How do you feel about these new audio formats?

[supervij]

There have been several threads wherein people have discussed how they feel about the new audio formats (Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD) versus the older ones (Dolby Digital and DTS). I thought it might be nice to condense them all in one thread with a poll.

This poll is for those who have listened to both the old format and the new format, and wouldn't mind responding to the poll:

1. I've heard both the old and the new, and the new is waaay better than the old.

2. I've heard both the old and the new, and the new is marginally better than the old.

3. I've heard both the old and the new, and there is no difference between them.

4. I've heard both the old and the new, and the old is better than the new.


Okay, I don't know where the "post a poll" button is, but heck, feel free to answer the poll in a post anyway. Thanks!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

First, my opinion is that the new DTS-HD MA can subjectively sound way better than the old DD and new TrueHD and marginally better than the old DTS - all depending on the movie.

In some movies, I can't tell any differences between DTS-HD MA vs. TrueHD vs. PCM (Red Cliff has all 3 formats).

In some movies, I can't tell any differences between DTS-HD MA vs. DTS (Day After Tomorrow).

In some movies, I can't tell any differences between TrueHD vs. DD (300).

In some movies, DTS-HD MA sounds 100% better than TrueHD & DD (Dragon Tiger Gate).

It all depends on the source, which is the same answer over and over again.

But if I had to pick just one, I would pick DTS-HD MA over all of them.

 

[jostenmeat]

supervij, this has already been discussed a ton.

The biggest problem in comparing is that the actual mix can be different between what is used with the lossless or lossy codecs.

So, maybe your poll has to be even more specific.

"Do you find the mix to be superior?", rather than "Do you find the codec to be superior?".

As with ADTG, I could not tell any difference whatsoever between the codecs on "300". At all.

OTOH, on the Dark Knight, the difference was extremely pronounced.

For reasons purely of convenience, or implementation, I like DTSMA. One would not even need to go into the setup menu to choose, regardless of whether one is using SPDIF or HDMI, no need to research how auto flagged DRC is implemented as with TrueHD, no fear of dialnorm issues. Lots of movies seem to just start playing off the bat, and one has to quickly get into the guide/menu to select TrueHD, then one might remember to hit DRC wherever necessary. If I'm doing a big viewing, I do this all in advance, and then skip backwards to the beginning after setup. All unnecessary with MA. Certain discs, such as the Band of Brothers, or any Criterion collection title, do not have audio menus.

No need with MA.

[/rant]

 

[rnatalli]

Why don't all these studios just use umcompressed PCM for everything and forget the darn Dolby and DTS decoders.

 

[jostenmeat]

Why don't all these studios just use umcompressed PCM for everything and forget the darn Dolby and DTS decoders.

Space.

Also, if your player couldn't recode mch PCM into DD/DTS (cough Sony cough), you're STUCK with 2 channels when using SPDIF.

edit: sorry, the above is assuming the PCM tracks are the only ones available. As with TrueHD, you most likely have to change selection within the menu. Sorry, lol, TrueHD pisses me off sometimes.

 

[supervij]

I know it's been discussed a lot, but the reason for my wanting to ask this question is in regards to something that may or may not may be considered part of the mix, but something that might or might not be a result of being a lossless codec: the sound quality. How natural and distortion-free does the dialogue sound? In fact, how natural does everything sound?

There are times when listening to DD or DTS that I can hear a little distortion in the dialogue, that I assume comes from being a compressed sound file. I hear a little restraint, from time to time, in the music of some DD or DTS soundtracks. So I wanted to know how much more natural and distortion-free a lossless codec can sound in comparison.

Because of my non-HDMI receiver that has only one set of multi-channel analog inputs, my dillemma is, do I:
a) buy a $200 or $250 BD player, not listen to the new audio codecs but continue to listen to SACD and DVD-A on my DVD player, or
b) spend double that or more on the Oppo BD player, and listen to the new audio codecs and SACD and DVD-A?

For this reason, I asked the question. If what I described is the mix and not the codec, then sorry for adding to the threads needlessly. But I did hope to include a poll (where is that darn "add a poll" button?!), and get all the opinions in one thread.

cheers,
supervij

 

[Alex2507]

Because of my non-HDMI receiver that has only one set of multi-channel analog inputs, my dillemma is, do I:
a) buy a $200 or $250 BD player, not listen to the new audio codecs but continue to listen to SACD and DVD-A on my DVD player, or
b) spend double that or more on the Oppo BD player, and listen to the new audio codecs and SACD and DVD-A?

For this reason, I asked the question. If what I described is the mix and not the codec, then sorry for adding to the threads needlessly. But I did hope to include a poll (where is that darn "add a poll" button?!), and get all the opinions in one thread.

We share the same dilemma. My thought is to get the Oppo. Then I think I would like to get a Yammy 663. That's big talk for a guy with no money but that's what I want. That way I could use the old gear for a second system that I could play around with in the spare room aka 'Man Town'.

 

[jostenmeat]

I know it's been discussed a lot, but the reason for my wanting to ask this question is in regards to something that may or may not may be considered part of the mix, but something that might or might not be a result of being a lossless codec: the sound quality. How natural and distortion-free does the dialogue sound? In fact, how natural does everything sound?

Exactly, we are going in circles. Is it the mix, or is it the codec? If you don't care about this distinction, then my answer is pretty simple:

For whatever reason, the mix on lossless tracks sounds better sometimes. Other times it doesn't sound better. OK- in all honesty, how many people do you think will watch all of their collection, once with lossy, and once with lossless? Not many. In fact, I bet just a handful have even done that with 5 titles, which is too small of a sample statistically speaking, and done with a subjective manner at that.

Did they level match? Forget DBT!

The way I look at it, conveniently, is might as well get the best of what's available, and not to think about it from there. I would guess it would be the extraordinarily rare case where the video on BD is worse than on DVD, or that the soundtrack on a lossless track is worse than its lossy counterpart. How often you actually might benefit, who knows at the moment . . .

That said, the video is worth the upgrade all by itself, IMO, about 100% of the time. However, I use a 159" screen with 42 degree viewing angle. Someone with a 42" from 12 ft (14.5 degrees) might have a very different opinion on the matter.

There are times when listening to DD or DTS that I can hear a little distortion in the dialogue, that I assume comes from being a compressed sound file. I hear a little restraint, from time to time, in the music of some DD or DTS soundtracks. So I wanted to know how much more natural and distortion-free a lossless codec can sound in comparison.

Again, I'll repeat, it depends on the actual disc. If you want my statistical sample, I'll go with 1/2 the time. I've compared on maybe 4-5 discs. Would you trust that proportion?

Because of my non-HDMI receiver that has only one set of multi-channel analog inputs, my dillemma is, do I:
a) buy a $200 or $250 BD player, not listen to the new audio codecs but continue to listen to SACD and DVD-A on my DVD player, or
b) spend double that or more on the Oppo BD player, and listen to the new audio codecs and SACD and DVD-A?

C'mon, no one's going to be able to answer that for you. Two different people could easily go about it differently.

For this reason, I asked the question. If what I described is the mix and not the codec, then sorry for adding to the threads needlessly. But I did hope to include a poll (where is that darn "add a poll" button?!), and get all the opinions in one thread.

Hm. Chicken or the egg?

cheers,
supervij

G'day.

 

[mtrycrafts]

How do you feel...

Was your question. I feel fine

 

[supervij]

Okay, okay! Geez, ask a question that's already been asked 63,912 times already and I get nothing but rolled eyes and annoyed responses!

I guess I hadn't read very closely those threads about the difference. I honestly wasn't sure if my question was related to the mix or the codec. Got it. Thanks.

mtrycrafts, that puts me at ease considerably.

cheers,
supervij

 

[Alex2507]

So what are you going to do?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Okay, okay! Geez, ask a question that's already been asked 63,912 times already and I get nothing but rolled eyes and annoyed responses!

I guess I hadn't read very closely those threads about the difference. I honestly wasn't sure if my question was related to the mix or the codec. Got it. Thanks.

mtrycrafts, that puts me at ease considerably.

cheers,
supervij

I was just trying to be funny When Spock was regenerated in one of the movies, he was asked, 'How do you feel" That popped into my head reading your subject. Got to have some fun otherwise this is a dry subject

 

[supervij]

Alex, my desire is to go with the Oppo. It's exorbitantly priced, but not unaffordable. By replacing my current player with the Oppo BDP, I'll have only one player that plays everything I want -- BD, CD, DivX, DVD, DVD-A and SACD.

But if I get some other player and use both, I'll have to explain to my roommate (probably again and again) which player to use for what, AND I'll have a ton of extra wires behind my gear that comes with having another component. BUT I will have saved a considerable sum.

My gut tells me that the new Oppo player will be a pretty amazing piece of hardware, with more useful stuff than most -- if not all -- less expensive players. But I'm still locked in a contract job that's keeping me from enjoying my HT until mid-May, so I still have plenty of time to make the decision. Are you still gunning for the new Oppo player as well?

mtrycrafts, "How do you feel" was also asked of Kirk at the end of ST II: TWoK. Kirk's answer was, "Young. I feel young." But I never hear that anymore ever since my then-girlfriend burst in with her answer: "I feel pretty . . . oh so pretty!" I have to smile every time I watch that movie, cos I imagine Kirk bursting out into song at the end.

cheers,
supervij

 

[Alex2507]

Are you still gunning for the new Oppo player as well?

Definitely. I want it, I want it, I want it.

 

[rnatalli]

Space.

Also, if your player couldn't recode mch PCM into DD/DTS (cough Sony cough), you're STUCK with 2 channels when using SPDIF.

edit: sorry, the above is assuming the PCM tracks are the only ones available. As with TrueHD, you most likely have to change selection within the menu. Sorry, lol, TrueHD pisses me off sometimes.

I don't think space is an issue anymore with 50GB disks. I think it'd be easier to simply use PCM as the HD standard and include a DD or DTS legacy format too on BR disks. I think the Kill Bill disks are setup this way.

 

[jostenmeat]

Why don't all these studios just use umcompressed PCM for everything and forget the darn Dolby and DTS decoders.

Space.

Also, if your player couldn't recode mch PCM into DD/DTS (cough Sony cough), you're STUCK with 2 channels when using SPDIF.

edit: sorry, the above is assuming the PCM tracks are the only ones available. As with TrueHD, you most likely have to change selection within the menu. Sorry, lol, TrueHD pisses me off sometimes.

I don't think space is an issue anymore with 50GB disks. I think it'd be easier to simply use PCM as the HD standard and include a DD or DTS legacy format too on BR disks. I think the Kill Bill disks are setup this way.

Even if there weren't any benefits at all in saving space, the implementation is still easier with DTSMA. It has the lossy track within itself. There would be zero need for any audio menu of any kind. With PCM, perhaps you still need to select it.

Someone here once described the vast difference in the space saved between PCM and the codecs. (I can't find the post). IIRC, PCM is using max bitrate 100% of the time, even if there is no sound at all. Some would argue that any space saved by a codec could allow for further decompression of video. Others would just say wasting space is simply wasting space.

Now, whatever, sure, PCM is great, and after all, there are plenty of 25GB discs too. BUT, if we were hypothetically talking about a standard, I don't think PCM would be it, but who knows. I would guess that LOTR would benefit from the codecs, for instance. The only downside to MA is that there is a fee paid to use the codec. However, I'm fine with that.

 

[Pyrrho]

Even if there weren't any benefits at all in saving space, the implementation is still easier with DTSMA. It has the lossy track within itself. There would be zero need for any audio menu of any kind. With PCM, perhaps you still need to select it.

Someone here once described the vast difference in the space saved between PCM and the codecs. (I can't find the post). IIRC, PCM is using max bitrate 100% of the time, even if there is no sound at all. Some would argue that any space saved by a codec could allow for further decompression of video. Others would just say wasting space is simply wasting space.

Now, whatever, sure, PCM is great, and after all, there are plenty of 25GB discs too. BUT, if we were hypothetically talking about a standard, I don't think PCM would be it, but who knows. I would guess that LOTR would benefit from the codecs, for instance. The only downside to MA is that there is a fee paid to use the codec. However, I'm fine with that.

There is more to consider that just how much space it takes up. With the data compressed, a speck of dust or a defect will obscure a larger piece of time of compressed data than uncompressed data. Does anyone have any information on this matter? How robust are these formats when it comes to real world problems?

Frankly, I wish they had come out with a disc that holds more data, and does not compress either the audio or the video. Didn't anybody learn from the DVD format that there are compression artifacts that may degrade the picture? Of course, we all know that Dolby and dts would have had a fit over just having multichannel uncompressed PCM, as they would not be getting a share of the profits that way. Owning a format is great, because you then get to collect money without doing anything more. But having a bunch of different sound options, unless they are different mixes (or audio commentary, etc.), is a total waste of space, not to mention simply confusing for the average buyer.

Hopefully, the next format will be done right, but I rather doubt it.

 

[mtrycrafts]

...
mtrycrafts, "How do you feel" was also asked of Kirk at the end of ST II: TWoK. Kirk's answer was, "Young. I feel young." But I never hear that anymore ever since my then-girlfriend burst in with her answer: "I feel pretty . . . oh so pretty!" I have to smile every time I watch that movie, cos I imagine Kirk bursting out into song at the end.

cheers,
supervij

Didn't remember that one and hers is also a good one

 

[mtrycrafts]

....
Frankly, I wish they had come out with a disc that holds more data, and does not compress either the audio or the video. ...

The high def ones are loss less using the Meridian packing. Not sure that would meet your requirement here. Video would take a huge amount of space if not some for of compression is used like Mpeg. When I mean huge, it may be in the terrabyte region per movie. At least that is what I remember about an article talking about archiving/storing uncompressed movies for studios needs.

 

[Pyrrho]

The high def ones are loss less using the Meridian packing. Not sure that would meet your requirement here. Video would take a huge amount of space if not some for of compression is used like Mpeg. When I mean huge, it may be in the terrabyte region per movie. At least that is what I remember about an article talking about archiving/storing uncompressed movies for studios needs.

Yes, I understand the fact that some of the new audio formats are lossless. They should sound fine (though as I mention in my post, being compressed, they are likely to be more problematic if there is a speck of dust on the disc, as it will obscure a longer stretch of the soundtrack than if it were uncompressed). But do we really need more than one of them? Really, what we have is a patched up mess, caused by various companies wanting a chunk of money, not what would be best for having movies with the best possible picture and sound. And if video compression is essential (which I never denied on the current size/format Blu-Ray disc, though I wish they had simply produced something that can hold all the information uncompressed), there should be only one audio soundtrack on the film, so that the video can be as uncompressed as possible. (Those with commentaries could have the commentaries in old fashioned DD for one channel, as we really don't need high fidelity for someone talking, and DD has been thought to be good enough anyway.) Having competition in this case is a very bad thing.

I don't think you would seriously say that the current product was made with the primary goal of producing the best picture and sound possible within the limits of the technology involved; it clearly has to do with various companies wanting their piece of the monetary pie.