AVS Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am really shocked about something. A friend just got a really

nice home theater set up( b&w speakers and sub, brand new Pioneer Blu ray along with a new Pioneer reciever).

So for fun I brought a DTS demo disc I have( standard DVD but with the 1.5

Mps bit rate) There is a flght scene from x men

2 on it. Then we listened to the same scene on the Blu

Ray x men 2. The first lit up Dts on the reciever, the blu

Ray lit it up as DTS ma, so everything working and hooked right..


Well gees... They both sounded superb. I really could not

tell much a difference. Maybe and I

mean 'maybe' a hair better on the Blu ray playing the full

Dts ma. ( and even that I'm not sure how much was my ears

playing the Placebo effect).

Is dts at 1.5, pretty damn much the same as the DTS ma? We both thought they were so close really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,105 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by frostylou /forum/post/16931417


I am really shocked about something. A friend just got a really

nice home theater set up( b&w speakers and sub, brand new Pioneer Blu ray along with a new Pioneer reciever).

So for fun I brought a DTS demo disc I have( standard DVD but with the 1.5

Mps bit rate) There is a flght scene from x men

2 on it. Then we listened to the same scene on the Blu

Ray x men 2. The first lit up Dts on the reciever, the blu

Ray lit it up as DTS ma, so everything working and hooked right..


Well gees... They both sounded superb. I really could not

tell much a difference. Maybe and I

mean 'maybe' a hair better on the Blu ray playing the full

Dts ma. ( and even that I'm not sure how much was my ears

playing the Placebo effect).

Is dts at 1.5, pretty damn much the same as the DTS ma? We both thought they were so close really.

Did you match the playback levels of both discs within 0.5 db?


Do you know for sure that both discs are the EXACT SAME audio mix?


Did you conduct your "test" under double blind conditions?


If the answer to any of these questions is "No" (and I suspect they are all "No"), then your results are inconclusive.


The human auditory memory is a funny thing. Often the LAST thing the brain "hears" sounds the best to us. A quick search will reveal a lot of studies on this subject.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,799 Posts

Quote:
Is dts at 1.5, pretty damn much the same as the DTS ma? We both thought they were so close really.

We'll their the same in the the master audio track the are created from should be exactly the same.



The differences are DTS-MA is lossless so shoudl be identical to the master where as plain old DTS is a lossy compression format that will "throw away" some information, and likely add minor compression artifacts. How auidable this throwing away and compression artifacts are dependant on many things.


But in the end good old DTS might not be perfect, but it does do a very good job of storing a multichannel audio track.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,013 Posts
Surprise! The DTS core at 1509 mbps is about as good as it gets. While lossy, it seems to be at the point of diminishing returns where lossless is not much better, perhaps not any better at all. DD 5.1 encodes at 640 kbps on Blu-ray also sound great. I have my player and receiver set up for both lossless analog and digital S/PDIF and, like you, I have a hard time telling the difference, especially with DTS tracks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
724 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by BIslander /forum/post/16932127


Surprise! The DTS core at 1509 mbps is about as good as it gets. While lossy, it seems to be at the point of diminishing returns where lossless is not much better, perhaps not any better at all. DD 5.1 encodes at 640 kbps on Blu-ray also sound great. I have my player and receiver set up for both lossless analog and digital S/PDIF and, like you, I have a hard time telling the difference, especially with DTS tracks.

It is amazing. I was just looking online and didn't realize that 1.5 is basically indestinguishable from Uncompressed in blind tests.

You just nailed it. Once up to

1.5 MBPS, you are at the point of diminishing returns,..if any.

It's funny. I thought there was a hair more presence in DTS MA once we matched levels. But I mean a HAIR. Absolutely nothing to write home about. My friend heard NO difference. Thought they sounded equally fantastic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by frostylou /forum/post/16932172


It is amazing. I was just looking online and didn't realize that 1.5 is basically indestinguishable from Uncompressed in blind tests.

You just nailed it. Once up to

1.5 MBPS, you are at the point of diminishing returns,..if any.

It's funny. I thought there was a hair more presence in DTS MA once we matched levels. But I mean a HAIR. Absolutely nothing to write home about. My friend heard NO difference. Thought they sounded equally fantastic.

As I understand it, there's no reason why these high bit rate discs should sound any better to a human. They could easily sound better to a dog, but then, not everybody has a dog. ;-)


There is only one possible way they could sound better than 44khz, and that's if the recording level isn't optimal. The high bit rate provides more headroom.


That being said, we often are comparing lower bit rate audio in two channel, and high bit rate audio in surround sound. Not a fair comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,155 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter White /forum/post/16932380


As I understand it, there's no reason why these high bit rate discs should sound any better to a human. They could easily sound better to a dog, but then, not everybody has a dog. ;-)

You are assuming that the extra bits only contribute to the high frequencies - that is not true.
Quote:
There is only one possible way they could sound better than 44khz, and that's if the recording level isn't optimal. The high bit rate provides more headroom.

Headroom only makes sense at the recording end. We're talking storage and playback. Further, bit-rate itself is not related to headroom anyway.


Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,105 Posts
Discussion about the audible differences between a lossy codec and a lossless codec is really academic. The codecs are what they are. Is anyone going to NOT listen to a lossless codec if they can just because someone says it CAN'T sound any better than a lossy codec? I doubt it.


Me, I prefer lossy DTS over lossy DD 5.1 and I will always choose to listen to a lossless codec (of any flavor) over a lossy one every chance I get. But that's just me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,013 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesky636 /forum/post/16932848


Discussion about the audible differences between a lossy codec and a lossless codec is really academic. The codecs are what they are. Is anyone going to NOT listen to a lossless codec if they can just because someone says it CAN'T sound any better than a lossy codec? I doubt it.

I don't think it's academic for people who need to buy new equipment to get lossless.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top