Why? Because if you want DTS MA decoded losslessly, it forces you to a) buy a 1.3 High def player, and b) 1.3 receiver like the new Onkyos. The manufacturers had to decide on this plan to maximize profits, and needed bait to entice HT heavyweights like Denon and Onkyo into the mix. Otherwise guys who bought their HDMI receivers last year or the year before would have no reason to fork over the dough for a new receiver.

Like I said, it's only a guess, but DTS MA decoders existed before the format war even started. Maybe both HD DVD and Blu-ray camps agreed to forego DTS MA decoders in their players. We know it certainly isn't because the technology is expensive as the Onkyo 605 at $499MSRP ($399 if you shop around) has both audio decoders.

Hard to say. I recall Kjack mentioning that DTS-HD MA was incredibly intensive to decode and required more processing power than their early chips could handle. Guess Dolby wins in efficiency again!!

There is no doubt that players will come to the market that decode the format at some point. This is an early market and there is PLENTY of oppurtunity for manufacturers to milk it with all kinds of gimmicks. DTS-HD MA will be a non-issue by next year I bet, by then we'll have newer things to beg for!!

I wonder why Fox is the only studio who includes DTS-MA tracks on their discs?

I wonder why Fox is the only studio who includes DTS-MA tracks on their discs?

Because it's smart, because the 1.5mbps extract sounds great and everyone can hear it - while still having full 24bit lossless on the disc.

The better question would be, why doesn't Warner, Universal and Paramount do the same for discs that doesn't have PCM or True HD?

Why would you want DD+ when DTS MA will do?

DTS MA seems to be the best overall option, it is just a bit inacessible at the moment. Dont forget that Studio Canal and Magnolia (I think) also use it.

DTS MA has no advantage over Dolby TrueHD. They are both bit-for-bit identical to the original studio master tracks. Just wanted to clear that up.

Anyway,

I'm guessing DTS hadn't finished the specs. It changed about 3 times on their website over the past year. They kept changing the naming scheme AND how many HD codecs they had. I just think they were less prepared than Dolby was.

As for why for instance there is not just one lossless track on every disc and nothing else. It goes like this:

For HD DVD 5.1 DD+ and Legacy DTS decoding are mandatory. 2 channel TrueHD decoding is mandatory (I'm guessing that Dolby wasn't done with the 5.1 spec just like DTS wasn't done with their HD specs). If they would have made 5.1 TrueHD decoding mandatory we wouldn't need the DD+, b/c it could be extracted from the 5.1 TrueHD.

For BD, legacy DD and legacy DTS are mandatory...other than that, none of the other codecs are mandatory. Therefore, you can't just put a lossless one there and nothing else b/c there is no guarantee that everyone's player could decode it. You'd have a lot of angy people if they bought a disc and couldn't hear any audio:)

So basically HD DVD did it better by making everything mandatory that they could at the time. I'm assuming that 5.1 TrueHD and whatever DTS-HD varieties weren't finalized yet so they couldn't be made mandatory in the spec.

In an ideal world, both players would have made both DD TrueHD and DTS-HD MA decoding mandatory. Those would inherently decode the lossy tracks too if they were the only track on a disc. Unfortunately, I don't think either lossless codec was completely ready at launch.

I don't think it was a conspiracy to sell receivers at all, since we are all well aware that 99% of the discs will HAVE TO BE DECODED in player, not receiver b/c of being authored in advance.

DTS MA has no advantage over Dolby TrueHD.

DTS MA has a MASSIVE advantage over True HD. It contains a 1.5mbps core track that sounds better than the 640k track accompanied with True HD. So for people who don't have HDMI, they can hear a 1.5 DTS track through optical. The audio encoder also saves on disc space and bandwidth with DTS MA.

DTS MA has a MASSIVE advantage over True HD. It contains a 1.5mbps core track that sounds better than the 640k track accompanied with True HD. So for people who don't have HDMI, they can hear a 1.5 DTS track through optical. The audio encoder also saves on disc space and bandwidth with DTS MA.
:confused: Dolby TrueHD is NOT 640kbps as you stated. How can it be "MASSVIVE" if no one can hear it?! No player/receiver can decode DTS-HD MA yet so DTS Core is heard through HDMI AND optical output. :)

I meant DTS-MA has no advantage as a LOSSLESS codec over DD TrueHD as a LOSSLESS codec.

And as for legacy DTS core. Nobody has said that it sounds any better than DD+. And for HD DVD owners DD+ is mandatory (and it can be listened to up to 1.5mbps over optical/coax just as DTS core can).

We aren't talking about the LOSSY codecs here are we? The thread was about the LOSSLESS codec DTS-HD MA. And my original statement is correct.:

There is no advantage over DD TrueHD as a LOSSLESS codec. Both are bit-for-bit identical to the studio master.


And if you want to get really picky, the only reason DTS has a rep for being "better" than DD is b/c DD bitrate was capped at 640kbps on DVD and DTS did NOT have the same restriction. Not to mention that they were caught "souping up the mixes" as well. DD+ has at least equalled legacy DTS and by most accounts exceeded it in sound quality, so I don't think your argument holds any water.

:confused: Dolby TrueHD is NOT 640kbps as you stated. How can it be "MASSVIVE" if no one can hear it?! No player/receiver can decode DTS-HD MA yet so DTS Core is heard through HDMI AND optical output. :)


The advantage is that as a studio you can encode a DTS-HD MA track, period, and know that all players can decode the 1.5 lossy core no matter what.

Using DD TrueHD means that (for both market reasons AND for BD spec compliance) you MUST also include a separate, 640Kbps DD 5.1 audio track. This is a searate encode, a separate thing to track, and more bits when you add the two together than the single DTS-HD MA track will take.

It's not a massive advantage, but it is an advantage, especially when you scale to DVD production levels for # of SKUs per month.

The advantage is that as a studio you can encode a DTS-HD MA track, period, and know that all players can decode the 1.5 lossy core no matter what.

Using DD TrueHD means that (for both market reasons AND for BD spec compliance) you MUST also include a separate, 640Kbps DD 5.1 audio track. This is a searate encode, a separate thing to track, and more bits when you add the two together than the single DTS-HD MA track will take.

It's not a massive advantage, but it is an advantage, especially when you scale to DVD production levels for # of SKUs per month.


Is legacy DTS decoding mandatory in the BD player spec? If not than there is no guarantee that you can get the lossy track. So bascially all discs that have any DTS track have to have the Dolby track anyway since BD players aren't forced to have DTS decoding.


TrueHD (taken from the DD website):

Benefits
Delivers enthralling studio-master-quality sound that unlocks the true high-definition entertainment experience on next-generation discs.
Offers more discrete channels than ever before for impeccable surround sound.
Compatible with the A/V receivers and home-theaters-in-a-box (HTIBs) of today and tomorrow.
Whether you own an older audio/video (A/V) system equipped with Dolby® Digital, or a newer A/V receiver equipped with an HDMI™ connection or external line-level multichannel inputs, you are assured of a compatible, high-quality playback path.



Are you sure that the TrueHD doesn't have the lossy core as well? I'm pretty sure it works the same as DTS from the info listed above taken from the Dolby website. I could be wrong, but I thought if you have a DD decoder it will find the core. Its not Dolby's fault that BD made DD a mandatory inclusion.

I'm guessing DTS hadn't finished the specs.If history is any indication, then you might be correct. It wasn't until 3rd generation DVD players were released that the ability to transmit DTS became available. Professional DTS-HD MA encoders are obviously up and running, since content already exists on discs. Decoding is probably where the hold-up was.

Sanjay

Are you sure that the TrueHD doesn't have the lossy core as well? I'm pretty sure it works the same as DTS from the info listed above taken from the Dolby website. I could be wrong, but I thought if you have a DD decoder it will find the core. Its not Dolby's fault that BD made DD a mandatory inclusion.

To my knowledge. The spec for TrueHD is that the player shall be able to decode the signal and output a compatible DD signal.

So TrueHD-PCM-DD640 as an example.

And if you want to get really picky, the only reason DTS has a rep for being "better" than DD is b/c DD bitrate was capped at 640kbps on DVD and DTS did NOT have the same restriction. Not to mention that they were caught "souping up the mixes" as well. DD+ has at least equalled legacy DTS and by most accounts exceeded it in sound quality, so I don't think your argument holds any water.

If a Director or studio approves the mix for release, then its not "souping up the mixes". Do you think that Dts puts a dolby mix up, and tries to mix to exceed it? Sorry, but time wouldn't allow such a practice. The engineers Dts used created mixes that sounded good, not mixes that stood superior to DD mixes.

We cannot compare a DD+ mix with a legacy Dts mix if the Dts mix is transcoded from DD+ mix. Its not a apples to apples comparison, so it is impossible to say that DD+ equals or exceed legacy Dts mixes. Only when you encoded seperately to both using the same master can you make a apples to apples comparison. Nobody has done this yet, so it invalidates your claim completely.

The data rate for DD on DVD was capped at 448kbps not 640kbps. Have you ever heard a DD mix at 640kbps on DVD? I haven't.

Are you sure that the TrueHD doesn't have the lossy core as well? I'm pretty sure it works the same as DTS from the info listed above taken from the Dolby website. I could be wrong, but I thought if you have a DD decoder it will find the core. Its not Dolby's fault that BD made DD a mandatory inclusion.

No, DD does not have the lossy core. If you notice on HD DVD with trueHD, there is a lossless mix, and a lossy DD+ mix as well. You don't need to do that if there is a lossy core. DD trueHD and Dts HD MA do not operate in quite the same way.

The engineers Dts used created mixes that sounded good, not mixes that stood superior to DD mixes.Their engineers shouldn't have been creating mixes, just compressing the original mix as is. Have you ever heard a DD mix at 640kbps on DVD? I haven't.If you like Pink Floyd, try their 'Pulse' DVD, which has a DD 640kbps track.

Best,
Sanjay

DTS MA HD will also be likely pumped in terms of output like the DTS of DVDs which IMO is typically 7-10dB louder then the Dolby Digital counterpart.

~Bobby

You might want to read about TrueHD on the Dolby website. I posted the pertinant info above, but in case you missed it...


TrueHD (taken from the DD website):

Benefits
Delivers enthralling studio-master-quality sound that unlocks the true high-definition entertainment experience on next-generation discs.
Offers more discrete channels than ever before for impeccable surround sound.
Compatible with the A/V receivers and home-theaters-in-a-box (HTIBs) of today and tomorrow.
Whether you own an older audio/video (A/V) system equipped with Dolby® Digital, or a newer A/V receiver equipped with an HDMI™ connection or external line-level multichannel inputs, you are assured of a compatible, high-quality playback path.


For the above to be true (and it must be since its from the Dolby website), there would have to be a lossy core. How else could it "be compatible with A/V receivers and home-theaters-in-a-box of today and tomorrow. Whether you own and older A/V system equipped with DD...you are assured of a compatible, high-quality playback path.

Please explain how that is possible w/o a lossy core. Also, I can't answer why there is a DD+ as well as a TrueHD on all discs. Maybe b/c its in the HD DVD spec??????? Spec and necessity are 2 completely different things ya know?

Please explain how that is possible w/o a lossy core. Also, I can't answer why there is a DD+ as well as a TrueHD on all discs. Maybe b/c its in the HD DVD spec??????? Spec and necessity are 2 completely different things ya know?Could the DD+ soundtrack be the lossy core? Why would it be labeled any differently than DD+ and TrueHD on the menu? Plus, if it's there anyway and a simple toggle switch can change between the two what better way to verify that TrueHD is, in fact, better... ;)

Could the DD+ soundtrack be the lossy core? Why would it be labeled any differently than DD+ and TrueHD on the menu? Plus, if it's there anyway and a simple toggle switch can change between the two what better way to verify that TrueHD is, in fact, better... ;)

Preaching to the choir man :)

Their engineers shouldn't have been creating mixes, just compressing the original mix as is. If you like Pink Floyd, try their 'Pulse' DVD, which has a DD 640kbps track.

Best,
Sanjay
Yeah, but it still doesn't sound very good. :(

Yeah, but it still doesn't sound very good.The 640kbps track on 'Pulse' sounds great.

Sanjay

Only when you encoded seperately to both using the same master can you make a apples to apples comparison. Nobody has done this yet, so it invalidates your claim completely.


I don't know how many times this needs to be stated.. there aren't seperate masters.

Period.

The same master goes through different encoders, and we create nothing different for DTS, DD or any other codecs.

If people are hearing differences, it could be due to dynamic compression, channel to channel level changes, encoder settings or nefarious re-equalization of the master.

:):):)

School is in session :)

(you kinda have to admit the word MASTER does speak for itself)

Why? Because if you want DTS MA decoded losslessly, it forces you to a) buy a 1.3 High def player, and b) 1.3 receiver like the new Onkyos.

Just want to point out the above comment is completely wrong.

1) You don't need a player with HDMI 1.3 to experience DTS-HD-MA.
2) You don't need a receiver with HDMI 1.3 to experience DTS-HD-MA.

All you need is a player and receiver that support HDMI 1.1 with the decoding to be done in the player.

My guess: DTS Master Audio was purposely withheld from HD DVD and Blu-ray players. Nope - it just wasn't ready in silicon in time. There was plenty of discussion about this a year ago.

DTS had a "testbed" Denon on demo in their stand at CES on 2006, but that was about it at the time.

Posted by Gooki
Just want to point out the above comment is completely wrong.

1) You don't need a player with HDMI 1.3 to experience DTS-HD-MA.
2) You don't need a receiver with HDMI 1.3 to experience DTS-HD-MA.

All you need is a player and receiver that support HDMI 1.1 with the decoding to be done in the player.

Ok, can I have what you're smoking? You do understand that you are getting the core DTS audio from those discs right? Not DTS HD MA.

According to DTS' own website, you have to have players with HDMI 1.3 on both the player and reciever. See here:
http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-new-receiver.php

We are just now getting DTS HD MA compatible receivers (Onkyo & Pioneer) and there is on one Blu-ray player that is DTS HD MA compatible. I believe it is the new Panasonic Blu-ray player.

No HD DVD player can process DTS HD MA internially at this point, and since Toshiba's the only company making set top HD DVD players, you will not see an HD DVD player with this ability until late '07, or early '08.

Do some simple research.

fitprod

You need to reread the post you are dismissing.

He is right in saying that you do NOT need hdmi 1.3 to get DTS-HD MA if the player does the decoding. It CAN be sent over 1.1 (and I'm not talking core, just like TrueHD). Right now all you get is core b/c no HD DVD players CURRENLTY decode DTS-HD MA (fw could be an option since the sharp processors can be updated similar to adding 5.1 TrueHD)

And as for the receiver decoding, that is pretty much worthless since all HD DVDs are mastered in the advanced format the make in-player audio decoding mandatory and DO NOT ALLOW raw bitsream to the receiver for decoding. This will be the case with all BD discs after the Oct. deadline as well. The DTS website has omissions and misleading info concerning hdmi. Of course they are pushing hdmi 1.3 b/c that would sell more receivers and thus more licensing for DTS.

The only time you need/could utilize DTS-HD MA decoding in the receiver is the following:
- the disc in mastered in BASIC (not many will be b/c limits interactive features)
- the player AND the receiver have HDMI 1.3
- the receiver decodes DTS-HD MA

The vast majority of people will get DTS-HD MA in the following manner:
- the disc is mastered in ADVANCED (as most are now and all will be in the future)
- the player and receiver only need hdmi 1.1 or above
- the player decodes DTS-HD MA

Maybe YOU should do some simple research :)

A good starting point would be this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789994

Ok, can I have what you're smoking? You do understand that you are getting the core DTS audio from those discs right? Not DTS HD MA.

According to DTS' own website, you have to have players with HDMI 1.3 on both the player and reciever. See here:
http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-new-receiver.php

We are just now getting DTS HD MA compatible receivers (Onkyo & Pioneer) and there is on one Blu-ray player that is DTS HD MA compatible. I believe it is the new Panasonic Blu-ray player.

No HD DVD player can process DTS HD MA internially at this point, and since Toshiba's the only company making set top HD DVD players, you will not see an HD DVD player with this ability until late '07, or early '08.

Do some simple research.

fitprod

Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. I guess you didn't see this part on the DTS site.
http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-existing-receiver.php

Once players can decode dts hd ma, for lossless sound, hdmi 1.3 does not matter.
DTS-HD MA -> LPCM then pass that over HDMI 1.1/1.2 to to a HDMI 1.1/1.2 receiver. Receiver does D/A conversion and sends it to speakers.
HDMI 1.3 not needed for sound. Its just a matter of time before players will decode this lossless DTS codec.

DTS MA has a MASSIVE advantage over True HD. It contains a 1.5mbps core track that sounds better than the 640k track accompanied with True HD. So for people who don't have HDMI, they can hear a 1.5 DTS track through optical. The audio encoder also saves on disc space and bandwidth with DTS MA.

It may be louder, but not better. I own both copies of Jurassic Park with the DD 5.1 and the DTS version. The DD sounds better. I would say the DTS is louder by 5 db but that is it. Its a matter of choice and personal opion as to which sounds better.

I would also say that Saving Private Ryan in DTS sounds better than the DD 5.1 version.

You can't just say DTS sounds better because of specs. :eek: It doesn't, never has.

DTS MA HD will also be likely pumped in terms of output like the DTS of DVDs which IMO is typically 7-10dB louder then the Dolby Digital counterpart.

~Bobby

DTS does not pump up the sound. The perceived loudness difference is due to Dialog Normalization applied to dolby digital tracks. And this is one advantage I find DTS MA HD has over Dolby True HD. As you can probably tell, I'm not a fan of dialog normalization.

Just curious...how might you be listening to DTS-HD MA and comparing it to DD TrueHD? What player are you using? What titles are you using that happen to have both audio tracks (wasn't aware of any at this point, either on the same disc or one on HD DVD and the other on BD). Last time I checked, no players could decode it. I could be wrong, but I thought the closest was the Panasonic (w/fw upgrade), but that only decodes DTS-HD HRA.

Just can't make a statement like that without backing it up is all I'm saying.

Just curious...how might you be listening to DTS-HD MA and comparing it to DD TrueHD? What player are you using? What titles are you using that happen to have both audio tracks (wasn't aware of any at this point, either on the same disc or one on HD DVD and the other on BD). Last time I checked, no players could decode it. I could be wrong, but I thought the closest was the Panasonic (w/fw upgrade), but that only decodes DTS-HD HRA.

Just can't make a statement like that without backing it up is all I'm saying.

Dialog normalization is something we all experience now with dolby digital regardless of flavor (DD, DD+, TrueHD). That's why you experience a level difference when comparing DTS (talking about core here) and Dolby Digital.

Now as DTS does not use Dialog Normalization with any of their codecs, and Dolby does, the effects of Dialog normalization will still be the same with the new advanced codecs as they are now with the older codecs.

As I said I am not a fan of dialog normalization and that's why I see no dialog normalization as an adavantage for DTS. I never said I've compared DTS MA and Dolby True HD.

Originally posted by donricouga
Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. I guess you didn't see this part on the DTS site.
http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dts...ng-receiver.php

Ok... I'll jump all over that once a player actually has the built in DTS-HD MA decoder and/or has a six channel output.

fitprod

Sorry, it was inferred from the following sentence:

"And this is one advantage I find DTS MA HD has over Dolby True HD"



Looks like the part about NOT NEEDING HDMI 1.3 FOR DTS-HD MA is on the DTS website after all:

http://www.dts.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-existing-receiver.php

From what I've gathered there is still no machine for either format that will decode DTS MA. Is there any word on when this will occur, or when we'll get a machine that will output 7.1 analog channels?

"The data rate for DD on DVD was capped at 448kbps not 640kbps. Have you ever heard a DD mix at 640kbps on DVD? I haven't".

I can tell you they are all at 448 kbps. The bluray DD is at 640 on some disks. I can only speak for my system and experience when I say that DTS core at 1.5 mbps is as good as DD+ and in some cases sounds at touch better. Very diff to tell sometimes. My old laserdiscs had DTS which was at 1.5 mbps so it seems in some cases we haven't gone forward but instead a little sideways :D

Ok, can I have what you're smoking? You do understand that you are getting the core DTS audio from those discs right? Not DTS HD MA.

According to DTS' own website, you have to have players with HDMI 1.3 on both the player and reciever. See here:
http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/dtshd-master-audio-with-new-receiver.php

We are just now getting DTS HD MA compatible receivers (Onkyo & Pioneer) and there is on one Blu-ray player that is DTS HD MA compatible. I believe it is the new Panasonic Blu-ray player.

No HD DVD player can process DTS HD MA internially at this point, and since Toshiba's the only company making set top HD DVD players, you will not see an HD DVD player with this ability until late '07, or early '08.

Do some simple research.

fitprod

My HTPC decodes fine the DTS HD MA as well as DD TrueHD and all other new formats.. ;)
And yes, all DTS HD tracks I heard so far (Rennaisance, Terminator 2, Xmen3) sound GREAT!

It has been mentioned several times that most level differences on DVD between DTS and Dolby Digital had to do with Dolby's insistance on using Dial. Norm. It is a way of mucking with the channel levels of the master to make ALL tracks sound consistant in volume... kind of like "Smart Audio" on some TV's that you can't disable on your end. It also has the effect of lowering, slightly, the audio resolution as well.

Dial Norm. was a bad idea for discs (it was originally for broadcast TV audio), and it is time to turn it OFF.

At least Sony is apparently listening.

Dan

so now it s just a matter of time for the first player that supports DTS master to come out.......
And no, there is no one on the market yet! :)

My HTPC decodes fine the DTS HD MA as well as DD TrueHD and all other new formats.. ;)
And yes, all DTS HD tracks I heard so far (Rennaisance, Terminator 2, Xmen3) sound GREAT!
Which software package do you use to listen to DTS-HD MA? I'm not aware of any that can? :confused:

Are you guy's forgetting Samsung's new BD and Dual Format players. Their literature specifically says it supports all the new lossless formats over HDMI 1.3 with the new HDMI 1.3 receivers. Sony, Denon an Onkio all have TrueHD and DTS HD MA receivers to be released by the end of this year.

Are you guy's forgetting Samsung's new BD and Dual Format players. Their literature specifically says it supports all the new lossless formats over HDMI 1.3 with the new HDMI 1.3 receivers. Sony, Denon an Onkio all have TrueHD and DTS HD MA receivers to be released by the end of this year.

I am praying that a dual format player comes out with full support of HD-DVD and Blu Ray extras, profile 1.1, DTS-HD, DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, 7.1 analog outs, decent load times, for $800.

:D

I'd be willing to bet that, depending upon initial sales, the Samsung dual format, which is 1.1, will be 7 to 800 by March or April of next year. It should be a "hot seller" for us AV enthusiasts, especially those upgrading to the new HDMI 1.3 receivers.

Back to the orginal post ....

With any new format, I think there ends up being a trade-off between completeness and speed .... and HDDVD/BR are hardly the first formats to bow before all the detailed specs were worked out. So, I do not think it is some insidious conspiracy to separate you from your money (or at least not in the way that is suggested), rather just a desire to get the formats into the market place when they are at least good enough.

I know that I went through 3 DVD players in the period 1997-2000 in order to get features that were important to me (most notable DVD-A, arguably the most irrelevent audio format of all time); I suspect something similar before all the dus settles on HDDVD/BR.

Now I have to go back to searching my house for bugs - I'm sure 'they're' listening to me!

It has been mentioned several times that most level differences on DVD between DTS and Dolby Digital had to do with Dolby's insistance on using Dial. Norm. It is a way of mucking with the channel levels of the master to make ALL tracks sound consistant in volume... kind of like "Smart Audio" on some TV's that you can't disable on your end. It also has the effect of lowering, slightly, the audio resolution as well.

Dial Norm. was a bad idea for discs (it was originally for broadcast TV audio), and it is time to turn it OFF.

At least Sony is apparently listening.

Dan


What exactly is wrong with making sure that certain sources don't unexpectedly blast the listener out of the room?

Dilanorm is *not* the same as Dynamic Range Control, which reduces dyamic range entirely at the listener's option. Instead. dialnorm essentially sets the playback volume control once for each piece of program material so that listeners don't have to lunge for their volume controls when changing from one source to another. Most people would consider that a benefit.

Moreover, any loss of resolution with today's 20+ bit DACs is entirely academic, not to mention the fact that most receivers do their own volume control in the digital domain as well.