This is a private poll so vote with confidence.

PLEASE . . .

Let us discuss and not bicker.

Nothing private about my vote. I've always prefered DTS and DTS MA is the most advanced audio codec out there. You can have a 1st gen DTS amplifier and still get a great 1.5mbps through optical, and if you've got the latest stuff, full blown 24bit master track. Can't get any better than that.

I have always been a big fan of DTS codec. I like DTS CDs (although they are not as good as SACD or DVD-A) and for the most part, they provided a more robust experience in DVDs than Dolby.
I like the idea of DTS-MA. It has an excellent DTS-core part which sounds good and it also delivers the lossless package too. I just hope DTS-MA decoding would appear in players soon.
The good part is DTS support on HD DVD/Blu-ray is mandatory so every studio can include DTS-MA and let go of the Dolby part.

24bit LPCM on BD and 16bit TrueHD on HD DVD.

DTS-MA. For the extractable DTS core since I do not have an AVR capable of decoding any of the lossless codecs, I can still get good ole DTS.

And when I do get a AVR that can decode it, all of my DTS-MA discs will sound even better.

I was that guy who bought a top of the line AVR right before the advent of HDM so I'm not about to go buy another until they hit the cheap or I win the lottery.

Ya,ya there are hardly any players that can decode the DTS-MA <YET>!

The codec isn't going anywhere and how many DVD players did you guys go through? I have had about ten.

So bashing DTS-MA for not being compatible with many players is kind of short sighted.

...So bashing DTS-MA for not being compatible with many players is kind of short sighted.
Not if you want to hear in The Day After Tomorrow today in lossless.:D I guess we can keep waiting on the day after, the day after tomorrow to hear The Day After Tomorrow.:confused:

Not if you want to hear in The Day After Tomorrow today in lossless.:D I guess we can keep waiting on the day after, the day after tomorrow to hear The Day After Tomorrow.:confused:

I can hear the Day After Tomorrow in full lossless Today. Without breaking the bank, thanks to Onkyo!

Where's the option for "Doesn't matter, as long as the audio track kicks ass?" ;)

IMHO, you should have at least one choice for (L)PCM for the players that can't decode DTS-HD/MA or TrueHD.

I personally don't care (and hence did not vote as this was not an option) what codec is used for audio or video as long as it looks/sounds great. Curious question though, if TrueHD and DTS-MA are lossless codecs then how exactly are they supposed to be different? Why should I prefer one over the other? If they are both lossless then they should both sound IDENTICAL to each other. Yes I know that you can extract the core of DTS-MA wherin you can't with TrueHD but with that exception is there any real difference? (Clearly that is a studio bonus as they don't have to provide a DD/DD+ track alongside the lossless track as they do with the Dolby product). Why should I care one way or the other? My players all decode TrueHD and none of them decode DTS-MA and I don't have a HDMI receiver so bitstreaming is out of the picture for me so TrueHD is a better choice (for me atm) but I dont really care one way or the other. I am just curious as to why people are so adamant that they use DTS-MA vs TrueHD if they are both truely lossless.

EXACTLY! Lossless format is just that....besides, what HD media has both a True HD and DTS-MA track to compare to? Useless poll IMO....

DD+ at 1.5/TruHD and PCM are all fine by me. DTS HD MA not so much since my players can't decode it.

I can hear the Day After Tomorrow in full lossless Today. Without breaking the bank, thanks to Onkyo!

I have HDMI 1.3 decoding receiver too, but not many of us own the Sammy 1400 also.;)

lpcm

lpcm

...but just on BD. For HD DVD we need TrueHD to save bandwidth for video.;)

Nothing private about my vote. I've always prefered DTS and DTS MA is the most advanced audio codec out there. You can have a 1st gen DTS amplifier and still get a great 1.5mbps through optical, and if you've got the latest stuff, full blown 24bit master track. Can't get any better than that.


This statement pretty much sums up my view.

I prefer Dolby TrueHD because it is lossless and most players (including my BD player and the PS3) can decode it.

I understood why DTS sounded better at the theater when it first came out.

But then when it hit LD - we here at AVS, at the time, had MANY conversations as to which sounded better . . . AC3 or DTS. And after many threads and MANY posts - we came up with the difference . . . DTS was 3db louder. When you adjusted your receiver to 3db less, there was no discernable difference between AC3 and DTS.

The same thing happened also with DVD.

And it looks like the same will once again happen in HDM. Buuut - not everyone drives a Chevy and not everyone likes the color green. . . but if the definition of Lossless is an exact copy of the master . . . how can there be any difference whatsoever?

Nothing private about my vote. I've always prefered DTS and DTS MA is the most advanced audio codec out there. You can have a 1st gen DTS amplifier and still get a great 1.5mbps through optical, and if you've got the latest stuff, full blown 24bit master track. Can't get any better than that.
+2

Core is great until my player and/or receiver will decode the big stuff.

EXACTLY! Lossless format is just that....besides, what HD media has both a True HD and DTS-MA track to compare to? Useless poll IMO....

Close Encounters of the Third Kind. BD has TrueHD and DTS-MA.

I can't compare the two because my AVR won't support lossless. But it does have both tracks. Someone should check that out.

Not if you want to hear in The Day After Tomorrow today in lossless.:D I guess we can keep waiting on the day after, the day after tomorrow to hear The Day After Tomorrow.:confused:

samsung 1400 can pass the DTS-HDMA out via hdmi, almost made me go buy one. I'm still trying to figure out a way to convince the powers that be to give us an option just send the bitstream out over HDMI and not allow the players to add their own beeps and clicks to the sound. It's not because of the lossless. It's because I fundamentally don't want the HDi/BD-J coder to add their own obnoxious (imo, sorry) sounds to the movie track if I press a button on the remote. I became convinced of this after hearing what the author of PotO did with the screeching sound on the popup menu button --- and in a musical/opera disk to boot!!!! What was the guy thinking?

This choice should be an option for every player. I'd force the bitstream out - that's should be a choice for me. Someone else might want to stick with the beeps, let him have the choice. That way everyone is happy.

I still don't understand the resistance to this feature. This is actually less work than decoding them to PCM/analog. The player just needs to stream the audio ES from disk to the hdmi port and be done with it. It should be a lot easier to put in.

I just don't get this. Why do I need a codec that produces essentially the same lossless result but need to buy a receiver that can decode it. I will care about DTS HDMA when it is built into players, otherwise it has no business taking up space on the High Def DVD of whatever color. This is just BS planned obsolesence by the CEs

For now since my PS3 can't decode it I chose TrueHD. But if/once the PS3 can decode DTS MA, based on how great the core sounds, my vote will change to DTS MA all the way :D

I understood why DTS sounded better at the theater when it first came out.

But then when it hit LD - we here at AVS, at the time, had MANY conversations as to which sounded better . . . AC3 or DTS. And after many threads and MANY posts - we came up with the difference . . . DTS was 3db louder. When you adjusted your receiver to 3db less, there was no discernable difference between AC3 and DTS.

The same thing happened also with DVD.

And it looks like the same will once again happen in HDM. Buuut - not everyone drives a Chevy and not everyone likes the color green. . . but if the definition of Lossless is an exact copy of the master . . . how can there be any difference whatsoever?

You are correct. The lossless is lossless and therefore it all sounds the same. No question about that.
Still the are reasons which I think make DTS-MA a better choice:

1)The lossy core. For those who dont have receiver or a player to support DTS-MA coding (I hope more players come soon) the lossy core sounds great.

2)As amir has mentioned, I think DTS-MA is better at managing peaks and it also needs less space. There it's more efficient and nothing is as good as being efficient :D. I might be wrong in this case so feel free to correct me.

3)By using one DTS-MA track the studios can provide one unified lossy and lossless tracks for folks with different players and receivers and therefore less space is wasted. (the way that FOX does)

I just don't get this. Why do I need a codec that produces essentially the same lossless result but need to buy a receiver that can decode it. I will care about DTS HDMA when it is built into players, otherwise it has no business taking up space on the High Def DVD of whatever color. This is just BS planned obsolesence by the CEs

If I follow the logic of DVD players, there really was no good reason for the players to decode either AC3 or DTS, it only made the switching on the receiver more complicated.

In fact, for me, I still don't see any value in the player doing any audio decoding, after hearing all the explanations about mixing in other sounds in the player, my conclusion is still that I only want to take the original sounds intended in the movie and listen to only that. If I have my way, no player should have the ability to add any sounds that was not originally part of the movie. That's just my opinion.

Note that I care only a little about the lossless aspect, but I just fundamentally don't agree with giving the player the ability to mix in any extra sounds at all.

Well as an apartment guy, I must say DTS is a problem for me.

With Dolby, I can get a better audioexperience with lower volume thanks to its metadata.

Every DTS movie I have is almost impossible to view without me controlling the volume depending on if its action or dialouge.

I assume the "DTS HD" choice is HR?

If I follow the logic of DVD players, there really was no good reason for the players to decode either AC3 or DTS, it only made the switching on the receiver more complicated.
Decoding of the HDM formats in the player is a far cry from old DVD players with 6 analog outs. Unlike the latter, the processing, bass-managment, D/A conversion is still occurring in the AVR.

If I have my way, no player should have the ability to add any sounds that was not originally part of the movie.
Well, the "added" sounds are already part of the disc, the extra commentary, etc. It's not like the player is adding its own sounds somehow (unless you count menu clicks and stuff). Many don't care much about that stuff either (myself included), but let's be clear what we're talking about.
Following that logic, all extras should be disabled on current DVD also.

Huh? Don't know the difference between all those acronyms.
I have my stuff hooked up to my HDTV speakers and everything sounds fine. Used to have a surround sound system before I moved, but have been too lazy over the past year to set it back up...and it sounds good enough coming out of the tv (though I do miss the surround sound at times). And even if I had my surround system set up, I still wouldn't know the difference between those acronyms :p

Hi Lee,

I think it would have been a good idea to do this poll with answer such as "I am a HD supporter and prefer XYZ" and "I am a BD supporter and prefer XYZ" -type answers.

I have maintained that it is my opinion that audio codec preference is sharply delineated by which format you own - basically because HD DVD players can decode TrueHD, it is the most efficient lossless format on HD due to not having and extra DD core needed - whereas because DTS MA is the most efficient lossless codec on BD, BD owners prefer it on that format.

But all of this aside - lossless is lossless - and all of them will decode to the same bit-for-bit info that was on the original PCM track used for the encodes.

It's my opinion that most of the TrueHD votes were from HD owners, and most of the DTS MA votes from BD owners.

Hi Lee,

I think it would have been a good idea to do this poll with answer such as "I am a HD supporter and prefer XYZ" and "I am a BD supporter and prefer XYZ" -type answers.

I have maintained that it is my opinion that audio codec preference is sharply delineated by which format you own - basically because HD DVD players can decode TrueHD, it is the most efficient lossless format on HD due to not having and extra DD core needed - whereas because DTS MA is the most efficient lossless codec on BD, BD owners prefer it on that format.

But all of this aside - lossless is lossless - and all of them will decode to the same bit-for-bit info that was on the original PCM track used for the encodes.

It's my opinion that most of the TrueHD votes were from HD owners, and most of the DTS MA votes from BD owners.

Very vaild points. But we do have members from Germany where DTS-MA is found on HD DVD titles.

But IMHO - we are at the mindset that many who choose DTS MA are doing it because they associate that with a "higher" grade of audio even though the truth is that both DTHD and DTSMA should sound EXACTLY the same.

Lee many of us choose DTS for the extractable core.

Lee many of us choose DTS for the extractable core.

*Lee is on thin ice here*:o

I need some help please.

1. Is the core of DTS MA equal to DTS MA, the whole thing?

2. Is the DTS-MA core called DTS-HD?

3. DTHD has no core - you either have access to it or not . . true?

*Lee is on thin ice here*:o

I need some help please.

1. Is the core of DTS MA equal to DTS MA, the whole thing?

2. Is the DTS-MA core called DTS-HD?

3. DTHD has no core - you either have access to it or not . . true?

DTS-HD Core is the 1.5Mbps "base". Can be passed over S/PDIF. DTS-HD H(igh) R(esolution) adds extensions to the core for greater resolution (6Mbps), and DTS-HD M(aster) A(udio) adds even more to attain full lossless performance (18-24Mbps). Each player grabs what it can handle. At least that's the way I look at it, and I welcome corrections.
DTS seems more "elegant", if you will, although I find claims of better sound "hands down" to be baseless.

http://www.dtsonline.com/dts-hd/see-how-it-works.php

In the case of the Toshiba A2, TrueHD is sent over optical as a 1.5Mbps DTS bitstream, so I don't think it's a leap to look at it as TrueHD "Core". Although the Dolby spec calls for a separate stream in the form of DD+.

But IMHO - we are at the mindset that many who choose DTS MA are doing it because they associate that with a "higher" grade of audio even though the truth is that both DTHD and DTSMA should sound EXACTLY the same.
Any actual differences (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, I do think that's the case. Old allegiances die hard.

My personal vote went to TrueHD. I would normally say DTS-HD-MA because obviously by including the core, it is packing the most audio data into the smallest space. Giving a lossless and lossy track in a smaller footprint than it's Dolby brethern. But one reason kept me from it:

#1. Neither my player or receiver decode it.

Rdjam,

There isn't a post on this forum that is unbiased.

I would also think that his poll is bias AGAINST Blu Ray owners because there are more LPCM tracks available on Blu Ray than TruHD and DTS HD MA combined on both formats.

172 LPCM tracks
156 TruHD + DTS HD MA

Jack Gilvey:

Thank you for that explaination - I appreciate . . . and I think I understood it.

*Message to self* . . . . . HD Audio postings is no place for you Lee!

:o:o:o:o

Rdjam,

There isn't a post on this forum that is unbiased.

I would also think that his poll is bias AGAINST Blu Ray owners because there are more LPCM tracks available on Blu Ray than TruHD and DTS HD MA combined on both formats.

172 LPCM tracks
156 TruHD + DTS HD MAI think you simply misunderstand my post. My purpose is not to complain - merely to point out a couple of the reasons for why BD owners prefer DTS MA and HD DVD owners prefer TrueHD.

Live and let live, I say. There seems to have been a push in the last few days by some to imply that DTS MA is "better", but this is simply not the case.

Understanding why some people prefer one or the other simply helps other readers understand the discussions better.

I have no doubt that you are correct on many more BD releases using LPCM than DTHD or DTSMA - due to the lack of mandated decoders, primarily. However, DTHD uses half the space, or less, of PCM and there is no reason NOT to use it on HD DVD, since all owners can decode it. So even though HD DVD can use LPCM also, you are very unlikely to find it on HD DVD as it not required in order for users to hear lossless and would be considered a waste of space on HD DVD.

As such, this thread has simply been a decent discussion of these points which can be confusing to some folks.

Hope this helps.

...
In the case of the Toshiba A2, TrueHD is sent over optical as a 1.5Mbps DTS bitstream, so I don't think it's a leap to look at it as TrueHD "Core". Although the Dolby spec calls for a separate stream in the form of DD+.
...

Just to be clear, TrueHD does not have a DTS core. The Tosh players have an internal DTS encoder. What happens is the TrueHD is converted to LPCM internally then re-encoded to DTS to be sent out via optical. I think this is true for all Tosh players but I may be wrong about that.

BTW: Couldn't vote. I'm in the camp where I really don't care about the codec. I just want it to sound good. That said, there is one codec on both BD and Hd DVD I don't want and that's DTS HD MA. I have nothing that can decode this. On BD, I would prefer LPCM since I have a BD player that cannot decode ANY of the higher end codecs. But that's just me

Just to be clear, TrueHD does not have a DTS core. The Tosh players have an internal DTS encoder. What happens is the TrueHD is converted to LPCM internally then re-encoded to DTS to be sent out via optical.
Understood, hence my wording.

I think this is true for all Tosh players but I may be wrong about that.
I think only the A2 converts to a 1.5 Mbps DTS stream.

Understood, hence my wording.


I think only the A2 converts to a 1.5 Mbps DTS stream.

Hi Jack,

I thought that's what you meant but I wasn't sure. Perhaps it was just me being dense. :(

BTW: My A1 does the same conversion.

I went with TrueHD since most players can decode it. Both of my players do (Panasonic blu-ray and Toshiba XA1).

Of course, LPCM is the way to go if it fits on the disk.

I don't use optical outputs, or coaxial either... except for playing CDs.

Understood, hence my wording.


I think only the A2 converts to a 1.5 Mbps DTS stream....and the A1, and the XA1, and others, I believe, tho the A3 converts to DD instead. Heck, the Xbox 360 can even convert it to WMA Pro! :)

...and the A1, and the XA1, and others, I believe, tho the A3 converts to DD instead. Heck, the Xbox 360 can even convert it to WMA Pro! :)

The core stream of DTS is what gives it a slight nudge for me ahead of TrueHD. With DTS you get a 1.5 Mbps studio encoded DTS legacy stream compared with TrueHD where you get a 1.5 Mbps on-the-fly encoded DTS legacy stream.

It is likely that you're going to get higher encoding efficiency with a studio encoder that is not restricted to real time encoding than a consumer level on-the-fly encoder.

DTS anyday over Dolby.

Audio is so secondary to me, so much so that I still use my old Pioneer AVR and don't really have any plans to upgrade for atleast another year. Needless to say, I have no real preference in this area.

I vote for NOT DTS-MA, since many players can't decode it. (and I'm not giving up my 2307ci)

24bit LPCM on BD and 16bit TrueHD on HD DVD.

Yup

I vote for MA, becasue I think it's the best technology even if the differences are subtle.

I havent had the luxury (has anyone?) of comparing all the formats side by side.

I would have voted (possibly) for PCM uncompressed as a runner up just based upon how many soundtracks I've heard lately that wowed me..I cant definitively say its the format but I have to admit its blown me away.

I've always believed the bit depth was the most important thing ..that 96/24 was the way to go even if you have to compress the data...but it seems my ears have been telling me otherwise. My first reaction to PCM was "what? 16 bit?" But I gott admit it's knocked my socks off. Always much better than DD.

Maybe True HD would be better than PCM...but I havent been able to compare the same track in both True Hd and PCM. Its just been my experience that I like the PCM tracks I've heard so far better than the T HD ones.

I've rented about 80 titles and bought 17.

My choice is both Dolby True HD AND DTS: MA. They are both very good and offer different advantages...

Doesn't TrueHD have a DD core on BD? Something about the A or B stream?

I voted for TrueHD for now, but ultimately I would prefer DTS-HD MA due to the higher quality core. The problem is not enough players (including the player, the PS3) decode it.

My vote was for TrueHD, but that is really more a reflection of what I would have voted a month ago. It is worth noting how our preferences change as access changes. Now that I can actually get the full benefit of DTS Master, I look forward to discs with that format just as much as TrueHD.

Also, I would throw in the comment that high bit rate DD+ doesn't break my heart. Hell, DD at 640 is still better than anything I ever got on DVD, so I'm not unhappy with any HD DVD or Blu-ray as far as audio goes. But my preference is for lossless (any flavor).

Doesn't TrueHD have a DD core on BD? Something about the A or B stream?

Not a "core" as with DTS formats, but like the second part of your comment. Parallel tracks, or A and B stream.

I understood why DTS sounded better at the theater when it first came out.

But then when it hit LD - we here at AVS, at the time, had MANY conversations as to which sounded better . . . AC3 or DTS. And after many threads and MANY posts - we came up with the difference . . . DTS was 3db louder. When you adjusted your receiver to 3db less, there was no discernable difference between AC3 and DTS.

The same thing happened also with DVD.

Lee,

I admit I wasn't here during the LD days, but I find it hard to believe that people at AVS couldn't hear the difference between DD at 384 kb/s and DTS at 1509kb/s on LD. That's a huge disparity. With DVD it is much more believable since you're comparing 448 to 786(?), but the LD bitrate difference is so drastic. By that rationale, the DVD of Transformers should sound equivalent to the HD-DVD (448 vs. 1509).

I'd love to read some of those old threads, but I'm not sure if they even exist here anymore since that's going back 10 years.

Please don't take this post the wrong way. I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just blown away that the general consensus was such here at AVS.

Anyone who is not an audio nut, may not be able to hear the differences of DVD-DD and DTS. To me they are stark!

They are all much better than what we ever got on DVD for movies.

Preference?

Anything multi channel minus lossy or compressed... (uncompressed 24 bit lpcm being the ideal, of course).

Preference?

Anything multi channel minus lossy or compressed... (uncompressed 24 bit lpcm being the ideal, of course).

Don't you mean lossless compressed is okay (TrueHD or DTS-HD Master) or take out the word "or".;)

Don't you mean lossless compressed is okay (TrueHD or DTS-HD Master) or take out the word "or".;)

No, you're talking about thebland. He meant every word of it as is. :)

No, you're talking about thebland. He meant every word of it as is. :)

You know me...:D

The only choice is 16-channel PCM encoded at 768 KHZ/64-bits per channel.

Vincent

I would vote for WMA Pro if I could. It sounds great through my 360 to my Pioneer Elite receiver. I'm not interested in upgrading to another Elite for a difference my ears probably couldn't discern.

I vote for MA, becasue I think it's the best technology even if the differences are subtle.

I havent had the luxury (has anyone?) of comparing all the formats side by side.

I would have voted (possibly) for PCM uncompressed as a runner up just based upon how many soundtracks I've heard lately that wowed me..I cant definitively say its the format but I have to admit its blown me away.

I've always believed the bit depth was the most important thing ..that 96/24 was the way to go even if you have to compress the data...but it seems my ears have been telling me otherwise. My first reaction to PCM was "what? 16 bit?" But I gott admit it's knocked my socks off. Always much better than DD.

Maybe True HD would be better than PCM...but I havent been able to compare the same track in both True Hd and PCM. Its just been my experience that I like the PCM tracks I've heard so far better than the T HD ones.

I've rented about 80 titles and bought 17.

I'm a little surprised at the comment, would you be able to clarify how DTS is better technology and what we can discern as different when you haven't had a chance to compare?

As for the bit-rate encoding, that is the output of the original master audio, but that doesn't tell you the input of the original master audio. If for instance the input to the master audio was only 16-bit, I'm not sure how a 96khz/24-bit audio soundtrack will help other than to use more bandwidth.

Back to the main topic of the OP:
As of today I consider this poll a little hard to vote for since there are 2 lossyless codecs (DD+ and DTS-HD-HR) and 2 lossless codecs (DTS-HD-MA and DTHD). If this is a lossless poll, then let's put the 3 big ones up for voting: LPCM, DTS-HD-MA, and DTHD.

If it's a lossy poll then let's put them all up minus the big 3.

I have tried the Dolby TrueHD and LPCM on 300 and noticed that there were no real perceptible differences, but I have a 5.1 setup so I can believe that I need to get a 7.1 setup to truly be able to appreciate all the audio data.

There are a few other discs with multiple lossless audio to compare here's a refence list: http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php?OrderBy=Audio

-Splints