I wonder if New Line has some deal with DTS for their Blu-ray titles. I know all of their titles so far have had DTS-HD MA tracks for the main movie. I own Shoot Em Up and there isn't a SINGLE Dolby logo on the box. Even the menu sounds, and all of the special feature material uses a DTS codec. There is DTS-MA, regular 5.1 DTS, and even DTS Stereo (Which I've never seen before until now.) Is this the case with all their releases?

DTS is probably pretty excited about this.

The senior management of New Line has been in bed with DTS for a long time. How they are doing their Blu-ray discs (audio) is not surprising to anyone familiar with New Line as a company.

With the trades reporting that Warner is going to be making fundamental changes in how New Line is run and what Warner's level of participation may be going forward, I will be more interested to see how or if New Line's favoritism to DTS changes.

I doubt DTS is excited about that.

Oh. Didn't realise that. Why are they shaking up New Line? Irresponsible management?

I wouldn't mind if not much changes on the Blu-ray front for them. The one disc I have from them is great, and I've read reviews of their other ones and it looks like they're doing a consistantly good job especially regarding video and sound quality.

I have never seen a New Line DVD movie without DTS. That should answer your question.

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

I have no problems with DTS. Fox was the first BD studio to consistantly put Hi-res tracks on EVERY disc with their DTS MA tracks.

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

Where were you when DVD first came out. DTS didn't have a codec ready in time but insisted that they be included as a mandatory codec. Because of DVD's file system Toshiba required that audio be 448Kbps max which DTS could not provide. DTS bitched and moaned and cried like a 10 year old girl whose cat just got ran over. Toshiba even made an exception for DTS as an optional codec at a higher data rate but DTS still carried on for almost an entire year like a child. FF to HDM and guess who was not ready with their codec when HD DVD/BD were released (they didn't even have a name).

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

Probably the lack of onboard decoding of DTS HD MA for the majority of players.

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

So I don't want to detract the thread, but just a quick personal viewpoint.

I don't hate or love DTS, I have been confused as to how many people are claiming DTS-HD-MA is better than Dolby TrueHD or PCM lossless codecs. I can understand if people wanted to compare lossy codecs such as the original DD 5.1 vs. DTS in th DVD days, but in these days with lossless codecs, it isn't clear how one lossless codec can be better than another.

So therefore there is a lot of debates going on between those who say DTS-HD-MA is better than the other lossless codecs and those who believe they are all the same if dialnorm is taken into account (myself included).

My personal opinion is that this is saying that uzing "zip" format is better than "rar" when you compare the uncompressed data. At the end of the day this should be the same thing.

I hope that clears things up a little. It's not hate, just a good 'ol back-and-forth disagreement.

-Splints

Yeah the only movie with both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD is Close Encounters, and I cant tell a difference.

So I don't want to detract the thread, but just a quick personal viewpoint.

I don't hate or love DTS, I have been confused as to how many people are claiming DTS-HD-MA is better than Dolby TrueHD or PCM lossless codecs. I can understand if people wanted to compare lossy codecs such as the original DD 5.1 vs. DTS in th DVD days, but in these days with lossless codecs, it isn't clear how one lossless codec can be better than another.

So therefore there is a lot of debates going on between those who say DTS-HD-MA is better than the other lossless codecs and those who believe they are all the same if dialnorm is taken into account (myself included).

My personal opinion is that this is saying that uzing "zip" format is better than "rar" when you compare the uncompressed data. At the end of the day this should be the same thing.

I hope that clears things up a little. It's not hate, just a good 'ol back-and-forth disagreement.

-Splints

Yeah I agree though. I don't favor DTS or Dolby or prefer either. They both offer good technology, and I guess it's just studio preference. I don't choose DTS-HD MA, PCM, or TrueHD over each other when buying a BD. I will prefer to buy a disc that at least CONTAINS one of these vs. one that does not but they're all equal in my eyes. While DTS-HD MA and TrueHD do essentially the same, I think there's nothing wrong with a little healthy competition. I'd like to see them both stick around.

I appreciate New Line using DTS-HD MA unlike Warner who has always preferred Dolby over DTS.

I can understand if people wanted to compare lossy codecs such as the original DD 5.1 vs. DTS in th DVD days, but in these days with lossless codecs, it isn't clear how one lossless codec can be better than another.



Part of it is the mixing that goes into the encodes. This can change how it sounds significantly.

I don't have equipment capable of the new codecs or PCM yet, but if these "lossless" codecs are anything like the audio ones Apple uses in iTunes, I don't expect much. I have heard several codecs for music that are supposed to be lossless, but they don't sound as good as the CD. From that experience, I'm still skeptical about "lossless." I suspect there is some requirement of what is considered lossless, and it doesn't require things be 100% back to their pre-compressed state. In fact, I doubt there is any regulation on what can be called "lossless." Perhaps that's what I'm hearing on the music front?

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden.Not hatred, just more people getting tired of the bull and hyperbole, especially from DTS fans who state their subjective opinion as objective fact, such as the following example: They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Sanjay

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

Where did that remark come from? Sounds like you have some personal issues, in addition to a serious lack of technical understanding.

DTS didn't have a codec ready in time but insisted that they be included as a mandatory codec.
...Last I checked DTS wasn't even involved with making the DVD specifications so where did you get that information from? It just seems that there are many factors either technical or political that could have caused DTS to be made optional with DVD.


FF to HDM and guess who was not ready with their codec when HD DVD/BD were released (they didn't even have a name).I am not so sure that they were late since all of the AV receivers that could do Dolby TrueHD decoding can also do DTS-HD MA decoding. As for why the players can't do it that simply boils down to the advantage/disadvantage that DTS-HD MA has. That is the fact that DTS-HD MA uses the DTS core to make the DTS-HD MA audio track. The advantage of doing that is that DTS-HD MA uses less bandwidth and capacity than a Dolby TrueHD + DD combination. The disadvantage is that it is far harder to decode DTS-HD MA which is why it wasn't until this year that players that could internally decode DTS-HD MA started coming out.

Last I checked DTS wasn't even involved with making the DVD specifications so where did you get that information from?

DTS wanted to be considered as a mandatory codec along with, or in competition to, Dolby in what eventually became the DVD spec. The DVD technical committee (or whatever that group was called) were evaluating audio codec proposals and required a complete spec by a given timeframe. DTS was unable to provide a finalized spec for their codec in the given amount of time so were not included as a mandatory audio codec.

This was common knowledge among people like some of those on this forum more than 10 years ago.

It just seems that there are many factors either technical or political that could have caused DTS to be made optional with DVD.DTS was making some changes to its codec (e.g., going from 44.1kHz sampling rate, used on laserdiscs and DTS music discs, to 48kHz sampling rate, which they wanted to use on DVD). It wasn't until the 3rd generation of DVD players that DTS compatibility (bitstreaming via S/P-DIF) was even available. There was nothing political about that delayed implementation. The disadvantage is that it is far harder to decode DTS-HD MA which is why it wasn't until this year that players that could internally decode DTS-HD MA started coming out."Started" coming out? When?

Sanjay

Last I checked DTS wasn't even involved with making the DVD specifications so where did you get that information from? It just seems that there are many factors either technical or political that could have caused DTS to be made optional with DVD.


I am not so sure that they were late since all of the AV receivers that could do Dolby TrueHD decoding can also do DTS-HD MA decoding. As for why the players can't do it that simply boils down to the advantage/disadvantage that DTS-HD MA has. That is the fact that DTS-HD MA uses the DTS core to make the DTS-HD MA audio track. The advantage of doing that is that DTS-HD MA uses less bandwidth and capacity than a Dolby TrueHD + DD combination. The disadvantage is that it is far harder to decode DTS-HD MA which is why it wasn't until this year that players that could internally decode DTS-HD MA started coming out.

What player in the market can decode DTS-MA internally?

I have never seen a New Line DVD movie without DTS. That should answer your question.

Hmm... My copy of Friday is Dolby Digital 5.1 only. The copy of Hairspray (recent enough) only had Dolby Digital 5.1 available.

Now, I have never heard of a New Line high def optical movie without DTS-MA. SD DVD is another matter.

Friday is pretty old. They probably didn't have a understanding with DTS then. Hairspray is a business decision. They know that a large chunk of the people who care about DTS have already moved away from DVD to HD. Same reason why a lot of new DVD releases that would otherwise have DTS, doesn't anymore.

from what i've seen, dts tracks are just more obnoxious and louder than their dolby counterparts

louder IS NOT better -- one example: fox's 28 weeks later release..The gunfire is so much louder than the dialog that it's not even funny - you're playing games with the remote the whole time.

Meh. They can include DTS-HDMA all they want. I just hope they include PCM!

from what i've seen, dts tracks are just more obnoxious and louder than their dolby counterparts

louder IS NOT better -- one example: fox's 28 weeks later release..The gunfire is so much louder than the dialog that it's not even funny - you're playing games with the remote the whole time.

Well isn't gunfire a lot louder in real life than people just speaking to each other?

Meh. They can include DTS-HDMA all they want. I just hope they include PCM!

I hope not.
I thought people love Blu-ray is a new technology and folks want it because it's an entirely new approach in making plastic discs; then how come when it comes to codecs an old inefficient and space hog codec becomes the best?

Plus you didn't prove how come PCM is more lossless than TrueHD and DTS-MA in another thread where you also claimed you can't trust TrueHD and DTS-MA with being lossless enough :rolleyes:

I hope not.
I thought people love Blu-ray is a new technology and folks want it because it's an entirely new approach in making plastic discs; then how come when it comes to codecs an old inefficient and space hog codec becomes the best?

Plus you didn't prove how come PCM is more lossless than TrueHD and DTS-MA in another thread where you also claimed you can't trust TrueHD and DTS-MA with being lossless enough :rolleyes:

As long as there is enough space I think PCM should be used. That way those of us who can't decode DTS-MA (or TrueHD for that matter) can get high def audio. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't include a PCM track if the space is there.

As long as there is enough space I think PCM should be used. That way those of us who can't decode DTS-MA (or TrueHD for that matter) can get high def audio. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't include a PCM track if the space is there.

Well early adopters got into the game knowing that TrueHD wasn't mandatory on the players so they can't really complain.
I can't decode DTS-MA yet but i'm not complaining; I know I'll one day and if I really want it badly I can get a receiver to do so; but I know my disc has a lossless track and that's all that matters. All I want is for for studios to deliver lossless tracks on their discs. If a certain disc has no lossless track, then even having the most advanced equipments won't make it lossless. But if a disc has a lossless track, when you upgrade your stuff then it's there. But I don't want studios to waste twice the bandwidth and space to deliver the same quality; there is always more useful things to add such extras or maybe increase the video bitrate so those who watch bitrate meter instead of the movie can enjoy the disc (and not the movie) even more ;)
Sony thinks TrueHD is the way yo go and they used to be big on providing PCM tracks.
If we're all about using the most advanced technology and going forward, then this type of thinking and reasoning applies to softwares and codec used to deliver movies as well. MPEG2 and PCM are ancient; time to let go.

Why this sudden storm of hatred towards DTS all of a sudden. They have had a better product than Dolby for as long as they have been around. Is it the HD DVD fans finally buying Blu players or or is there another explanation?

Does everything have to be about HD DVD v BD? I don't prefer DTS since it isn't SUPPORTED by nearly every BD player. Lossless is lossless. Dolby = more compatible.

Well isn't gunfire a lot louder in real life than people just speaking to each other?

Give me a break. Are you saying you want ear deafening GUNFIRE in your living room?

Yeah the only movie with both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD is Close Encounters, and I cant tell a difference.

The reason you can't is because is there is no difference!

One thing I like about DTS-HDMA is that myself and many others can enjoy the DTS core even if we can't decode the full DTS-HDMA. Someday I will get either a player or receiver that can decode the full Monty. But today, I can buy movies knowing that I get great sound with my current system and even better sound when I upgrade my equipment.

Part of it is the mixing that goes into the encodes. This can change how it sounds significantly.

I don't have equipment capable of the new codecs or PCM yet, but if these "lossless" codecs are anything like the audio ones Apple uses in iTunes, I don't expect much. I have heard several codecs for music that are supposed to be lossless, but they don't sound as good as the CD. From that experience, I'm still skeptical about "lossless." I suspect there is some requirement of what is considered lossless, and it doesn't require things be 100% back to their pre-compressed state. In fact, I doubt there is any regulation on what can be called "lossless." Perhaps that's what I'm hearing on the music front?




I just purchased a Denon 3808CI two weeks ago to replace my B&K REF 20 which could not play the new codecs Dolby Tru-HD and DTS-MA. I have to say that the new codecs do sound better.I have only been through a half dozen movies so far but the easiest way I can explain it is the soundfield is dead quiet depending on the disc and with better seperation between front and back.

The mix now sounds a lot more holographic and dynamic. I believe these tracks are a lot closer to CD quality sound than ever before. I know that term is over-used especially in 2 channel circles but that's what I'm hearing! There is no comparison between the B&K REF 20 with the old DD and DTS codecs. It also helps having a system that is capable of revealing all these new found treasures!;)

Give me a break. Are you saying you want ear deafening GUNFIRE in your living room?


I think striving for realism is better than muting dynamics.

To each his own I guess.

I just purchased a Denon 3808CI two weeks ago to replace my B&K REF 20 which could not play the new codecs Dolby Tru-HD and DTS-MA. I have to say that the new codecs do sound better.I have only been through a half dozen movies so far but the easiest way I can explain it is the soundfield is dead quiet depending on the disc and with better seperation between front and back.

The mix now sounds a lot more holographic and dynamic. I believe these tracks are a lot closer to CD quality sound than ever before. I know that term is over-used especially in 2 channel circles but that's what I'm hearing! There is no comparison between the B&K REF 20 with the old DD and DTS codecs. It also helps having a system that is capable of revealing all these new found treasures!;)

Most of the time they are than better than CD quality (44/16).
Some of the tracks are 24bit; also very few music concerts have 96khz tracks.
Blu-ray and HD DVD have the potential to deliver the DVD-A quality tracks for movies.

I hope not.
I thought people love Blu-ray is a new technology and folks want it because it's an entirely new approach in making plastic discs;

You thought wrong. People have chosen Blu-ray because they want high definition video and audio. PCM is the easiest way to deliver it.

Proof? I'm not funding a double-blind study. Are you? :rolleyes:

You thought wrong. People have chosen Blu-ray because they want high definition video and audio. PCM is the easiest way to deliver it.

Proof? I'm not funding a double-blind study. Are you? :rolleyes:

Doesn't it seem that BD is phasing out LPCM and going with the new codecs?

You thought wrong. People have chosen Blu-ray because they want high definition video and audio. PCM is the easiest way to deliver it.

Proof? I'm not funding a double-blind study. Are you? :rolleyes:

Study for what?

Mathematically you can prove that the output from lossless codecs are equal to the PCM master. What do I need to prove here? My proof is that studios have to check that tracks are entirely equal before being allowed to carry the logo.
You have to prove your case that how two identical streams of 0s and 1s can sound different and how all the engineers at Dolby, DTS, Sony, Warner, Fox, Universal and Paramount are wrong assuming these codecs are purely transparent to the master! Magic? ghosts? or just refusing to admit that you are wrong?

There's no study needed here. If you copy a word document to a file and zip it, then unzip it on another computer, will the file be different? Would you need a study to prove that two files are identical?

As I said, you make claims and yet you don't prove them. Before claiming what's best for everyone, you should prove how two identical files sound different. And no; no study is needed here. A rational scientific reason; not what you "feel" or "think". You can have your own personal opinion and I respect that; but you cannot state it as a fact.

Doesn't it seem that BD is phasing out LPCM and going with the new codecs?


Not from my perspective. Last 2 movies I bought were War and 3:10 to Yuma. Both have 7.1PCM tracks (which is apparently a Lionsgate thing that I'm most thankful for).

paidgeek has indicated SPHE was evaluating both, and has increasing used TrueHD, though notably they did PCM on Superbad. They used DTS-HDMA with Close Encounters and dropped but i'm willing to bet it's the seamless branching that is the reason for no PCM (and in this case, more than acceptable reasoning - yes, I'd have prefered a PCM track but it's not a deal breaker by itself).

Buena Vista continues to use PCM tracks on their catalog releases.

Fox is, of course, Fox, and continues doing nothing but DTS-HDMA. :shrug:


Mathematically you can prove that he output from lossless codecs are equal to the PCM master. What do I need to prove here? My proof is that studios have to check that tracks are entirely equal before being allowed to carry the logo.

You're claiming they check each and every time? Is there any evidence for that? It sounds perfectly reasonable, but I haven't seen that stated by anyone in the know before.


As I said, you make claims and yet you don't prove them.

WTF are you talking about? Care to enumerate any these "claims" that I have made wrt PCM versus compressed, or did you pull that from your nether regions? I only recall pointing out instances where I was underwhelmed by particular TrueHD tracks and fully stipulated that I recognized this could be due to either the particular source material or the individual transfer/encode.

I make no secret that I prefer uncompressed audio. It's attainable and there's simply on reason we can't have it regularly on Blu-ray except in specific circumstances (long movies with lots of traditionally bitrate hungry visual scenes, including such hypotheticals as the LOTR EE's) and when marketing gimmicks like PiP and umpteen audio and subtitle tracks are added. Every audio track starts as PCM, so outside of special material that needs every last bit of bandwidth, it's arguably much more economic (and thus more likely, especially for catalog titles) for any studio to do a PCM port, than utilize a compressionist who made give you his "Monday effort" versus his Wednesday or Friday.

We already have the proof in dozens of Blu-ray releases with outstanding PQ

You're claiming they check each and every time? Is there any evidence for that? It sounds perfectly reasonable, but I haven't seen that stated by anyone in the know before.
It was stated by Amir in the previous thread. Studios need to make sure the track is lossless and they have it check it!
And please, don't try to tell me Amir is saying this purposely to make BD look bad! It has nothing to do with Blu-ray or HD DVD! It's simple math and clearly Sony is going the same path utilizing lossless codecs!

WTF are you talking about? Care to enumerate any these "claims" that I have made wrt PCM versus compressed, or did you pull that from your nether regions? I only recall pointing out instances where I was underwhelmed by particular TrueHD tracks and fully stipulated that I recognized this could be due to either the particular source material or the individual transfer/encode.

You speculated that PCM could have been better and that we shouldn't trust Dolby or DTS's efforts into this area.The question is simple; how can be PCM be better than TrueHD when in fact it is the samething?

paidgeek has indicated SPHE was evaluating both, and has increasing used TrueHD, though notably they did PCM on Superbad. They used DTS-HDMA with Close Encounters and dropped but i'm willing to bet it's the seamless branching that is the reason for no PCM (and in this case, more than acceptable reasoning - yes, I'd have prefered a PCM track but it's not a deal breaker by itself).

If I remember correctly, paidgeek even did a poll and the result was more people preferred TrueHD. Also Sony is obviously switching to TrueHD. One look at their recent releases and the majority are TrueHD.
Disney is the only one using PCM consistently.

WTF are you talking about? Care to enumerate any these "claims" that I have made wrt PCM versus compressed, or did you pull that from your nether regions? I only recall pointing out instances where I was underwhelmed by particular TrueHD tracks and fully stipulated that I recognized this could be due to either the particular source material or the individual transfer/encode.

I make no secret that I prefer uncompressed audio. It's attainable and there's simply on reason we can't have it regularly on Blu-ray except in specific circumstances (long movies with lots of traditionally bitrate hungry visual scenes, including such hypotheticals as the LOTR EE's) and when marketing gimmicks like PiP and umpteen audio and subtitle tracks are added. Every audio track starts as PCM, so outside of special material that needs every last bit of bandwidth, it's arguably much more economic (and thus more likely, especially for catalog titles) for any studio to do a PCM port, than utilize a compressionist who made give you his "Monday effort" versus his Wednesday or Friday.

Then why not use MPEG2 and waste an entire 50GB for Video and + Audio?
My question is very simple.
You are saying PCM must be used on every release.If that's your personal opinion, then fine and I respect it.
But as a fact, how can it better when it's identical? why not use something that uses a lower bandwidth and uses less space?
If you want nothing but a "superbit" Blu-ray, then why not use the remaining bandwidth and space for video? doesn't this also make watching the "bitrate meter" even more exciting? :rolleyes:

If you really care quality, then you should ask studios to drop PCM and use TrueHD/DTS-MA to have more bandwidth/space available for Video especially for a 24bit track which uses 6.9mbps of track and this can be cut in half by using TrueHD!

and who says people want no extras? If you are aiming for mass market, people have shown they have interest in extras otherwise why studios would both with extras in the first play.
With lossless codecs, we can make the inclusion of extras doesn't affect the quality of audio and to some extent video!

If people had no interest in value and wanted the only AV presentation, SACD and Superbit would have succeed!

We already have the proof in dozens of Blu-ray releases with outstanding PQ

And here you are getting delusional. What do PQ and Blu-ray have anything to do with TrueHD and PCM being identical?
Why every discussion for you is somehow about proving Blu-ray superiority? We are not debating Blu-ray here. We are talking about PCM being a waste in terms of space and bandwidth and TrueHD and advanced codecs being the future!

PS: And here's how I prove my case. Pick an audio CD and rip of the tracks into WAVE or AIFF. Then convert the track to FLAC (lossless and the codec is available free on internet). After the conversion, convert the FLAC track back to WAVE or PCM and check both files in terms of 0s and 1s and see they are identical. The test is easy and can be done in 5 minutes.

It was stated by Amir in the previous thread. Studios need to make sure the track is lossless and they have it check it!


Eh, have a link? I have only have been doing the last page of my CP the most recently visited threads but was busy the last couple days until this afternoon.



You speculated that PCM could have been better and that we shouldn't trust Dolby or DTS's efforts into this area.The question is simple; how can be PCM be better than TrueHD when in fact it is the samething?


Are you changing your accusation from plural "claims" down to a singular "speculation"? Guess that's progress. :o



If I remember correctly, paidgeek even did a poll and the result was more people preferred TrueHD. Also Sony is obviously switching to TrueHD. One look at their recent releases and the majority are TrueHD.
Disney is the only one using PCM consistently.


Lionsgate last movies (War and 3:10 to Yuma) both have 7.1 PCM, too. Those were my last two purchases.

Last big Sony movie I can think of is Superbad, which had PCM. And maybe Spiderman 3. What was their latest big movie?



Then why not use MPEG2 and waste an entire 50GB for Video and + Audio?
My question is very simple.
You are saying PCM must be used on every release.If that's your personal opinion, then fine and I respect it.


If it's MPEG2 like Kingdom of Heaven or Black Hawk Down, I'm all for it. They can satisfy guys like you with a second dics and we're all happy, no? :)


If you really care quality, then you should ask studios to drop PCM and use TrueHD/DTS-MA to have more bandwidth/space available for Video especially for a 24bit track which uses 6.9mbps of track and this can be cut in half by using TrueHD!


Eh? Maximum bitrate that can be allocated to video still leaves something like 8Mbps available for audio.

From Benes thread in the Blu-ray Software area:

16-bit LPCM 7.1 6144Kbps
24-bit LPCM 5.1 6912Kbps


And here you are getting delusional. What do PQ and Blu-ray have anything to do with TrueHD and PCM being identical?
Why every discussion for you is somehow about proving Blu-ray superiority? We are not debating Blu-ray here. We are talking about PCM being a waste in terms of space and bandwidth and TrueHD and advanced codecs being the future!

Blu-ray is in the thread title... Blu-ray Superiority? :confused: I think you're having a hard time paying attention to the argument, maybe? You asked for proof. I'm done wasting any more of this evening with you, though. Think I might put on something in BD, though. Ganight. :)

Eh, have a link? I have only have been doing the last page of my CP the most recently visited threads but was busy the last couple days until this afternoon.

Here is the quote from the thread :

No trust is necessary. The certification requirement includes running through test suites to guarantee bit-exact decoding. Don't conclude the tests and you don't get to wear the logo.

and here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=985494&page=2) is the link

Are you changing your accusation from plural "claims" down to a singular "speculation"? Guess that's progress.
No I'm not. Unlike you, I don't change my argument.

Here is your claim from the same topic

Their algorithms are largely voodoo (even restricting ourselves to the technical side and ignoring the marketing mumbo jumbo) to the layperson while PCM is quite simply PCM.

And here is your comment regarding Dolby/DTS

I'm not saying that's taking place here, but it really comes to "trust" on Dolby and DTS that they each and every lossless track is indeed identical to the PCM master and that the man behind the curtain is tweaking things here and there. While I don't yet have a reason to distrust them, I don't have any reason to give them blind faith, either.

So yes, Clearly claiming the algorithms are largely voodoo and therefore PCM is being somehow better!

Lionsgate last movies (War and 3:10 to Yuma) both have 7.1 PCM, too. Those were my last two purchases.

Last big Sony movie I can think of is Superbad, which had PCM. And maybe Spiderman 3. What was their latest big movie?
Resident Evil has TrueHD
30days of Nights has TrueHD
Life of Brian has TrueHD

It's very clear Sony is utilizing more TrueHD tracks and that's where they are going; If TrueHD/DTS-MA had no advantage of over PCM, I'd think that Sony,Fox, Warner and Universal would drop them. Oh; and three of the studios I just mentioned are Blu-ray exclusive!
Sony knows more about Blu-ray authoring and the space it provides them and they think TrueHD is a better choice.
If it's MPEG2 like Kingdom of Heaven or Black Hawk Down, I'm all for it. They can satisfy guys like you with a second dics and we're all happy, no?
Nope
When a second disc gets added especially to provide a collectors edition with extras, the prices go up because studios have to replicate more discs.
I'm not willing to pay more because some group of folks live in the past and tend to think Dolby algorithms are voodoo! they can however make "Superbit" brands and charge you more I'm sure you won't mind that do you?
Discs like Kingdom of Heaven no matter how good looking they are not what we need. We don't need barebone releases with no extras and being charged $39 MSRP! If you care about HDM, then you'd want it to go mainstream and barebone releases that serve no purpose and offer no improvements are not going to make it happen!
We moved into HDM to take advantage of new improvements in hardware and software. Spending 2B to make new replication lines (which is money well spent) but at the same time sticking to 10 year old DVD MPEG2 codec and ancient PCM is not smart; it's useless!
I wonder why would anyone bother developing new codecs if they are not required!

Eh? Maximum bitrate that can be allocated to video still leaves something like 8Mbps available for audio.

From Benes thread in the Blu-ray Software area:

16-bit LPCM 7.1 6144Kbps
24-bit LPCM 5.1 6912Kbps
I stand corrected for the bandwidth.
But you are still wasting space and that space can be used to have more portions of the video encoded at a higher bandwidth so you can still technically "improve" the video encode.

Blu-ray is in the thread title... Blu-ray Superiority? I think you're having a hard time paying attention to the argument, maybe? You asked for proof. I'm done wasting any more of this evening with you, though. Think I might put on something in BD, though. Ganight.

Well you are the one definitely not paying attention to the arguments.We are talking how TrueHD is better than PCM in terms of saving bandwidth and space while providing the same quality and here is the your comment:

We already have the proof in dozens of Blu-ray releases with outstanding PQ

As if having Blu-rays with outstanding PQ proves TrueHD is not required and therefore not as good as PCM!

So yes, I'm definitely wasting my time. I should have known better reading your comments in previous thread(s).

The DVD technical committee (or whatever that group was called) were evaluating audio codec proposals and required a complete spec by a given timeframe. DTS was unable to provide a finalized spec for their codec in the given amount of time so were not included as a mandatory audio codec.That is possible but where are you getting this information from?


This was common knowledge among people like some of those on this forum more than 10 years ago.Some of the most bigoted beliefs in the world were based on "common knowledge" so personally speaking I prefer evidence. Also Robert both you and William gave me slightly different answers for why DTS was not made mandatory with DVD. William said that it was because "DVD's file system Toshiba required that audio be 448Kbps max which DTS could not provide".


It wasn't until the 3rd generation of DVD players that DTS compatibility (bitstreaming via S/P-DIF) was even available. There was nothing political about that delayed implementation.Was that because DTS was late or was it because the DVD Forum didn't implement specs for DTS until later on? Just saying there is more than one possible explanation for what happened which is why I am asking for evidence.


"Started" coming out? When? What player in the market can decode DTS-MA internally?I was referring to the players coming out this year that can do internal DTS-HD MA decoding but as mentioned by Sharp1080 there is already one player out that can do it and that is the Denon DVD-3800BDCI.

DTS-HDMA requires more CPU power to decode than TrueHD, has a higher bitrate footprint resulting in more disc space needed, and has no tangible benefits over other lossless codecs like TrueHD and raw uncompressed LPCM. In fact DTS-HDMA often approaches the bitrate of uncompressed LPCM! What is the point of DTS-HDMA to begin with? It offers no benefits but is harder to decode, which is why there aren't any players outside of the $2000 Denon model which can decode it!

DTS-HDMA is a waste of space which could be better served with an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack alone, or Sony's recent new method of Dolby TrueHD track with hidden DD 640kbps track for players which don't do TrueHD. (The reason that Sony has moved to TrueHD instead of LPCM is because players are being upgraded in firmware to support TrueHD, which is far easier to decode than DTS-HDMA.)

DTS-HDMA requires more CPU power to decode than TrueHD, has a higher bitrate footprint resulting in more disc space needed, and has no tangible benefits over other lossless codecs like TrueHD and raw uncompressed LPCM. In fact DTS-HDMA often approaches the bitrate of uncompressed LPCM! What is the point of DTS-HDMA to begin with? It offers no benefits but is harder to decode, which is why there aren't any players outside of the $2000 Denon model which can decode it!

DTS-HDMA is a waste of space which could be better served with an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack alone, or Sony's recent new method of Dolby TrueHD track with hidden DD 640kbps track for players which don't do TrueHD. (The reason that Sony has moved to TrueHD instead of LPCM is because players are being upgraded in firmware to support TrueHD, which is far easier to decode than DTS-HDMA.)

Actually insiders have said that DTS-MA requires less bandwdith and space compare to TrueHD. I even remember Paidgeek saying this in Blu-ray.com when asked about Close Encounters. But they also said that the difference is small. With the capacity of Blu-ray (or HD DVD), I don't think DTS-MA offers any advantage over TrueHD.

Was that because DTS was late or was it because the DVD Forum didn't implement specs for DTS until later on?From what was being reported at the time in several magazines (Widescreen Review, Stereophile Guide to Home Theatre, etc), DTS was not ready with their codec in time to make the initial DVD spec. Dolby was ready with their DD codec (AC-3) and Phillips was ready with their MusiCam codec (a.k.a. MPEG-1 Audio Layer II). All PAL region DVD players must support DD, MP2 and PCM. Since DTS was late, support for it is optional. I was referring to the players coming out this year that can do internal DTS-HD MA decoding but as mentioned by Sharp1080 there is already one player out that can do it and that is the Denon DVD-3800BDCI.From his post, it looks like Sharp1080 is talking about the Denon AVR-3808CI receiver, not the Denon DVD-3800BDCI player. Those model numbers are close enough to be confusing. AFAIK, there's still no player that can decode DTS-HD MA internally.

Sanjay

I was a big fan of DTS on DVD. I don't have an issue with DTS on HD media. But the fact is that lossless is lossless. Lossless compression isn't new and isn't voodoo. DTS-MA does not offer any sonic advantage vs. Dolby TrueHD or PCM. DTS-MA is not supported by the majority of the players on the market. So spin this however you like but the fact remains that by only using the least supported lossless codec, those studios are doing a disservice to their customers. The excuse that future players will support is a terribly weak one. Why should the consumers be forced to buy equipment to enjoy sound quality they already could have had the studios provided a more accepted option in the first place. I don't relish the idea of shelling out more money to get the same sonic experience I already do with PCM and DTHD and neither should anyone with non DTS-MA compatible player (the vast majority of us).

Competition is a good thing. I don't want to see DTS disappear from the landscape, but I think any studio that wants to use DTS-MA exclusively should rethink this and add a PCM track in addition to it. I agree with others that PCM is wasteful and backwards when we have the option for lossless compression, but it is the most compatible codec at present and it does not require the studio in question to acquire the equipment needed to support the competitors codec. In 2-3 years when the majority of players support DTS-MA then the need for an additional track will evaporate. But for today there is no compelling reason to only support DTS-MA.

That is possible but where are you getting this information from?

At the time, I was writing laserdisc reviews and transitioning to DVD reviews. I had numerous contacts ("official" and unofficial) at most of the major studios in both marketing and technical departments, as well as Dolby and DTS. I was told numerous tales by numerous people. This particular tale was told the same way by just about everyone that knew anything about it.

Also, as Sanjay points out, the account of DTS not being ready in time to be included in the DVD spec was later reported by the mainstream press.

From what was being reported at the time in several magazines (Widescreen Review, Stereophile Guide to Home Theatre, etc), DTS was not ready with their codec in time to make the initial DVD spec.I would consider those two magazines to be evidence and just wanted to make sure there was some evidence for this.


From his post, it looks like Sharp1080 is talking about the Denon AVR-3808CI receiver, not the Denon DVD-3800BDCI player. Those model numbers are close enough to be confusing.True, and after checking in the Denon DVD-3800BDCI thread it won't be released until later this month.


I don't want to see DTS disappear from the landscape, but I think any studio that wants to use DTS-MA exclusively should rethink this and add a PCM track in addition to it.They could do that but what you are recommending is basically that DTS-HD MA not be used since in the vast majority of movies they can only have one lossless audio track per language.


At the time, I was writing laserdisc reviews and transitioning to DVD reviews. I had numerous contacts ("official" and unofficial) at most of the major studios in both marketing and technical departments, as well as Dolby and DTS. I was told numerous tales by numerous people. This particular tale was told the same way by just about everyone that knew anything about itOkay, but what about William's statement that DTS was made optional because "DVD's file system Toshiba required that audio be 448Kbps max which DTS could not provide". Did you ever hear that before?

I would consider those two magazines to be evidence and just wanted to make sure there was some evidence for this.


True, and after checking in the Denon DVD-3800BDCI thread it won't be released until later this month.


They could do that but what you are recommending is basically that DTS-HD MA not be used since in the vast majority of movies they can only have one lossless audio track per language.


Okay, but what about William's statement that DTS was made optional because "DVD's file system Toshiba required that audio be 448Kbps max which DTS could not provide". Did you ever hear that before?


Actually, in this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=980435&page=6) topic (which is one of the best and most informative topics), Disclord who is a member with lots of knowledge especially the regarding early days of DVD mentions the same thing. However he says that Toshiba demanded 358kbps but overall it's close to the 448kbps number.


DTS couldn't even demo their ARTEC compression system (later renamed Zeta, then renamed Coherent Acoustics) at a bitrate of 358kbps as Toshiba demanded - DTS offered up PCM tapes of encoding/decoding at that rate and didn't seem to understand why Toshiba wouldn't accept that as good enough to base a format selection on! And Toshiba was REALLY on their side - although it was Toshiba that stipulated the 384kbp/s rate for any 5.1 channel codec used, they didn't really care if it was Dolby AC-3 or not. They went out of their way to help DTS get on board, but DTS just didn't make it happen - all while screaming that Dolby was pushing them out unfairly.

Later, when DVD was on the market and established, DTS tried to do an end run around the standards and wanted to issue discs with DTS mapped to the LPCM track like they did on LaserDisc and CD. They didn't want players to have to recognize the bitstream in order to play it back - but the DVD forum would not budge because they didn't want users to accidentally select a DTS track and get blasting white-noise if they didn't have a decoder - which is what would have happened if DTS got their way. DTS cried about it in the pages of Widescreen Review... then, history repeats itself and they did it again to DVD-Audio, screaming that the selection of MLP was unfair - DTS didn't have a lossless coder that could meet the compression requirements of the WG-1, so they submitted a higher bitrate version of Coherent Acoustics - when the WG-1 refused to consider it because it was not lossless, DTS screamed publicly again that the WG-1 hadn't LISTENED to it! There's an issue of Widescreen Review where Gary Reber goes on and on about that - that MLP was selected without LISTENING TESTS! Oh, the horror!

And now DTS-HDMA is lossless and supposedly "sounds better" than Coherent Acoustics - but I'm confused because DTS claimed, up until now, that at 1.5 mbp/s they were 100% AUDIBLY lossless, no matter what. So, if it was audibly lossless, how could it sound worse then DTS-HDMA?

Sorry, got off track there...

PM me your email address and I'll email you an MMCD/SD technical article from IEEE Spectrum that details the two formats.

Okay, but what about William's statement that DTS was made optional because "DVD's file system Toshiba required that audio be 448Kbps max which DTS could not provide". Did you ever hear that before?

No, never heard that. I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't make much logical sense as PCM was also selected as a mandatory audio for DVD and that runs at ~1.4 mb/s for 2-channel. Also, with Toshiba being a big supporter of DTS (I do know that is true), why wouldn't they bend over backwards to get them in. Actually, I heard that Toshiba, or some parts of the DVD forum, did bend over backwards to give DTS every opportunity, even extending deadlines. After months of waiting, they just couldn't hold up finalization any longer.

So yes, Clearly claiming the algorithms are largely voodoo and therefore PCM is being somehow better!


I never came to the conclusion you're misstating, though I am 100% up front of my preference. I make no claims for the mystifying leaps that make you see 1+1 =3.


It's very clear Sony is utilizing more TrueHD tracks and that's where they are going;If TrueHD/DTS-MA had no advantage of over PCM, I'd think that Sony,Fox, Warner and Universal would drop them. Oh; and three of the studios I just mentioned are Blu-ray exclusive!


Did you ignore/backtrack on your claim that it was just Buena Vista doing PCM? Fox obviously has a history of nothing but DTS-HDMA, (and I already mentioned them. :p ). Arguments can only be made for those who have habitually used PCM and are obviously shying from it. The only studio that could fit that criterea is SPHE, which you may be right, but both Lionsgate and Buena Vista continue to use PCM often. I forgot about Resident Evil, though, thanks. I have that trilogy set even! Don't have the other two.

Warner has almost the history of gimped audio of Paramount. Universal? :eek: Well for obvious reasons, PCM tracks specifically on HDDVD are few and far between, but then so is compressed lossless in general.


I wonder why would anyone bother developing new codecs if they are not required!


Marketing? Sounds like you bought it hook, line, and sinker. :p


I stand corrected for the bandwidth.
But you are still wasting space and that space can be used to have more portions of the video encoded at a higher bandwidth so you can still technically "improve" the video encode.


No. 100% wrong. I absolutely mentioned the bandwidth cap for video and that it leaves 8Mbps for audio. The only way an encode could go at even higher bandwidth on video is if it's outside of the spec.

AFAIK, there's still no player that can decode DTS-HD MA internally.


Any theories on why? IIRC, it's the processing required but do you have any elucidation? Seems DTS is always behind the power curve. I prefered DTS tracks on HD and don't mind their DTS-HD.

Seems a foregone conclusion the PS3 should meet any processing requirements. The only question is how willing DTS is to work with SCEJ/SCEA on it for the PS3.

Actually insiders have said that DTS-MA requires less bandwdith and space compare to TrueHD. I even remember Paidgeek saying this in Blu-ray.com when asked about Close Encounters. But they also said that the difference is small. With the capacity of Blu-ray (or HD DVD), I don't think DTS-MA offers any advantage over TrueHD.

True, I remember that, too. Well the main benefit seems to the "convenience" of being able to extract the lossy core from the lossless extension, which is more of a utility thing. Makes you wonder what the hold up is. Were they just not ready out of the gate? Very intruiging that they were able to secure the format in both high def specs when they were so far behind the power curve on execution.

Did you ignore/backtrack on your claim that it was just Buena Vista doing PCM? Fox obviously has a history of nothing but DTS-HDMA, (and I already mentioned them. ). Arguments can only be made for those who have habitually used PCM and are obviously shying from it. The only studio that could fit that criterea is SPHE, which you may be right, but both Lionsgate and Buena Vista continue to use PCM often. I forgot about Resident Evil, though, thanks. I have that trilogy set even! Don't have the other two.

Warner has almost the history of gimped audio of Paramount. Universal? Well for obvious reasons, PCM tracks specifically on HDDVD are few and far between, but then so is compressed lossless in general.

I'm sure all studios can do PCM tracks if we want. Warner has done it before; and Sony used to be PCM exclusive. Sony can use PCM exclusively if they want but it appears they are shifting to TrueHD for good. If Disney wants to use PCM, then good for them; but it doesn't prove that PCM is superior to TrueHD or DTS-MA. As long as studios offer lossless; I'm fine even if it is DTS-MA which my PS3 cannot decode yet. I'd rather them using more advanced technology and thankfully majority of the big ones are doing it.
Honestly I have no idea what you have against using lossless codecs. It seems like you tend to reject them just because they are used on HD DVD as if somehow using PCM can be thought as a talking point for Blu-ray; looking at your post history, it's not surprising.
This whole discussion is format agonistic and somehow we are back into HD DVD can't and Blu-ray can! It's not about the format; every aspect of technology goes forward and so softwares and codecs.
Your whole arguement is very pointless; studios must stick with PCM because...... well there's actually no reasons for studios to stick with PCM. It doesn't offer anything over TrueHD or DTS-MA.
i'm sorry my friend; I use science to back up what I say. You however stick with your subjective feelings as if you represent the entire population!
There is not much left discussing here. We can continue once you bring up objective and scientific reasons to prove why PCM should be used instead of TrueHD or DTS-MA if the result is the same!

Marketing? Sounds like you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Wow!
So all new codecs are useless and we must stick to MPEG2 and PCM forever!
And I suppose somehow all advantages VC1/AVC offer over MPEG2 are "voodoo" again and who cares if we can save space and bandwidth in video and audio.

No. 100% wrong. I absolutely mentioned the bandwidth cap for video and that it leaves 8Mbps for audio. The only way an encode could go at even higher bandwidth on video is if it's outside of the spec

You should have understand my second sentence before commenting on it.
If you have more space, you can encode more portions of video at a higher bitrate. Last time I checked higher bitrate doesn't mean more than 40mbps!
It simply means you have more space so you can encode more minutes with a higher bitrate. Instead of encoding at 30mbps you can encode them at 36mbps and this is well within Blu-ray's cap!


It doesn't seem like we are getting anywhere. So I just leave it at that.

Any theories on why? IIRC, it's the processing required but do you have any elucidation? Seems DTS is always behind the power curve. I prefered DTS tracks on HD and don't mind their DTS-HD.

Seems a foregone conclusion the PS3 should meet any processing requirements. The only question is how willing DTS is to work with SCEJ/SCEA on it for the PS3.

DTS is ALWAYS late to the game.
As for DVDs, I could accept their excuse of being better. To me, most of the DTS tracks sound better than Dolby ones so it made sense. On BD and HD DVD, they don't have "we provide the best quality" talking point anymore. TrueHD delivers the exact samething.

Any theories on why? IIRC, it's the processing required but do you have any elucidation?From everything I've read so far, it is the complexity of the codec that makes decoding so processor intensive. Obviously it's not impossible: if a $400 Onkyo 605 can do it then the only hold-up I can think of is that chipmakers haven't produced player-specific decoding chips yet.

To that end, Jeff Talmadge of Denon (resumed posting here at AVS recently) mentioned that the decoding chips in their upcoming 3800 BD player are the same ones used in their 3808 and 4308 receivers. Which means they're paying extra for features on those chips (like surround processing) that the player will likely never use. Other manufacturers may be waiting for simpler (player-specific) decoders.

Sanjay

It doesn't seem like we are getting anywhere. So I just leave it at that.


Agreed. :tips hat:


DTS is ALWAYS late to the game.
As for DVDs, I could accept their excuse of being better. To me, most of the DTS tracks sound better than Dolby ones so it made sense. On BD and HD DVD, they don't have "we provide the best quality" talking point anymore. TrueHD delivers the exact samething.

Wow, I mangled that one. :o I meant preferred on DVD, which you appeared to pick up on.


From everything I've read so far, it is the complexity of the codec that makes decoding so processor intensive. Obviously it's not impossible: if a $400 Onkyo 605 can do it then the only hold-up I can think of is that chipmakers haven't produced player-specific decoding chips yet.

To that end, Jeff Talmadge of Denon (resumed posting here at AVS recently) mentioned that the decoding chips in their upcoming 3800 BD player are the same ones used in their 3808 and 4308 receivers. Which means they're paying extra for features on those chips (like surround processing) that the player will likely never use. Other manufacturers may be waiting for simpler (player-specific) decoders.



That makes sense. Do you think it's realistic that they'll play ball with Sony Computer Entertainment on the PS3 and bring DTS-HDMA decoding? Not sure on the economics of such a thing or if it's realistic to expect or not. Seems a foregone conclusion that the PS3 hardware is up to snuff but is there any reason to think that the coding would be more prohibitive than Sony's other efforts on that end (say the upscaling) and the participation from DTS that they would presumably need?

Obviously just your opinion... nothing need be written in blood or anything. :)

Looking at PS3's cell chip, I think it's pretty obvious that PS3 is able to do DTS-MA decoding. However, I assume it's DTS's implementation that is somehow flawed somewhere.
I think Sony can and will make DTS-MA work on PS3, but I'm not sure what's with DTS and all this receiver-bound decoding focus.
We still have no player in Blu-ray and HD DVD that can do DTS-MA decoding. The thing is it's not 1997 where it took three generations of DVD players to be able to bitstream and decode DTS. The progress should happen faster when it comes to adding new features. Dolby TrueHD was ready out of the gate when HD DVD launched and PS3 came out with TrueHD enabled.
Like before Dolby had their act together and for some reason DTS is late again.

This thread should be in the Blu-Ray Software section. Not this forum.

According to what was shown at CES last month, pretty much all new Blu Ray players being released this year will decode DTS HDMA. So chances are in a couple years they all will include it, and we will all think that this argument was silly, just like the people who argued about it at the beginning of DVD feel now.

I would rather update my player to decode the DTS HDMA on discs that I am buying now, then have to buy new discs down the road because lossless audio or special features were left off because of disc space issues.

As far as why the PS3 doesn't have DTS HDMA decoding, many have suggested it is because Sony is holding off so they don't upset the other Blu Ray player manufacturers. The PS3 was not updated to profile 1.1 until stand alone profile 1.1 players were released. Sony has announced a profile 2.0 update, but most believe that it won't be released until the first stand alone profile 2.0 player is released. IT also could be that Sony is waiting for the first stand alone to decode DTS HDMA before they release and update to do that with the PS3.

If Sony upgraded the PS3 right now to profile 2.0 and decode DTS HDMA it will pretty much kill all stand alone player sales. The only reason left to buy anything else would be because of looks and lack of IR support.

Do you think it's realistic that they'll play ball with Sony Computer Entertainment on the PS3 and bring DTS-HDMA decoding?As others have suggested, the hold back may be political (don't know what the relationship is like between those two companies) or marketing (they want stand-alone players to come out with decoding first). At some point I'm guessing Master Audio decoding will show up on the PS3. Why wouldn't DTS want full support on the most popular BD player?

Sanjay

I think DTS wants to make sure people buy HDMI 1.3 receivers. With True HD and DTS MA on PS3, people have no reason to upgrade their existing HDMI receivers.

According to what was shown at CES last month, pretty much all new Blu Ray players being released this year will decode DTS HDMA. So chances are in a couple years they all will include it, and we will all think that this argument was silly, just like the people who argued about it at the beginning of DVD feel now.

I was never one to argue against DTS on DVD. I felt it provided better sound. I often repurchased titles just to have the DTS track. However in todays market DTS-MA offers no benefit vs. the other lossless audio tracks. Granted I think studios that wish to support DTS have every right to do so, but this isn't the same situation we had with DVD.


I would rather update my player to decode the DTS HDMA on discs that I am buying now, then have to buy new discs down the road because lossless audio or special features were left off because of disc space issues.

I would rather the studios that insist on only offering DTS add a PCM track as an interim solution. PCM costs them very little to implement and gives lossless audio that works today on the majority of players.


As far as why the PS3 doesn't have DTS HDMA decoding, many have suggested it is because Sony is holding off so they don't upset the other Blu Ray player manufacturers. The PS3 was not updated to profile 1.1 until stand alone profile 1.1 players were released. Sony has announced a profile 2.0 update, but most believe that it won't be released until the first stand alone profile 2.0 player is released. IT also could be that Sony is waiting for the first stand alone to decode DTS HDMA before they release and update to do that with the PS3.

If Sony upgraded the PS3 right now to profile 2.0 and decode DTS HDMA it will pretty much kill all stand alone player sales. The only reason left to buy anything else would be because of looks and lack of IR support.

And the lack of analog audio outputs. A deal breaker for many of us with older preamps and receivers that we still feel are worth keeping.

I was never one to argue against DTS on DVD. I felt it provided better sound. I often repurchased titles just to have the DTS track. However in todays market DTS-MA offers no benefit vs. the other lossless audio tracks. Granted I think studios that wish to support DTS have every right to do so, but this isn't the same situation we had with DVD.


I disagree there is an advantage which I will cover in my next comment


I would rather the studios that insist on only offering DTS add a PCM track as an interim solution. PCM costs them very little to implement and gives lossless audio that works today on the majority of players.


I disagree here as well, assuming that adding a PCM track would cut out space for special features or video/audio quality (if not then yes I am ok with it, but if they have space left over I wish they would use it for higher bitrate video and more special features). By using DTS HDMA they are acutally killing two birds with one stone. They are including a high bit rate lossless audio soundtrack, as well as a great lossy one. Discs using Dolby TrueHD or PCM have to also include another lossy dolby digital or DTS soundtrack so those of us without compatable equipment can still get surround sound. This takes up additional space that doesn't really have to be taken up, and also can create confusion for less observant people as the disc may default to a soundtrack that is not compatible with their equipment. I am hooked up to my reciever with an optical cable, so if a disc defaults to the PCM soundtrack (which some do) I have to go into the audio settings and change it to Dolby Digital. For others with PCM setups, if the player defaults to Dolby Digital, they have to go into the menu and set it to PCM, or Dolby TrueHD. If DTS HDMA is the default then all of us will automatically get either the DTS core, or the HDMA soundtrack depending on our equipment, without us having to change anything. This is much simpler for many people. I can deal with it, but I know for a fact my parents and sister would end up listening to a 2 channel PCM soundtrack if nobody told them to switch it.


And the lack of analog audio outputs. A deal breaker for many of us with older preamps and receivers that we still feel are worth keeping.
Good point here, although I think that number is shrinking quickly. With all of the new HDMI recievers that came out last year at great prices I think a lot of people are upgrading. I'm sure we'll see even more offerings announced soon that will come out this summer too.

I still think by this time next year this will pretty much be a non-issue. By then I think all players on the market will either decode or bitstream DTS HDMA, and all recievers will also be able to decode it. This is why I bought the PS3. I knew that all the early stand alone players would quickly become outdated and replaced by faster units with more options. However the PS3 would still be a great gaming machine that allowed me to get rid of my PS2 and play Blu Rays in the interim (not to mention it was $400 less than the Samsung and Sony stand-alones that were available at the time).

I disagree here as well, assuming that adding a PCM track would cut out space for special features or video/audio quality (if not then yes I am ok with it, but if they have space left over I wish they would use it for higher bitrate video and more special features). By using DTS HDMA they are acutally killing two birds with one stone. They are including a high bit rate lossless audio soundtrack, as well as a great lossy one. Discs using Dolby TrueHD or PCM have to also include another lossy dolby digital or DTS soundtrack so those of us without compatable equipment can still get surround sound. This takes up additional space that doesn't really have to be taken up, and also can create confusion for less observant people as the disc may default to a soundtrack that is not compatible with their equipment. I am hooked up to my reciever with an optical cable, so if a disc defaults to the PCM soundtrack (which some do) I have to go into the audio settings and change it to Dolby Digital. For others with PCM setups, if the player defaults to Dolby Digital, they have to go into the menu and set it to PCM, or Dolby TrueHD. If DTS HDMA is the default then all of us will automatically get either the DTS core, or the HDMA soundtrack depending on our equipment, without us having to change anything. This is much simpler for many people. I can deal with it, but I know for a fact my parents and sister would end up listening to a 2 channel PCM soundtrack if nobody told them to switch it.

Blu Ray sets aside enough bandwidth for audio to support both DTS-MA and PCM. Video quality would not be impacted. The remaining 40Mb/s is more than adequate for todays codecs. Space is not at a premium on BD50, so again a non issue.

What track it defaults to is up to the authoring. So in your scenario, if it defaults to DTS-MA and the user must select PCM then the problem is solved. People with older equipment would still get the core DTS stream without clicking a thing and the majority of us with non DTS-MA players could go in and select PCM from the menu and enjoy lossless audio.


Good point here, although I think that number is shrinking quickly. With all of the new HDMI recievers that came out last year at great prices I think a lot of people are upgrading. I'm sure we'll see even more offerings announced soon that will come out this summer too.

I still think by this time next year this will pretty much be a non-issue. By then I think all players on the market will either decode or bitstream DTS HDMA, and all recievers will also be able to decode it. This is why I bought the PS3. I knew that all the early stand alone players would quickly become outdated and replaced by faster units with more options. However the PS3 would still be a great gaming machine that allowed me to get rid of my PS2 and play Blu Rays in the interim (not to mention it was $400 less than the Samsung and Sony stand-alones that were available at the time).

Well the early adopter crowd tends to be the A/V enthusiast. And the A/V enthusiast with a very nice preamp is not likely to upgrade until a comparable unit is on the market. So analog outputs will be a "must have" for a while at least.

Nothing wrong with the PS3. It just doesn't fit everyones needs.