Its night and day better than reg. DD 5.1, not is even comparable! If you havent upgraded yet, do so now

I hope its not long before true HD audio becomes the industry standard.

Like Don King said "Bluray is only good viewing if you can listen to it in true HD audio as well, otherwise you might as well listen to your tv speakers"
__________________

TrueHD is utter garbage. DTS HD-MA is where it's at.

/thread

You are missing an option for using the analogs on a decoding player...

agreed thats what i do

TrueHD is utter garbage. DTS HD-MA is where it's at.

/thread

TrueHD=DTS-MA=*LPCM after decoding all starting with the same Master and DN set to 0 on TrueHD/DTS-MA.

So the OP has it wrong (or incomplete) since TrueHD, DTS-MA and LPCM are all must haves for a BD owner.

*you can argue that LPCM (or player decoded TrueHD/DTS-MA) can introduce clock judder.

TrueHD is utter garbage. DTS HD-MA is where it's at.

/thread

You are speaking of the mixing I assume since TrueHD and DTS-MA codecs are mathematically identical. DTS seems to put more effort into their mixes.

If you want to see an example of stunning TrueHD, check out the Japanese Ghost in the Shell 2.0 Blu-ray Disc. Amazing.

I have an HD audio receiver but I "PCM from the PS3".

Also, I don't see how listening to Dolby Digital (presumably at 448 kb/s) is comparable to using built-in TV speakers...

I just upgraded a couple of days ago. The trusty old, pre-HDMI Pioneer 816 bit the dust as the center channel crackled into oblivion.

I ran down to the big box electronics store and picked an HDMI receiver and I've got my PS3 hooked up with an HDMI cable. I'm lovin' it.

Option 1 is true if option 2 is true, so what's the point of option 2?

Option 1 is true if option 2 is true, so what's the point of option 2?

I think that option 1 is supposed to refer to receivers that decode Dolby TrueHD. (With the player set to bitstream) Option 2 is for people who use a PS3 to decode the Dolby TrueHD audio and send it as PCM to the receiver.

You are speaking of the mixing I assume since TrueHD and DTS-MA codecs are mathematically identical. DTS seems to put more effort into their mixes.


To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

I was wondering when you where going to step in:)

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

I love FilmMixer.

I love FilmMixer.

He certainly has a better understanding than most :)

Whatever track that is lossless and more than 16-bit will do.

Whatever track that is lossless and more than 16-bit will do.
Not sure why you are specifying more than 16 bit audio. 16 bit audio is as good as it gets for human hearing, it doesn't matter whether you are an audiophile or not.

Yeah, I agree but if a 24-bit soundtrack exists there's no real reason why it shouldn't be on the disc.

You are missing an option for using the analogs on a decoding player...
...and that's the reason I chose the option "I use my tv speakers and thats good enough". :D

I think that option 1 is supposed to refer to receivers that decode Dolby TrueHD. (With the player set to bitstream) Option 2 is for people who use a PS3 to decode the Dolby TrueHD audio and send it as PCM to the receiver.

Not trying to argue here... but perhaps it should be reworded to say
1) Listen to HD Audio via bitstream from player to HDMI receiver
2) Listen to HD Audio decoded in player (PS3, etc) to HDMI receiver

I still think it's a moot point as both require an HDMI audio receiver.... the real difference is in the player's capabilities.

Not trying to argue here... but perhaps it should be reworded to say
1) Listen to HD Audio via bitstream from player to HDMI receiver
2) Listen to HD Audio decoded in player (PS3, etc) to HDMI receiver

I still think it's a moot point as both require an HDMI audio receiver.... the real difference is in the player's capabilities.

There is no difference that would require two different choices in a poll like this. The HD audio that comes out of the speakers is the same whether it's decoded in the AVR or in the player, unless your AVR applies different post-processing or they are not the same volume (nether of which are a function of the audio encoding).

Singling out the PS3 is especially irrelevant. Many players internally decode all codecs, and this is the best choice for any player that can do it. Bitstreaming is inferior, because it disables Blu-ray's secondary audio feature.

Bitstreaming is inferior, because it disables Blu-ray's secondary audio feature.

From an overall interactivity standpoint (if the enthusiast is even interested in it, and many here have said they are not)...yes. From a technological and audible result, saying bitstreaming is inferior is rather disingenuous.

Bitstreaming is inferior, because it disables Blu-ray's secondary audio feature.When properly implemented, yes. However, with most current players, enabling secondary audio means the player switches to a lossy track for the main feature. So, as a practical matter, bitstream is currently superior much of the time for people who want lossless audio. Of course, if secondary audio is not engaged, there's no difference between bitstream and player decoding.

What is "HD Audio"? What is "reg 5.1"? I haven't heard of these codecs.

Should have been a multiple option poll. How do those with two or three (or more) systems even vote?

TrueHD=DTS-MA=*LPCM after decoding all starting with the same Master and DN set to 0 on TrueHD/DTS-MA.

So the OP has it wrong (or incomplete) since TrueHD, DTS-MA and LPCM are all must haves for a BD owner.

*you can argue that LPCM (or player decoded TrueHD/DTS-MA) can introduce clock judder.
Exactly.
I believe the OP was referring to lossless in general.

When properly implemented, yes. However, with most current players, enabling secondary audio means the player switches to a lossy track for the main feature. So, as a practical matter, bitstream is currently superior much of the time for people who want lossless audio. Of course, if secondary audio is not engaged, there's no difference between bitstream and player decoding.

Just because many players are poorly designed doesn't void the principle. And I'd emphasize that when you say "most current players" you mean "most current models," because most current players are still PS3s, which implement secondary audio correctly and transparently to the user, the way it should be.

Even then, the contention that bitstreaming is superior because most people don't understand how their players work is, as someone upthread accused me of being, somewhat disingenuous. ;)

I have an older Kenwood 5.1 AV Receiver and I placed my vote in the '5.1 is good enough' column. Now, My brother some time ago got a new Onkyo receiver, and went entry level because it was the second one he'd gotten in a year. He gave away his Sony receiver that was a true piece of garbage. Now, the new Onkyo has HDMI video switching but no audio switching. Unfortunately, he got it as a new model and didn't have reviews to go by and didn't know this until just recently. Short of buying a third one, he's pretty much stuck with it. He just has to run Optical to the receiver and switch the video. It just defeats the purpose of having 3 hdmi in's on the receiver. Now who would make such a thing? I know I will NOT buy anything from Onkyo for that reason alone. There's one brand off the shopping list for me. If they do something that stupid, what else is there on the other models.

I had looked at receivers and new speakers, but just can't justify doing it when you just don't know what land mines the manufacturers will leave for you. I don't see anything rated with 5 stars anywhere. No matter what you get, someone is highly disappointed with some missing feature. Then too, the cost of receivers has gone up considerably in the last few months. Wow, I can't believe how some have risen.

I will admit this. With a good movie audio track, his 7.1 setup sounds quite noticeably better than my 5.1, and he didn't replace the speakers. So for those thinking that a new 7.1 receiver won't sound different or better, that's not the case. I'd also say that on the 7.1 setup, getting a center channel level that's acceptable is much easier and more natural sounding. On a 5.1 system, center channel can be hard to get where you're happy with it, and changes from movie to movie too much. jmho.

Not sure why you are specifying more than 16 bit audio. 16 bit audio is as good as it gets for human hearing, it doesn't matter whether you are an audiophile or not.

What does bit depth have to do with human auditory perception limits?

Too often people confuse dynamic range with loudness or level... 24 bit recordings get no louder than 16 bit ones.. most digital audio systems still have 20db of headroom per channel from their reference 0db calibration point.

Raising or lowering the bit depth doesn't change that, even with the dramatic increase in dynamic range. Remember from Audio 101 that dynamic range is the measured difference in db between the loudest and quietest sound a given system can reproduce.. it doesn't have anything to do with raising the max amplitude that a digital word can represent...

The decrease in the noise floor, and the resulting resolution increase obtained when doing so, should be audible to most serious anyone serious about audio, "audiophile or not."

Even then, the contention that bitstreaming is superior because most people don't understand how their players work is, as someone upthread accused me of being, somewhat disingenuous. ;)

It would have been, had that "someone upthread" actually claimed bitstreaming was superior. Which they clearly didn't. ;)

It's just one more test I'd like to see performed. People saying the receiver should do the decoding vs people saying the player should be doing the decoding (although this is the first time I've ever heard someone saying bitstreaming was actually inferior....usually it's the people who've spent all their money on a new receiver using entertaining hyperbole trying to justify their purchase, claiming bitstreaming is "night and day" better than player decoding). Have the same few minutes of audio from the same title, sent to the same receiver...complete with volume leveling...one sent to the receiver from a player that did the decoding, and one from a player that sent it out bitstream.

Hyperbole and placebo, two great tastes, that taste great together.

this is the first time I've ever heard someone saying bitstreaming was actually inferior....

Two sources sound exactly the same, but one is full featured and one has an important feature disabled.

Which one's inferior? :)

Two sources sound exactly the same, but one is full featured and one has an important feature disabled.

Which one's inferior? :)

No worries, I understand both positions.

For the longest time, and in many heated threads, PCM judder was exhaustively debated as though it were some massive ding against player decoding...not to mention all the "but mah purdy new-fangled HDMI receiver-thingy's TrueHD lights ain't lightin' up, dang nab it!" posts.

You've been one of the few to argue in the other direction, although many people have acknowledged that they're really theoretically and audibly the same when all is said and done. But I see your point as far as interactivity goes, and in that instance, it could be viewed as functionally inferior.

I guess I just got so accustomed to the "I don't want extras, just give me the damn movie" argument. (probably because for so long, and in many cases STILL, BD couldn't provide the interactivity that HD DVD could from day 1 ;))

Player decoding...?
Receiver decoding...?
Noodles...?
Don't noodles...?

I say.....whatever floats-your-HD-audio-boat. :D

Its night and day better than reg. DD 5.1, not is even comparable! If you havent upgraded yet, do so now

I hope its not long before true HD audio becomes the industry standard.

Like Don King said "Bluray is only good viewing if you can listen to it in true HD audio as well, otherwise you might as well listen to your tv speakers"
__________________


how the option I use a software decoder that handles TrueHD and sends it over a high-end custom modded analog audio card?

not everyone uses a standalone or PS3 or some form of digital input....

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA,theoritically they should be the same but why almost all of the titles in DTS-HD MA is always sound better?May be DTS was recorded in louder volume for surround effects?

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA,theoritically they should be the same but why almost all of the titles in DTS-HD MA is always sound better?May be DTS was recorded in louder volume for surround effects?

TrueHD and DTS-MA after decoding from the same master with no DN are not "theoretically" the same but are in fact the same.

Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA,theoritically they should be the same but why almost all of the titles in DTS-HD MA is always sound better?May be DTS was recorded in louder volume for surround effects?

Because the studios that are releasing titles only in DTS-HD MA.....

1. Tend to spend a lot of money on the sound portion of their films (Universal and Fox and now Disney.)

2. A majority of the films that those studios produce lend themselves to great audio tracks, and are big budget shows.

Let's point out some stellar TrueHD encodes.. "Cloverfield," "Matrix," or "I Am Legend," and the "Harry Potter" films to name a few..

There are no controls in the mastering products that allow you to change the level on the lossless encodes.

But even more to the point... what would be the point of a studio changing the mix that a director approved? To make DTS look better?

They don't care, and if they did such a thing, it would cost time and money, neither of which studios are generous with. ;)

Or how about the THX trailed on "Indiana Jones and the KOTCS?" Dolby Digital 640.

It's the mix and the sound teams behind the mix, not the studio or codec.

Trust me. :cool:

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

Order..Order! Case Closed.:D

Not an Audiophile and I live in a condo and will be moving to an even smaller one this summer so my cheap 5.1 set up is good enough for me.

I just don't know how much of a difference I hear in any of it. Fairly certain I couldn't pick any of the lossless tracks from the legacy tracks in a blind test. I have what I consider to be a very nice home theater, and have been involved in it for 17 years, so I feel confident that I know what to listen for. There may be some slight fidelity improvements in some of the lossless tracks, but like I said, I doubt I could pick them out in a blind test. I think a lot of people just hear what they want. My opinion only.

I just don't know how much of a difference I hear in any of it. Fairly certain I couldn't pick any of the lossless tracks from the legacy tracks in a blind test. I have what I consider to be a very nice home theater, and have been involved in it for 17 years, so I feel confident that I know what to listen for. There may be some slight fidelity improvements in some of the lossless tracks, but like I said, I doubt I could pick them out in a blind test. I think a lot of people just hear what they want. My opinion only.

Believe me, most of the people who claim "night and day" differences couldn't tell either, in a properly constructed double-blind AB test.

It's not that they don't hear a difference. It's that they are attributing the difference they hear to the wrong cause.

Two sources sound exactly the same, but one is full featured and one has an important feature disabled.

Which one's inferior? :)

'important feature' means secondary audio and the importance of it is very subjective. Besides, on most players turn on secondary audio means drop to lossy core decoding instead of lossless decoding. Which one is inferior now:)

I just don't know how much of a difference I hear in any of it. Fairly certain I couldn't pick any of the lossless tracks from the legacy tracks in a blind test. I have what I consider to be a very nice home theater, and have been involved in it for 17 years, so I feel confident that I know what to listen for. There may be some slight fidelity improvements in some of the lossless tracks, but like I said, I doubt I could pick them out in a blind test. I think a lot of people just hear what they want. My opinion only.

Just so I don't jump to an incorrect conclusion, are you saying you don't believe you'd be able to differentiate the 448 kbps DVD track from the lossless? Or that you couldn't differentiate the lossless from its master?

I'd assume the former because almost no one would have access to the original studio masters, but I just want to be sure.

I believe I'm with you and rdclark, on this one.

But be ready for an onslaught of people who'll claim there's a HUGE "night and day difference" between lossless and high bitrate lossy (like DTS or DD+ at 1.5 mbps) let alone an EVEN BIGGER and more indignant "night-and-day-you'd-have-to-be-deaf-or-stupid-or-have-lame-equipment-if-you-can't-tell-them-apart" difference between lossless and 448 kbps. :rolleyes:


No matter how many times this article gets posted:

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

...the hyperbole bandwagon will swing through. What's interesting in that article is how surprised they were that the difference between between lossless and 448 kbps wasn't as big as they thought it would be, and that"...Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference."


So, sb1, if what you meant was the comparison of the 448 kbps vs the lossles, I'd believe it. I bet, contrary to what will be very loud forthcoming protests, a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a valid listening test, either. This article said that even at 640 kbps, the trained ears couldn't tell the difference between the lossy and the uncompressed, let alone an even higher bitrate one at 1.5 mbps.

If you meant you couldn't tell the difference between lossless and the master, well, that's kind of the point of lossless. :D

Legacy AVR is more than enough to prove the difference in aural quality between 384/448Kbps Vs. 640Kbps. Example: V for Vendetta on Blu-ray. Doesn't matter whether lossless will bring quantum leap in SQ but it should be included wherever possible.

Just so I don't jump to an incorrect conclusion, are you saying you don't believe you'd be able to differentiate the 448 kbps DVD track from the lossless? Or that you couldn't differentiate the lossless from its master?

I'd assume the former because almost no one would have access to the original studio masters, but I just want to be sure.

I believe I'm with you and rdclark, on this one.

But be ready for an onslaught of people who'll claim there's a HUGE "night and day difference" between lossless and high bitrate lossy (like DTS or DD+ at 1.5 mbps) let alone an EVEN BIGGER and more indignant "night-and-day-you'd-have-to-be-deaf-or-stupid-or-have-lame-equipment-if-you-can't-tell-them-apart" difference between lossless and 448 kbps. :rolleyes:


No matter how many times this article gets posted:

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

...the hyperbole bandwagon will swing through. What's interesting in that article is how surprised they were that the difference between between lossless and 448 kbps wasn't as big as they thought it would be, and that"...Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference."


So, sb1, if what you meant was the comparison of the 448 kbps vs the lossles, I'd believe it. I bet, contrary to what will be very loud forthcoming protests, a lot of people wouldn't be able to tell them apart in a valid listening test, either. This article said that even at 640 kbps, the trained ears couldn't tell the difference between the lossy and the uncompressed, let alone an even higher bitrate one at 1.5 mbps.

If you meant you couldn't tell the difference between lossless and the master, well, that's kind of the point of lossless. :D
I underlined the part in your post that says it best. I just don't hear the difference some people do.

'important feature' means secondary audio and the importance of it is very subjective. Besides, on most players turn on secondary audio means drop to lossy core decoding instead of lossless decoding. Which one is inferior now:)

The player, obviously. :p

There is really nothing new that comes up in this thread, just the same old stuff reiterated again and again.

Both the DTS HD and Dolby HD Whitepapers, freely available on the internet, very clearly claim that their codec is bit-for-bit identical to the original studio master. So what else is there to debate?

a=b
a=c
b=c

TrueHD and DTS-MA after decoding from the same master with no DN are not "theoretically" the same but are in fact the same.
Agreed,may be I used too compromising words"should be ".:)

Because the studios that are releasing titles only in DTS-HD MA.....

1. Tend to spend a lot of money on the sound portion of their films (Universal and Fox and now Disney.)

2. A majority of the films that those studios produce lend themselves to great audio tracks, and are big budget shows.

Let's point out some stellar TrueHD encodes.. "Cloverfield," "Matrix," or "I Am Legend," and the "Harry Potter" films to name a few..

There are no controls in the mastering products that allow you to change the level on the lossless encodes.

But even more to the point... what would be the point of a studio changing the mix that a director approved? To make DTS look better?

They don't care, and if they did such a thing, it would cost time and money, neither of which studios are generous with. ;)

Or how about the THX trailed on "Indiana Jones and the KOTCS?" Dolby Digital 640.

It's the mix and the sound teams behind the mix, not the studio or codec.

Trust me. :cool:Thanks for your professional opinion.

It's the mix and the sound teams behind the mix, not the studio or codec.


/Nutshell

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

but dts-ma includes a core track that sounds great for everyone unable to decode lossless

trueHD has no such track, correct?

in light of this I believe dts-hd ma should be used exclusively

but dts-ma includes a core track that sounds great for everyone unable to decode lossless

trueHD has no such track, correct?

in light of this I believe dts-hd ma should be used exclusively

TrueHD always has a standalone, companion track alongside it...

It is sometimes hidden and not user accessible, but is always there.

So in light of that, your argument is incorrect. :)

So what's your argument now for using DTS-HD MA exclusively?

It's amazing to me that a codecs has found such a divisive niche and a fan base.... I don't think there is an "AVC or bust" or "VC-1 or die" mentality out there and I think most agree that both codecs supply outstanding lossy video compression...

I've never understood the "fanboy" mentality these audio codecs seem to inspire in some people...

People throw around the "DTS has a core so it's better argument" or "Dolby uses Dialog Normalization..." conversations, when neither one has merit.. Dolby uses a companion track, and DTS uses dialog norm just like Dolby.

Just a commentary on the subject at hand.. :cool:

What does bit depth have to do with human auditory perception limits?

Nothing, I believe he was trying to point out the point of diminishing returns, by using more then 16 bits.



Too often people confuse dynamic range with loudness or level... 24 bit recordings get no louder than 16 bit ones.. most digital audio systems still have 20db of headroom per channel from their reference 0db calibration point.

Raising or lowering the bit depth doesn't change that, even with the dramatic increase in dynamic range. Remember from Audio 101 that dynamic range is the measured difference in db between the loudest and quietest sound a given system can reproduce.. it doesn't have anything to do with raising the max amplitude that a digital word can represent...

The decrease in the noise floor, and the resulting resolution increase obtained when doing so, should be audible to most serious anyone serious about audio, "audiophile or not."

Granted, the confusion would probably come from DA conversion's specs.

It's amazing to me that a codecs has found such a divisive niche and a fan base.... I don't think there is an "AVC or bust" or "VC-1 or die" mentality out there and I think most agree that both codecs supply outstanding lossy video compression...
Oh yeah?
Eat my sig.:p

I've never understood the "fanboy" mentality these audio codecs seem to inspire in some people...

I wanted to pick a side. Mostly because I just don't like Warner BD releases.
But Paramounts offerings totally changed my mind, TrueHD works just as well.
Mission Impossible 3 would make me think Dolby Digital does too.:cool:

Even so I'll still rock the DTS hat, underneath the "Super Awesome Sound Mixing" hat. I think DTS has a fanbase because of SPR, Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds.

So who didn't think this would turn into a DTS-MA V. TrueHD thread?
Not me.;)

Sound mixing > codecs, I'm free.

TrueHD always has a standalone, companion track alongside it...

It is sometimes hidden and not user accessible, but is always there.

So in light of that, your argument is incorrect. :)

So what's your argument now for using DTS-HD MA exclusively?

It's amazing to me that a codecs has found such a divisive niche and a fan base.... I don't think there is an "AVC or bust" or "VC-1 or die" mentality out there and I think most agree that both codecs supply outstanding lossy video compression...

I've never understood the "fanboy" mentality these audio codecs seem to inspire in some people...

People throw around the "DTS has a core so it's better argument" or "Dolby uses Dialog Normalization..." conversations, when neither one has merit.. Dolby uses a companion track, and DTS uses dialog norm just like Dolby.

Just a commentary on the subject at hand.. :cool:


Yes, but that embedded DD track is usually 448-640k, correct? It's also not always there AFAIK. I think TFE and SM III only had LPCM and TrueHD, but I could have remembered wrong.

The DTS core track is 1.5mb. That's a clear advantage.

I have kind of the feeling that no one would be able to actually tell a difference between different lossless codecs. Considering that fact that no one could actually tell a difference between coat hangers and monster speaker cable, I highly doubt that anyone can tell a difference between two properly mixed LOSSLESS codecs. lol.

[/URL]]TrueHD always has a standalone, companion track alongside it...

It is sometimes hidden and not user accessible, but is always there.

So in light of that, your argument is incorrect. :)

So what's your argument now for using DTS-HD MA exclusively?

It's amazing to me that a codecs has found such a divisive niche and a fan base.... I don't think there is an "AVC or bust" or "VC-1 or die" mentality out there and I think most agree that both codecs supply outstanding lossy video compression...

I've never understood the "fanboy" mentality these audio codecs seem to inspire in some people...

People throw around the "DTS has a core so it's better argument" or "Dolby uses Dialog Normalization..." conversations, when neither one has merit.. Dolby uses a companion track, and DTS uses dialog norm just like Dolby.

Just a commentary on the subject at hand.. :cool:

Hi,i feel that i may be able to answer this question,on my system dts sounds better than d digital.true hd better than both,uncompressed pcm is better sounding than all 3,dts master audio lossless can,t decode yet but will comment when available.my system is very hi rez differences are night and day.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1136036

I've never understood the "fanboy" mentality these audio codecs seem to inspire in some people...


We have DTS/Dolby fanboys now?! :D

Legacy AVR is more than enough to prove the difference in aural quality between 384/448Kbps Vs. 640Kbps. Example: V for Vendetta on Blu-ray. Doesn't matter whether lossless will bring quantum leap in SQ but it should be included wherever possible.

Right on cue.

I guess "more than enough" has replaced "night and day difference" in the usual placebo mantra.

FWIW, I bought an Onkyo 805 in 2007 since my old receiver was approaching nine or ten years old and didn't even decode DTS...and I had bought an HD DVD and BD player...so I figured, why not get a newer one capable of handling these new codecs? While it's a wonderful and very capable receiver that I'm very happy with, it's become quite clear to me how much the marketing of the newer lossless audio codecs has become more fodder for spec-mongers than about those codecs really providing audible differences people can really hear.

In theory, and on a piece of paper, yes, they'll always be better. And if a format can handle them, then the format should, I agree. But, IMO, the "night and day difference" exaggerations that get thrown around here on a regular basis are not only unproven (because heaven knows the people making these claims would never actually take a valid double blind listening test, even if their lives depended on it), but really have gone beyond over the top.

While I'd like each and every movie to have lossless on it, too, I'll just find a way to struggle and suffer through all those abominable titles where I've been absolutely insulted by a paltry 640 kbps DD or 1.5 mbps DD+ track. :p

Yes, but that embedded DD track is usually 448-640k, correct? It's also not always there AFAIK. I think TFE and SM III only had LPCM and TrueHD, but I could have remembered wrong.

The DTS core track is 1.5mb. That's a clear advantage.

In 2009 anyone who is seriously into audio and sees legacy DTS full rate as an audio advantage over legacy DD 640Kbps will now be using the lossless codecs instead. For J6P it will make no difference.

Keep in mind that a mandatory audio track will always be included on a BD. LPCM, DD and DTS are the mandatory codecs.

Keep in mind that a mandatory audio track will always be included on a BD. LPCM, DD and DTS are the mandatory codecs.

Although it is not mandatory that the track be the same mix as the lossless track, or even that it be multichannel. It usually is both, but not always.

Meanwhile, I continue to be astonished at the ludicrousness of comparing codecs when there are no discs with the same mix encoded with both to provide an actual basis for comparison.

It's like covering two women with paint, one blue and one red, and declaring blue the superior color (when, it turns out, the blue woman is Jennifer Anniston and the red woman is Madeline Albright).

Meanwhile, I continue to be astonished at the ludicrousness of comparing codecs when there are no discs with the same mix encoded with both to provide an actual basis for comparison.

It's like covering two women with paint, one blue and one red, and declaring blue the superior color (when, it turns out, the blue woman is Jennifer Anniston and the red woman is Madeline Albright).

You're right, Madeline Albright is WAAAAAAY hotter! The difference is night and day. :eek:


I agree that people don't even realize they could be (and likely are) comparing different sources when doing these same-disc "comparisons" of tracks or codecs, as the article I posted above points out.

From that article:

If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible.

Yes, but that embedded DD track is usually 448-640k, correct? It's also not always there AFAIK. I think TFE and SM III only had LPCM and TrueHD, but I could have remembered wrong.

The DTS core track is 1.5mb. That's a clear advantage.

You are wrong on both accounts. :)

Read my post again:

TrueHD always has a standalone, companion track alongside it...

It is sometimes hidden and not user accessible, but is always there.

For full disclosure, I've consulted for both DTS and Dolby (and deal with both companies on a regular basis), so I have a pretty good idea of what both companies have to offer and how their codecs work.

DTS core isn't always at 1509.... there are titles at 768 (including one I've mixed)...

1509 isn't mandatory.

If you really believe that DTS at 1509 is always superior over DD 640, I can't change your mind.. but unless you've done a test listening to both in a level controlled setting, it's an opinion, and nothing else. :cool:

Even so I'll still rock the DTS hat, underneath the "Super Awesome Sound Mixing" hat. I think DTS has a fanbase because of SPR, Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds.


I understand that... I just wish the people responsible for the work (i.e. the sound editors, designers and us mixers) got the proper credit, and not the codecs. ;)

You are wrong on both accounts. :)

Read my post again:



For full disclosure, I've consulted for both DTS and Dolby (and deal with both companies on a regular basis), so I have a pretty good idea of what both companies have to offer and how their codecs work.

DTS core isn't always at 1509.... there are titles at 768 (including one I've mixed)...

1509 isn't mandatory.

If you really believe that DTS at 1509 is always superior over DD 640, I can't change your mind.. but unless you've done a test listening to both in a level controlled setting, it's an opinion, and nothing else. :cool:

Just as a matter of interest do you have any information on whether the dts mix on The Haunting and Saving Private Ryan on DVD is the same mix as the Dolby edition on DVD ?

If it's a different mix do you know which mix will be released for the Blu Ray edition ?

Or are all mixes identical ( as in only ever one mix ) and are just sourced from the uncompressed mix and then encoded using the dts or dolby codecs ?

Just as a matter of interest do you have any information on whether the dts mix on The Haunting and Saving Private Ryan on DVD is the same mix as the Dolby edition on DVD ?I remember Widescreen Review magazine running an article about Mi Casa remixing 'The Haunting' specifically to show off the capabilities of the (then) new DTS ES Discrete 6.1 format. The DTS DVD came out 10 months after the DD version.

I think HD sound is good but not as critical as the video (especially for comedies and dramas). HD Video on the other hand is a must. It is much more impressive than the sound.

You are wrong on both accounts. :)

DTS core isn't always at 1509.... there are titles at 768 (including one I've mixed)...

1509 isn't mandatory.

If you really believe that DTS at 1509 is always superior over DD 640, I can't change your mind

Like I said, even 768 is an advantage over 640. How is that wrong?

I never said bitrate was the only factor, but when the advantage is there mathmatically, it should be used just like BD's bandwidth advantage over HD DVD. Given this mathmatical advantage, DTS-HD MA should be the codec of choice, just as BD is the format of choice. I do understand that sound design is the most important factor. When you are mixing a film with consideration to the lossy codecs, would you rather work with 1509 or 640?

As for the legacy DD track, I don't have any firsthand knowledge since I have always been able to decode TrueHD. I was just going by numerous threads I've read on the web. Looking at the threads again it seems it was a player problem where the players were unable to pick up the AC3 frames interweaved with the TrueHD track. Is that correct?

I think HD sound is good but not as critical as the video (especially for comedies and dramas). HD Video on the other hand is a must. It is much more impressive than the sound.

IDK man, i really enjoy closing my eyes and just hearing everything move around. I gotta say, once I got my Hi-Fi system I felt like I was only getting 1/3 of the experience. Sound is what puts you right there, in the action.

I remember Widescreen Review magazine running an article about Mi Casa remixing 'The Haunting' specifically to show off the capabilities of the (then) new DTS ES Discrete 6.1 format. The DTS DVD came out 10 months after the DD version.

"The Haunting" 6.1 remaster was done at Skywalker

DTS did the "remaster" and encode for SPR in house.

IDK man, i really enjoy closing my eyes and just hearing everything move around. I gotta say, once I got my Hi-Fi system I felt like I was only getting 1/3 of the experience. Sound is what puts you right there, in the action.

No, I agree. HD sound is great. I really enjoy it but I had to choose between video and sound in hd I would go for video 100%. Good when we can get both!

Like I said, even 768 is an advantage over 640. How is that wrong?

I never said bitrate was the only factor, but when the advantage is there mathmatically, it should be used just like BD's bandwidth advantage over HD DVD. Given this mathmatical advantage, DTS-HD MA should be the codec of choice, just as BD is the format of choice. I do understand that sound design is the most important factor. When you are mixing a film with consideration to the lossy codecs, would you rather work with 1509 or 640?

As for the legacy DD track, I don't have any firsthand knowledge since I have always been able to decode TrueHD. I was just going by numerous threads I've read on the web. Looking at the threads again it seems it was a player problem where the players were unable to pick up the AC3 frames interweaved with the TrueHD track. Is that correct?

By your logic a CBR 20 mbps MPEG-2 encode would be more transparent to the master than a CBR 10mbps AVC encode of the same video.

Bitrate means nothing if the codec isn't efficient. I don't think you can debate that.

Nobody in the mixing business cares what codec is used. We male the track as good as can be for the master. What comes later is an afterthought. And you don't have control ( or a lot of it ) over how the encoder works anyways.

In regards to your last comment, I don't have any knowledge of those issues....

But you know what they say.... If it's on the web, or AVS, it must be true. ;)

Like I said, even 768 is an advantage over 640. How is that wrong?

I would take a 640 dd track over a 768 dts track any day.

I have to admit 640DD is very impressive. I'm not sure who i'd side with head to head on 640DD and 1509 DTS.

By your logic a CBR 20 mbps MPEG-2 encode would be more transparent to the master than a CBR 10mbps AVC encode of the same video.

Bitrate means nothing if the codec isn't efficient. I don't think you can debate that.

Nobody in the mixing business cares what codec is used. We male the track as good as can be for the master. What comes later is an afterthought. And you don't have control ( or a lot of it ) over how the encoder works anyways.

In regards to your last comment, I don't have any knowledge of those issues....

But you know what they say.... If it's on the web, or AVS, it must be true. ;)
My apology.I thought you are a very knowledgeable man for movie sound mixing so much.If you don't mind,would you kindly tell the name of movies you were a part of the team?:)I really am appreciated for your knowledges.

It's the mix and the sound teams behind the mix, not the studio or codec.

Trust me. :cool:

Yay! Reason at last..

Oh yeah?
Eat my sig.:p

The (not so)official codec hierarchy:
AVC > MPEG2 > VC-1
DTS-HD-MA = LPCM = Dolby TrueHD(I still like one more than the others)
DTS-HD > Dolby Digital

Bit off there..
AVC > VC1 > MPEG2

My apology.I thought you are a very knowledgeable man for movie sound mixing so much.If you don't mind,would you kindly tell the name of movies you were a part of the team?:)I really am appreciated for your knowledges.



http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0279892/
thanks.:)

I have a hard time believing DD is 2.4x more effecient than DTS. If it was 756DTS would lose to 448K DD. DTS came out a year later so DD doesn't get more CPU power for decoding like MPG4 does over MPG2.

I have a hard time believing DD is 2.4x more effecient than DTS. If it was 756DTS would lose to 448K DD. DTS came out a year later so DD doesn't get more CPU power for decoding like MPG4 does over MPG2.

Half bitrate dts also suffers from frequency drop off at about 15khz while 448kb/s dolby goes all the way to 20khz.

Many people would suggest 448kb/s dolby is actually better than dts at half bitrate. Not that i am suggesting this but dolby is much more efficient.

Half bitrate dts was brought in so studio's could fit dts and dolby on one disc as full bitrate and dolby just couldn't be done without sacrifices.

Don't forget a lot of dts titles are cooked. The sound levels are higher and the bass levels are higher and because of that the perception grows that it's better when really if you level match your equipment you will find little diffferences or so people say but i still find it to be richer sounding than the dolby equivalent.

Like Filmmixer says its all in the mix but having said that i actually think dts-hd master audio sounds better than dolby true hd audio. That kind of goes against what i have just written and i don't know why i find it better but i suspect something is being cooked with the codec as it should sound identical and yet to me it sounds richer and more dynamic even after level matching.

Like Filmmixer says its all in the mix but having said that i actually think dts-hd master audio sounds better than dolby true hd audio. That kind of goes against what i have just written and i don't know why i find it better but i suspect something is being cooked with the codec as it should sound identical and yet to me it sounds richer and more dynamic even after level matching.

I'm obviously in no position to doubt your opinion, (after all, it is yours :p) but which titles have you compared where one track for that title was TrueHD and the other track for that same title was DTS HD-MA? They obviously had to be different discs, so how do you know the same mix/source was used for both?

Just curious.

"The Haunting" 6.1 remaster was done at SkywalkerThanx for the correction. I finally found the Mi Casa / DTS 6.1 article; different movie. I have a hard time believing DD is 2.4x more effecient than DTS.Why? Is there a limit to how much more effecient DD can be compared to DTS?

I'm obviously in no position to doubt your opinion, (after all, it is yours :p) but which titles have you compared where one track for that title was TrueHD and the other track for that same title was DTS HD-MA? They obviously had to be different discs, so how do you know the same mix/source was used for both?

Just curious.

Good point.

I haven't and therefore you can discount my post.

I wonder when The Haunting hits Blu Ray whether they will use the remixed 6.1 track or the original Dolby track ?

Don't forget a lot of dts titles are cooked. The sound levels are higher and the bass levels are higher and because of that the perception grows that it's better when really if you level match your equipment you will find little diffferences or so people say but i still find it to be richer sounding than the dolby equivalent.


That is simply not true....

I've now had the opportunity to be a part of many DTS-HD MA encodes, and TrueHD encodes.

That simply is not the case.

That kind of goes against what i have just written and i don't know why i find it better but i suspect something is being cooked with the codec as it should sound identical and yet to me it sounds richer and more dynamic even after level matching.

And nobody on this boards, or reviewers for that matter, have the ability to level match within 1/2 of a db reliably with the equipment they possess... unless you can do that, you have no objective way to tell..

I promise you that if I level matched the master and a DD 640 decode in my studio, and raised the DD 1/2 of a db, you would tell me it sounds "richer and more dynamic."


But let's beat the horse again... I've mixed over 100 films, and have been involved in the mastering process for many of them...

DTS-HD MA = the master I give them

Dolby TrueHD = the master I give them

Neither Dolby or DTS encode titles.

I would tend to agree that the DTS-HD MA films from the majors sound great, and if you look at the quality of the titles and mixes, it's easy to see why that is.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/surround-sound/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats

If this is indeed correct, there is no question DTS-HD MA should be the default codec of choice.

FilmMixer - Would you say this comparison is inaccurate?

I promise you that if I level matched the master and a DD 640 decode in my studio, and raised the DD 1/2 of a db, you would tell me it sounds "richer and more dynamic."

So countless others are all wrong? Some may say you don't want to bite one of the hands that feeds you. ;)

To clear this up yet again...

DTS and Dolby don't have anything to do with putting "effort into their mixes.."

TureHD and DTS-HD MA are codecs, and neither Dolby or DTS mix or produce soundtracks, nor do they encode commercial titles.. they supply technology to the studios and authoring companies that produce content...

In their ability to faithfully reproduce what goes into the encoder, they are identical..

DTS used to do that.

But, if they don't anymore I'd have to guess that their encoding tools have different filters they apply to the mixes prior to the encoding. I am 99% sure their older encoders had different "types" of movies that would yield different results.

Since TrueHD & DTS-MA are identical in terms of codec output, there has to be some tinkering with one of the masters prior to encoding because they usually don't sound identical and in some cases are radically different - see Top Gun Blu-ray for example.

http://www.audioholics.com/education/surround-sound/dolby-digital-vs-dts-a-guide-to-the-strengths-of-the-formats

If this is indeed correct, there is no question DTS-HD MA should be the default codec of choice.

Most of that article has nothing to do with DTS-HD MA or DTHD. The part that does, basically says they are equal:


2007 Update: What's Next?
With the dawn of HD-DVD formats upon us (whether they succeed or not has yet to be seen) there is a new awakening of high resolution audio - though it seems to be tied to movie soundtracks at present. Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD are lossless formats. When decoded they represent bit-for-bit copies of the studio recording. This renders the Dolby vs. DTS contest a draw - with consumers winning hands down. Lossless is where it's at and we seem to be getting there, albeit slowly and with much resistance from the RIAA.

So countless others are all wrong?

A countless number of people are wrong about many things, so that wouldn't be surprising.

That is simply not true....

I've now had the opportunity to be a part of many DTS-HD MA encodes, and TrueHD encodes.

That simply is not the case.



When i made that comment i was really referring to mainstream dts on DVD not on Blu Ray. I fully agree with your comments and defer to you because you are the expert in this field and work on the sound mixes.

Do you have any info on whether the Skywalker remixed 6.1 track of The Haunting will be used for the Blu Ray or whether they will use the original Dolby mix ?

So countless others are all wrong? Some may say you don't want to bite one of the hands that feeds you. ;)

A countless number of people are wrong about many things, so that wouldn't be surprising.

For example:

- Profile 1.1/2.0 disc won't play on first generation players (aka profile 1.0).

- Disc containing PiP (profile 1.1 disc) won't allow bitstreaming of audio codecs.

- The earth is flat

DTS used to do that.

But, if they don't anymore I'd have to guess that their encoding tools have different filters they apply to the mixes prior to the encoding. I am 99% sure their older encoders had different "types" of movies that would yield different results.

Since TrueHD & DTS-MA are identical in terms of codec output, there has to be some tinkering with one of the masters prior to encoding because they usually don't sound identical and in some cases are radically different - see Top Gun Blu-ray for example.

It's amazing...even when this aritcle...

http://www.hemagazine.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

...which has been posted so many times on this site, and already once within this thread...it just gets completely ignored.

From the last paragraph:

If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible.

While the above is saying the compressed and the non-compressed may not be related, it holds true for different compressed versions, as very rarerly as they'll be on the same disc. The TrueHD and DTS HD-MA encodes could have come from different sources or tweaked differently before the actual encoding. Just because Top Gun has both a TrueHd and DTS HD-MA track on them, what confirmation do we have on these things?

When i made that comment i was really referring to mainstream dts on DVD not on Blu Ray. I fully agree with your comments and defer to you because you are the expert in this field and work on the sound mixes.

Do you have any info on whether the Skywalker remixed 6.1 track of The Haunting will be used for the Blu Ray or whether they will use the original Dolby mix ?


Hope they release that soon :)

For example:

- Profile 1.1/2.0 disc won't play on first generation players (aka profile 1.0).

- Disc containing PiP (profile 1.1 disc) won't allow bitstreaming of audio codecs.

- The earth is flat

or

- all extras would have to be high def

- BD+ would never be cracked

- the earth is still flat

;)

So countless others are all wrong? Some may say you don't want to bite one of the hands that feeds you. ;)

"Countless others" never heard the masters in direct comparison and level matched to any home encodes that were level matched to less then 1/2db apart. The article on Audioholics is a subjective summary by a couple of guys not a gospel, and it has factual errors, though only a few and not very relevant to the current discussion. ;)



Oh Yeah, there is no such thing as "dolby or DTS mix" per se.

Most of that article has nothing to do with DTS-HD MA or DTHD. The part that does, basically says they are equal:

Lossless = lossless, I'm not disputing that.

My point is that a 1509 DTS core is better than standard 640 DD. Thus, DTS-HD MA should be the default audio codec on all BDs.

What percentage of users here preferred 1509 DTS to DD on DVD?

For example:

- Profile 1.1/2.0 disc won't play on first generation players (aka profile 1.0).

- Disc containing PiP (profile 1.1 disc) won't allow bitstreaming of audio codecs.

- The earth is flat

or

- all extras would have to be high def

- BD+ would never be cracked

- the earth is still flat

;)



No need to lump audio preferences in with D(ead)M(eat) and his band of followers. ;)

Lossless = lossless, I'm not disputing that.

My point is that a 1509 DTS core is better than standard 640 DD. Thus, DTS-HD MA should be the default audio codec on all BDs.

Says who? Maybe a listening test performed and/or paid for by DTS, anyone else?


What percentage of users here preferred 1509 DTS to DD on DVD?

You mean when the comparison is only DD 384/448 kbps to DTS 1.5 mbps?

My point is that a 1509 DTS core is better than standard 640 DD.Based on what? Every time someone (Warner Home Video, Home Theater Mag, Home Cinema Choice magazine) has done a listening comparison, they haven't found DTS to be better than DD. In the most recent example (the article that ILJG linked to twice in this thread), the DTS core appeared more on par with DD @ 448kbps rather than 640kbps. The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth.It was déjà vu all over again. We switched back and forth between the original PCM master and the core DTS version, and here we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference. From a frequency response standpoint, both versions were identical, with clearly delineated high frequency details, but the compressed version differed slightly only in barely noticeable presence —that sense of being “there”, with the original PCM track having just slightly greater overall richness.Compare how similar the descriptions above are versus their findings on DD @ 640kbps. Then, we compared the higher bitrate (640 kbps) that is found on the Dolby Digital tracks on Blu-rays to the original. "Golden Ears" Morrison was able to hear the difference, but I, and most others in the room with us, did not.So even anecdotally, no one till date (not even DTS themselves) have been able to point to a third-party listening test that supports their codec's supposed superiority over DD (at 448, let alone 640). The If you want to start from the premise that DTS is better than DD, you need to back it up.

Based on what? Every time someone (Warner Home Video, Home Theater Mag, Home Cinema Choice magazine) has done a listening comparison, they haven't found DTS to be better than DD. In the most recent example (the article that ILJG linked to twice in this thread), the DTS core appeared more on par with DD @ 448kbps rather than 640kbps. Compare how similar the descriptions above are versus their findings on DD @ 640kbps. So even anecdotally, no one till date (not even DTS themselves) have been able to point to a third-party listening test that supports their codec's supposed superiority over DD (at 448, let alone 640). The If you want to start from the premise that DTS is better than DD, you need to back it up.

I'm at work on my phone so can't reply in detail to all the posts. But you've hit the nail on the head. And one thing that changes when upping the bitrate to 640 is the elimination of any kind of surround hi frequency coupling that happens at certain lowers data rates.

How this translates to real world listening is in the opening up of the sound field. I think that is evidenced by the examples you posted.

Lossless = lossless, I'm not disputing that.

My point is that a 1509 DTS core is better than standard 640 DD. Thus, DTS-HD MA should be the default audio codec on all BDs.

What percentage of users here preferred 1509 DTS to DD on DVD?

Don't you listen to the lossless track? Do you plan on going back to listening to lossy codes when a lossless is available? If not then why do you care about the quality of legacy lossy codecs that you don't listen to anymore?:confused: Are you concerned about VHS using Hi-Fi audio instead of linear stereo?:D Also if you are so concerned about people stuck with legacy equipment then what about people that have receivers that only decode DD (AC-3) and don't decode DTS. DD would definitely be a better choice for them.;)

I couldn't care less if it's TrueHD or DTS-MA since they both in the end are the same.

TrueHD is good but I prefer DTS-MA,I can hear the difference and that's all that matters.;)
On a technical note: DTS mixes the LFE on all channels.

No they don't mix the LFE into all the channels..

And how do you hear the difference?

On what titles have you compared the two?

And how do you hear the difference?

Through emotional involvment and brand loyalty..

Education takes a long time, thanks FilmMixer for persisting in getting these points across (trying anyway).

Hey, at least you're not having to explain that THX is not a codec any more.. That common misconception only took 1 decade to iron out.. this one, being more complex, may take longer ;)

TrueHD is good but I prefer DTS-MA,I can hear the difference and that's all that matters.;)
On a technical note: DTS mixes the LFE on all channels.


You may be hearing a difference, but if so you are attributing that difference to the wrong cause. A difference in levels, or in some equipment setting.

Through emotional involvment and brand loyalty..


...with a heaping helping of placebo, for good measure. :cool:

Because the studios that are releasing titles only in DTS-HD MA.....

1. Tend to spend a lot of money on the sound portion of their films (Universal and Fox and now Disney.)

2. A majority of the films that those studios produce lend themselves to great audio tracks, and are big budget shows.

Let's point out some stellar TrueHD encodes.. "Cloverfield," "Matrix," or "I Am Legend," and the "Harry Potter" films to name a few..

There are no controls in the mastering products that allow you to change the level on the lossless encodes.

But even more to the point... what would be the point of a studio changing the mix that a director approved? To make DTS look better?

They don't care, and if they did such a thing, it would cost time and money, neither of which studios are generous with. ;)

Or how about the THX trailed on "Indiana Jones and the KOTCS?" Dolby Digital 640.

It's the mix and the sound teams behind the mix, not the studio or codec.

Trust me. :cool:

Exactly. I highly doubt that the TrueHD Transformers track would sound any better if it was a DTS-MA track. The mix is responsible for the sound, not the container...

No, I agree. HD sound is great. I really enjoy it but I had to choose between video and sound in hd I would go for video 100%. Good when we can get both!

I'm the opposite. I've spent 10x more money on my sound setup than I have on my video display.

I'm the opposite. I've spent 10x more money on my sound setup than I have on my video display.

Hehehe.. yeah I spent 10x as much on my AV cabinet as I do my audio AND video combined :P

That's what's really important!

On a technical note: DTS mixes the LFE on all channels.

WTF? Check your crossover settings because that statement is all kinds of false.

Through emotional involvment and brand loyalty..

Education takes a long time, thanks FilmMixer for persisting in getting these points across (trying anyway).

Hey, at least you're not having to explain that THX is not a codec any more.. That common misconception only took 1 decade to iron out.. this one, being more complex, may take longer ;)I agree that FilmMixer is a professional in expalin the way of theory of surround mixing and also agreed with you too.:):

So countless others are all wrong?

I think many others have pointed out things about the article that you linked too..

However, I have been very vocal in the past about the differences between DTS and DD at DVD rates, and had found that I was happier with the DTS encodes on some of my films.... hope that gives you food for thought..

I had even posted about it here on AVS back in 1999... Dolby was a little upset about my comments, and one of the founders of the company sent some of the engineers to come talk to me at the AES show that year... so I can never be accused of not telling it like I see it (or hear it.)

As others have pointed out, however, your argument doesn't apply to the current discussion as DD 640 is not the same as DD 384/448.

Some may say you don't want to bite one of the hands that feeds you. ;)

How do Dolby and DTS "feed me?"

I have no vested interest in the success of either companies product.

They have come to me in the past to consult about lossy codecs, HBR lossy encodes for BR, 7.1 mixing, and countless other subjects... and I am constantly dealing with their professional film services division when I finish a film (and I've been very vocal in the past about my preference for DTS on films over Dolby's offering (even though DTS is only a 5.0 delivery system for the cinema...) But that's another story.

My intensions are to help educate people and differentiate fact from fiction, especially since we are on the AV Science forum, and people who don't know better, or who are new to the hobby, might not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not an expert of all subjects audio (my theory and engineering chops are lame..)

But I'm pretty sharp when it comes to codecs, authoring, and film mixing, and have 19 years in the business to back it up...

I'm just trying to "keep it real." ;)

FilmMixer,

Did the rogues (engineers) they sent to chat with you rough you up?

I was picturing several guys beating the DTS out of you:D

By the way did you ever have your listening test you were going to have around last Oct? If not, time for another for us SoCal guys?

I think many others have pointed out things about the article that you linked too..

However, I have been very vocal in the past about the differences between DTS and DD at DVD rates, and had found that I was happier with the DTS encodes on some of my films.... hope that gives you food for thought..

I had even posted about it here on AVS back in 1999... Dolby was a little upset about my comments, and one of the founders of the company sent some of the engineers to come talk to me at the AES show that year... so I can never be accused of not telling it like I see it (or hear it.)

As others have pointed out, however, your argument doesn't apply to the current discussion as DD 640 is not the same as DD 384/448.



How do Dolby and DTS "feed me?"

I have no vested interest in the success of either companies product.

They have come to me in the past to consult about lossy codecs, HBR lossy encodes for BR, 7.1 mixing, and countless other subjects... and I am constantly dealing with their professional film services division when I finish a film (and I've been very vocal in the past about my preference for DTS on films over Dolby's offering (even though DTS is only a 5.0 delivery system for the cinema...) But that's another story.

My intensions are to help educate people and differentiate fact from fiction, especially since we are on the AV Science forum, and people who don't know better, or who are new to the hobby, might not be able to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm not an expert of all subjects audio (my theory and engineering chops are lame..)

But I'm pretty sharp when it comes to codecs, authoring, and film mixing, and have 19 years in the business to back it up...

I'm just trying to "keep it real." ;)

Hey FilmMixer, what sort of bit-rates do we get in the theater? Is it generally SDDS, or do they use the home formats like DD, DTS, etc etc as well?

DD is 320K. I seen a random site say DTS is ~1.1M. SDDS is 2.2M but I think only for 8ch. Digital cinema is 24bit PCM.

Hey FilmMixer, what sort of bit-rates do we get in the theater? Is it generally SDDS, or do they use the home formats like DD, DTS, etc etc as well?

All 3. DD 320-448 kbps, DTS 882kbps, SDDS [8ch] 1060-1411kbps

Dolby and DTS by far the most installed sound formats in commercial cinemas in the US today. The DTS encode/decode that is used in cinemas is different then it's home version.

All 3. DD 320-448 kbps, DTS 882kbps, SDDS [8ch] 1060-1411kbps

Dolby and DTS by far the most installed sound formats in commercial cinemas in the US today. The DTS encode/decode that is used in cinemas is different then it's home version.

A couple of corrections:

DD bitrates (5.1 channel configuration):

320: theatrical
384: HDTV, LaserDisc, some DVDs, a few BDs
448: DVD, a few BDs
576: D-VHS
640: BD, XBOX/PC output

Theatrical DTS uses the APT-X codec, the home version uses the CAC codec.

SDDS uses the professional ATRAC compression.

It's amazing...even when this article...

.... Just because Top Gun has both a TrueHd and DTS HD-MA track on them, what confirmation do we have on these things?

I also don't know why people still bring up Top Gun as a valid comparison.

For (hopefully) the last time:

The TrueHD track is the 1986 original theatrical 70MM 5.1 mix.

The DTS-HD MA is a 2006 6.1 remix.

They are not the same mix!

I also don't know why people still bring up Top Gun as a valid comparison.

For (hopefully) the last time:

The TrueHD track is the 1986 original theatrical 70MM 5.1 mix.

The DTS-HD MA is a 2006 6.1 remix.

They are not the same mix!

Oh, really? Is that true? If it is then that is awesome! I don't know why but being able to switch between two different mixes intrigues me. I would play around with the DD and DTS tracks on the War of the Worlds dvd but usually default to the DTS track when available (though in regards to WotW, we know the DTS is superior).

Do you know if the DTS 6.1 track on Top Gun is just a rear surround matrixed version of the 70MM 5.1 mix or a new mix altogether?

Do you know if the DTS 6.1 track on Top Gun is just a rear surround matrixed version of the 70MM 5.1 mix or a new mix altogether?

It's a new mix from the original masters. Surround & LFE levels are also different.

A couple of corrections:

DD bitrates (5.1 channel configuration):

320: theatrical
384: HDTV, LaserDisc, some DVDs, a few BDs
448: DVD, a few BDs
576: D-VHS
640: BD, XBOX/PC output

Theatrical DTS uses the APT-X codec, the home version uses the CAC codec.

SDDS uses the professional ATRAC compression.


HDTV also uses 448. For example Fox network and Turner channels.

A couple of corrections:

DD bitrates (5.1 channel configuration):

320: theatrical
384: HDTV, LaserDisc, some DVDs, a few BDs
448: DVD, a few BDs
576: D-VHS
640: BD, XBOX/PC output

Theatrical DTS uses the APT-X codec, the home version uses the CAC codec.

SDDS uses the professional ATRAC compression.

Why would the theatrical bitrates be lower than that of what we can get at home?

Why would the theatrical bitrates be lower than that of what we can get at home?

Because of the physical limitation of the film strip.

Because of the physical limitation of the film strip.

Makes sense. You really have to sit back and be impressed with the kind of fidelity that we can get at home nowadays....

It also points out a few other things:

-Raw bitrate as an indicator of overall sound quality is usually misleading.

-The ambient noise level of a room may be the single strongest factor in masking quality differences between different audio sources. Theaters are usually quite noisy, even when there are no people in them.

-You don't need high bitrates to get a powerful, punchy low end.

-High bitrates reveal themselves in the high end, in the "air" of the soundtrack, and it's rare to be able to hear extended highs in theaters, for several reasons (absorption by people and upholstery, masking by ambient high-frequency noise, limitations of commercial loudspeaker systems).

-It's really true that even a modest home surround system can exceed the raw performance of a theatrical system (when scaled for room size).

It's really true that even a modest home surround system can exceed the raw performance of a theatrical system (when scaled for room size).Yup, not to mention that the speakers and associated gear has been chosen with your personal preference in mind and adjusted to your particular tastes. A one-size-fits-all commercial theatre can't compete with that.

A couple of corrections:

DD bitrates (5.1 channel configuration):

320: theatrical
384: HDTV, LaserDisc, some DVDs, a few BDs
448: DVD, a few BDs
576: D-VHS
640: BD, XBOX/PC output

Theatrical DTS uses the APT-X codec, the home version uses the CAC codec.

SDDS uses the professional ATRAC compression.

I see no correction, but you added a few other info which wasn't asked by the poster I responded too. Nevertheless they can be useful for some, thanks.

Oh yeah DD 640kbps is available on DVD on 2 titles I know of: Pink Floyd: Pulse, and "DVD Spectacular" the 1812 Overture [hidden track]. ;)

Oh yeah DD 640kbps is available on DVD on 2 titles I know of: Pink Floyd: Pulse, and "DVD Spectacular" the 1812 Overture [hidden track]. ;)

They are considered out of spec though.

Later pressings of 1812 eliminated the hidden track I believe.

They are considered out of spec though.

Later pressings of 1812 eliminated the hidden track I believe.


It is out of official spec no doubt,not all player could play it, but the format can support it nonetheless. Did they re-encoded the Pink Floyd concert as well later on?