Is Dolby TrueHD Worth the Investment?

[allargon]

Fellows, the answer is quite simple. We are talking about next-gen audio codecs for Home Entertainment. As such, what I expect as a consumer is: To find a so evident improvement compared to previous gen that makes me think: I want it! Now!!. So evident like the PS2 to PS3 change or DVD to Blu-ray, or many other good examples out there.
If I need to go to Dolby Digital Labs to be able to notice a slightly difference, obviously it’s better to wait until my AV is broken in order to get a new one. At that time, all those codes will be standard feature in all equipments. It won't be something to worry about.

Matter of fact, I am one of those geek consumers who dropped his very nice RX-V2700 for a brand new ultra featured 1.3a, DTS-HD, DD-TrueHD, networking receiver RX-V3800 and… you know what…I haven't noticed any significant improvement in terms of sound or video quality. Only less money in my pocket…Pls don't make the same mistake.

Just wanted to share my experience with you guys, avoid paying for artificial “added value”, specially in these crisis days… with respect to my self: I won't make that mistake again.

Honestly it depends on the mix and your equipment... When I popped in the Sex and the City Blu-Ray I immediately recognized something wrong with the sound. I went to the menu and realized Warner is as nutty with Blu-Ray as they were with HD DVD. It defaulted to Dolby Digital rather than Dolby TrueHD. I fixed it and volume as well as expected clarity returned. I didn't level match and A/B the tracks as frankly the movie is more about video (the costumes and fashions pop on Blu-Ray) than audio.

I'm glad I now have the equipment to take advantage (my HK AVR-247 and my LG BH200) of Dolby TrueHD. I'm not sure I would replace an expensive AVR with another expensive AVR.

Yes, my receiver does have the codecs built in, but the PS3 and my HD-A2 both do not output TrueHD or DD+ as bitstream, they are decoded internally in the player and output as PCM. But since there are some movies in 7.1 PCM, I wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the discrete rear 2 channels, I would have had to use the PLIIx decoder, which still does a great job. Maybe one day I will be able to get an inexpensive blu ray player that can output bitstream, but until then I'm stuck with using PCM and can't make use of the decoders in my new receiver .

I'm the exact opposite. My player can bitstream but won't internally decode DTS-HD HR/MA. My receiver is only HDMI 1.1.

OK, I see. That's what I was missing. Thanks for clearing that up. I'm trying to look for a reasonably priced blu-ray player that decodes the new formats and has adequate bass management options so I keep my existing equipment. There are some new Denon's coming out (covered in a different thread) but they are mighty pricey...at that point it may be better just to upgrade to a newer receiver since I really don't care about the PIP and extra's you get with the player doing the decoding....

Denon? That is so 5 months ago. That $2k Denon doesn't even internally decode DD+. (Something a $99 Toshiba HD-A2 could do.) Yes, DD+ is rare on Blu-Ray, but for $2k, Denon should fix that bug!

Look to the Panasonic DMP-BD55. (The DMP-BD35 will likely be my next player should I move my BH200 to the bedroom)

http://reviews.cnet.com/video-players-and-recorders/panasonic-dmp-bd55/4505-6463_7-33248633.html

 

[2wired]

Dolby True HD: some home testing

My bro just bought the Sony BDP-S350 with bitstream/PCM output features. I tested with RX-V3800. It is very nice to see the DTS-HD or TrueHD logo light up on the AV. But rather than that I didn't notice major differences in terms of sound quality . We tried several movies and the general impression was the same. For standard ears in an standard home environment

My bro also owns now my old RX-V2700. I used PS3 for playing BDs. So we had the opportunity to do some other testing.
With the same set of speakers and recalibrating the system using YPAO. The tests were made with no DSP effects. At the same volume level (-15 db). 5.1 configuration.

RX-V2700 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V2700 + Sony BDP-S350 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)


RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes Bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)


General comments:
BD Movies: 10,000 AC, MIB, Deception,
We also asked help to our wife for testing in order to avoid placebo effects. (they didn’t participate in all of them though. Not enough patience)
RX-V2700 vs. RX-V3800 same audio quality in all the tests
Next-gen codec’s vs. previous gen codec’s: Unnoticeable difference. ( I personally noticed a slightly better sound in surround effects in new codec’s, but it seems to be that was just higher volume in the original mix of rear speakers rather than better sound quality. You could reach same effect with old codec’s just adjusting rear speaker volume manually)
For PS3 testing (previous gen codec’s) Sound quality was better in bitstream mode in both AVs
For BDP-S350 testing (previous gen codec’s) Sound quality was same in either modes
PS3 vs. BDP-S350 same audio quality in all next-gen codec’s (PCM: 2700 & 3800 )
In all next-gen codec’s PCM vs. bitstream: unnoticeable difference in sound quality (3800/BDP-S350: PCM vs. BITSTREAM)
We didn’t try a single movie with both sets of new codec’s. However we had the impression that DTS-HD Master audio had more realistic sounds. It could be just a matter of the movie rather than fair comparison
DTS-HD vs. DD TrueHD
We didn’t compare each test against all the rest. Just some of them according to our own criteria
Please notice that we did this testing just for fun in an home environment. It was just a matter of personal perceptions rather than professional or scientific method. Just wanted to share the experience. It might be helpful for someone out there.

 

[croseiv]

My bro just bought the Sony BDP-S350 with bitstream/PCM output features. I tested with RX-V3800. It is very nice to see the DTS-HD or TrueHD logo light up on the AV. But rather than that I didn't notice major differences in terms of sound quality . We tried several movies and the general impression was the same. For standard ears in an standard home environment

My bro also owns now my old RX-V2700. I used PS3 for playing BDs. So we had the opportunity to do some other testing.
With the same set of speakers and recalibrating the system using YPAO. The tests were made with no DSP effects. At the same volume level (-15 db). 5.1 configuration.

RX-V2700 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V2700 + Sony BDP-S350 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V2700 + Sony PS3 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)


RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (next-gen codes Bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony BDP-S350 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (next-gen codes PCM output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen bitstream output - HDMI)
RX-V3800 + Sony PS3 (previous-gen codes bitstream output - TosLink)


General comments:
BD Movies: 10,000 AC, MIB, Deception,
We also asked help to our wife for testing in order to avoid placebo effects. (they didn’t participate in all of them though. Not enough patience)
RX-V2700 vs. RX-V3800 same audio quality in all the tests
Next-gen codec’s vs. previous gen codec’s: Unnoticeable difference. ( I personally noticed a slightly better sound in surround effects in new codec’s, but it seems to be that was just higher volume in the original mix of rear speakers rather than better sound quality. You could reach same effect with old codec’s just adjusting rear speaker volume manually)
For PS3 testing (previous gen codec’s) Sound quality was better in bitstream mode in both AVs
For BDP-S350 testing (previous gen codec’s) Sound quality was same in either modes
PS3 vs. BDP-S350 same audio quality in all next-gen codec’s (PCM: 2700 & 3800 )
In all next-gen codec’s PCM vs. bitstream: unnoticeable difference in sound quality (3800/BDP-S350: PCM vs. BITSTREAM)
We didn’t try a single movie with both sets of new codec’s. However we had the impression that DTS-HD Master audio had more realistic sounds. It could be just a matter of the movie rather than fair comparison
DTS-HD vs. DD TrueHD
We didn’t compare each test against all the rest. Just some of them according to our own criteria
Please notice that we did this testing just for fun in an home environment. It was just a matter of personal perceptions rather than professional or scientific method. Just wanted to share the experience. It might be helpful for someone out there.

So then, it sounds like you detected no real differences between the two receivers eh? I've been wondering about this myself. Thanks.

 

[dobyblue]

That's a shame for you guys and I sincerely hope it's a set-up issue and not your ears.

When I go between a Dolby Digital track and a dts-ma/PCM/TrueHD track on the same disc I find the difference is night and day where most discs are concerned. Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Music Hall, Layer Cake, Casino Royale, Blood Diamond, Vertical Limit, Stealth, The Fifth Element, Nine Inch Nails Beside You In Time, Identity; I've gone between the PCM or TrueHD tracks on these and compared them with the Dolby Digital tracks and everything sounds more lifelike, particularly the higher frequencies, silibance of vocals, percussion, etc.

I don't think "Dolby TrueHD" is "worth the investment" because I'm not sure what that means, but if I had a receiver that only supported hi-rez through multi-channel analogs and it was a good receiver I'd definitely be looking to pick up a player like the DMP-BD55 that decodes all codecs internally and has 7.1 analog outs.

I picked up an Onkyo TX-SR805 [THX Ultra2, 130w/7.1, DSD>Analog direct, PCM1796 DAC's, 3HDMI inputs] for $614 from 6ave (it's $625 on Amazon right now) to replace my 4 year old VSX-1014TX Pioneer as I really wanted a DSD-capable receiver and for that price I'm blown away by the functionality. I find the step-up to be well worth it.

That said if I had a 5808CI or something like that I would not have upgraded the receiver, but would definitely spend $399 on a player to get the same quality of audio on my movies I've been getting with music for 9 years. I'm grateful video finally caught up on the audio side.

I do not find as much of a difference with dts core versus the lossless methods, but I do find the lossless is not as harsh in the high frequencies as the dts core, so again that's worth it to me.

 

[2wired]

Dolby TrueHD: Professional testing

I've been doing some research on the web and found a interesting link at hemagazon.com:

It's about testing new/old codecs against none compressed PCM in the very Dolby and DTS labs!!!. Taking in consideration that those testing were performed under rigorous protocols. Results are quite straight forward:

This is a quote of the article:
“The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth. Quite a remarkable result, I thought, and I was highly impressed with how much fidelity can be packed into such a relatively small amount of bitspace. If I was doing actual scoring, I would have awarded a 4.8 grade to the results I heard – the audible difference was that subtle”

If we go back to the original subject of this thread : Is Dolby TrueHD Worth the Investment?. It seems to be that the answer is NOT YET.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

You and your brother have the same wife?

Can we say...ARKANSAS....

We also asked help to our wife for testing in order to avoid placebo effects. (they didn’t participate in all of them though. Not enough patience)
.

 

[croseiv]

You and your brother have the same wife?

Can we say...ARKANSAS....

I can vouch for him. He MEANT wives....

 

[PENG]

I've been doing some research on the web and found a interesting link at hemagazon.com:

It's about testing new/old codecs against none compressed PCM in the very Dolby and DTS labs!!!. Taking in consideration that those testing were performed under rigorous protocols. Results are quite straight forward:

This is a quote of the article:
“The shocker came when we compared the lower 448 kbps Dolby Digital DVD bitrate to the original. There was an audible difference, but it was only ever-so-slightly noticeable (and this is with a high end audio system in an acoustically controlled environment that is so far beyond what typical home theater systems are capable of resolving). There was just the slightest decrease in presence with the DD version, not exactly a softening of the sound, but just a tad less ambience and a similarly small tightening of the front soundstage’s depth. Quite a remarkable result, I thought, and I was highly impressed with how much fidelity can be packed into such a relatively small amount of bitspace. If I was doing actual scoring, I would have awarded a 4.8 grade to the results I heard – the audible difference was that subtle”

If we go back to the original subject of this thread : Is Dolby TrueHD Worth the Investment?. It seems to be that the answer is NOT YET.

I think technically the difference should be significant but our hearing ability is the limiting factor. It is also possible that people who heard those so called day and night kind of differences may change their mind after a level matched DBT.

 

[croseiv]

For me, the largest change in SQ I've ever noticed was going from analogue to digital (TOSLINK). Man the improved bass output was phenominal. I guess I'm wondering if I will perceive the same impact going from DD to Dolby True HD?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Is Dolby TrueHD Worth the Investment?

No, it's not worth the Investment.

But, it's worth the Hobby.

It's one of those things were it's okay if you don't have it, but it's cool if you do.

I mean is blu-ray worth the investment? No!

Your family is worth the investment.

Your career is worth the investment.

Blu-ray and TrueHD/DTS-HD are just a hobby.

 

[jostenmeat]

For me, the largest change in SQ I've ever noticed was going from analogue to digital (TOSLINK). Man the improved bass output was phenominal. I guess I'm wondering if I will perceive the same impact going from DD to Dolby True HD?

Analog... as in multi ch analog? Were you suffering an LFE cut before? How flexible was your player's bass mgmt? Just curious, for LFE + bass issues were what really had me decide that I better jump on the HDMI bandwagon. I also wanted to matrix 5.1 tracks . . .

 

[fmw]

I'm sorry, I don't know where to find it but one group did a valid bias controlled listening test. I read these articles but I don't save links.

The test, conducted at one of the big audio company facilities with state of the art equipment, basically found that there wasn't a meaningful audible difference between the "HD" audio formats and the "lossy" ones. So the answer to the OP's question, at least from this test's perspective, is no.

I'm not surprised, actually. I've done valid bias controlled listening tests between wav files and 320 mp3 files and found no audible difference at all between them. So I have a warmer and fuzzier attitude about data compression than most audiophiles do. In fact, my own personal music collection is encoded at 320 mp3 based on those tests.

My Blu Ray player can neither decode nor transmit the "HD" audio and the article in question convinced me not to upgrade the player in order to have it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The most important thing is the volume/gain level.

For example, when I watched "Black Hawk Down" on blu-ray, I remember the difference in sound level was tremendous between the PCM and the DD tracks when switching back and forth. I would say the PCM was probably 4 or 5 dB LOUDER.

It could also be the other way around. One reviewer (DVDTown) noticed that the "Iron Man" blu-ray's DD track was 4 dB LOUDER than the TrueHD track.

My thinking is that the difference in volume levels are not just limited to the Center or Front Left or Front Right. The difference could also be significant in the Surround channels.

The problem with receivers and pre-pros is that once you do the initial setup (level matching), you think you are all set for every movie.

But the fact is, some movies will have the center channel too high or too low, or the front left & right too high or too low, or the surrounds too high or too low.

I usually have all three volume knobs set at the 9 o'clock position. This gives me a 65dB on the SPL meter for all channels.

But if I feel that the movie is just too loud, I turn down the front left and right volume just a hair.

If I feel that the center channel(dialogue) is too low, I turn the center volume up just a hair.

If I feel that the surround channels is too low, I turn the surround left and right up just a hair.

And, of course, if I feel that the BASS is not enough, I crank up that volume knob on the subwoofer itself.

Now it sounds just perfect to me.

 

[zumbo]

I am running the Marantz BD8002, with a Yamaha 1400.

The player decodes the TRUEHD/DTSMA, and sends via 7.1 analog to the receiver. Bass Management set to 60Hz in the player. LFE set to +10dB in the player. Sound level is a little lower, but the sound is much cleaner. I think this bypasses YPAO.

The player automatically downgrades TRUEHD/DTSMA to DD/DTS via digital output. Bass Management set to 60Hz in the receiver. Sound level is higher, and fuller. But, not as clean. YPAO on.

I have no way of knowing if an HDMI connection to a current receiver that decodes would be better than either connection I am using.

I would prefer to have a receiver that does decode the new formats, and I DO believe it would be worth the money to me. I did buy a 2k BR player though.

 

[Emusica]

Dolby TrueHD may not be worth it, but DTS-HD Master Audio def is.... i wasnt too impressed with Dolby TrHD but the DTS master audio is a different story.

 

[jostenmeat]

Dolby TrueHD may not be worth it, but DTS-HD Master Audio def is.... i wasnt too impressed with Dolby TrHD but the DTS master audio is a different story.

In theory*, there should be no difference. First of all, you can't really compare unless you are using the same audio track, for its the quality of master that will be the true "limiting" factor. For both T-HD and MA are lossless.

However, there are a couple of things that make me reluctant to use TrueHD (surely completely unfounded hesitations), and they are my fear of Dolby poorly implementing dialnorm and/or other dynamic compression issues.

Also, even if MA is a more complex codec, since its two bitstreams (core + extension) its actually the more efficient codec to use. For all the TrueHD tracks are accompanied by the legacy track. So really MA saves more space than TrueHD+legacy combined. And the whole point of these codecs is to save space.

 

[Emusica]

In theory*, there should be no difference. First of all, you can't really compare unless you are using the same audio track, for its the quality of master that will be the true "limiting" factor. For both T-HD and MA are lossless.

However, there are a couple of things that make me reluctant to use TrueHD (surely completely unfounded hesitations), and they are my fear of Dolby poorly implementing dialnorm and/or other dynamic compression issues.

Also, even if MA is a more complex codec, since its two bitstreams (core + extension) its actually the more efficient codec to use. For all the TrueHD tracks are accompanied by the legacy track. So really MA saves more space than TrueHD+legacy combined. And the whole point of these codecs is to save space.

So, have my ears deceiveth me? The DTS sounds so much better, or are my ears broken? I've always thought DTS sounded better than DD.

 

[jostenmeat]

So, have my ears deceiveth me? The DTS sounds so much better, or are my ears broken?

I won't go that far. Like I said, I do have some possibly unfounded fears of TrueHD implementation. But, again, there should be no difference in theory. And, again, you can't compare an apple to an orange. You need to compare the exact some movie soundtrack to know. And even when you do that, you need to level match the tracks. Not many movies offer both MA and T-HD on the same disc. Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind is one of the few, for example.

I've always thought DTS sounded better than DD.

For legacy tracks, I totally agree. However, on DVD, we are talking about 448 kbs for DD vs 768 kbs for DTS. And DTS offered discrete 6.1 tracks. (EX is a matrixed track, AFAIK). LOTR ES versions, Xmen3 were some of the more impressive 6.1 discrete tracks that I've heard for action DVDs.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think the DTS-MA may sound LOUDER, and I like it.

I think PCM also tends to sound louder than TrueHD.

But it varies, of course.

Hey, I'll do this. "Red Cliff" has PCM, TrueHD, and DTS-MA. I'll do an Unofficial Unblinded comparison and see. "Lust & Caution" BD also has DTS-MA and TrueHD. I'll check that out too and report.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

I don't think I can tell much difference but I am an Audioholic and vow to buy everything that comes out that has something on it that I don't already have.....