DTS lossless option on both HD-DVD and BLU-RAY... (1 Viewer)

[Eric Emma]

Very nice Andre, you clear somethings up for me.

 

[Herschel]

quote:Truthfully, I don't care right now. I'm just happy that it is MANDATORY!!

I think you're misreading it. It'll be mandatory for the players to support it, but not for anyone to include a DTS track on their releases. It's like PCM and Dolby Digital on DVDs: all players have to play them, and a DVD needs to have at least one of those formats on it. But that doesn't mean that every disc has a PCM track.

 

[Tan Ng]

Andre



To repeat Eric question is all current DTS decoder can decode DTS++ but all the extra channels more than 5 will be clipped off like DTS ES will decoded by regular DTS decoder except you don't have the surround center right? Or does it mean DTS++ will require people to buy new receiver with new DTS decoder chip to decode them???

 

[Adam Barratt]

DTS++ is simply a name that DTS have chosen to encompass extension-based variants (such as DTS-ES Discrete 6.1, DTS 96/24 and Lossless) as well as DTS soundtracks that extend beyond the bit-rates possible for DTS on DVD-Video (up to a maximum of 1536kbps based on a 16-bit template).

All variants under the DTS++ banner still rely on the Coherent Acoustics system as their backbone, and should be backward-compatible with your existing decoder. You decoder may or may not be capable of fully exploiting the soundtrack present, in terms of number of channels or resolution/frequency response, depending on its capabilities/age (just as it is with existing ES Discrete and 96/24 soundtracks).

I'm curious what bitrate range DTS's lossless variant works at, and its approximate compression ratios. Without extensions DTS's 'original' lossless system would have operated at up to 4096kbps. But DTS must have improved on this quite significantly if they want to be competitive (MLP can losslessly compress a 5.1-channel movie soundtrack at less than 1500kbps, lower than the maximum bitrate of lossy DTS on DVD-Video, and WMA lossless can be even more efficient. This makes me believe, depending on its mathematical efficiency, DTS Lossless will stand or fall on the success of Blu-Ray).

Adam

 

[PeterTHX]

Let's see if DTS can actually DELIVER lossless, or ++ (nice how they have Dolby Plus out-plussed).



DTS originally promised a lossless mode for DVD. Only nearly 10 years late now...and for the next version of digital video disc!

 

[Tan Ng]

Adam



I have the MC-12. Do you think it can handle the DTS++???

 

[Mark Zimmer]

Glad to hear that DTS managed to get its act together (aided, no doubt by the endless wrangling over the HDDVD and Blu-Ray standards). If you recall, DTS could have been a standard audio track on DVD, but it couldn't get its submission put together in time and thus DD got a huge boost.



If they really can convince studios to provide DTS lossless, this should give them a better than running start. That's still a big 'if' though.

 

[chris_clem]

quote:I think you're misreading it. It'll be mandatory for the players to support it, but not for anyone to include a DTS track on their releases. It's like PCM and Dolby Digital on DVDs: all players have to play them, and a DVD needs to have at least one of those formats on it. But that doesn't mean that every disc has a PCM track.

I'm a bit confused about the use of the term "mandatory" with regards to which formats are supported and used. If all the players must support all the mandatory formats (this much is clear for me), what is the bare minimum that the discs themselves shoud have on them? Do they ALL have to have at least 1 lossless audio track or is the bare minimum still either DD or PCM (and/or is some form of DTS now part of that bare minimum requirement)?

 

[Lew Crippen]

quote:I'm a bit confused about the use of the term "mandatory" with regards to which formats are supported and used. If all the players must support all the mandatory formats (this much is clear for me), what is the bare minimum that the discs themselves shoud have on them? Do they ALL have to have at least 1 lossless audio track or is the bare minimum still either DD or PCM (and/or is some form of DTS now part of that bare minimum requirement)?

It is not clear at this point, but if the new world works like the old, only one of the ‘mandatory’ tracks need be present. Right now this is either DD or PCM. DVDs with DTS must include either a DD or PCM track, but they need not be robust. Although nothing comes to mind right now, I recall some fine 5.1 DTS DVDs that only got 2 channel DD treatment—a reasonable way to give space to both DTS audio and video.

 

[AndreGB]

Exactely Lew. Now studios can choose to include only a DTS track because it is mandatory.


Anyway, like Adam explained, DTS++ extensions will be discarded by old DTS decoders (present on all actual receivers and processors). At least, this is what I understood from the backward compatibility they claim. So you will be able to get the DTS++ improvements only when using a new decoder, and that includes the lossless scheme.


Adam, somehow I think DTS managed to improve their lossess bitrate capabilities otherwise I don't think both consortiums would choose it, right? I hope so, hehe.


But I think all this is still very obscure right now. Maybe we will get our anwsers when the new players come out. I can't wait for them.

 

[David Coleman]

quote:Adam, somehow I think DTS managed to improve their lossess bitrate capabilities otherwise I don't think both consortiums would choose it, right? I hope so, hehe.

I agree!!! I kinda sense that DTS to improve their efficency may have gone to

channel mixing. The current codec codes/decodes each channel separate. It makes sense that if the same material is in all channels to code to mix channels to save space.



It will be interesting to see what the compression ratio is for DTS lossless?

 

[Kevin M]

quote:Is DTS's scheme somehow better than Meridian's?

Well it has been a few years since MLP's algorithm was written, a more efficient code can always be written given time.

 

[PeterTHX]

To anyone confused by the term "mandatory":



It just simply means the players must be able to access and natively decode the sound bitstream. It does NOT mean that the discs themselves must have it.



I think the only reason that MLP is not present is because of Sony's influence. I'm suprised DSD isn't on there...however I remember reading somewhere where DSD and video information being streamed wasn't possible. MLP as you all know is the format of DVD-Audio, and Sony supports SACD, to the point of not allowing their DVD players to play back DVD-Audio MLP tracks (just AC3-DTS). Since MLP is licensed by Dolby, that's also a possible reason Dolby Plus isn't on there either.



Of course, these situations can change. MS-VC1 (WM9) and H-264 were only on HD-DVD until recently. You can be sure Dolby is pressuring various members of the Blu-Ray group to add Dolby Plus at the very least. Perhaps even MLP, but like DTS on DVD today, not a mandatory format, but an optional one.

 

[AaronMK]

quote:Although nothing comes to mind right now, I recall some fine 5.1 DTS DVDs that only got 2 channel DD treatment—a reasonable way to give space to both DTS audio and video.

Pretty much all movie DTS DVDs that came out before the 754 kbps rate started to be used were like this. A few examples: 12 Monkeys, Antz, Apollo 13, Dante's Peak, Dragon Heart, The Jackal, and WaterWorld.

Although most of the seperate DTS DVDs had to drop supplements from their DD counterparts, with 12 Monkeys being the best example (the loss of a really good documentary).

BTW, what is Dolby Plus? I couldn't find this on Dolby's site nor did a forum search turn up anything.

 

[David Coleman]

quote:I think the only reason that MLP is not present is because of Sony's influence. I'm suprised DSD isn't on there...however I remember reading somewhere where DSD and video information being streamed wasn't possible.

And this is one of the reason why I support HD-DVD over BD. I get so sick of SONY and their proprietary stuff!! Even though BD has the potential space-wise to be the leader you have to scratch your head why simple things like DD+ and MLP aren't supported???? I think that for what it's suppose to be (next generation HD player) it works well for me!!

 

[Rich Malloy]

On the other hand (you know, the "big" DVD-A hand, that is), doesn't Warner Bros. likewise eschew DTS tracks? I mean, don't they reject DTS to the same extent that Sony rejects MLP?

 

[David Coleman]

quote:On the other hand (you know, the "big" DVD-A hand, that is), doesn't Warner Bros. likewise eschew DTS tracks? I mean, don't they reject DTS to the same extent that Sony rejects MLP?

Valid point!!! I for the life of me can't understand why WARNER's has their stance on that, 384kbs DD that they've had for so long!!! Thankfully they've moved away from Snappers...lol!!!

 

[PeterTHX]

quote:And this is one of the reason why I support HD-DVD over BD. I get so sick of SONY and their proprietary stuff!!

Well, don't blame Blu-ray for that. Sony is only a player. Panasonic (a major DVD-Audio supporter) and everyone else (except Toshiba, NEC, and Sanyo) are part of it. We very well may see MLP on Blu-ray. As I said, at the very least as an optional format like DTS is now.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I'd rather have a proven performer like MLP Lossless than a lossy core + extension codec that's unproven.



MLP can also do a 2 channel fold down for those who only have two channel capabilities.



MLP can also compress up to 64 channels of 24/192 kHz LPCM if I'm reading the specs. right.



However, MLP or DTS++ may not be needed for Blu-Ray unless absolutely necessary (more than 8 channels, or more resolution?) because it already has the bitrate set aside for uncompressed LPCM at either 6 channels with 24/192 resolution or 8 channels of 24/96 resolution (~27 Megabits/sec for just audio so it could expand beyond that). Uncompressed data, if the room is there, is the best possible way to go.

 

[AaronMK]

quote:Uncompressed data, if the room is there, is the best possible way to go.

If a lossless codec is used, than it decompresses to what it was in its uncompressed state. The end result is the same and there are not performence issues with the decompression. How is wasting space and bandwidth the best way to go?