DTS sounds better than DD due to lower compression. Since these HD formats are lossless am I to assume that they will sound exactly the same?

DTS sounds better than DD due to lower compression. Since these HD formats are lossless am I to assume that they will sound exactly the same?

Provided the same PCM goes into both, and the same post-processing occurs (dynamic range control, normalization, etc) both will be the same. Of course, there will be those that insist they can hear a difference, but the decoded PCM should be bit for bit identical.

Thanks. I didn't know that there was post processing involved with these lossless codecs. So these formats will not be a true copy of the master in terms of dynamic range/volume?

And what is the obsession with DTS-HD MA in terms of disk/player/receiver support if Dolby TrueHD already offers today the exact same audio quality? The only reason I could think is that DTS-HD MA is a much more efficient codec taking less space on the disk leaving room for better video quality/more content?

Some Blu-ray studios are only using DTS-HD MA as their lossless track. On the HD-DVD side DTS is pretty much nowhere. There are some HD-DVD import titles using it, but these are original Blu-ray titles being released in Europe as HD-DVD.

The decoded PCM is lossless and true the original. Whether there is any post-processing applied after that is up to the studio engineering the disc.

Not clear that DTS for DVD sounds better than DD. DD is more efficient and must provide speech normalization. DTS does not provide speech normalization. Today most DD tracks are encoded at the highest bit rate and most DTS tracks are encoded at only 1/2 the highest possible bit rate; making the difference, if any, even less of an issue. Both can sound very good when good mastering practices are at play.

Richard

Not clear that DTS for DVD sounds better than DD. DD is more efficient and must provide speech normalization. DTS does not provide speech normalization. Today most DD tracks are encoded at the highest bit rate and most DTS tracks are encoded at only 1/2 the highest possible bit rate; making the difference, if any, even less of an issue. Both can sound very good when good mastering practices are at play.

Richard

Are you speaking of DTS-HD & Dolby TrueHD, or the DTS and DD found on regular DVD's?

Provided the same PCM goes into both, and the same post-processing occurs (dynamic range control, normalization, etc) both will be the same. Of course, there will be those that insist they can hear a difference, but the decoded PCM should be bit for bit identical.

I don't think DTS use any type of dialog normalization or dynamic compression control like Dolby does via metadata. While DC is user adajustable [night mode] dilalnorm is not, which once again can potentially "muddy the water" for direct comparison, which should be the same decoded PCM.
Well once we actually see some players and discs with DTS HD MA we will "know" better.

Are you speaking of DTS-HD & Dolby TrueHD, or the DTS and DD found on regular DVD's?

Regular DVD's, although I'll have to disagree. Sure the best DD films sound better than the worst DTS films but in every single disk that had both formats, DTS had a higher bit rate and sounded significantly better (much more clear/crisp/dynamic). To me it is like comparing 480p with 720p such is the difference, even on the cheapest of systems.

Regular DVD's, although I'll have to disagree. Sure the best DD films sound better than the worst DTS films but in every single disk that had both formats, DTS had a higher bit rate and sounded significantly better (much more clear/crisp/dynamic). To me it is like comparing 480p with 720p such is the difference, even on the cheapest of systems.

Okay. Although both are lossy formats, DD throws out way too much of the
original information, and is a lower bit rate.
If I'm watching a NASCAR race in HD I don't really care if it's in DD or matrixed through my receiver.
If it's pure music or a good film soundtrack I definitely want DTS over DD.

I've not had the pleasure of hearing the newer Hi-def implementations of these encoders. Someday. :)

DD throws out way too much of the original information, and is a lower bit rate.DD uses a lower bit rate because it is a more effecient codec than DTS. We see this in video routinely, with VC1 using less data than MPEG2 but still looking better.

Sanjay

DTS Still does sound better though! :P

DTS Still does sound better though!No. Certainly not in any formal listening tests. The only two studios to do a carefully controlled listening comparison (Warner Bros home video and 5.1 Entertainment music labels) stopped using DTS after comparing to DD. Magazines that have done blind listening tests (Home Theater Mag, Home Cinema Choice, etc) weren't able to reliably tell the two codecs apart, let alone pick one that sounds "better". DTS themselves cannot point to a single listening test that demonstrates their sonic superiority. Why is that if the supposed difference is so obvious?

Sanjay

I don't think DTS use any type of dialog normalization or dynamic compression control like Dolby does via metadata. While DC is user adajustable [night mode] dilalnorm is not, which once again can potentially "muddy the water" for direct comparison, which should be the same decoded PCM.
Well once we actually see some players and discs with DTS HD MA we will "know" better.

DTS does use Dialogue Normalization if set in the encoder.
This has been an option since the DTS-PSE encoder and is carried on into the DTS-HD MAS and the DTS-HD SAS encoders.
(Screenshots available on request).
The problem is that not all encoders are created equally - SurCode's is almost 5 years old now, and has no provision for this - neither does the Nuendo encoder.
The encoders also sound different.
SurCode is the oldest, Nuendo's sounds audibly better.
DTS-PSE is better still, and DTS-HD MAS is again better (from my tests) although it is subtle, and in the high end. It's more open, more detail.

DD is not as good sonically.
When we are talking films, the differences are extremely marginal, but in music it is clearly audible (to my mind & ears) once you know what you are listening for & to. You will also require a decent listening system, with proper speakers that are as close to full-range and certainly not the ghastly sub/satellite "bookshelf" types.
Why is this?
Possible reasons as follows
1 - You simply cannot throw out close to 11/12 of the original data - using an algorithm that thinks it knows best what you can & cannot hear - and seriously expect the results to sound the same. It's not going to happen, and nobody in their right minds can claim that DD is as good as lossless. The difference is close to that between night & day.
2 - DTS uses 3 times the bitrate. Doesn't take a genius to work this one out.
3 - The DTS coherent acoustics algo is admittedly a perceptual process - but in addition uses other methods.
Try following the basslines & bass drums in a DD stream. You will often find that you are not actually hearing everything. DD is muddier than DTS, less well defined, less punchy. And this is from the exact same PCM streams, with the same HPF rolloff at 80Hz for LFE content, Dialnorm = -31, Dynamic Range Compression set to OFF.

Dialnorm attenuates the L,R,Ls & Rs channels by (-31 default - dialnorm setting, so dialnorm of -27 = -4dB attenuation) to ensure thedialogue is intelligible at all times.
This is common to both Dolby Digital & DTS encoders. Sadly, older "legacy" DTS decoder chips cannot read or set the dialnorm metadata word. Newer ones can - and do.
Dynamic Range Profile is something different yet again. DRC works with the dialnorm word to ensure the correct null band is set during the "night-time" use. It is quite possible to set a dialnorm value without setting DRC, this will simply ensure the dialnorm attenuation is applied across the board regardless of any other setting.

Neither of these (Dialnorm or DRC) should ever be used for a music programme.

DTS does use Dialogue Normalization if set in the encoder.

Really, first time I've heard that, but like you said if it is set in encoder. How often that happens with movie encodes?

Really, first time I've heard that, but like you said if it is set in encoder. How often that happens with movie encodes?

It's also definitely a case of "if the decoder can read the dialnorm word" as well - this is still quite rare.
It's set with reference to LEQ(a), in exactly the same manner that the Dolby Digital one is.
With movie encodes - I always set the control word, and I imagine the larger studios also set it.
It always seems to return back to the 3rd party decoder chips.....

i wouldn't know what either sound like as my PS3,much to my chagrin,cannot decode either.sony's version of HDMI 1.3a does not play either in there native bitstream,yet.apparently we're waiting for new firmware that can correct this.if that's even possible.i am still waiting to see the little lights go off on my new onkyo,to reassure me that these new codecs are indeed working!DOLBY TRUE HD runs in a watered down version compared to uncompressed PCM,which is still superb@7.1.my question really lies in the fact that can new firmware really solve this,even though it has been reported that it is an older chipset of HDMI1.3a?

i wouldn't know what either sound like as my PS3,much to my chagrin,cannot decode either.sony's version of HDMI 1.3a does not play either in there native bitstream,yet.apparently we're waiting for new firmware that can correct this.if that's even possible.i am still waiting to see the little lights go off on my new onkyo,to reassure me that these new codecs are indeed working!DOLBY TRUE HD runs in a watered down version compared to uncompressed PCM,which is still superb@7.1.my question really lies in the fact that can new firmware really solve this,even though it has been reported that it is an older chipset of HDMI1.3a?

If your using HDMI, the PS3 decodes the TrueHD into uncompressed PCM. It is not watered down.

Where did you get the "watered down" idea about TrueHD?

yes,i'm afraid that it is watered down due to the fact that,as of yet the PS3 cannot decode TRUE HD in it's native bitstream nor DTS HDMA.these new codecs can run as high as 24.5 MBPS.in the dts case.300(the movie) tops out at only 3.2 MBPS in true hd,as opposed to 4.6 uncompressed lpcm,and i'm running a brand new ONKYO amp which can decode them all.so it's obviously not getting the bitstream signal (AND BELEIVE YOU ME I HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING)not running HDMI 1.3a.,1.1 at best!

what is the advantage in running a variable bitrate (in true hd) as opposed to not?

the PS3 cannot decode TRUE HD in it's native bitstreamDid you mean that the PS3 doesn't "transmit" TrueHD in its native bitstream? The PS3 does decode TrueHD internally, but cannot transmit any of the new HD audio codecs in their native bitstream. 300(the movie) tops out at only 3.2 MBPS in true hd,as opposed to 4.6 uncompressed lpcmTrueHD is LPCM, just stored more efficiently. But lossless packing make make it "watered down". TrueHD is bit-for-bit identical to the LPCM track.

Sanjay

Did you mean that the PS3 doesn't "transmit" TrueHD in its native bitstream? The PS3 does decode TrueHD internally, but cannot transmit any of the new HD audio codecs in their native bitstream. TrueHD is LPCM, just stored more efficiently. But lossless packing make make it "watered down". TrueHD is bit-for-bit identical to the LPCM track.

Sanjay

true,however,300 runs at up to 18.0mbps.as opposed to 3.2!in TRUE truehd.this is a lot more horsepower,and when all is said and done,thus is what we all mant!BOTTOM LINE IS i,and everybody who bought a ps3 were dooped,outright!they just threw in uncompressed lpcm to tide us over!

yes,i'm afraid that it is watered down due to the fact that,as of yet the PS3 cannot decode TRUE HD in it's native bitstream
As explained, when decoded TrueHD is LPCM. It's lossless, so it's the same as the master.

As for the PS3 deception, its HDMI 1.3 implementation is indeed "watered down", I suppose. It's well known that it can't transmit a bitstream for HD audio, although sonically it needn't matter.

300 runs at up to 18.0mbps.as opposed to 3.2!in TRUE truehd.this is a lot more horsepower,and when all is said and done,thus is what we all mant!What in '300' runs at 18Mbps? The audio and video signals combined? Or are you talking about the highest data rate that TrueHD is capable of?

There is no "TRUE truehd". If the soundtrack fits losslessly at 3.2mbps, then using more bandwidth doesn't buy you any improvement in sound quality. Once you have encoded 100% of the data in the soundtrack, why would you want to use more storage space and/or bandwidth?

Sanjay

What in '300' runs at 18Mbps? The audio and video signals combined? Or are you talking about the highest data rate that TrueHD is capable of?

There is no "TRUE truehd". If the soundtrack fits losslessly at 3.2mbps, then using more bandwidth doesn't buy you any improvement in sound quality. Once you have encoded 100% of the data in the soundtrack, why would you want to use more storage space and/or bandwidth?

Sanjay

To put it another way, TrueHD uses variable bitrate encoding so if the audio in a particular channel at a particular moment only needs 16 bits to reproduce rather than 24, it uses 16. PCM uses a fixed bitrate regardless of how many are actually needed.

Those numbers don't look right anyway. A TrueHD track is usually around 5Mbps compressed. No way the uncompressed LPCM is only 4.6Mbps.

why do we need both dts hdma and turehd. The former seems difficult to implement given it has taken 4 generations of players just to be able to bitstream it never mind decode it internally--why not just go with truehd and abandon dtsmahd? If both are bti for bit and completely lossless formats I don;t see the point. Especially whereas so many players still don;t decode it.

Why do we need Windows when there is Linux? Why do we need Firefox when there is IE? Why do we need AMD when there is Intel? ... I can keep it going :)

why do we need both dts hdma and turehd. The former seems difficult to implement given it has taken 4 generations of players just to be able to bitstream it never mind decode it internally--why not just go with truehd and abandon dtsmahd? If both are bti for bit and completely lossless formats I don;t see the point. Especially whereas so many players still don;t decode it.

Wow talk about resurrecting an old thread!

TrueHD and DTS-HD MA are identical after decoding, but there are differences in how they get packaged that can affect overall bitrates (AFAIK): TrueHD can be chunkier than DTS-HD MA, and thus you have to reserve more bandwidth for it "just in case". That may be why DTS-HD MA decoders have been so slow to implement - maybe it takes more processing to deal with some of the more advanced algorithms required to smooth out the data flow.

Just talking off the top of my head (or out of my a...), I don't really know anything about the mathematical algorithms beyond what I have read here and there (probably because they are proprietary and highly valuable).

So IMHO, AFAIK, YMMV, may cause dizziness, ulcers, head of a golden retriever, etc

shinksma

So IMHO, AFAIK, YMMV, may cause dizziness, ulcers, head of a golden retriever, etc


you forgot it'll also exacerbate the effects of the LHC black holes :D

why do we need both dts hdma and turehd. The former seems difficult to implement given it has taken 4 generations of players just to be able to bitstream it never mind decode it internally--why not just go with truehd and abandon dtsmahd? If both are bti for bit and completely lossless formats I don;t see the point. Especially whereas so many players still don;t decode it.

Many players do not decode 5.1 true HD either. What you get is the hidden Dolby DIgital stream, yet the true HD light remains on. Why? 'cos True HD is mandated for stereo only in BluRay.
So why not dump that one? It also costs around ten times more for the encoder tools, plus with the DTS-HD MAS you get a suite that will encode for any format, and a streamplayer for desktop use. Tell that one to Dobly.

+1

Many players do not decode 5.1 true HD either. What you get is the hidden Dolby DIgital stream, yet the true HD light remains on. Why? 'cos True HD is mandated for stereo only in BluRay...

TrueHD (2ch) is NOT a mandatory codec for BD. It is (was) for HD DVD. Also all audio mandatory or optional codecs only require that the codec be decoded and then can be output through 2ch analog and be in compliance. So multi channel is not a requirement.

+1

That a way to up that post count.:D

TrueHD (2ch) is NOT a mandatory codec for BD. It is (was) for HD DVD. Also all audio mandatory or optional codecs only require that the codec be decoded and then can be output through 2ch analog and be in compliance. So multi channel is not a requirement.


I stand corrected.
Thank you for the clarification.
(Checked on Blu Ray specs forum at http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_audio_codecs)
MultiChannel LPCM - mandatory or not - is still not supported by any authoring tool I know of except Scenarist & Blu Print though. And Multichannel output is still - as you say - not mandatory. Only downmix output is actually mandatory.

The sooner this mess goes away the better.
For surround & High Rez Audio, DVD-A/V is still by far the best way to go.
Properly authored discs will play on ALL DVD players in one form or another, ad speaking personally I fail to see the need for video in a music title. I like to listen to music - not watch it.

... speaking personally I fail to see the need for video in a music title. I like to listen to music - not watch it.

sounds like one of those SACDevangelists *LOL* ;)

sounds like one of those SACDevangelists *LOL* ;)

You have got to be kidding me!
SACD is an appalling format, with nothing but noise - and lots of it - above 23KHz caused by Sony forcing what was designed as an archival format into a playable one. It's a 1-bit stream that uses heroic noise shaping techniques to make it listenable-ish.
Sure - a good one can be great, but these are the exception.

Give me DVD-A any time.

heh :D I knew that would get ya.

how's Insurgentes coming along, btw? can't wait to add it to the registry!

Some Blu-ray studios are only using DTS-HD MA as their lossless track. On the HD-DVD side DTS is pretty much nowhere. There are some HD-DVD import titles using it, but these are original Blu-ray titles being released in Europe as HD-DVD.

The decoded PCM is lossless and true the original. Whether there is any post-processing applied after that is up to the studio engineering the disc.

Actually even here in the states at least 30% of musically inclined HD DVD's used DTS-HD MA or DTS-HD HR. All of Surround Records recordings DTS-HD. The only 7.1 music tracks on HD DVD that I know of outside of a demo disc used DTS-HD MA.

PCM=DolbyTrueHD=DTS-HDMA provided they all use the same source/mix/sampling rate, etc. in.

PCM=DolbyTrueHD=DTS-HDMA provided they all use the same source/mix/sampling rate, etc. in.

exactly--the diffeence here is that truehd has ben implemented on most players and dts hd ma is only starting to be realized (especially for those of us who need to use the analog outs, have expensive prepros and dont want to downgrade to a recever capable of bitstreaming dts hdma)--all these disks out now with it and so few players that decode it--at least if i wanted to put linux on my pc it would work--i have no beef with having the extra format out there it just seems so much more difficult to implement that i wonder if it is worth the effort when dolby truehd is here in most players now--including my old panny 10ak

Denophile,

Dobly Lab owns Dobly TrueHD while DTS-HD MA belongs to DTS, Inc. No company is willing to give up its own technology, and its license revenue, just because the other company's product does the same thing. As simple as that.

DTS-HD is just late to the game. Given time, all players in the future will be able to decode both, if market demands such capability, just like all the new HDMI 1.3 AVRs today can decode both.

I fail to see the need for video in a music title. I like to listen to music - not watch it. I agree yet there is no DVD-A that don't have at least static picture attached to the audio during play back and requires several pressing of enter/play just to play the surround tracks and most likely to turn on a monitor to change it to the stereo track. PT's Stupid Dream starts without any button pressed besides closing the door, why can't this be done on other DVD-As, Neil ?

This is just another version of the old DD vs. DTS arguement from DVD. Now that I have bitstreaming to my receiver, I can now say that (depending on the mix) TrueHD can sound just as nice as DTS-MA, and I was firmly in the DTS-MA is Superior to TrueHD camp a while back. There are some weak DTS-MA mixes as well as weak TrueHD mixes, but I am enjoying finding the good ones on each format.

Denophile,

Dobly Lab owns Dobly TrueHD while DTS-HD MA belongs to DTS, Inc. No company is willing to give up its own technology, and its license revenue, just because the other company's product does the same thing. As simple as that.

DTS-HD is just late to the game. Given time, all players in the future will be able to decode both, if market demands such capability, just like all the new HDMI 1.3 AVRs today can decode both.

That totally makes sense--it just seems to me that a lossless format is a lossless format and if it takes so much more technology/time to make one format work than another for the same quality why bother...I giess hollywood/dts revenue is the answer

That totally makes sense--it just seems to me that a lossless format is a lossless format and if it takes so much more technology/time to make one format work than another for the same quality why bother...I giess hollywood/dts revenue is the answer
Angle Soft will wipe your but the same as Charmin, Coke will quench your thrust the same as Pepsi, a Ford will get you to work the same as a Chevy. So should Georgia Pacific and P&G (Coke and Pepsi Co, Ford and Chevrolet) stop wasting technology/time and work together on one toilet paper (soft drink or car line)?

DTS and Dolby are two separate companions competing in the market with each other tiring to sell THEIR products (not the other guys). So what is their incentive to work together to make just one lossless codec?

Coke will quench your thrust...

I thought alcohol in larger quantities did that :eek: :p

This is just another version of the old DD vs. DTS arguement from DVD. Now that I have bitstreaming to my receiver, I can now say that (depending on the mix) TrueHD can sound just as nice as DTS-MA, and I was firmly in the DTS-MA is Superior to TrueHD camp a while back. There are some weak DTS-MA mixes as well as weak TrueHD mixes, but I am enjoying finding the good ones on each format.You do realize there is no such thing as a "TrueHD mix" or "DTS-MA mix"? The soundtrack is mixed before it gets encoded. TrueHD, dts-MA, and all of the other codecs are merely processes to save space by zipping and unzipping the audio file. Since TrueHD and dts-MA are lossless codecs, by definition they must produce identical outputs if they start with the same input.

Angle Soft will wipe your but the same as Charmin, Coke will quench your thrust the same as Pepsi, a Ford will get you to work the same as a Chevy. So should Georgia Pacific and P&G (Coke and Pepsi Co, Ford and Chevrolet) stop wasting technology/time and work together on one toilet paper (soft drink or car line)?

DTS and Dolby are two separate companions competing in the market with each other tiring to sell THEIR products (not the other guys). So what is their incentive to work together to make just one lossless codec?

coke and pepsi taste different and stand up to ice differently and toilet paper varies in softness and absorbence. the two audio formats are capable of providing equivalent sound i gut the profit motive--i just wish dts had an easier to implement equivalent solution and it seems ridiculous to me that we are on 4 and 5 gen players that still don't have the technology in them for dts hd ma.

coke and pepsi taste different and stand up to ice differently and toilet paper varies in softness and absorbence. the two audio formats are capable of providing equivalent sound i gut the profit motive--i just wish dts had an easier to implement equivalent solution and it seems ridiculous to me that we are on 4 and 5 gen players that still don't have the technology in them for dts hd ma.

DTS-MA and TrueHD "taste" different from each other while like Coke and Pepsi the goal is the same. DTS-MA has a built in DTS legacy core and can be used as a higher quality lossy DTS-HD. TrueHD contains meta data like Dialog Normalization and Dynamic Compression (night mode) and allows up to 192KHz for 5.1 audio.

You do realize there is no such thing as a "TrueHD mix" or "DTS-MA mix"? The soundtrack is mixed before it gets encoded. TrueHD, dts-MA, and all of the other codecs are merely processes to save space by zipping and unzipping the audio file. Since TrueHD and dts-MA are lossless codecs, by definition they must produce identical outputs if they start with the same input.

I was using "mix" as in the original source.

DTS-MA has a built in DTS legacy core and can be used as a higher quality lossy DTS-HD.DTS and DD use different techniques to arrive at the same lossless output. I hope you aren't saying the DTS core + extension approach for dts-MA produces anything other than an identical lossless output as the DD approach with TrueHD. The lossy encodes, both legacy and the new higher bitrate versions, should not be part of that discussion.

TrueHD contains meta data like Dialog Normalization and Dynamic Compression (night mode) and allows up to 192KHz for 5.1 audio.Dialnorm is not unique to DD. I believe DTS now includes a dialnorm setting, one that is usually set to off by default. Dialnorm is a can of worms that many audio experts say has no more impact on the audio than turning the volume knob. Here's a link (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=966077) to an extended discussion about dialnorm. Dynamic Compression is a user choice that can be turned on or off. In a proper comparison, Dynamic Compression would be turned off.

DTS and DD use different techniques to arrive at the same lossless output. I hope you aren't saying the DTS core + extension approach for dts-MA produces anything other than an identical lossless output as the DD approach with TrueHD. The lossy encodes, both legacy and the new higher bitrate versions, should not be part of that discussion.

Dialnorm is not unique to DD. I believe DTS now includes a dialnorm setting, one that is usually set to off by default... Dynamic Compression is a user choice that can be turned on or off. In a proper comparison, Dynamic Compression would be turned off.

DTS-HD Master (aka: DTS-MA) and Dolby TrueHD are lossless, DTS and DD are legacy lossy formats. DTS-HD is a new high bit lossy codec that doesn't have the lossless extensions that DTS-HD Master has (but still contains the DTS legacy core).

It looks like DTS-MA has added Dialog Normalization but I have yet to see it used and it's optional (thank goodness). Unfortunately it's mandatory on TrueHD. Dynamic Compression (night mode) is meta data unique to TrueHD and DD. Also TrueHD and DD contain meta data for a derived 2 channel mix that's not present in DTS or DTS-MA (I believe).

William - I guess I am not clear about your point here. Are you saying there's a difference in the lossless output between TrueHD and dts-MA if each is used to compress the same source track? Or, are you simply describing structural differences unrelated to lossless output?

It looks like DTS-MA has added Dialog Normalization but I have yet to see it used and it's optional (thank goodness). Unfortunately it's mandatory on TrueHD.DialNorm use is optional on any of the Dolby codecs, including TrueHD. Setting the DialNorm value to -31 is the equivalent of turning it off (no attenuation upon playback). The default setting on DTS encoders is -31. The default setting on Dolby encoders is -27 (4dB attenuation upon playback). The default setting is not "mandatory", and can be set to -31 (or any other value) if the operator so wishes. If memory serves, the LOTR trilogy had DD soundtracks with DialNorm off (-31 setting).

Sanjay

DTS uses 3 times the bitrate. Doesn't take a genius to work this one out

BS. 768 vs 448.

William - I guess I am not clear about your point here. Are you saying there's a difference in the lossless output between TrueHD and dts-MA if each is used to compress the same source track? Or, are you simply describing structural differences unrelated to lossless output?

Then let me be crystal clear: All things being equal a LPCM stream will be bit for bit identical to a TrueHD and/or DTS-MA track after decoding. I was simply pointing out the technical deference's and free enterprise reasons to Denophile who asked:

why do we need both dts hdma and turehd...--why not just go with truehd and abandon dtsmahd? If both are bti for bit and completely lossless formats I don;t see the point...

BS. 768 vs 448.

Actually on BD DTS is 1.516 Mbps and DD is 640 Kbps (504 Kbps (?) on HD DVD) which is 2.37 times more data.

I dunno why we are confusing the topic with mentions of compressed DTS and DD tracks

BS. 768 vs 448.Those bitrates are the exception rather than the rule. There are very few DTS-HD MA titles (e.g., 'Oldboy', 'Suburban Girl') that have a DTS 768kbps core. Typically, the DTS core is 1.5Mbps. Same with TrueHD: the companion DD track is almost always 640kbps, with likely very few at 448kbps.

Sanjay

here's hoping that dts ma HD goes the way of hddvd. I supose if there is a bitrate difference between the two then that is something to hang one's proverbial hat on regarding a diference but given a lossless format should a bitrate diference (ignoring any format specific processing) allow for an appreciable difference in sound?

here's hoping that dts ma HD goes the way of hddvd....

Since DTS licenses (*hardware decoder fees) include DTS-MA along with DTS for the same fee (same for Dolby's DD and TrueHD) it's not going anywhere.

*There is no licensing fee for encoding so it costs a studio basically nothing extra to use Dolby and/or DTS codecs.

I supose if there is a bitrate difference between the two then that is something to hang one's proverbial hat on regarding a diference but given a lossless format should a bitrate diference (ignoring any format specific processing) allow for an appreciable difference in sound?None at all. The lossless codecs use variable bitrates, using what they need at any given moment. Given the same source material, lossless formats produce identical outputs.

Denophile - why are you so against the idea that there could be two lossless encoding formats that could produce the exact same thing?

Denophile - why are you so against the idea that there could be two lossless encoding formats that could produce the exact same thing?

I was kind of kidding but i suppose it didn;t come across that way--I guess if I could afford to upgrade players every week or two it would be great but it frustrates the hell out of me that it has taken so long to implement it into the players--if there are going to be two formats than for f*&& sake get it into the darn players or give it up--there ae SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many movies out there in dts ma HD that I cannot currently take advantage of (like 100+ sitting on my shelf as I write this)--I suppose I will be happier when I upgrade blu ray players (yet again) to include this technology via analog (instead of bitstream) but in the mean time i really wish that either it had been included in the first oh, 2 or 3 generations of players or that at least the movie companies would have held off on putting out so many of them with dts ma hd (without a concomitant selectable dolby truehd track) until the technology was widespread enough to take advantage of it by most blu ray owners.

Now, I am no opponent of competition, capitalism, upgrading, apple pie (mmmmmmmmmmmmm apple pie--sorry had a homer moment), baseball, or the like. I have no problem with the format existing but the way it has been implemented is annoying to me (although I may be the only person who apparently feels this way)--it seems a bit absurd to me that truehd has been out for years now yet another EQUIVALENT technology has taken so long to get into players, requiring people like me to upgrade players yet again. In fact it seems like this day in age it has been used almost like a tool to get people to have to upgrade players or receivers/pre-pros. I do not remember a technology so labile in implementation, well, ever. Is there really that much difference in the implementation fo the technology, and if so, why--why has truehd been able to do it so much sooner and iwth so much less hassle.

It also seems to me that hddvd was a similar story--the players worked and were out, cheaper, and relatively reliable--blu ray took more time to come out and it seems like it is in some ways still catching up (and unfortunately eternally evolving either with audio codecs or internet connectivity, bd 1.1,2.0, bd java etc) --so many generations of players, so many problems, and yet still waiting for the technology (i.e. dts hd ma) to be widespread in players especially those of us who rely on analog. :eek::eek::confused::eek::eek:

I had no horse in that race and I really don't in this one--in fact I was hoping both blu ray and hddvd would both survive indefinitely but for better or worse one format did lose and to me that was the better one--i had many less problems with dropouts, 'unplayable' disks, firmware issues, etc with hddvd but we're now stuck with blu. The a35 I bought my dad still works like a charm and has never had an issue--the sony 300 I got him also works but is INCREDIBLY slow and is a bit fickle--my own samsung dual format has been a nightmare but ironically has been much more reliable on hddvd's than blu rays (odd for a company that primarily designed blu players) but this isn't about hd vs blu. :confused:

It seems silly to be putting out an audio format that is unusable--while dtsmahd is finally becoming marginally implemented certainly there were many many many movies put out before almost anyone could use it-maybe to some extent this was true of the multichannel implementation of truehd but even my 2nd gen panny can now do that with a simple firmware upgrade and certainly it has been available now in most players for some time now. If it were just a firmware issue I would feel better about it but it seems to get the actual unit to decode dtsmahd itself via analog for some reason is a herculean task--again why so difficult when truehd has been able to do it with existing technology and via firmware upgrades? Maybe it is just my paranoia talking but this makes absolutely no sense to me. :eek:

ok i'm getting off my soap box now--that is just my HO. I am sure i'll stop complaining when i upgrade to the denon 3800 or the denon true universal when it finally becomes available. :D

sorry I asked, LOL :D

not to trivialize your points (I'm just plain lazy) - in a nutshell, though, (1) it's not DTS' fault that BD is in the state you describe; and also, (2) if HDDVD had won the 'war' DTS would still be in the same position they are - slightly late to market etc and no compatibility with earlier equipment

sorry I asked, LOL :D

not to trivialize your points (I'm just plain lazy) - in a nutshell, though, (1) it's not DTS' fault that BD is in the state you describe; and also, (2) if HDDVD had won the 'war' DTS would still be in the same position they are - slightly late to market etc and no compatibility with earlier equipment

yes, and sorry I rambled--i definitely didn;t mean to imply that hddvd had anything to do with dts-hd-ma and its current state--two totally independent issues for sure--i guess the loose association in my mind had to do with hddvd dying out and my previous post about dts hd dying out--definitely a LOOSE association. and I can totally understand trivializing my points. I mean we have soldiers overseas fighting for our freedom, a recent natural disaster, a crashing economy, world poverty and disease--I guess with all that in mind having to live with dts core for another six months is not the worst thing in the world.

speaking of which and to avoid continuing to whine I am really curious--why is it that dts seems to be so difficult to implement and so much more technologically complex? I'd be really interested in how it all works and how the hardware and processing is actually different.

I think its just a matter of Dolby being more entrenched in the industry and being able to drive the changes, so that [it seems] DTS has to play catch up most of the time

From what I've seen, Dolby is far and away the industry leader in audio technology. Companies seem to be having difficulties engineering a decoder that works in the real world using the DTS core + extension approach.

DTS is always late to the party with problems following specs. Anyone who was an early DVD adopter knows just how bad and late DTS can be (and cry like a baby also). BD implementation has been a piece of cake for DTS by comparison. DTS and Toshiba almost went to war over DVD's specs.

However DTS has a large cult following of true believers that are almost fanatical in nature. Also whether you like DTS or prefer Dolby (or indifferent to ambivalent like me) both are here to stay and all equipment upgrades should include compatibility for both companies entire line of codecs.

^^^^ Well said!

However DTS has a large cult following of true believers that are almost fanatical in nature. Also whether you like DTS or prefer Dolby (or indifferent to ambivalent like me) both are here to stay and all equipment upgrades should include compatibility for both companies entire line of codecs.

I'll drink to that. Can someone please pass this along to DTS?:p

I've heard that DTS has a better compression than Dolby.

No doubt from DTS right?

Sort of understand why there have to been two players in the audio market delivering effectively the same thing. With only one company there would be no commercial pressures on it to provide bang for buck. But it is pretty confusing for the consumer and hard for CE manufacturers having to provide support for both.

The issues about PCM and Bitstream are probably the most confusing areas out there at the moment - how to get lossless audio from various devices.

Also what studios choose as their format is confusing also and contradictory. For example Live Free or Die Hard comes out with a TrueHD track. But the non-US version Die Hard 4.0 has DTS Master HD (plus apparently some scenes deleted from the original movie as being a language offensive)

Go figure!

You must have a non-US copy. My copy of Live Free or Die hard comes with DTS-HD MA 5.1, the best sound track I've ever heard.

You must have a non-US copy. My copy of Live Free or Die hard comes with DTS-HD MA 5.1, the best sound track I've ever heard.

No faulty memory - problems with posting from work! I thought they had different tracks - clearly they don't. But I am sure I have seen the same title with TrueHD on US copies and DTS Master on non-US ones. Will have to do more research on this.

What I have seen which is interesting is PCM 5.1 on a US version and TrueHD on the non-US ones

If my player doesnt support DTS-HD MA, is there a hidden DTS-HD track inside the MA? Or does it automatically drop to straight DTS?

If my player doesnt support DTS-HD MA, is there a hidden DTS-HD track inside the MA? Or does it automatically drop to straight DTS?

The core track is always the regular DTS track

I like the idea behind the DTS approach of core track + the lossless year which probably uses less space and bandwidth than Dolby TrueHD + Dolby Digital, but it seems like Dolby TrueHD's idea is more practical. Considering Blu-ray's capacity and bandwidth, I don't think that can be considered as an advantage

The core track is always the regular DTS track

I like the idea behind the DTS approach of core track + the lossless year which probably uses less space and bandwidth than Dolby TrueHD + Dolby Digital...

How does DTS's 1.5mbps core + DTS Master use less space than DD 640kbps + TrueHD?

Because the DTS MA tracks uses bits from the core while TrueHD doesn't. For 16bit TrueHD probably wins. The bitrate goes below 1.5Mbps when there is little to nothing going on in the surrounds so the core forces forces it to be at least 1.5Mbps and since that part is encoded with a less efficient legacy codec (like MP3&AAC) it will still have to throw data away (which becomes the extension). Its probably the same reason HR is rarely used as MA will use likely use less space.

How does DTS's 1.5mbps core + DTS Master use less space than DD 640kbps + TrueHD?

Because unlike DTS, the core Dolby Digital track is not part of the Dolby TrueHD track. DTS uses both tracks to deliver one unified track while for Dolby TrueHD, they both have to be stored separately
As for bandwidth, all the audio tracks occupy the bandwidth at the same time. For DTS, DTS core is part of the DTS-MA while Dolby Digital is separate from Dolby TrueHD. Paidgeek also mentioned the same thing once in Blu-ray.com

The advantage wont apply for HD DVD since Dolby TrueHD was mandatory, but then again HD DVD was limited in terms of space and bandwidth

Because the DTS MA tracks uses bits from the core while TrueHD doesn't. For 16bit TrueHD probably wins. The bitrate goes below 1.5Mbps when there is little to nothing going on in the surrounds so the core forces forces it to be at least 1.5Mbps and since that part is encoded with a less efficient legacy codec (like MP3&AAC) it will still have to throw data away (which becomes the extension). Its probably the same reason HR is rarely used as MA will use likely use less space.

I remember reading that the DTS core was not part of the build of DTS Master.

Because unlike DTS, the core Dolby Digital track is not part of the Dolby TrueHD track. DTS uses both tracks to deliver one unified track while for Dolby TrueHD, they both have to be stored separately
As for bandwidth, all the audio tracks occupy the bandwidth at the same time. For DTS, DTS core is part of the DTS-MA while Dolby Digital is separate from Dolby TrueHD. Paidgeek also mentioned the same thing once in Blu-ray.com

The advantage wont apply for HD DVD since Dolby TrueHD was mandatory, but then again HD DVD was limited in terms of space and bandwidth

Not sure I understand what you are saying since all audio tracks are in the same stream (so called bandwidth) and read at the same time. As I said I had read that the DTS core was not a part of the build of DTS Master. You could remove the lossy core and you would still have the full DTS Master audio codec. Now this could be wrong but this is the way I understand it.

I remember reading that the DTS core was not part of the build of DTS Master.



Not sure I understand what you are saying since all audio tracks are in the same stream (so called bandwidth) and read at the same time. As I said I had read that the DTS core was not a part of the build of DTS Master. You could remove the lossy core and you would still have the full DTS Master audio codec. Now this could be wrong but this is the way I understand it.

It is part of the build of DTS-MA

According to DTS-HD White Paper, the DTS-HD Master Audio contains 2 data streams, the original DTS core stream and the additional "residual" stream, which contains the "difference" between the original signal and the lossy compression DTS core stream. The audio signal is split into two paths at the input to the encoder. One path goes to the core encoder for backwards compatibility and is then decoded. The other path compares the original audio to the decoded core signal and generates residuals, which are data over and above what the core contains that is needed to restore the original audio as bit-for-bit identical to the original. The residual data is then encoded by a lossless encoder and packed together with the core. The decoding process is simply the reverse. Notice that Lossless audio coding is always variable bit rate.

Click here (http://www.dts.com/DownloadDocument.aspx?q=a7beda1e-cfe6-4ca4-b6b2-cda9554bb6a5) to view the white paper regarding DTS-HD MA. It also explains the same thing; that DTS core itself is considered part of DTS-MA track

It is part of the build of DTS-MA Click here (http://www.dts.com/DownloadDocument.aspx?q=a7beda1e-cfe6-4ca4-b6b2-cda9554bb6a5) to view the white paper regarding DTS-HD MA. It also explains the same thing; that DTS core itself is considered part of DTS-MA track

Gracias, Amigo