Standard DTS vs DTS Master Audio. Is it worth upgrading for?

[JOHN FICKEL]

Hello. I have had a Yamaha RX-Z9 and love it, however I don’t need any network features at all. I have Sonos. So the only reason to upgrade would be get DTS Master. So has anyone really on a good system compared Standard DTS vs DTS Master? Worth dropping my Z9? I use two external amps. A Yamaha MX-1 for my surrounds and a McIntosh MC-252 for my mains. All my speakers are Klipsch. RF-7ii. RC-64ii and 4 RS-62 and two R-115sw subs. So is DTS Master going to blow away standard DTS on blu-ray in a 5.2 speaker setup?Thank you.

 

[yepimonfire]

Not blow it away, but there is an improvement.

DTS is what is known as "lossy" compression. Much like MP3, except DTS is far worse from an efficiency standpoint. If you are using bluray as a source, the DTS core is 1536kbps, which should be all but indistinguishable from the lossless DTS HD MA. There could very likely be small differences on some content however, applause, rain, and impulse sounds, but it's highly variable.

I'd say that an upgrade for lossless audio alone isn't worth it. Especially if you plan on sticking to 5.2. Some Avrs do offer other features like room correction, 7.1/Atmos, etc, that would be worth an upgrade if you planned to take advantage of them.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalk

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hello. I have had a Yamaha RX-Z9 and love it, however I don’t need any network features at all. I have Sonos. So the only reason to upgrade would be get DTS Master. So has anyone really on a good system compared Standard DTS vs DTS Master?

I’ve compared it many times. DTS vs DTS-HD MA, DD vs TrueHD on the same disc.

No audible difference that I could tell if it is on the same disc/ recording. If it is from different release/ versions/ recordings, it may sound different.

 

[PENG]

I’ve compared it many times. DTS vs DTS-HD MA, DD vs TrueHD on the same disc.

No audible difference that I could tell if it is on the same disc/ recording. If it is from different release/ versions/ recordings, it may sound different.

No night and day difference but it does make an audible difference to me even on the same disc, but depending on the movie. It is possible that there are golden ears who can night and day difference, also depending on the contents.

 

[everettT]

Depending on the title, MA seems (no dbt) noticeably better. Basing that on action type titles vs mainly dialog titles.

 

[lovinthehd]

I think its a fairly subtle difference, same for DD vs Dolby TrueHD but haven't spent a whole lot of time comparing either.

 

[TechHDS]

MasterHD, for my set-up is my go to if the Blu-ray has. I find it's more precise sound steering, with like rain, bird noise in the background, ambient noise like people talking in cafes. I am ruined for life I don't think I'd ever watch movie's without surround sound. I can't do Atmos, my room isn't that big and not suited for the extra speakers. Plus I have heard 7.1 and Atmos, it good just not for me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No night and day difference but it does make an audible difference to me even on the same disc, but depending on the movie. It is possible that there are golden ears who can night and day difference, also depending on the contents.

I think if there is any subtle or slight difference, it's probably just the volume level.

As far as night-and-day difference of "hearing things that aren't there before", I'll attribute that to golden ears.

I do like to see the "DTS-HD MA" and "Dolby TrueHD" on the LCD.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

MasterHD, for my set-up is my go to if the Blu-ray has. I find it's more precise sound steering, with like rain, bird noise in the background, ambient noise like people talking in cafes. I am ruined for life I don't think I'd ever watch movie's without surround sound. I can't do Atmos, my room isn't that big and not suited for the extra speakers. Plus I have heard 7.1 and Atmos, it good just not for me.

I think the 2 salient things that make most people happiest about their sound system are 1) hearing the crystal-clear dialogues and 2) hearing that awesome bass.

The surround sounds are nice and complete the movie experience.

Having many more extra surround speakers all around is just extra icing on the cake, but not salient.

 

[TechHDS]

@ADTG, Something is up with the site today, it's causing pauses as I type and creating errors

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

@ADTG, Something is up with the site today, it's causing pauses as I type and creating errors

With the Audioholics website?

I don't see anything different today with the AH website.

No problems for me at all today.

 

[Montucky]

Back in the day, DTS was CLEARLY better to me than the standard Dolby Digital. One of the biggest differences was in how much it utilized the rears. One of the best examples was the Master and Commander DTS track that came on DVD. Holy smokes. That one is STILL quite the showcase example and a real torture test to see what a system's truly made of.

Then once Dolby Digital was replaced by Dolby TrueHD (a huge improvement over DD), then the differences were less pronounced. So, in a nutshell, Dolby TrueHD was a massive improvement over DD, thus worth every penny of the upgrade. But DTS-MA was not quite as stark of an improvement over DTS (to me), although still there (lossy vs lossless) and still worth it. DTS > DD. Dolby TrueHD is more or less similar to me as DTS-HD MA.

Ultimately I suppose the differences are still going to be in regard to HOW a track was mastered. Much like a "high-res" album can sound like poo if they just slapped together a "remastered" version, whereas a traditional Redbook CD can sound simply marvelous when care when into creating it.

As noted above though, upgrading receivers brings along newer tech other than the newer formats. Key being room correction and far superior bass management tools.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

One of the best examples was the Master and Commander DTS track that came on DVD. Holy smokes. That one is STILL quite the showcase example and a real torture test to see what a system's truly made of.

I agree. M&C is still one of the best. Although I think the surrounds are mixed a teeny bit on the hot side, I think that was common around that time. You mentioned certain differences, even with the same title. One of those is when they redid the track for the BD version, they put a 30hz filter on and basically cut off the bottom end of the soundtrack. I demoed chapter 4 once for my brother before I knew about the filter. Man what a letdown... he didn’t care so I gave home the disk, and kept the dvd version. Lol.
Too bad they killed the bd track.

 

[yepimonfire]

I agree. M&C is still one of the best. Although I think the surrounds are mixed a teeny bit on the hot side, I think that was common around that time. You mentioned certain differences, even with the same title. One of those is when they redid the track for the BD version, they put a 30hz filter on and basically cut off the bottom end of the soundtrack. I demoed chapter 4 once for my brother before I knew about the filter. Man what a letdown... he didn’t care so I gave home the disk, and kept the dvd version. Lol.
Too bad they killed the bd track.

Master and commander is an unaltered theatrical mix on dvd.

Nearly all modern Blu-ray releases are remixed for what's called a "near field" mix. A near field mix is basically a re-done version that is done in a room the size of a typical home theater, in order to make sure what was heard on a theatrical dub stage, which is huge compared to a living room, translates properly to what was heard on the theater. This s usually involves small reductions in dynamics, no xcurve, and a reduction of the reference calibration from 85dB to about 82dB.

Theatrical dub stages have surrounds calibrated to 83dB, while home theater is calibrated to 85, so that's probably why the surrounds were hot.

Most near field mixes are performed by the same mix engineer, so the near field mix should sound exactly the way that the theatrical mix sounded. Many bluray re releases are done by entirely different people, which is one reason why many find the DVD release to be different than the Blu-ray, unfortunately, the original directors intention is entirely lost on these re releases because of this.

Sent from my LM-X210(G) using Tapatalkt

 

[JOHN FICKEL]

Thank you all!!