AVS Forum banner

1621 - 1640 of 2450 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
709 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexsandor /forum/post/13379344


Yes it can and it does. I have it hooked up to a Pioneer Elite VSX-92TXH and it does it.

Me too, I have the 95 and a 94 receiver and it is quite impressive in the sound department. It is a definite benefit to have the ma tracks. If you have good equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
771 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by madkaw /forum/post/13379894


Me too, I have the 95 and a 94 receiver and it is quite impressive in the sound department. It is a definite benefit to have the ma tracks. If you have good equipment.

I have the same setup. I kind of laugh when I hear folks slam Fox for using DTS HD MA, they clearly have not had the benefit for hearing their movies using MA. Spectacular stuff!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dmitry /forum/post/13374369


Not quite true some earlier titles (Punisher, Saw, for instance) have a DTS-ES track. Some have DTS-HD HR (Condemned, Saw 2 & 3). Saw IV has DTS-HS MA. 3:10 to Yuma has PCM. So they are all over the map.

Yes you are correct, I should have said a number of them contained a DTS-HD HR track
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by uw69 /forum/post/13379917


I have the same setup. I kind of laugh when I hear folks slam Fox for using DTS HD MA, they clearly have not had the benefit for hearing their movies using MA. Spectacular stuff!

If you have heard any uncompressed PCM track or Dolby TrueHD track, it is basically the same thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts
Agreed Uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD MA is pretty much the same thing. All good, and too say that one sounds waaay better than the other is the part that makes me laugh. I am just glad the we have this kind of quality sound source for movies. The only thing I wish they added was a discrete channel for my transducers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by madkaw /forum/post/13379894


Me too, I have the 95 and a 94 receiver and it is quite impressive in the sound department. It is a definite benefit to have the ma tracks. If you have good equipment.

Thanks for the posts, aleandor and madkaw. Now is the time to decide on what AV receivers to consider for purchase.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzieP /forum/post/13386535


Agreed Uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD, DTS HD MA is pretty much the same thing. All good, and too say that one sounds waaay better than the other is the part that makes me laugh. I am just glad the we have this kind of quality sound source for movies. The only thing I wish they added was a discrete channel for my transducers!

Unfortunately some people buy into the marketing hype that DTS or Dolby try to sell customers. PCM would be fine on all BD's and nothing else would be needed, but it is all about money and DTS and Dolby make tons of money by including tracks in their codecs on movies and some people actually buy into it!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTMan34 /forum/post/13390530


Unfortunately some people buy into the marketing hype that DTS or Dolby try to sell customers. PCM would be fine on all BD's and nothing else would be needed, but it is all about money and DTS and Dolby make tons of money by including tracks in their codecs on movies and some people actually buy into it!

Please explain in more detail just who are customers of DTS and Dolby and why these customers are paying what you claim they pay for a codec that isn't needed because PCM is all that is needed. Looking forward to better understanding your position in this matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by townofturley /forum/post/13391014


Please explain in more detail just who are customers of DTS and Dolby and why these customers are paying what you claim they pay for a codec that isn't needed because PCM is all that is needed. Looking forward to better understanding your position in this matter.

Uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA are all basically the same thing, same codec, same sound. The only real differences are the bit rates that each use and the fact that DTS-HD MA requires a lot more processing power since it uses such a high bit rate...but ultimately they all sound the same. Now for the marketing part, PCM would be all that is needed, but unfortunatley PCM doesn't sell to the mass people, everyone knows the names DTS/Dolby and there is tons of money involved by having their products being included in movies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTMan34 /forum/post/13392719


Uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA are all basically the same thing, same codec, same sound. The only real differences are the bit rates that each use and the fact that DTS-HD MA requires a lot more processing power since it uses such a high bit rate...but ultimately they all sound the same. Now for the marketing part, PCM would be all that is needed, but unfortunatley PCM doesn't sell to the mass people, everyone knows the names DTS/Dolby and there is tons of money involved by having their products being included in movies.


I think what you are saying, or implying, is the fact that the consummer is paying the additional cost of the royalties charged by Folby and DTS for their codecs. Am I right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MF70 /forum/post/13393109


I think what you are saying, or implying, is the fact that the consummer is paying the additional cost of the royalties charged by Folby and DTS for their codecs. Am I right?

Sory, Ray, for mispelling your name.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,771 Posts
Actually both TrueHD and DTS-HD MA save space on the disc, and that leaves more room for extras and longer movies -- or more episodes of a show. It is hard to argue that saving space isn't a good thing.


As for TrueHD vs DTS-HD MA, I think DTS will be more popular because the "core" feature saves even more space by not requiring the studio to include a legacy sound track the way TrueHD does. I believe this is why so many Blu-ray titles have one of the DTS-HD codecs instead of one of Dolby's codecs (20% vs 11% of all titles). But right now, neither can compete with LPCM as 40% of all Blu-ray titles use it.

http://www.blu-raystats.com/stats.php
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,026 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTMan34 /forum/post/13392719


Uncompressed PCM, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD MA are all basically the same thing, same codec, same sound. The only real differences are the bit rates that each use and the fact that DTS-HD MA requires a lot more processing power since it uses such a high bit rate...but ultimately they all sound the same. Now for the marketing part, PCM would be all that is needed, but unfortunatley PCM doesn't sell to the mass people, everyone knows the names DTS/Dolby and there is tons of money involved by having their products being included in movies.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. That is, I don't believe the masses ultimately are drawn to Dolby or DTS, just because of the name branding. If it were explained to them that PCM is also lossless and theoretically just as good, I think the masses would understand. I'd like to see your proof that PCM doesn't sell to the masses and that DTS/Dolby does.



That being said, my own listening, on good equipment, does find very subtle differences between the lossless formats. I favor DTS HD MA over PCM which I favor or Dolby True HD. I know other have agreed with this. And others believe there are no differences.


And as was pointed out, the space saving benefic of DTS HD and Dolby HD are not insignificant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,771 Posts
townofturley,

How did you d your tests? I wasn't aware there was any disc that came with all three lossless formats.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
776 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTMan34 /forum/post/13390530


Unfortunately some people buy into the marketing hype that DTS or Dolby try to sell customers. PCM would be fine on all BD's and nothing else would be needed, but it is all about money and DTS and Dolby make tons of money by including tracks in their codecs on movies and some people actually buy into it!


It's not hype, the DTS and Dolby HD are lossless compression and that's a good thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by townofturley /forum/post/13393546


Sorry, but I don't buy it. That is, I don't believe the masses ultimately are drawn to Dolby or DTS, just because of the name branding. If it were explained to them that PCM is also lossless and theoretically just as good, I think the masses would understand. I'd like to see your proof that PCM doesn't sell to the masses and that DTS/Dolby does.



That being said, my own listening, on good equipment, does find very subtle differences between the lossless formats. I favor DTS HD MA over PCM which I favor or Dolby True HD. I know other have agreed with this. And others believe there are no differences.


And as was pointed out, the space saving benefic of DTS HD and Dolby HD are not insignificant.

It all comes down to money between DTS/Dolby and movie studios. All 3 codecs are basically the same, very little differences, except for space saving, like you said, but I for one really have no need for even more extras, since I do not like the ones that are already contained on BD's. The space argument will go away soon when larger capacity discs become available.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,668 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by HTMan34 /forum/post/13399429


It all comes down to money between DTS/Dolby and movie studios. All 3 codecs are basically the same, very little differences, except for space saving, like you said, but I for one really have no need for even more extras, since I do not like the ones that are already contained on BD's. The space argument will go away soon when larger capacity discs become available.

Seems to me that the savings in bit-rate with lossless compression vs. LPCM is the only real advantage. I don't see disc capacity as a big deal (I have little use for the "extras"). With fewer bits taken by the audio tracks you should have more to allocate to the video.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,028 Posts

Quote:
That being said, my own listening, on good equipment, does find very subtle differences between the lossless formats.

Audiophile with good equipment hears SUBTLE difference.

EQUALS

Average user with average equipment hears no difference maybe?


If there is a difference it must really be so subtle that it is probably negligible.
 
1621 - 1640 of 2450 Posts
Top