Is there really a big difference between DD and uncompressed formats?

J

JOD

Junior Audioholic
When i was buying my receiver i didnt pay attention if it had the cabability to play uncompressed audio. Then i was thinking, should i return my receiver and spend more $ on one that can play uncompressed formats, or just get a BD player that can do it. I talked to a guy at magnolia home theater and he said no to worry about it, that there really isnt a big difference in sound quality or anything else between uncompressed formats and DD. On the other hand i have heard people talking about how great Dolby true HD , and all those other uncompressed formats sound. Can i get some opinions here, is there really enough difference to justify the extra 200 or so dollars?
 
Hi Ho

Hi Ho

Audioholic Samurai
When I bought my HD-DVD player I didn't een think about the audio because I assumed that since my Yamaha RX-V2700 didn't have the proper decoders I wouldn't hear the difference anyway. I was wrong. There is a very big difference! I noticed it right away and it is now difficult for me to watch DVDs with standard DD soundtracks because they sound thin and fake in comparison. I'd say it is definetely worth it.

What receiver do you have? Does it have HDMI?
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
I wouldn't say there's a huge difference between the uncompressed 5.1 PCM tracks and DD/DTS tracks, but it is definitely a noticeable difference.

I've been using the Philips BDP9000 connected via 5.1 analog ouputs to my Yamaha RX-V2500. I'd compare it to the difference between a good two channel recording matrixed to 5.1/6.1/7.1 and a standard DD track. I find that the uncompressed 5.1 PCM tracks open the soundstage a bit more making it sound more expansive and a bit cleaner. The discrete sound effects are much more accurate in their reproduction when comparing it to DD/DTS as well. The BDP9000 doesn't have the ability to do the hi-res formats such as Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master-Audio, so I can't comment on them, but I imagine they are even better than the uncompressed formats.

If your existing receiver has multichannel inputs, which it likely does, and you have a BD player that has 5.1 or 7.1 analog outs, you can take advantage of the uncompressed 5.1 PCM tracks now. In order to take advantage of the Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master-Audio formats, you'd need an HDMI 1.3 capable receiver that can decode the bitstream of these formats such as a Denon 2808, Yamaha 1800, Onkyo 805, etc. as well as a BD player than can pass these formats, such as a Panasonic DMP-BD30K or Samsung BD-P1400. -TD
 
obscbyclouds

obscbyclouds

Senior Audioholic
If your existing receiver has multichannel inputs, which it likely does, and you have a BD player that has 5.1 or 7.1 analog outs, you can take advantage of the uncompressed 5.1 PCM tracks now. In order to take advantage of the Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master-Audio formats, you'd need an HDMI 1.3 capable receiver that can decode the bitstream of these formats such as a Denon 2808, Yamaha 1800, Onkyo 805, etc. as well as a BD player than can pass these formats, such as a Panasonic DMP-BD30K or Samsung BD-P1400. -TD
A couple things here, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are uncompressed formats, there's no real reason they should sound better or worse than uncompressed 5.1 pcm tracks. The real difference is in the way they are packed on the disc.

If your player can decode Dolby TrueHD and/or DTS HD-MA, you don't need an HDMI 1.3 reciever, HDMI 1.1 can handle multichannel PCM, which is what your reciever will get if the player handles the decoding. The only thing you need HDMI 1.3 for is the actual decoding of bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA.

I notice a pretty big difference between the legacy DD and DTS tracks and the hires tracks. It definately depends on the movie however. I liken it to the difference between a CD and a DVD-A or SACD. Depending on how well the CD was recorded, you may not notice a huge difference, whereas sometimes it can be massive.
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
A couple things here, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are uncompressed formats, there's no real reason they should sound better or worse than uncompressed 5.1 pcm tracks. The real difference is in the way they are packed on the disc.

If your player can decode Dolby TrueHD and/or DTS HD-MA, you don't need an HDMI 1.3 reciever, HDMI 1.1 can handle multichannel PCM, which is what your reciever will get if the player handles the decoding. The only thing you need HDMI 1.3 for is the actual decoding of bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA.
I could be wrong (and likely am.. :D), but I was under the impression that an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track and a Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA track would be different. I realize all three are uncompressed, but is the only difference in the size of the format on the media itself? If that's the case, I imagine the only reason studios wouldn't use standard uncompressed PCM 5.1/7.1 is that the other encodings might take up less room. Is this the case or is it something else?

Just to reiterate on using multichannel PCM, the 5.1/7.1 analog in/outs can be used for all but the Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA tracks as well, so if your receiver doesn't have HDMI at all, you can still enjoy some of the higher resolution tracks on BD... -TD
 
obscbyclouds

obscbyclouds

Senior Audioholic
I could be wrong (and likely am.. :D), but I was under the impression that an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track and a Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA track would be different. I realize all three are uncompressed, but is the only difference in the size of the format on the media itself? If that's the case, I imagine the only reason studios wouldn't use standard uncompressed PCM 5.1/7.1 is that the other encodings might take up less room. Is this the case or is it something else?

Just to reiterate on using multichannel PCM, the 5.1/7.1 analog in/outs can be used for all but the Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA tracks as well, so if your receiver doesn't have HDMI at all, you can still enjoy some of the higher resolution tracks on BD... -TD
My understanding is the real reason the studios use TrueHD and DTS-HD-MA is to save disc space, but I'm certainly not an authority on that subject. :D On my PS3, PCM tracks (i.e 300) always stay at a constant bitrate (usually ~ 4.6mbs), whereas the TrueHD tracks can vary greatly. Someone with more knowledge on the subject could probably explain better than I.

I was referring to sending multi-channel PCM over HDMI, if your player can decode Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA you don't need ver. 1.3, only 1.1.

As for the analog outputs, the same thing applies, your player has to be able to decode the formats, many BR cannot do this currently (i.e Sony BDP-S300), so you would not be able to enjoy any Hires tracks with the except (of course) of PCM. I'd give my left leg for all BR's to simply have PCM tracks, so we don't have to worry about all this decoding nonsense. If we have trouble with it, what's Joe Six Pack gonna do??? ;)
 
tomd51

tomd51

Audioholic General
Definitely makes sense, but unless the studio's saving space on the main feature disc, I can't see why they wouldn't use a standard uncompressed PCM instead of DD TrueHD or DTS HD-MA.

Then again, Dolby and DTS may pay good money to have their formats used... :D -TD
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
A couple things here, Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA are uncompressed formats, there's no real reason they should sound better or worse than uncompressed 5.1 pcm tracks. The real difference is in the way they are packed on the disc.
They are compressed, not uncompressed. Still lossless, however.

If your player can decode Dolby TrueHD and/or DTS HD-MA, you don't need an HDMI 1.3 reciever, HDMI 1.1 can handle multichannel PCM, which is what your reciever will get if the player handles the decoding. The only thing you need HDMI 1.3 for is the actual decoding of bitstream Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-MA.
1.3 is only needed for the bitstreaming of DTS-MA extension stream. MA is two concurrent bitstreams, core + extension. Even if you are only getting the core, it is double the max bitrate of the older DTS. In other words, still quite an improvement. T-HD, even as a bitstream, is totally fine with hdmi 1.1.

I notice a pretty big difference between the legacy DD and DTS tracks and the hires tracks. It definately depends on the movie however. I liken it to the difference between a CD and a DVD-A or SACD. Depending on how well the CD was recorded, you may not notice a huge difference, whereas sometimes it can be massive.
Great point. Repeat, great point. No matter the format, the quality of mastering is always paramount. With greater technology, we have greater potential, but that doesn't mean it will be used as well as it could be. For instance, some BDs have PQ that is totally comparable to upscaled DVDs. I still imagine LOTR dts-es is still going to sound better than a lot of PCM tracks. Not sure yet on that though (I HATE all of you who are accessing lossless already!!!) :mad:

I could be wrong (and likely am.. :D), but I was under the impression that an uncompressed PCM 5.1 track and a Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA track would be different. I realize all three are uncompressed, but is the only difference in the size of the format on the media itself? If that's the case, I imagine the only reason studios wouldn't use standard uncompressed PCM 5.1/7.1 is that the other encodings might take up less room. Is this the case or is it something else?
That is a possible reason. I think its still early to say. However, allowing more space means possibilities for further video decompression. I am glad to say that a little over half the BDs out are on the 50 GB discs. When doing preliminary research last year, I wasn't sure that PCM would cut it due to space restraints of the 25 GB discs. Seems like its not a big deal. However, I only have one 7.1 pcm track, but two 6.1 MA, and two 7.1 MA. (I support more channels!).

Just to reiterate on using multichannel PCM, the 5.1/7.1 analog in/outs can be used for all but the Dolby True HD or DTS HD-MA tracks as well, so if your receiver doesn't have HDMI at all, you can still enjoy some of the higher resolution tracks on BD... -TD
The only 7.1 MCAs on a bdp I know of are particular Panasonics. However, Im pretty sure you cannot matrix any 5.1 into 7.1, either by player, nor receiver, when using MCAs.


Definitely makes sense, but unless the studio's saving space on the main feature disc, I can't see why they wouldn't use a standard uncompressed PCM instead of DD TrueHD or DTS HD-MA.

Then again, Dolby and DTS may pay good money to have their formats used... :D -TD
I was under the impression it was the other way around. Consumers/manufacturers pay them? Dunno.

Finally, to JOD the o.p. I don't know if its worth $200. Not knowing what you have, It seems that many people with cheaper stuff, ie HTIBs, are fretting over that they are not getting MA, etc. I always try to help in an honest way... and I usually say that concerning yourself with the speakers, sub, amp, acoustics, will all be of higher priority than lossless HT audio.

Putting top feul into a Yugo still doesn't make it Formula 1.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
...MA is two concurrent bitstreams, core + extension. Even if you are only getting the core, it is double the max bitrate of the older DTS...
So if the older DTS is 1.5 Mbps, is the DTS-MA core 3.0 Mbps?

And most of the time, the DTS-MA is 6.9 Mbps?
 
J

jostenmeat

Audioholic Spartan
So if the older DTS is 1.5 Mbps, is the DTS-MA core 3.0 Mbps?

And most of the time, the DTS-MA is 6.9 Mbps?
Dear AcuMitsEmoPanaDefTechDude,

you bring up a little point I forgot about. I think DTS is 768 kbs on an ol' DVD, but slightly increased on BD. I believe even just on an optical/coax the max bitrate is doubled with "core". Which is great for those who are slower to upgrade receivers. And, that seems about right, 6 mbs, for DTS-"HR" or core or something when used with HDMI. Someone else will hopefully clarify here. Thanks for bringing that up.

But as obscbyclouds says, the MA in full is 24.5 mbs on BD. (HD-DVD max bitrate is 18 mbs).
 
Soundman

Soundman

Audioholic Field Marshall
Finally, to JOD the o.p. I don't know if its worth $200. Not knowing what you have, It seems that many people with cheaper stuff, ie HTIBs, are fretting over that they are not getting MA, etc. I always try to help in an honest way... and I usually say that concerning yourself with the speakers, sub, amp, acoustics, will all be of higher priority than lossless HT audio.

Putting top feul into a Yugo still doesn't make it Formula.
I agree. I see so many people who are running their systems with a HTIB setup. Yet they are worrying about wether they are hearing compressed audio or not. Upgrading their speakers is going to have far more of an impact. I find it laughable that a friend of mine, using his little Sony cubed speakers, is having this conversation. Firsts things first. If your speakers aren't capable of good audio, it doesn't matter how good the source material is. ;)
 
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
I would definitely agree that quality speakers and amplification are more important than the newer codecs. I would also agree that how the audio is mastered is more important than how many bits are used to encode.

I recently read an article that compared CDs to SACDs and DVD-As. In double-blind testing (we are allowed to talk about DBTs here, yes?) they found that the mastering was more noticeable than the format. Of course, SACDs and DVD-As can encode multichannel audio. DSOTM is definitely better on SACD but I like it for the 5.1 mix.

I would presume that there is a parallel with the new codecs on high-def video discs. A good system that can reproduce 6.1 and 7.1 is going to create a more immersive experience. There is probably some sonic improvement to be had over AC-3 and DTS but I don't imagine it would be huge. (I'll have to let you know after I upgrade my equipment. Maybe I'll change my mind)
.
Jim
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top