[jattsp]

just got a new a receiver (htr-6090)...replaced a hk-430....i have to say nothing so far touches uncompressed......detail...and clearity in sound is unbelievable......i have heard true hd but it doesnt sound like this......by the way if anywants to know no LFE issue.


my 5.1 audio setup.

fronts- jbl e60

centre- jbl ec25

sub- velodyne cht-10

rears- polk audio f/xi3

 

[Chris in SD]

true hd is uncompressed when decoded. 100% lossless.


You'd need to compare the same movie with both, and you'd hear no difference.

 

[jsb_hburg]

On my setup, uncompressed audio sounds absolutely great. Now, I look for AQ as well as PQ.

 

[Schwingding]

I'll bet you $100 that you can't tell the difference more than 75% of the time in a blindfold test betwee DD 5.1/DTS and any of the lossless format, especially with setups like that described.


I think you're kidding yourself. Yes, it has the capability of sounding better, but I don't believe you can tell the difference. I think I can, but I also think I'm kidding myself.

 

[JOHNnDENVER]

Don't be so sure. Schwingding.


I blind tested a group of 5 enthusiasts on it and I'll be darned if they didn't pick out the TrueHD everytime. It is hard to do a true blind test, because getting audio level calibrations the same between formats as they exist today is a little tough so there could have been that factor involved, but I did my best on it. I was using the analog outputs on my HD-DVD player for the test. My system is a little higher end than his though.


I am hoping to get the same group over again, for a bit of a Blu-ray / HD-DVD / SD-DVD shootout. All in fun. Audio tests may prove interesting this time around. But, I'm not sure what title to use.


Idealy the title should be:

A title out on both formats

A title with uncompressed audio PCM on BD

A title with compressed lossless on HD-DVD

A title with some compressed lossy formats on both

A non-animated title that has outstanding PQ on both

I would also like to have the SD-DVD version on hand.

 

[Schwingding]

John, I believe that it takes a superior audio setup to discern the difference between something as high quality as DTS and any of the lossless audio formats.


I wouldn't make that bet on any system, but based on my mid-range stuff and the OPs basic description I think I'm in the safe bet category.

 

[briankmonkey]

Definitely, I love the uncompressed audio tracks as well

 

[DavidHir]

I'm in a situation right now where I'm wondering. I'm using a (non-HDMI) Yamaha HTR-5890 with digital optical and looking to buy an HDMI Onkyo TX-SR804. My speakers consist of Infinity Beta and SVS PC+ 20-30 sub. I will be using the HD-A2 and PS3.


Am I really going to hear an improvement with uncompressed audio in my relatively modest set-up?


Last year I had the HD-A1 and used the analog 5.1 to my receiver and it "seemed" as if DD+ sounded more full but it could have been placebo in all honesty.

 

[briankmonkey]

I think I most definitely would on your setup. Many aspects can affect sound and the uncompressed audio is definitely one of them just as other factors like the speakers.


Personally I can tell a difference even on "lower end" speakers.

 

[jattsp]

i can tell a difference between dd 5.1, dts, vs lossless....i was using tears of the sun disc playing it on a ps3.....switching back and forth between uncompressed and dd 5.1, there is huge difference even on my set-up.

 

[Schwingding]

I just don't buy it. I believe that you think you can, but I think you are deluding yourself.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

It's really a moot point, once the media can support lossless. The lossless is better on the count of it removes all doubt that you are getting all of the sound quality, for all its worth. The DTS...maybe it's all there, maybe not. Why waste time evaluating if it is or isn't, when you can just have the lossless and move on?

 

[briankmonkey]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwingding /forum/post/0


I just don't buy it. I believe that you think you can, but I think you are deluding yourself.

To each their own. I certainly wouldn't try convincing the man with one ear that stereo is better than mono either.

 

[inca]

I know this is kind of off topic, but in the theaters didn't Jurassic Park use DTS for its surround sound?? That sounded pretty damned good to me

. I probably wouldn't be able to hear a big difference in the sound. The biggest thing to me about Dolby Digital and DTS was the fact that there was 5.1 distinct channels around me. I always got DTS because I have heard it was better by other people around here, but in reality I never sat at home and thought "Holy crap, This DTS smokes that dolby digital" because I could never really tell the difference, its just the fact that I knew I was getting the best audio is the reason I stuck to all DTS material in the SD-DVD days.

 

[Mr. Hanky]

Just a possibility, but the "professional DTS" used in movie theaters may not be the same as the "consumer DTS" that comes on a disc for the masses.


I think it was in the early days where DTS developed an aura "better sound", since it had the higher bitrate than competitor DD. It probably made less and less difference in later years as DD improved and refined.

 

[Dixie Ruptin]

if the mixes are actually the same (meaning they didnt enhance the uncompressed track in ways unrelated to just the lack of compression) i would have to say that the chances of a human being telling the difference between a DTS 24 bit / 48khz track and an uncompressed track would be virtually impossible (if the sample rate were 96khz, then totally 100% impossible).


for the average joe, even a DD 16bit 44.1 khz track would be very hard to tell apart from uncompressed (standard DD's lack of dynamic range can be evident when comparing it to DTS, ive noticed).

 

[avsdalesmith]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris in SD /forum/post/0


true hd is uncompressed when decoded. 100% lossless.


You'd need to compare the same movie with both, and you'd hear no difference.

Compressed audio can never sound as good as uncompressed. It might be so close that most of us couldn't tell the difference. But it wouldn't be as good as uncompressed. Any time you remove information and then extrapolate the missing information during decompression, you will have a result that is less than the original. Now, I'm waiting for uncompressed video. Will 8-layer BD be enough space?

 

[tkmedia2]

I always find it easier to tell differences with headphones

 

[Sketcha]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwingding /forum/post/0


John, I believe that it takes a superior audio setup to discern the difference between something as high quality as DTS and any of the lossless audio formats.


I wouldn't make that bet on any system, but based on my mid-range stuff and the OPs basic description I think I'm in the safe bet category.

O.K., you dropped the DD. Good.


Myself, I have only heard DD and DTS. To me it's almost night and day. Dramatically different. But, as I said, you dropped the DD from your statement so I guess you're in the clear.


Now if you're talking some Bose cube deal, or a HTIB with 3" cones, of course the differences are probably, well, pretty minor. But were we talking about that? Now I've got a pretty decent setup, but I think with just a set of CC Polks and a decent receiver, I could hear the difference. DD sounds like mp3 to me compared to DTS.

 

[Sketcha]



Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidHir /forum/post/0


I'm in a situation right now where I'm wondering. I'm using a (non-HDMI) Yamaha HTR-5890 with digital optical and looking to buy an HDMI Onkyo TX-SR804. My speakers consist of Infinity Beta and SVS PC+ 20-30 sub. I will be using the HD-A2 and PS3.


Am I really going to hear an improvement with uncompressed audio in my relatively modest set-up?


Last year I had the HD-A1 and used the analog 5.1 to my receiver and it "seemed" as if DD+ sounded more full but it could have been placebo in all honesty.

Apparently, according to Dolby (see a thread here somewhere,) DD+ is not much, if at all better than regular DD.