TrueHD / DTS-HD, how noticable over 5.1



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr. John /forum/post/14116683


I'm planning on eventually upgrading my AVR to something that will handle HDMI switching and all that goes with that.


I'm wondering though, for those of you running Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD, is there a noticeable difference from your old 5.1 set up? I'm having a hard time imagining the surround getting much better from what I gave now.

Click to expand...

very noticeable IMO

This question comes up all the time, and makes you wonder why Dolby and/or DTS can't create two wave files, one with their lossy codec and the other with their lossless codec. That would allow people to better compare.


I can say that Dolby Digital is somewhat heavily compressed. The standard rate for all 5.1 channels is 448khz. Given that some people can tell the difference between 160khz MP3 and higher rate MP3s in blind testing*, you can see where 448khz for 5.1 channels is limited.


I have read that DTS did a better job with music heavy content due to the substantially higher bitrate of DTS (it's also been said that DTS is not as efficient of a codec, though.)


There's no simple way to do this comparison. To get an idea of what compression sounds like, compress a music file at 160 kbs and 256 kbs and have a friend play both for you. If you can tell them apart, you will get somewhat of an idea how compression can effect sound. You can also try other rates such as 128 vs 160, 128 vs 256 etc.


* I have run these tests myself with people and my co-worker Keith seems to be able to reliably detect improvements from bit rates higher than 160khz

I just got a receiver that would decode the HD codecs and experienced my first Blu Ray with DTS MA last night. The difference is very noticable.


I would say that the HD sound formats make the sound effects in movies more realistic - more like the real sound than an effect.


The increased dynamic range means there are more of those moments in a film where the sound makes you jump a bit.


Like most improvements the HD codecs are easy to get used to, making it hard to go back to standard DTS or DD.


Now I'm real anxious to experience a true 7.1 soundtrack in one of the HD codecs. The soundtrack I heard was 5.1.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic_BomB /forum/post/14117228


Could you explain why adding a seperate wire makes it easier? Are there pro's cons to that?


(not being antagonistic, genuinely curious)

Click to expand...

Lossless audio adds another level of possible settings, and post processing quirks / limitations.


With optical? 2 channel and DD / DTS which most any AVR / audio processor will automatically handle with ease.


Add lossless and you have....


Additional choices to worry about on the title itself.

A whole host of audio settings on the source component dealing with it

Choices on where to decode

Choices or lack there of on how to post process if any.

Throw in the knowledge to handle any possible HDMI issues, and/or the use of the analog multi-ch inputs.


I find for most people, it's just to much. I mean, for most people 2 channel -vs- real DD and/or DTS is to much already.

I find that viewpoint interesting, coming from you, John. Sure you were not replaced with a pod person? You seem to be a multi-channel fan, I would expect you to encourage others to do the same

Another aspect of the higher final bit rate afforded by LPCM, DTS-HDMA and TrueHD that is often overlooked, is imaging. It(imaging) is a lot easier to identify when you're only using two speakers in a stereo configuration, but it can also be noticeable with 5.1. A good example is the first movie I was able to A/B standard DD against an HD soundtrack, Flyboys. Listen to the score during the opening credits in DD, but with your eyes closed. Then physically point to the edge of the soundstage where the orchestra 'ends'; open your eyes and look at what you're pointing at. Do the same with the LPCM track. I found myself pointing way past the original points. Several other people that I've done this with, did the same thing. Of course, YMMV...

The other addition, which most have mentioned is the dynamic range. Loud sound can be 'louder', while soft sounds can still be incredibly detailed, even at the lowest levels.


Is it noticeable to the 'average' listener? I'd say yes. After letting my folks listen to one, then the other, even my Mom said 'I couldn't tell you why, but number two(the HD track) sounded better.' So there you go, if Mom agrees, how could you go wrong?


HD1080boy- the PS3 converts the DTS-HDMA and TrueHD to LPCM. What your amp is telling you is correct, and you are getting all the benefits of the HD signal.


John- I agree with you. Joe Consumer is being flooded with a whole acronym soup and marketing hype, and all the manufacturers seemingly doing all they can to obfuscate things. I'm surprised that HD formats are even doing as well as they are. A friend invited me over to watch a football game and a movie a few weekends ago, as he wanted to show off his new system. About 15min into the game, I started looking around, trying to figure out why the surrounds were barely active and the picture looked like a**. His cable box was hooked up with stereo RCA, and an S-Vid cable. He thought it was HD. The Blu-Ray player was hooked up with an HDMI cable, but also had an optical cable, which the receiver was using. After setting the player to bitstream, and the receiver to HDMI audio, his comment was 'wow!' Most HDMI gear will auto-negotiate when it's hooked up. If the mfrs. would get together and use this to the consumers advantage, we'd all be better off...


Ok, I'm done with this soap-box.... Anyone else want to use it?