Is there a difference in the age of uncompressed sound? (1 Viewer)

[Scott Burke]

I just emailed DTS, which has always been my audio encode of choice, if there is any discernible difference between Dolby and DTS now that uncompressed audio is a thing? I do not have the equipment to take advantage of either lossless format, but was curious what, if any, difference there is to be had?

Speaking naively, I would think that uncompressed is uncompressed whether you slap a DTS logo or Dolby Logo on it, but I don't know for sure.

 

[gene c]

From what I've read they are indeed identicle. But Master Audio seems to be the go-to choice for most users which is strange since DTS MA wasn't included in many of the first Bluray players, like my Samsung 1400 and Pioneer Elite BDP-05. It took almost a year and a half for Pioneer to add MA via firmware release. Samsung never did. They made you buy the 1500.

 

[Type A]

DolbyHD can carry metadata and DTSmaster is capable of a higher max bit rate. In regards to blu ray neither of those will affect the end result and both will sound the same. I believe DTSmaster is mixed hotter, all that means is less gain at your amp to produce the same SPL. Essentially the two formats are identical, any difference you might notice happens at the mixing stage and is not a result of the compression format itself.

 

[schan1269]

The "net result" no matter what package is used is LPCM.

Just like in the days SACD and DVD-A were discussed to death...

Yes there are differences, but 99.9% of discs never use even 50% of the capacity either provide.

And unless I'm having a brainfart(and have them switched)...

DTS HD and DVD-A are technically the same thing.