Fox: Please Drop DTS-MA for Dolby TrueHD (1 Viewer)

[Grant H]

I was under the impression, though that the DD track is packaged with it, not really a core that is extracted. Hence TrueHD with the legacy DD (the two bundled together) actually takes up more space than a DTS MA track. The space savings at this point may be arguable though.

It's definitely true that right now more people can take advantage of TrueHD. It'll be a couple years til mass adoption though. The truth is DTS MA has become an inconvenience to us enthusiasts, but most homes will probably upgrade their sound last, after they get their 3rd or 4th gen players that will at the very least pass the bitstream.

If you really want TrueHD to obliterate DTS MA, you should keep rallying to defeat DialNorm. So far, Sony (despite all their haters) has agreed to not use it. Now, you just have every other studio to rally to. Get to work. I'll take DTS MA or PCM over TrueHD any day if it means I'm actually getting an accurate representation of the studio master. At least we'll know the Sony titles are safe.

 

[PeterTHX]

DD at 640 is less efficient than a DTS core at 1.5? DTS-MA takes up more space than Dolby TrueHD, core or not.

If anything, Fox can at least use LPCM.

Dolby TrueHD has more options than DTS-MA, is tried and tested, and works beautifully.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Yup...even when discussing the lossless variants.

 

[Grant H]

The lossless component of DTS-MA is an extension to the core. On TrueHD it's a totally separate track. Dolby True HD is a package of a losslessly compressed track and a lossy track. Whereas DTS-MA is a lossy core (readable by any DTS decoder) + an extension to recreate the lossless track.

It's my understanding that a DTS-MA track doesn't take as much space as a TrueHD track coupled with a DD track, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

If you're worried about space, PCM is the last thing you should be rallying for. A losslessly compressed track should take half the space. The fact Fox releases have mostly been BD25s is reason enough why they've avoided PCM.

And I'm not sure what options TrueHD has that you're referring to? DialNorm? Mixing player sounds into the track? These things detract from the purity of the original soundtrack.

 

[PeterTHX]

I'm not worried about space at all, witness Sony's plan to include *both* PCM and TrueHD on several upcoming releases, starting with the current Stomp The Yard.

DTS-MA itself takes up more space irregardless of the core. Plus it takes a *massive* amount of CPU horsepower to decode. TrueHD does not, and has been ready from day one.

 

[Robert George]

Well, it should be noted that I chose not to open that can of worms again . As far as I'm concerned, DTS vs. Dolby Digital has been beat to death long ago and anybody that thinks something is a certain way now is not going to change their mind at this point. My "official" position on this issue is that Dolby TrueHD is a mandatory format for HD DVD and had broad support in Blu-ray hardware as well. On the other hand, DTS-HD MA is not supported in any player of either format now, or in the known future.

As far as I'm concerned, that isn't even a contest.

 

[Grant H]

But the thread's about Fox, not Sony. Fox isn't even putting out any titles, much less committing to using more spacious BD 50s.

And I believe Sony's dual tracks are a transition to implementing True HD and dropping PCM. It's nice they'll provide both for a while, but wasteful. They could use the space for extra features, or for better video.

I'm actually kind of puzzled as to True HD. I know a player can downmix it to 2 channel, but some sources suggest decoders can also remix it to legacy output lossy over SPDIF. But if that were the case, why provide the extra DD track at all?

EDIT: Reading the above post I can see how that might apply to HD DVD. So only on BD are they required to add the legacy track. Well, that kind of sucks, especially since TrueHD IS supported by several BD players. So not making it mandatory on BD is what's made it kind of clunky on BD (requiring the lossless track to come with an extra lossy track). I would still think in the BD world that this little fact makes DTS MA a less bit-hungry monster than TrueHD AND a separate DD track. Were the TrueHD track allowed to be on its own on BD, that would not be the case.

 

[PeterTHX]

TrueHD is a couple megabits more efficient than MA, so with or without the 640 track it is STILL more efficient.

CPU efficiency is also a concern. PowerDVD supports TrueHD. I doubt there's a PC out there that could decode a high bitrate title in AVC or VC-1 *and* a DTS-MA track at the same time.

 

[Grant H]

I'm not sure what the point is of listening to a lossless track on a PC, unless it's a home theater PC, which is less than a handful of people (but probably a lot of people on these boards).

If TrueHD really is that much more efficient, I say go for it if all the other film studios can follow Sony's lead. I'll wait for that to happen while listening to those DTS cores since my present setup doesn't benefit from lossless audio anyway. By the time I upgrade maybe good things will have happened. I wasn't too enthralled with PCM downmixed to 2.0 even. The loss of separation when processed with PL II vs. the discrete tracks just didn't do it for me.

And chances are I'll eventually get lossless out of my Fox titles anyway.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I only care about the audio performance aspect and efficiency is not a concern I care about to be totally honest. My goals for my HT is to have the best sound and picture that I can afford. Dolby is stuck on using as little data as necessary to reproduce the audio track is better than using more data. DTS used more and was able to creat a more transparent soundfeild with a more natural sound than Dolby.

That does not mean that I would not choose DTHD when offered. It's a huge improvement over compressed sounding DD. So I would buy the DTHD unless there is a DTS-HD MA release on the competing HD format. Then I will go with DTS-HD MA or even LPCM. In the absence of ether I would rather have Dolby True HD hands down over Dolby Digital or Dolby Digital Plus!

Current Titles with Dolby True HD tracks:10 (HD-DVD), 3 (Bluray)
Current Titles with DTS-HD MA tracks:43
Current Titles with PCM tracks:94

Another reason not to get rid of DTS-HD MA as there are alot more titles on Bluray than there are with DTHD. I agree that there is a lack of decoding but that will soon change. Even if the players are not decoding the DTS-HD the receivers will soon be able to. And there will be no issues with players not having the hp to handle both 1080p video and DTS-HD MA tracks. If they want to offer both DTS-HD and DTHD instead of PCM that is fine. But I would rather see Fox stick with DTS-HD MA and more importantly I want to see Fox titles being released.

 

[Nick Graham]

This wasn't intended to be a Dolby vs DTS thread in regards to quality. The point of the thread is that while DTS held a quality advantage (IMO) in standard def, in the era of lossless tracks I'm betting the differences are likely a lot less discernible, and DTS has dropped the ball in regards to hardware support. I don't see a lot of people trading out their BD players just for one with DTS-MA support, especially as studios and manufacturers move toward TrueHD. Also, there may be 43 titles available, but the majority of those are guaranteed to be double-dipped, as most of them have SD counterparts with extensive extras.

 

[Eric F]

Why do people keep saying Sony has no intenions of supporting DTS-MA? I thought they would sometime in the future, they have not said they wouldn't.

 

[PeterTHX]

Hardware wise. Software wise they probably won't.

 

[PeterTHX]

Interesting note on TrueHD's greater efficiency:

Watching Letters From Iwo Jima and the bitrate meter for the TrueHD track is typically between 1-2 Mbps with 3+Mbps peaks. Quiet dialogue scenes dip well below the DTS core of 1.5 Mbps.

With several years of lossless audio compression experience (this includes DVD-Audio), I trust Dolby and they have delivered. DTS has yet to.

 

[Dave Moritz]

I was under the impression Dolby purchased the rights to use Meridian's lossless technology. So did Dolby actually develope there own lossless or just use Meridian's?

 

[Shane Martin]

If both Dolby True HD and DTS Master Lossless are lossless meaning bit for bit copies of the original, why would a different format make any difference? It doesn't. This means that studios should produce audio for what the products actually support.

 

[PeterTHX]

It's about support, it's about efficiency, and it's about lower CPU/DSP cycles. All are in favor of TrueHD.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

While my preference would be for DTS-MA or PCM (due to dialogue normalization that is turned on by default with DTHD), I'm really more concerned with the lack of support of any lossless format by studios such as Paramount. Even the extracted core on DTS-MA blows away anything released by Paramount and 95% of Warner's titles. I sincerely hope we get to a point where arguing this is more relevant. I cringe at the thought of the forthcoming Saturday Night Fever disc coming out in DD 640.

 

[Shane Martin]

Something we can agree on. As long as those studios using Dolby True HD disable Dial Norm, I think us enthusiasts will be pleased.

 

[Cees Alons]

Yes, I think DN should either be disabled or the decoder should have a circumvention setting.


That said: I wonder how many people can actually tell whether or not it is set "on" or "off". Also note, that DN has more than one possible input value setting.

Just imagine how a new release sees the light (blue), say of Sony Pictures known to have got their DialNorm switched off by a paid geek, and some reviewers vouch how brilliant it is, and stunning and transparent - to their ears and everything in between - and much later it appears that by accident the DN wasn't put "off" totally at all.

This is part of the real "problem": you hardly can tell. Or perhaps it's not so much of a real problem for that same reason. Perhaps most of all current releases have it switched off already - or happen to have a track that isn't influenced much by DN. Hardly anyone, or perhaps no-one, appears to be able to determine this for sure.

You need to trust the word of others (using digital software means) to be able to tell how it is. Often others you only know "through the 'net".


Cees