Finally, totally in HD

[3db]

Well, first of all, in my subjective experiences, DTS always sounded significantly better than DD. What is the bitrate range for these two, oh was it something like 768 kps - 1.5 mps for DTS, and ~480-640 kps for DD?

Then not only is Master and Commander DTS, but it's one of the reference audio movie tracks according to those who care about these things. I've never seen the movie at home, because I'm disappointed that the video is not better.

Now, for many movies, I would also agree there is overhyping. I just don't think movie soundtracks need to be super resolving with audio. It's mostly processed stuff anyways for effects. OTOH, sometimes I swear the mix might be different, or if it isn't, then WOW. . . and I think of one in particular, oh wait I started a thread once . . . lemme fetch it:

TrueHD vs DD on the Dark Knight.

Thanks for your response. From what I've read, my understanding is that even the mixes are different for the same movie between True Dolby and regular dolby so comparing is really hard too do accurately. But I can't help think what a waste these new codecs really are when you have a movie like M&C in DTS that will stand shoulder to shoulder with any lossless soundtrack and even thumping severly a few of the lossless ones. IHO, M&C in regular DTS is sonically every bit the equal in terms of clarity, dynmaic range bass impact as that of True Dolby soundtrack of the latest Star Trek. Please note I'm only speaking about the audio side of Blu Ray.

 

[allargon]

Thanks for your response. From what I've read, my understanding is that even the mixes are different for the same movie between True Dolby and regular dolby so comparing is really hard too do accurately. But I can't help think what a waste these new codecs really are when you have a movie like M&C in DTS that will stand shoulder to shoulder with any lossless soundtrack and even thumping severly a few of the lossless ones. IHO, M&C in regular DTS is sonically every bit the equal in terms of clarity, dynmaic range bass impact as that of True Dolby soundtrack of the latest Star Trek. Please note I'm only speaking about the audio side of Blu Ray.

The Master and Commander on DVD doesn't even contain a full 1.5 Mbps DTS track.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24862

Most commercial DVD's were 448Kbps DD not even the full 640Kbps DD that early Blu-ray discs had. So, let's not pretend most DVD's had full 1.5 Mbps DTS or 2.0 PCM. Yeah, the sound bump to the newer lossless codecs is slight for most people. However, calling it a waste is a bit strong. However, I do agree with you that most folks (especially in the mp3 era) don't have the ears or equipment to notice the difference.

 

[jostenmeat]

But I can't help think what a waste these new codecs really are when you have a movie like M&C in DTS that will stand shoulder to shoulder with any lossless soundtrack and even thumping severly a few of the lossless ones.

Ok, how about this: We both hold our tongues until you finally do get around to obtaining the Karajan Memorial Concert?

I'm pretty certain you won't be able to find a classical mch DVD that will sound as good.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm positive that I'm getting the lossless audio becuase the Dolby True Digital is displayed on my Yamaha. Like you but in the opposite vain, I don't have the standard DVD to compare it too. Don't get me wrong. It sounds great but so does the regular DTS sound track on "Master & Commander" on regular DVD. I just thought there would be a huge step up in audio but I'm getting the feeling that the lossless codecs have been overhyped to some degree.

Well, one way to look at the new codecs is that even if there is a small or no difference, you know there should be and your mind will accommodate that thought

As to huge difference, well, the lossy codecs do a very good job from day one to begin with, not much room to greatly improve upon them.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Well, first of all, in my subjective experiences, DTS always sounded significantly better than DD. What is the bitrate range for these two, oh was it something like 768 kps - 1.5 mps for DTS, and ~480-640 kps for DD?

The best I know from reading about them for a long time is that you cannot compare those two just from the bit rate by themselves as they handle it differently and may have some other needed data in the bitstream to make it work not related to the audio sound. But, I could be wrong

 

[3db]

Well, one way to look at the new codecs is that even if there is a small or no difference, you know there should be and your mind will accommodate that thought

As to huge difference, well, the lossy codecs do a very good job from day one to begin with, not much room to greatly improve upon them.

I guess a pint or two while watching a flic will help me convince that the new codecs are vastly better sounding than the old DTS DD codecs

 

[son-yah-tive]

I guess we know what you are thankful for this year , or at least one of the things. Congrats. I hope to be completely HD as well in the next 6 months or so. I wasn't really planning to go blu-ray for at least another year, but prices on players are getting ridiculously low.

Yeah, I haven't jumped on the Blue-Ray yet either. By the time I leave the Up-Convert behind, there will be another new technology replacing Blue-Ray, and so forth, and so forth....

 

[mtrycrafts]

I guess a pint or two while watching a flic will help me convince that the new codecs are vastly better sounding than the old DTS DD codecs

Well, if not vastly, better should be good enough

 

[jostenmeat]

The best I know from reading about them for a long time is that you cannot compare those two just from the bit rate by themselves as they handle it differently and may have some other needed data in the bitstream to make it work not related to the audio sound. But, I could be wrong

Hm. I wonder if it is like Cd vs Sacd. The former can sound just as good as the latter, but people might think the latter to be superior because they were more consistently better recorded. Whether it's a bitrate thing or not (and the difference would lead me to believe it's significant), or a placebo effect or not, DTS tracks typically sounded better to me. Not always though, as I've been disappointed a couple of times, but the best HT tracks on DVD to me were always on DTS. I remember that people liked Saving Private Ryan quite a bit as a DD track, IIRC, or perhaps Star Wars on EX, but I think some other DTS movies were more impressive.

 

[3db]

The Master and Commander on DVD doesn't even contain a full 1.5 Mbps DTS track.

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24862

Most commercial DVD's were 448Kbps DD not even the full 640Kbps DD that early Blu-ray discs had. So, let's not pretend most DVD's had full 1.5 Mbps DTS or 2.0 PCM. Yeah, the sound bump to the newer lossless codecs is slight for most people. However, calling it a waste is a bit strong. However, I do agree with you that most folks (especially in the mp3 era) don't have the ears or equipment to notice the difference.

Whose pretending. Master & Commander on the regular DTS soundtrack will stands shoulder to shoulder with most of the new lossless codecs. Its just that good and it shows what a good sound engineer can do even with tools that have limitations. Specs alone don't make a good soundtrack. If I were to recommend a reference audio for audio, this would be one.