AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Transporter 2 DTS: Nuts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transporter 2 DTS: Nuts

post #1 of 62
11/16/07 at 8:45pm
Thread Starter 
I don't have the fortune of decoding DTS-Master, so I'm talking about the DTS Core...which in itself, sounds insane. The mix sounds incredibly hot, but with no hints of distortion...and the dynamic range is absolutely through the roof.

Check out the scene when the chick opens fire in the hospital...it's crazy. I had my receiver at -15dB (or was that -10dB), and it drove my Mackies into the red (in full range).

The bass from the punches and kicks also pack a lot of oomph, but are also tight and clean. The boat falling down on the guy was just too much for me, and I had to turn it down.

What did you guys think?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 62
11/16/07 at 10:54pm
I love DTS for all movies!! Right now, I'm watching Rambo in DTS!! It makes me feel like I'm at the theater!!! Or more importantly, right there in the middle of the action!!
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 62
11/16/07 at 11:01pm
I think if you like it now wait until you get the whole sound.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 62
11/16/07 at 11:17pm
Fox has made a wise decision by opting DTS HD. Once the CEs begin to offer full fledged decoding of DTS HD I am sure it will sound phenomenal and continue the home run of legacy DTS.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 62
11/16/07 at 11:40pm
I was pretty impressed with the first Transporter, haven't listened to the second. I'm very excited to hear the full-blown lossless track.

I'm also a believer in DTS-HDMA. It's a great format that's a catch all for people with older and newer equipment, since they can get a noticeable improvement without having an HDMI receiver, and an even better experience with HDMI. If only they'd hurry up with an update for the PS3 that supports it!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 62
11/17/07 at 1:55am
I agree. Every now and then I go back to Transporter 2 for its audio quality. There's nothing much more satisfying than hearing and feeling Jason Statham kick ass all over the sound field. Low bass is overcooked, but it definitely fits the mood of the movie and never gets to the point of making me touch the volume control. Every sound just melds together perfectly.

Now I just need to hear this DTS track in its lossless form.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 62
11/17/07 at 4:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post

Fox has made a wise decision by opting DTS HD. Once the CEs begin to offer full fledged decoding of DTS HD I am sure it will sound phenomenal and continue the home run of legacy DTS.

If Fox had made the "less wise" decision of using LPCM (or TrueHD) all of us including the OP (or many more) could be hearing the lossless track. DTS-HD Master is/was not ready for prime time and since if offers noting that can't be had why use it?

Don't go to the space or bandwidth argument because neither hold water.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 62
11/17/07 at 7:31am
Quote:


What did you guys think?

Is that a rhetorical question?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 62
11/17/07 at 7:53am
Have you guys watched 'Behind Enemy Lines' as yet? This one also has one mean kick ass soundtrack as well !!
I have become a BIG fan of the Fox DTS-MA mixes! And to believe that I'm also getting just the DTS core decode, I really wonder just what the hell does a full on DTS-HD MA actually do....
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 62
11/17/07 at 8:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny_S View Post

...I really wonder just what the hell does a full on DTS-HD MA actually do....

Simple: Makes it the same as the LPCM Master it came from just like TrueHD or use the LPCM Master and avoided compression/decompression altogether.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 62
11/17/07 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

Simple: Makes it the same as the LPCM Master it came from just like TrueHD or use the LPCM Master and avoided compression/decompression altogether.

I know the technical answer but, I am sometimes ready to run from the room with just the DTS core!! It is just so damn hot, loud and sweet!!
So I'm wondering if I will need to notify/warn my neighbors if ever I get the full DTS uncompressed! (Just kidding)...
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 62
11/17/07 at 8:29am
Sigh... The old axiom holds true here- If a tree falls in the forest...

If I can't decode the full lossless track, what good is it?
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 62
11/17/07 at 9:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

If Fox had made the "less wise" decision of using LPCM (or TrueHD) all of us including the OP (or many more) could be hearing the lossless track. DTS-HD Master is/was not ready for prime time and since if offers noting that can't be had why use it?

Don't go to the space or bandwidth argument because neither hold water.

Truth. If decoding for it was utilized, I think it'd be the best format to use, since it offers an improvement for both those with and without newer receivers.

Unfortunately, such is not the case. But, in theory, it's great!
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 62
11/17/07 at 11:03am
I love DTS-EX for movies!
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 62
11/17/07 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

Sigh... The old axiom holds true here- If a tree falls in the forest...

If I can't decode the full lossless track, what good is it?

That's what my parents say about HD-DVDs (they don't have an HDTV.) Point being, just because everyone doesn't have the equipment to utilize something doesn't mean the studios shouldn't support it.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 62
11/17/07 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

If Fox had made the "less wise" decision of using LPCM (or TrueHD) all of us including the OP (or many more) could be hearing the lossless track. DTS-HD Master is/was not ready for prime time and since if offers noting that can't be had why use it?

Don't go to the space or bandwidth argument because neither hold water.

Excellent Post. 99% of people on Earth can't tell the difference. All people see is the codec is larger than the others so they automatically believe it is better.

Its does a horrible disservice to the movie watching business in general. Its like my car is faster than your car. I wish the moderators would do something about this.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 62
11/17/07 at 7:20pm
The whole credit sequence had me with my jaw dropped the whole time.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 62
11/17/07 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintit77 View Post

I wish the moderators would do something about this.

It's not their job to protect you from the opinion of others.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 62
11/17/07 at 8:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintit77 View Post

Excellent Post. 99% of people on Earth can't tell the difference. All people see is the codec is larger than the others so they automatically believe it is better.

Its does a horrible disservice to the movie watching business in general. Its like my car is faster than your car. I wish the moderators would do something about this.

LOL do something about what? People demanding higher quality?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 62
11/17/07 at 10:16pm
It's very easy to differentiate DTS and DD. DTS kicks ass but inability of current gen players to decode it is a shame.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 62
11/17/07 at 10:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paintit77 View Post

Excellent Post. 99% of people on Earth can't tell the difference. All people see is the codec is larger than the others so they automatically believe it is better.

Its does a horrible disservice to the movie watching business in general. Its like my car is faster than your car. I wish the moderators would do something about this.


I guess I am one of the lucky ones then. I can hear a difference in PCM and TrueHD on the same movie. And so can my wife.

I cannot test PCM with DTS HD MA since I donot have a title that has both.

But I will say on CE3K I cannot tell the difference in the TrueHD and DTS HD MA tracks.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 62
11/17/07 at 11:15pm
I don't understand dts-hd ma either at this point. Very few players can send DTS-HD MA bitstream and I don't believe any decode it internally. So basically a VERY small % of people can hear the lossless track. Meanwhile we have perfectly good options with LPCM, which anyone with an hdmi receiver can hear or TrueHD, which most players decode or send.

All lossless tracks are supposed to sound the same, aka. an exact copy of the studio master. LPCM=TrueHD=DTSHDMA on paper. I really don't understand why they just don't put an LPCM track on all blurays that have lossless audio Bluray discs should have lots of room to spare on any movie. It is the format that the most people have the ability to listen to. They need to add DTS-HD MA decoding to the PS3 if they are going to continue using in.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 62
11/18/07 at 4:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl View Post

I guess I am one of the lucky ones then. I can hear a difference in PCM and TrueHD on the same movie. And so can my wife.

I cannot test PCM with DTS HD MA since I donot have a title that has both.

But I will say on CE3K I cannot tell the difference in the TrueHD and DTS HD MA tracks.

If the same Master and bit rate is used and no DN (what BD has this?) there is no deference to hear (Can you also see the difference in a file that was Zipped from one that wasn't (rhetorical because there is no deference to see))? The data would be the same exact 00110110011 from a TrueHD or DTS-HD Master track (same master used to encode at the same bit rate sans DN) as the 00110110011 in the LPCM track after decoding. Indisputable FACT and not belief or truth: If you are hearing something different it is not because you are "lucky", it's because something is defective in your supply chain.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:27am
Quote:


If you are hearing something different it is not because you are "lucky", it's because something is defective in your supply chain.

Not "defective", just different.

LPCM follows a different signal path in most (all?) receivers/processors than packeted codecs such as Dolby Digital, DTS, and the lossless versions of those. There is also the difference in the actual transmission of the data from the source device to the receiver. PCM will be more susceptible to things like jitter than packeted codecs due to the retiming of Dolby/DTS at the decoder.

I am more surprised that so many people continue to think that LPCM has to sound the same as bitstreamed lossless when there are very basic and valid reasons for them NOT to. I expect as we go forward with more receivers and players that pass and decode native bitstream of lossless audio codecs, we will begin to see more attention and testing being given to this.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by William View Post

If Fox had made the "less wise" decision of using LPCM (or TrueHD) all of us including the OP (or many more) could be hearing the lossless track. DTS-HD Master is/was not ready for prime time and since if offers noting that can't be had why use it?

Don't go to the space or bandwidth argument because neither hold water.

I would beg to differ, DTS-HD MA IS ready for prime time, and it is spectacular!
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by uw69 View Post

I would beg to differ, DTS-HD MA IS ready for prime time, and it is spectacular!

Really? Name 2 BD players and 1 HD DVD player that decodes it?
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:43am
Pio elite and Sammy 1400 for Blu-ray (bitstream pass to HDMI1.3 AVR). Not sure about HD DVD but I don't know of any DTS-MA tracks on HD DVD.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by uw69 View Post

Pio elite and Sammy 1400 for Blu-ray (bitstream pass to HDMI1.3 AVR). Not sure about HD DVD but I don't know of any DTS-MA tracks on HD DVD.

I don't think the Pioneer is available yet and even so it still reinforces my point. Almost 2 years after BD and HD DVD release and there are only a couple of players that can decode DTS-HD Master. That means "not ready for prime time".
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert George View Post

Not "defective", just different.

LPCM follows a different signal path in most (all?) receivers/processors than packeted codecs such as Dolby Digital, DTS, and the lossless versions of those. There is also the difference in the actual transmission of the data from the source device to the receiver. PCM will be more susceptible to things like jitter than packeted codecs due to the retiming of Dolby/DTS at the decoder.

I am more surprised that so many people continue to think that LPCM has to sound the same as bitstreamed lossless when there are very basic and valid reasons for them NOT to. I expect as we go forward with more receivers and players that pass and decode native bitstream of lossless audio codecs, we will begin to see more attention and testing being given to this.

I doubt he is hearing jitter on the LPCM track. What is more likely is a level mismatch causing a perceived difference. BTW: What BD has a TrueHD and/or DTS-HD Master with LPCM at the same bit rate to compare?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 62
11/18/07 at 9:59am
There isn't a single BD or HD DVD player available today that can internally decode the lossless layer of DTS-HD MA. It's good that those with HDMI 1.3 receivers or pre/pros get to experience it through bit-stream, but those with older HDMI audio gear or use the analog section of the player are still left in the dark.

To me, in-player decoding allows for a complete solution with the new formats. As far as quality goes, I never complained about MLP being decoded into PCM by the player for my DVD-Audio discs, nor have I had a problem with the player decoding DST into DSD for SACDs.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Transporter 2 DTS: Nuts