DTS-MA / Dolby TrueHD

[anamorphic96]

Plain and simple. Why is DTS-MA being used more than Dolby True HD. It's not audibly based as they are both identical after they are unpackaged and Dolby's dialog normalization is accounted for.

From what I can tell, it seems to be many things.

1. DTS encoders from what I understand are easier to use and deal with.
2. Cheaper equipment.
3. DTS lossy soundtrack integrated into one track. Dolby's is based on a different Meridian based technique which does not allow for lossy decoding. Therefore the extra track is encoded added but this takes up extra space. Since DTS is more integrated it gets the advantage.
4. DTS apparently has a world class marketing team that is very aggressive at getting contracts.

So is it a combination of the above or other things.

Thanks everyone.

 

[jostenmeat]

Hmrz. To me MA is the desired format because we don't even need a menu anymore. Go straight to play, and it will have the best bitrate possible for each/any of the given inputs you might use whether HDMI, mch analogs, optical, or coax.

Best performance possible per connection, zero hassle.

If the disc is a TrueHD track, I don't know if it's defaulted to lossy or lossless if the menu is not prompted, and the disc goes straight to play. For example, The Dark Knight, it starts playing, I go to menu, select codec, start over again, then hit the DRC/latenight function a couple of times creating a momentary silence. Bah. If it was in DTSMA, I just recline, and get ready for the show!

Unfortunately due to a singular incident, I always have to go through the hassle of defeating auto-flagged DRC with TrueHD bitstreams. (Related to Iron Man, Onkyo processors, being fed the bitstream). I surely don't have to with other titles, but I do, because I'm paranoid and I've convinced myself I hear the difference with other tracks, including TDK. DTS-MA, there is absolutely nothing to think about in this regard either.

Don't forget that the DTS core/lossy track is of significantly higher bitrate than any accompanying DD track, 1509 kbps vs 640 kbps, for BD. 236% difference.


My nutshell:

1. the convenience, or lack of headaches whether you are a noobie grandma, or savvy enthusiast, is not even comparable. It's just a better and/or more elegant design.

2. then you factor in the performance delta.

Well, that's my take on it. I am not at all sorry that DTSMA has been taking over, and in fact I welcome it. After all, 7.1 tracks are cool too. TY3 has an awesome 7.1 track. edit: my bad, I forgot THD can do 8 ch as well, and I see that there 12 titles with 7.1 TrueHD. But that still doesn't compare in catalog size compared to the other 185 titles in 7.1.

 

[anamorphic96]

It's just a better and/or more elegant design.

I have heard this about the encoding end as well.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Simply put, DTS-HD MA is the best, and Dolby should just roll over and die.

 

[GlocksRock]

Simply put, DTS-HD MA is the best, and Dolby should just roll over and die.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Pyrrho]

At the maximum fidelity, Dolby TrueHD takes up less space on the BD than DTS-MA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Audio

And it would take up less space on the disc to have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS (original) than to have just DTS-MA. Basically, DTS still wastes space, like it always did (much of the higher bitrate with the original DTS was used for non-audio information explaining to the decoder how it should be decoded).

That leaves more room for other things on the disc.

DTS should roll over and die.

 

[jostenmeat]

At the maximum fidelity, Dolby TrueHD takes up less space on the BD than DTS-MA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Audio

And it would take up less space on the disc to have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS (original) than to have just DTS-MA. Basically, DTS still wastes space, like it always did (much of the higher bitrate with the original DTS was used for non-audio information explaining to the decoder how it should be decoded).

That leaves more room for other things on the disc.

DTS should roll over and die.

Where on your link does it say that it takes less space, or is it inferred simply because DTSMA has a superior max bitrate to TrueHD? (24.5 mbps vs 18.64 mbps). Then what are the real world differences . . .

You're almost never going to see Dolby with DTS on the same disc. Actually, I can't think of any; Close Encounters had PCM & MA (at the bequest of Spielberg, but no THD right?).

Whatever the space savings might be with TrueHD, you're still going to have a much inferior max bitrate with the lossy track, and the implementation, in its relatively short history, sux ballz compared to MA.

In all honesty, even with significant space saving (whatever that truly is), I'm not so sure it's the space that really matters with 50GB discs. I mean, take reference PQ on something like Kill Bill, and IIRC the tracks are in PCM. It's not like they are short movies either.

Sure, one can argue that space is everything, the only scientific argument. I would argue that if a difference of 5% (or what is it) in bits used makes for zero difference in the quality of my audio and video given that I have 50 GB to work with, and that it's often implemented VERY POORLY, well then gimme the space hog!

I have only looked at a handful of audio bitrate charts for BDs, but it's not very often that the max bitrate is being hit . . .

Still, maybe my science or reading comprehension is utterly lacking, because I still haven't found the space disparity yet in your link.

 

[Pyrrho]

Where on your link does it say that it takes less space, or is it inferred simply because DTSMA has a superior max bitrate to TrueHD? (24.5 mbps vs 18.64 mbps). Then what are the real world differences . . .

You're almost never going to see Dolby with DTS on the same disc. Actually, I can't think of any; Close Encounters had PCM & MA (at the bequest of Spielberg, but no THD right?).

Whatever the space savings might be with TrueHD, you're still going to have a much inferior max bitrate with the lossy track, and the implementation, in its relatively short history, sux ballz compared to MA.

In all honesty, even with significant space saving (whatever that truly is), I'm not so sure it's the space that really matters with 50GB discs. I mean, take reference PQ on something like Kill Bill, and IIRC the tracks are in PCM. It's not like they are short movies either.

Sure, one can argue that space is everything, the only scientific argument. I would argue that if a difference of 5% (or what is it) in bits used makes for zero difference in the quality of my audio and video given that I have 50 GB to work with, and that it's often implemented VERY POORLY, well then gimme the space hog!

I have only looked at a handful of audio bitrate charts for BDs, but it's not very often that the max bitrate is being hit . . .

Still, maybe my science or reading comprehension is utterly lacking, because I still haven't found the space disparity yet in your link.

The "superior" bit rate is not superior sound; it is more data. Compare with the LPCM at that link, which sounds identical to either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-MA (when we are talking about the same number of channels, same bits/sample, and same sample frequency). That has a higher maximum bit rate, which is due to the fact that it is uncompressed and takes up more space. In all three cases, we are talking about equal possible fidelity.

If one does not care about the space, then there is no reason for DTS or Dolby at all, as there is nothing wrong, from a fidelity standpoint, in having LPCM. I would expect it to be cheaper that way, as one would not have to pay money to either DTS or Dolby to do it that way. And not undergoing one more conversion process, the possibility for introducing error ought to be marginally (though probably insignificantly) less.

 

[jostenmeat]

The "superior" bit rate is not superior sound; it is more data. Compare with the LPCM at that link, which sounds identical to either Dolby TrueHD or DTS-MA (when we are talking about the same number of channels, same bits/sample, and same sample frequency). That has a higher maximum bit rate, which is due to the fact that it is uncompressed and takes up more space. In all three cases, we are talking about equal possible fidelity.

If one does not care about the space, then there is no reason for DTS or Dolby at all, as there is nothing wrong, from a fidelity standpoint, in having LPCM. I would expect it to be cheaper that way, as one would not have to pay money to either DTS or Dolby to do it that way. And not undergoing one more conversion process, the possibility for introducing error ought to be marginally (though probably insignificantly) less.

But is PCM always at max bitrate?

I didn't say that I didn't care about space. It's just that if two are comparable, but vary wildly in implementation, I'll take the better implementation. And I would bet good money that the file sizes between MA and THD are much more similar than either compared to the PCM track.

But yeah PCM would be fine. Every classical concert BD I've ever listened to has been in PCM, oh wait, I think my Beethoven Piano Concerti are in MA, but that's my least favorite classical BD I own. Anyways, the rest, all of them, are in PCM.

Here you could be dependent on the player to recode your PCM into DD/DTS, but not all players could do that in the past, and this mattered because not all BDs with PCM came accompanied by lossy tracks. Again, with DTSMA, another thing you don't worry about; there is nothing to worry about with MA for anyone, except possibly the person counting the number of bits being used on a 50GB disc (and even then?).

 

[GlocksRock]

At the maximum fidelity, Dolby TrueHD takes up less space on the BD than DTS-MA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#Audio

And it would take up less space on the disc to have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS (original) than to have just DTS-MA. Basically, DTS still wastes space, like it always did (much of the higher bitrate with the original DTS was used for non-audio information explaining to the decoder how it should be decoded).

That leaves more room for other things on the disc.

DTS should roll over and die.

Space on a blu ray disc is not really an issue, I've yet to see a single blu ray movie that has used all the available space on the disc.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

"Red Cliff" blu-ray part 1 & 2 both contain all THREE DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM.

On these 2 discs, I cannot tell the difference among the 3 formats.

In theory, they should all sound the same. I tell myself they should all sound the same.

But after watching over 500 blu-ray movies on my system, I think the majority of the DTS-HD MA soundtracks sound better to my ears than both Dolby TrueHD and LPCM. It's not about volume level matching. Even when I crank up the volume on some of the Dolby TrueHD and LPCM discs, they somehow don't sound that awesome whether it is simple scenes or action/explosion scenes. DTS-HD MA seems to have more bass effects and more ambience surround efffects. Sometimes it even seems like the dialogue is more "robust" and clearer.

Without doing a true double-blinded test on enough people, there is no proof.

But that has been my observation in my system on over 500 blu-ray movies.

It could just be that Dolby Lab mixes the sound differently than DTS. Perhaps DTS likes to "beef" up the bass and ambience effect. Whatever it is, the DTS-HD MA soundtracks just satisfy my auditory senses better than TrueHD & PCM.

But different people feel different way. It's purely subjective.

In the end, I am glad to have DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, and LPCM.

But DTS-HD MA is just my personal preference.

Perhaps saying "Dolby should just roll over and die" was too much.

 

[jostenmeat]

"Red Cliff" blu-ray part 1 & 2 both contain all THREE DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM.

Yeah, that actually crossed my mind after I made my post regarding CEOTTK. I know I didn't choose THD, I would guess that I chose PCM, but I don't know really what I selected between PCM and THD. What is the default codec I wonder? I don't believe any lossless format should sound differently, as they're simply supposed to give you what the engineers intended. Still, THD, or I should say the way it's been implemented on some discs I own, sometimes irks me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Dave Mathews Band on blu-ray in Dolby TrueHD sounds absolutely amazing though.

 

[its phillip]

"Red Cliff" blu-ray part 1 & 2 both contain all THREE DTS-HD MA, Dolby TrueHD, and PCM.

I haven't gotten around to watching Red Cliff yet, but on the back of my copy it only says DTS-HD MA :/ Which version do you have?