Dolby TrueHD, DTS-MA, Uncompressed PCM...no big woop

[tn001d]

I read an interesting article in Home Entertainment Magazine the other day.. and thought i share it with everyone.

Basically they say there there wasnt a noticeable difference between the compressed and uncompressed audio tracks of dvd's and blu-ray's. And if it was noticeable it was extremely slight.

http://www.hedmag.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

 

[croseiv]

I've heard of this too. Interesting. I'm more interested in the better picture anyway.

 

[j_garcia]

I am sure it depends on the exact mix in question, but so far I have been impressed with most of the True HD and DTS-HD mixes I've heard. A few are not much better than the previous ones or other comparable ones.

 

[croseiv]

I've read of improved bass with the newer mixes. For me that's what I noticed switching from analogue to digital (Prologic to DD/DTS). So, it could make a pretty big difference if it's a good mix.

 

[speakerman39]

I am sure it depends on the exact mix in question, but so far I have been impressed with most of the True HD and DTS-HD mixes I've heard. A few are not much better than the previous ones or other comparable ones.

Hello John and thanks for the info. So, are you saying it depends on how well it is recorded in the first place....right? Thus, if it is recorded badly and sounds like crap originally, then it will sound just as bad regardless of the codec. At least this is my understanding anyways. For example, I watched Bank Job yesterday here at home and noticed it was not recorded very well. At times, the bass was a bit better and at others it was very weak. Of course, this was with DD and not one of the new codecs. Perhaps, the BR version would sound better, but I doubt it would be all that much. With that said, I could be wrong as it would not be my first.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

They have a very good point.

It's probably the exception, but I thought the soundtracks of Transformers & Shinobi SD DVD sounded better than the DD+ and TrueHD of the respective HD movies.

Bottom line, when it sounds awesome in DTS-MA, TrueHD, and LPCM, it probably also sounds awesome in DD or DTS.

I still want DTS-MA, TrueHD, & LPCM though.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I read an interesting article in Home Entertainment Magazine the other day.. and thought i share it with everyone.

Basically they say there there wasnt a noticeable difference between the compressed and uncompressed audio tracks of dvd's and blu-ray's. And if it was noticeable it was extremely slight.

http://www.hedmag.com/node/Dolby_TrueHD_DTS-MA_versus_Uncompressed_PCM

Great, thanks. Besides the codec demo, one can get an idea about doing it blind, 10 second clips in a loop, etc Impressive how good the 640 is

 

[Audioholics]

Very enlightening and eye-opening.

 

[tomd51]

I haven't been able to listen to the DTS-MA and DD True HD tracks due to limitations of my BR player, but with the uncompressed audio tracks on a few BR movies I've watched (action/adventure, mostly), the soundstage seemed to be much deeper and broader.

Certain sound effects can also be distinguished or pinpointed much more accurately and seem to be outside of the listening area, beyond the scope the standard DVD DTS and DD tracks of the same movies I've seen previously.

It's possible equipment and listening area can be a limiting factor in the differences, but I didn't find this to be the case, though I don't have a rig comparable with what they were doing there test with, obviously. To me, it's worthwhile to take advantage of these uncompressed or high res tracks whenever possible, but there obviously will be a point of diminishing returns and it will likely be a different point for many.

As with everything subjective, YMMV... -TD

 

[fmw]

It was an interesting article. It didn't surprise me, however. I guess I've done so much bias controlled listening that I don't expect much in terms of audible differences from modern electronics. I'm usually more surprised when one turns up rather then when one doesn't.

At least the HD resolution we see on the screen is easily differentiated from the old SD resolution.

 

[jostenmeat]

Hello John and thanks for the info. So, are you saying it depends on how well it is recorded in the first place....right? Thus, if it is recorded badly and sounds like crap originally, then it will sound just as bad regardless of the codec. At least this is my understanding anyways...

Yeah, that's correct, if I understand your question. Lossless doesn't automatically mean a great recording, just as 1080p (or something) doesn't automatically mean great video. Lossless just gives you what was done in the recording studio. If the master audio track blows chunks, you get every bit of that glorious vomit.

Anyways, when I first got my players, I did a bit of non-blind swapping between lossy and lossless on my HD-DVD player. My impressions are that the lossless tracks' best improvement was the dynamic range, slight as that might be. But, as fmw would point out to you, these remarks are not the most reliable by any means.

I only barely skimmed the article, and Im surprised they give DD that high of a mark. I have heard very, very few 448 kbps DD tracks ever that impressed me. The first I think of is the Incredibles, but cartoons benefit by doing all of their sound in a controlled environment, unlike with live action films. Yea, I think that's the only DD Ive been impressed with.

OTOH, there have been numerous DTS tracks that I've been impressed with at 768 (?) kbps. I think of the LOTR extended versions, X-men 3, among others. While I would be plenty happy with LOTR's Dts quality for all of my movies, I could say the same thing for its video perhaps as well. If only everyone else milked all of what a DVD could truly give, I don't think we would quite need BD yet. But, alas, this was never the case, and my BDs look pretty sick!

 

[j_garcia]

The other day I was watching Batman Begins on BD and I noticed the True HD track did not sound as good as I remember on the HD-DVD. I will likely compare tonight. The separation was there, but it didn't sound as "powerful". Yes, what I was saying earlier is that if you have a bad recording and/or a bad mix, you are going to get a less than optimum result. The first DTS-HD disc I bought was Kingdom of Heaven and I was literally blown away at the quality of it; and I own the SD DVD too. Full bitrate DTS already sounds excellent as well though, so that is not to say the codecs alone are going to give you better sound - the potential is there though.

If you want to hear an impressive 448K DD track that is great, check out Fight Club.

DTS 748K, there are quite a few: The Haunting or Saving Private Ryan, but I am much more impressed with 1509K ("full bitrate") DTS.

 

[GlocksRock]

So this confirms that one lossless audio track sounds just as good as other lossless audio tracks, just as it should. But I still have heard a very noticeable difference between the core Dolby Digital and the True HD track.

 

[jostenmeat]

So this confirms that one lossless audio track sounds just as good as other lossless audio tracks, just as it should.

Well, I sure wasn't implying that. Its all about the master source from where the audio track/codec is derived. If the engineers did a poor job, you get poor audio, period, no matter if its lossless TrueHD, DTS-MA, or uncompressed PCM.

 

[GlocksRock]

so you are saying that the codecs are very good, so good that the dtd-hd ma and truehd sound as good as PCM?

 

[jostenmeat]

Yes, I guess that is implied. That's why they are all described as lossless, as its all there as far as what we can humanly perceive. The main reason to even have the codecs is simply to save space on the disc as a compressed format. Last time I looked, it seems that BD 50 discs are slowly and surely gaining on BD 25 discs, and so the avoidance of uncompressed PCM is not as big of a deal as before. OTOH, some think waste equals waste, and would eventually like to see more of the compressed codecs used in order to further decompress video.

btw, my brother told me last night that he is looking to possibly buy a Glock.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think the take home message is that all the Discrete Sound Codecs - DD, DD+, DTS, TrueHD, DTS-HR, DTS-MA, and LPCM - all sound great as long as the recording studio did a great job with the original source. Take a movie like "Day After Tomorrow", which is DTS-MA. The DTS-core sounds just as good as the DTS-MA.

But some of us just gotta have the latest greatest, don't we?

Yeah, we know who we are!

 

[mtrycrafts]

...

At least the HD resolution we see on the screen is easily differentiated from the old SD resolution.

Because that too is based on empirical evidence

 

[speakerman39]

Yeah, that's correct, if I understand your question. Lossless doesn't automatically mean a great recording, just as 1080p (or something) doesn't automatically mean great video. Lossless just gives you what was done in the recording studio. If the master audio track blows chunks, you get every bit of that glorious vomit.

Anyways, when I first got my players, I did a bit of non-blind swapping between lossy and lossless on my HD-DVD player. My impressions are that the lossless tracks' best improvement was the dynamic range, slight as that might be. But, as fmw would point out to you, these remarks are not the most reliable by any means.

I only barely skimmed the article, and Im surprised they give DD that high of a mark. I have heard very, very few 448 kbps DD tracks ever that impressed me. The first I think of is the Incredibles, but cartoons benefit by doing all of their sound in a controlled environment, unlike with live action films. Yea, I think that's the only DD Ive been impressed with.

OTOH, there have been numerous DTS tracks that I've been impressed with at 768 (?) kbps. I think of the LOTR extended versions, X-men 3, among others. While I would be plenty happy with LOTR's Dts quality for all of my movies, I could say the same thing for its video perhaps as well. If only everyone else milked all of what a DVD could truly give, I don't think we would quite need BD yet. But, alas, this was never the case, and my BDs look pretty sick!

Hmmmmm.........very interesting. Sure gives me something to think about. Appreciate the info jost.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[speakerman39]

The other day I was watching Batman Begins on BD and I noticed the True HD track did not sound as good as I remember on the HD-DVD. I will likely compare tonight. The separation was there, but it didn't sound as "powerful". Yes, what I was saying earlier is that if you have a bad recording and/or a bad mix, you are going to get a less than optimum result. The first DTS-HD disc I bought was Kingdom of Heaven and I was literally blown away at the quality of it; and I own the SD DVD too. Full bitrate DTS already sounds excellent as well though, so that is not to say the codecs alone are going to give you better sound - the potential is there though.

If you want to hear an impressive 448K DD track that is great, check out Fight Club.

DTS 748K, there are quite a few: The Haunting or Saving Private Ryan, but I am much more impressed with 1509K ("full bitrate") DTS.

Thanks John for the clarification. I have noticed that when watching regular dvds on my A-3 that there is a slight improvement when it says LPCM than when it says Dolby Digital. More specifically, even within the DD I hear some differences as some just flat-out sound better than others. This is why I have concluded that it mostly depends on how the original was recorded regardless of the codec used. This is finally beginning to make some sense now. Much appreciated.

Cheers,

Phil