not).

I think all Spielberg directed movies on Blu-ray will 100% feature DTS-HD MA.

DialNorm has absolutely no effect on the sound itself. Volume too low? Turn it up.

We can turn up the volume but when the action scene kicks in the sound becomes so loud that you will have to always keep a tab on the volume button/knob. Me and my friends have experienced this type of bizarreness especially with the titles from Warner.

We can turn up the volume but when the action scene kicks in the sound becomes so loud that you will have to always keep a tab on the volume button/knob. Me and my friends have experienced this type of bizarreness especially with the titles from Warner.

Usaully that should have more to do with the orginal mix, and not the codec.

But you can always use nightmode and you will elimante loud suprises without effecting the lower sound quality.

But you can always use nightmode and you will elimante loud suprises without effecting the lower sound quality.

But when I watch BDs at my friend's residence we usually turn off night mode as his HT room is quite soundproofed.

My question is why the loud surprises are mostly confined to the True HD mixes from WB ? How come other Studios get it right ? The center channel goes low in volume during the non-action scenes forcing us the turn on the volume knob by few db and decrease it during the action scenes.:(

My question is why the loud surprises are mostly confined to the True HD mixes from WB ? How come other Studios get it right ?

First of all, I have not experienced that Warner tracks in general has loud surprices, then other studios.

But this seems like a question filmmixer can answer better.

But when I watch BDs at my friend's residence we usually turn off night mode as his HT room is quite soundproofed.

My question is why the loud surprises are mostly confined to the True HD mixes from WB ? How come other Studios get it right ? The center channel goes low in volume during the non-action scenes forcing us the turn on the volume knob by few db and decrease it during the action scenes.:(

That them there is what I like to call Extreme Dynamic Range! :p

Very fun at reference level...:cool:

On a serious note:
-It is possible that the TrueHD tracks you have listened to were meant to make you turn up the volume for the dialogue scenes to do exactly that...surprise you. ;) (They just happen to be Warner titles.)
-Turning up "I AM LEGEND" to 82 reference on my Onkyo 805 put the chatter and subtle ambience of scenes at a very lifelike volume, and it also scared me at the beginning of action scenes. During the final scene when the explosion blew a Hallmark card off my hearth, I had already turned it down by 1.5db!:eek: (Wimped out:p)
-But that is the point...IMO...most people, when given the choice, will not listen to reference levels on their system with such dynamic lossless sound (and most people shouldn't) because they don't like to be startled, but I feel that, if I don't, I'm missing out on the intended effect the film is supposed to generate.

OR!

It may just be a problem with your friend's setup. Though, I have only listened to two DTS-HD MA tracks ("Jumper" and "Live Free or Die Hard") and one PCM track ("No Country for Old Men"). I wasn't as impressed with "Jumper" as I was with the other three movies I have mentioned, but "...Die Hard" and "No Country..." seemed to pack the same powerful punches and surprises as "I AM LEGEND."

Summary: I don't have an answer and may have insulted you in my rambling...by accident! :p

Someone call Mr. FilmMixer to clean up.

Thanks AEguy for the clarification. I don't get that many chances to experience lossless or uncompressed audio. So far I have sampled only a handful of titles namely Sweeney Todd, Beowulf, V for Vendetta, Batman Begins, Air Force One, Face/Off etc at my friend's place and the ones with True HD track sounded weak at dialog reproduction during non-action sequences.

My question is why the loud surprises are mostly confined to the True HD mixes from WB ?Extremely dynamic soundtracks are not confined to TrueHD tracks on Warner Bros titles, so your question starts from a false premise. You're also attributing a feature of the mix (wide dynamic range) to what is essentially a zipping algorithm (TrueHD), when one has nothing to do with the other.

Sanjay

I think all Spielberg directed movies on Blu-ray will 100% feature DTS-HD MA.
Unless Indiana Jones is different(it is a Lucas film property), it won't have DTS HD.
Nope, since going to back to Blu-ray they announced TrueHD only
You mean like Top Gun and Shine A Light? ;) Both have DTS MA on the disc.

Unless Indiana Jones is different(it is a Lucas film property), it won't have DTS HD.

And there are many SS films on DVD that don't have DTS either. Munich being a notable recent title.

Indiana Jones is controlled by LucasFilm anyway. Paramount didn't want to pay for THX certification either and the BD's TrueHD track will be THX certified.

You mean like Top Gun and Shine A Light? ;) Both have DTS MA on the disc.

As a redundant track. Those titles still have TrueHD as well. Top Gun uses a different mix for the DTS-HD MA version too.

Paramount used DTS on DVD as a double dip incentive (Jack Ryan SEs, Trek SEs, etc)...some DTS people are rabid, I remember them buying crap like Virus in the early days of DVD just because it had it. Now people are buying Hanna Montana because of it.

some DTS people are rabid
The Anti DTS people are just as rabid.

some DTS people are rabid
The Anti DTS people are just as rabid.


Cujo, once bitten by bats, was pretty rabid, too.

The Anti DTS people are just as rabid.

Well, I have yet to see people say "I bought insert Gigli quality film here because it didn't have DTS"... :p

Besides. I believe his words at the time was slightly, and if you peruse the spec threads here on AVS you'll see in practice the DTS-HD MA tracks have been always larger in both filesize & bandwidth, not to mention the DSP horsepower needed to decode them.
Larger depending on what you're comparing them to: with Top Gun for example, the TrueHD track is a simple 5.1 affair, but the DTS HD MA track is 6.1 IIRC. And there's also the matter of sample size (16-bit vs. 24-bit). I believe paidgeeks opinion still reflects things as they are except for a few isolated cases.

Anyways... lossless is lossless, I just have a minor preference mostly due to backwards compatibility issues (DTS is friendlier to those with only SPDIF equipment).

(DTS is friendlier to those with only SPDIF equipment).


In what way?

I've already seen a few people post that their receiver was DD only.
Plus, dynamic range control is important, I had a friend over recently and we watched Cloverfield at 11PM at night with decent surround and not waking the others. Can't do that with DTS.

640kbps DD is just as good as 1536 DTS (despite those comparing or remembering the DVD days)

SPDIF aside, most TVs will also only accept either PCM or DD thru HDMI.

In what way?

I've already seen a few people post that their receiver was DD only.
Plus, dynamic range control is important, I had a friend over recently and we watched Cloverfield at 11PM at night with decent surround and not waking the others. Can't do that with DTS.

640kbps DD is just as good as 1536 DTS (despite those comparing or remembering the DVD days)I think 640kbps DD may be a problem with some older receivers that won't accept more than 448.

I think 640kbps DD may be a problem with some older receivers that won't accept more than 448.

DD by design & spec requires all decoders go to 640kbps.

Some DVD players refused to decode or stream it (there were a couple DVDs that had it).

DTS required a firmware update or replacement on some early outboard decoders for the 754kbps rate.

640kbps DD is just as good as 1536 DTS (despite those comparing or remembering the DVD days)



I disagree but will not get into an argument with you over this.

DTS 1536Kbps sounds WAY better than DD 640Kbps. If you've ever reencoded a lossless source to both DTS and DD for HTPC use, you'd know this.

DD by design & spec requires all decoders go to 640kbps.

Some DVD players refused to decode or stream it (there were a couple DVDs that had it).

DTS required a firmware update or replacement on some early outboard decoders for the 754kbps rate.OK. I just thought I remembered some people having problems a few years ago with D-Theater titles that had DD 640kbps.

I just thought I remembered some people having problems a few years ago with D-Theater titles that had DD 640kbps.Were there any D-Theater titles with DD at 640Kbps? I know the format is capable of it, but I thought all the DD tracks were 576Kbps.

Sanjay

DTS 1536Kbps sounds WAY better than DD 640Kbps. If you've ever reencoded a lossless source to both DTS and DD for HTPC use, you'd know this.

HTPC use?

What tools are you using?

Not quite the same thing that the studios use.

Frankly, I'm ok with either DTS-HDMA or DTHD (as long as DTHD also includes AC3). I have two HTs, only one has a receiver that takes LPCM7.1 via HDMI and the other one doesn't take any via HDMI, so it needs to take AC3 or DTS via optical.

I'm not quite sure why there is any fight over either lossless formats unless there is some encoder implementation bug that somehow messes up the dial-norm or unexpected behavior with the crossover points between the 7 and the .1 (subwoofer) if the 7 speakers don't quite go down to 20Hz.

----

I assume of course that no one is lowering the audio levels before encoding lossless, though I can understand that some resampling can occur if the master had higher quality that is supportable

Looks like Disney doesn't know whats it doing. Nightmare before Xmas has 7.1 TrueHD (finally a 7.1 TrueHD mix). I'm going to guess Hannah Montanna was to DTS to get DTS fanboys to buy it.:D

I'm not quite sure why there is any fight over either lossless formats unless there is some encoder implementation bug that somehow messes up the dial-norm or unexpected behavior with the crossover points between the 7 and the .1 (subwoofer) if the 7 speakers don't quite go down to 20Hz.


The fight among users is usually from those with older standalones and/or receivers/processors/pre-amplifiers that can't do the newer high-res codecs.

Looks like Disney doesn't know whats it doing. Nightmare before Xmas has 7.1 TrueHD (finally a 7.1 TrueHD mix). I'm going to guess Hannah Montanna was to DTS to get DTS fanboys to buy it.:D

No kidding..."Hannah Montana" was supposed to be the first mainstream US 7.1 Dolby TrueHD title.

Now those with 7.1/2 setups without DTS-HD MA but with Dolby TrueHD can rejoice like they did with 3:10 to Yuma.

Also note that Nightmare, a film 15 years old, uses 24-bit resolution while Hanna Montana, a new film, is 16-bit.

BTW: would people rather have remixed 7.1 DTS-MA at 16-bit or the original 5.1 in 24-bit PCM/TrueHD?

Were there any D-Theater titles with DD at 640Kbps? I know the format is capable of it, but I thought all the DD tracks were 576Kbps.

Sanjay

I was advised by JVC engineers that DD could not use 640 in the D-VHS format. A buffer limitation, similar to that on DVD. 576 kbps was the max.

A buffer limitation, similar to that on DVD.Thanx. I remember reading some time back that 640 was part of the format spec. So it was a hardware limitation (not enough buffer on the decoder chip) that kept that data rate from being used?

Sanjay

HTPC use?

What tools are you using?

Not quite the same thing that the studios use.

If a Disney title, for example, came with PCM and DD 640Kbps audio tracks, I would reencode the PCM to 1536 Mbps DTS when I store the movie on my PC. I use Surcode and the official DTS encoder from DTS. Both of them sound WAY better than 640 Kbps DD.

I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between a DTS 1.5 Mbps track the lossless source, but it's night and day between lossless and DD640, for me anyway.

( BTW I'm 21 and my doctor says I have perfect hearing ;) )

If a Disney title, for example, came with PCM and DD 640Kbps audio tracks, I would reencode the PCM to 1536 Mbps DTS when I store the movie on my PC. I use Surcode and the official DTS encoder from DTS. Both of them sound WAY better than 640 Kbps DD.

I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference between a DTS 1.5 Mbps track the lossless source, but it's night and day between lossless and DD640, for me anyway.

( BTW I'm 21 and my doctor says I have perfect hearing ;) )

Transoded source somehow sounds the same yet you have to recode it for some reason...

Well, try encoding the SAME track to 640 DD yourself and then see if there's a difference.

Transoded source somehow sounds the same yet you have to recode it for some reason...

Well, try encoding the SAME track to 640 DD yourself and then see if there's a difference.

I compared lossless vs dts vs dd with my main PC, but my HTPC doesn't have HDMI/lossless options right now, I wanted to make the best of SPDIF, so I use 1.5 Mbps DTS for audio storage.

If a studio quality 640 DD encode is provided, I shouldn't have to bother encoding the PCM to DD myself to compare. With DTS discs I just extract the 1.5 mbps core, saves some work.

Until recent years most digital audio devices were 16 bit. The Tascam DA-88, Sony DASH 3324 & 3348, Mitsubishi 32, Sonic & Avid DAW’s were all 16 bit devices and they were in widespread use in the film industry.

DTS-HD MA will always be 768kbps minimum (due to the core track), where TrueHD can go to zero if need be.

Well, in terms of blu-ray, not really. There must be a standard Dolby Digital track as a companion to any TrueHD track, since decoding TrueHD was not a requirement of the blu-ray spec. So, even when TrueHD is at 0, there's (by necessity) another track taking up at least 448k at that moment.

Can we make this "official" now?

Wall-E

DTS-HD-MA.

So it seems that at least PIXAR is going the DTS route.

Can we make this "official" now?

Wall-E

DTS-HD-MA.

So it seems that at least PIXAR is going the DTS route.

It only seems so for remixes.

Wall*E was 5.1 theatrically, now 6.1 for home.

The fight among users is usually from those with older standalones and/or receivers/processors/pre-amplifiers that can't do the newer high-res codecs.



No kidding..."Hannah Montana" was supposed to be the first mainstream US 7.1 Dolby TrueHD title.

Now those with 7.1/2 setups without DTS-HD MA but with Dolby TrueHD can rejoice like they did with 3:10 to Yuma.

I'd bet the master tapes of the show were 16 bit

According to IMDB Wall*E used DD EX/DTS-ES so its not a remix. Will the kids of today become the DTS fanboys of tomorrow?:D

Might be a bit pre-mature. Pretty Woman was announced with uncompressed audio (PCM).

BTW: would people rather have remixed 7.1 DTS-MA at 16-bit or the original 5.1 in 24-bit PCM/TrueHD?

I like that question.

The other one I like, is: Would you rather have a 1.5MB DTS or DD+ encode of a 24 bit source, or a DTS-HD MA/TrueHD encode of a 16 bit source.

What will the spec-mongers do? :D

I compared lossless vs dts vs dd with my main PC, but my HTPC doesn't have HDMI/lossless options right now, I wanted to make the best of SPDIF, so I use 1.5 Mbps DTS for audio storage.

If a studio quality 640 DD encode is provided, I shouldn't have to bother encoding the PCM to DD myself to compare. With DTS discs I just extract the 1.5 mbps core, saves some work.

Just curious, how does an offline DTS-encoder (Surcode) compare to on-the-fly (realtime) transcoding, like the Toshiba HD-A2 and Xbox360 HD-DVD player?

On a few DVD titles with dual DD448 + DTS768 English tracks, the DTS track tends to preserve the environmental sound-effects (ambience) better than the Dolby track. Of course, since I don't have the original LPCM for reference, I'm imagining the DTS-track's ambience is more faithful to the original (and not some manufactured by-product of the encoding-process, like some cheasy DSP-reverb effect.) The DD track had a tendency to collapse the effect to a single speaker (instead of emanating from between 2 speakers.) Most of the time, the difference was inaudible -- only audible in small segments of the movies (Gladiator, Master and Commander, Chicken Run.)

As a 'lowest common denominator' audio-format, Dolby Digital still has wider support than DTS. Some of the ultra-cheap HTIB setups include Dolby-only surround-processors. In a perfect world, the studios could simply include both DD and DTS audiotracks on every released movie, but it seems some studios coose to include 1 format only (with plenty of leftover space), just to aggravate some portion of the userbase :)

It only seems so for remixes.

Wall*E was 5.1 theatrically, now 6.1 for home.

Wall-E was 6.1 Dolby Digital EX and DTS-ES theatrically.

Wall-E was 6.1 Dolby Digital EX and DTS-ES theatrically.

Well, matrixed but not discrete.

Why didn't they use the logos?

On a few DVD titles with dual DD448 + DTS768 English tracks, the DTS track tends to preserve the environmental sound-effects (ambience) better than the Dolby track. Of course, since I don't have the original LPCM for reference, I'm imagining the DTS-track's ambience is more faithful to the original (and not some manufactured by-product of the encoding-process, like some cheasy DSP-reverb effect.) The DD track had a tendency to collapse the effect to a single speaker (instead of emanating from between 2 speakers.) Most of the time, the difference was inaudible -- only audible in small segments of the movies (Gladiator, Master and Commander, Chicken Run.)

Level matching usually causes these differences to vanish. A better surround processor/pre-amp can minimize the differences even further.

DD @448kbps also does not gradually filter off the higher frequencies like DTS @768kbps.

In a perfect world, the studios could simply include both DD and DTS audiotracks on every released movie, but it seems some studios coose to include 1 format only (with plenty of leftover space), just to aggravate some portion of the userbase :)

It's not just a matter of space, but bandwidth. On DVD, you lose nearly 10% of your video headroom when you include a DTS track. If you want to include things like extras(but not make it a 2 disc set), foreign dubs, commentaries, etc this can be a huge issue.

Well, matrixed but not discrete.

Why didn't they use the logos?

Do you consider D-Cinema theatrical? ;)

When you mix EX/ES, the stems are discrete 6.1...

Most mixers I know, when they printmaster, make both 5.1 with Lt Rt surrounds for the film masters (Dolby DMU encoding, DTS CD-ROMS and the SDDS encode, plus future use for DVD and broadcast) and a 6.1 for D-Cinema and, if the studio doesn't remaster for the home, BR...

And there is no requirement to use the Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES specific logo at the end of the film (it's actually my understanding that the Dolby Digital Surround EX logo is meant mostly for cinemas and advertising)... most title houses don't check, and if the post supervisor doesn't specifically request it, the generic logo works just fine. :)

Wall-E was 6.1 Dolby Digital EX and DTS-ES theatrically.Dolby Digital is limited to 5.1 discrete channels AND Surround EX is a matrix encoded/decode technology. So, a soundtrack can either be 5.1 EX (Dolby Digital) or discrete 6.1 (D-Cinema), but not both at the same time (DD 6.1 EX).

Sanjay

Dolby Digital is limited to 5.1 discrete channels AND Surround EX is a matrix encoded/decode technology. So, a soundtrack can either be 5.1 EX (Dolby Digital) or discrete 6.1 (D-Cinema), but not both at the same time (DD 6.1 EX).

Sanjay

Sanjay.. he asserted that the title was not 6.1, which it indeed is, discrete or not.

Of course it's not at the same time... we're talking about two different delivery mediums. :)

Delivery, encoding and storage of the payload has never been the determinant in how you communicate the number of cinema playback channels..

Dolby Digital Surround EX is a 6.1 format, regardless of how they get there...

If we denoted storage of the audio on delivery on film as the channel count, DTS would be 5.0, since there is no discrete sub channel encoded. ;)

Dolby Digital Surround EX is a 6.1 format, regardless of how they get there...By convention the X.x nomenclature has always referred to the number of discrete channels, never matrix encoded channels. Which is why Dolby uses the term 5.1 EX, and why DTS separates DTS-ES from DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 as two different formats (since the former is not 6.1).

If you want to use the X.x nomenclature to include matrix channels (Dolby Surround encoded TV shows would then be "4.0"), then that's you're prerogative. Understand that the usage is unusual for us on the consumer side. Maybe you guys on the pro side use the terminology differently.

Sanjay

By convention the X.x nomenclature has always referred to the number of discrete channels, never matrix encoded channels. Which is why Dolby uses the term 5.1 EX, and why DTS separates DTS-ES from DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 as two different formats (since the former is not 6.1).

If you want to use the X.x nomenclature to include matrix channels (Dolby Surround encoded TV shows would then be "4.0"), then that's you're prerogative. Understand that the usage is unusual for us on the consumer side. Maybe you guys on the pro side use the terminology differently.

Sanjay

What he said. :p

A good example would be Dolby Digital 2.0 tracks flagged as either stereo or Dolby Surround (LtRt), there is a separate discrete DD 4.0 (L-C-R-S) mode for films like Enemy Mine and A League of Their Own (which Sony screwed up the encoding BTW).

By convention the X.x nomenclature has always referred to the number of discrete channels, never matrix encoded channels. Which is why Dolby uses the term 5.1 EX, and why DTS separates DTS-ES from DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 as two different formats (since the former is not 6.1).

If you want to use the X.x nomenclature to include matrix channels (Dolby Surround encoded TV shows would then be "4.0"), then that's you're prerogative. Understand that the usage is unusual for us on the consumer side. Maybe you guys on the pro side use the terminology differently.

Sanjay


Not to belabor the point, but the discourse was about the theatrical presentation of the film.. when we speak about EX we talk about it in as 6.1, because that is how the sound track is mixed, i.e. in 6.1 discrete... the only time it become a 5.1 with matrixed surrounds, in Dolby's case, is when it goes through the DMU and the surrounds get encoded that way..

As I said earlier, we don't call DTS 5.0 because that's what is on the CD-ROM... it's 5.1 in the theater, and the way we get it there isn't ever how it's talked about. :)

But you are right.. I don't mean to confuse others with this side discussion...

when we speak about EX we talk about it in as 6.1, because that is how the sound track is mixed, i.e. in 6.1 discreteUnderstood. On the consumer side, we use that number to refer to discrete delivery channels. I guess you guys would refer to Dolby Stereo as 4.0 (since that is how the soundtrack is mixed) while we would refer to Dolby Surround as 2.0 (since that is how it was delivered). the only time it become a 5.1 with matrixed surrounds, in Dolby's caseSo DTS and SDDS have theatrical formats with a discrete surround-back channel?

Sanjay

Understood. On the consumer side, we use that number to refer to discrete delivery channels. I guess you guys would refer to Dolby Stereo as 4.0 (since that is how the soundtrack is mixed) while we would refer to Dolby Surround as 2.0 (since that is how it was delivered). So DTS and SDDS have theatrical formats with a discrete surround-back channel?

Sanjay

Dolby Stereo/Dolby Surround are referred to as LCRS or LtRt for shorthand.. nobody uses "4.0." Most television stage used to mix Dolby Surround shows with LtRt encoded stereo stems, not discrete LCRS.... now everyone is pretty much 5.1.

DTS and SDDS both use the matrixed master.. no discrete tech.

DTS has a flagging system that will throw their decoders in line, SDDS has no such technology.

Just to be clear, and to add confusion, when making the Dolby Digital EX theatrical printmaster, the Dolby Digital Mastering Unit spits out the Lt Rt surround tracks and we lay them down on a digital master, in addition to a discrete 6.1 track.... we do this so 1.) DTS and SDDS tracks can be made and 2.) if the studio doesn't remaster for HV, they have an EX track that works with them (all they need do is set the flag in the encoder). This wasn't/isn't always the case, and discrete 6.1's don't exist for some older titles.

Dolby TrueHD is compatible with EX, and includes support for the flags. Of course they can use the discrete 6.1 if available.

nobody uses "4.0."How inconsistent. DD EX is considered 6.1 because that's the number of channels you mixed but Dolby Surround is not 4.0 even though that's the number of channels you mixed. Thankfully on the consumer side, those numbers are used in a more consistent manner, referring always to discrete delivery channels. Can you imagine adding to an already confusing situation by referring to DD EX as 6.1 even though DD can't go beyond 5.1 discrete channels. DTS and SDDS both use the matrixed master.. no discrete tech.OK. The only reason I asked is because you said "the only time it become a 5.1 with matrixed surrounds, in Dolby's case, is when it goes through the DMU and the surrounds get encoded that way". But, from what you're saying, it becomes "5.1 with matrixed surrounds" for DTS and SDDS too.

Sanjay

How inconsistent. DD EX is considered 6.1 because that's the number of channels you mixed but Dolby Surround is not 4.0 even though that's the number of channels you mixed. Thankfully on the consumer side, those numbers are used in a more consistent manner, referring always to discrete delivery channels. Can you imagine adding to an already confusing situation by referring to DD EX as 6.1 even though DD can't go beyond 5.1 discrete channels.

Sanjay

I understand your points, but you must also remember that Dolby is only a delivery technology, and as such, it's irrelevant in discussions when speaking about mixing and channel counts..

In regards to Wall-E, the film was mixed in 6.1, and was released in DD EX, DTS-ES, SDDS, and D-Cinema...

I know it's not discrete for the film formats, and most people understand that there are 6 playback channels in EX, and not 5..

Peter asserted the film wasn't mixed in 6.1, and I corrected that comment.. I don't think most would confuse the point due to how Dolby derives the 6.1 in the theater... I should have been more concise and clear in my response to him.

If I tell my engineers at the studio I want to mix for Dolby EX, they set up the console and recorders for 6.1, so I think it's a matter of you being technically correct about describing the format based on it's underlying limitations and technology, and we are more concerned with the production of a track, not how it's going to get to a theater ... it is definitely a different shorthand from our side, and I completely understand the confusion..

In regards to to 4.0.. when we make the 2 track/LtRt/2.0 Dolby Surround encoded track, it is derived from the 5.1 stems, so 4.0 really never came into the vocabulary of the post-production process.. before 1992/93 (the years digital sound for cinema took off), it was LCRS since the x.x nomenclature didn't exist.

In the home theater world, the delivery medium is the format, whereas we come from the other side of the equation (we mix in the best, most flexible format possible and then get it to the theater whatever way it will get there.)

Before Dolby Digital, DTS and SDDS were around, Dolby Stereo was still referred to as either LCRS or LtRt for the masters.. never 2.0 (this x.x nomenclature really cam to the fore when Dolby started releasing 5.1 encoding and decoding products for the purpose of mixing 5.1 for television..

And when we mixed for 70mm or CDS, it was refereed to as mixing in "6 track" regardless of whether it was Baby Boom or Stereo Surround...

We "keep in in the family" pre mastering, without regard to delivery, which only makes sense since we deliver many different elements.. if we described a film mixed in 6.1 discrete as 5.1 DD EX (and remember that there are 7 different theatrical delivery formats Dolby Stereo SR, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Surround EX, DTS, DTS ES, SDDS and "Native" (PCM for D-Cinema)) it would cause a lot of confusion... we have to deliver all the stems, masters, M and E's, etc, which would all be 6.1..

Just some insight from my side of the fence.. :)

Sorry to everyone else for the thread hijak... hopefully my side track didn't confuse the situation any more. :)

Soeaking of confusing:

The DTS-HD MA track of Wall*E bitstreams to my Onkyo 905 as 5.1 from the Panasonic BD-30.

The PS3 pre-decodes it as 6.1 DTS-HD MA.

Another screwed up flagging issue? I ask because X-MEN: The Last Stand plays back properly as DTS-HD MA 6.1 from the Panasonic.

PS: My combo is the one of those that the flagging is screwed up on Die Hard 2. I wish Fox would get around to correcting the disc.

The next hannah montana films were announced with DTS MA. I suspect DTS MA will be their format of choice going forward.

I think all Spielberg directed movies on Blu-ray will 100% feature DTS-HD MA.


Except for Indiana Jones as they are produced by LucasFilm and Lucas is a Dolby guy. (I believe Crystal skull was DTHD only)

Also Paramount did have one DTS-HD MA since going back to Blu-ray (Top Gun.) Top Gun also had the TrueHD track from the HD-DVD version.