We received a few emails of late asking why there are more Blu-ray titles being released with DTS-HD Master Audio vs Dolby True HD. So we thought we’d take a look at the formats and see if we could determine why.
Read Show Notes
HDTV and Home Theater Podcast - Podcast #487: Next Generatio
-
arad
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 261
- Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:13 pm
-
leitweight
- New Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 8:02 am
Re: HDTV and Home Theater Podcast - Podcast #487: Next Gener
No doubt in my mind that this is all due to DTS marketing. If polls show that consumers prefer DTS-MA, they were probably confusing the old data-compressed formats on DVD rather than the new lossless ones. Other than potential level differences, I sincerely doubt that even audio pros (I am one of them) can tell the difference between the lossless formats. This very issue forced me to replace one of my older receivers that didn't have DTS decoding. At the time, I was using a PS3 for Blu-ray playback and could only use the data-compressed optical output. I got away with it in the DVD era since so few discs used DTS encoding. When Blu-rays became more common, and most of them used DTS-MA (or in the early days even compressed DTS) I was forced into decoding on the PS3 which (for some reason I'm now forgetting) would only output a stereo signal to the optical output. Both lossless formats sound great and now that all my setups have HMDI inputs which accept a decoded PCM signal, I don't really care which format the disc is encoded in anyway.
-
Rodolfo
- Author
- Posts: 755
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:46 pm
- Location: Lansdowne VA
Answer: Sound quality and efficient use of disc space
Sound quality has been always subjected to listener opinion based on unmatched factors, hearing capabilities of the listener, and system quality, including wiring.
I always preferred DTS in every format when both tracks are available, especially in concerts.
Others do not notice a difference, either choice should be respected because they are based on many unmatched variables, such as different listening environments (from a family room with fireplaces/large glass windows/sky slanted ceilings, to dedicated audio rooms with proper sound treatments, heavy carpets/curtains), and different quality in audio equipment (low-cost do-it-all A/V receiver to Ferrari-cost separates), balanced/matched speakers/sub (or a $200 HTiB), wiring quality, and last by not least the hearing ability of the listener (which is not only about deafness), from the casual "I like it" (without even sitting on the sweet spot) to the trained-ears audio-phile that usually pays more attention to sound quality and accuracy of reproduction while others just enjoy the content regardless the distortions.
The answer to your question about why content providers may use more DTS it is most probably due to better utilization of disc space for backward compatibility with 5.1 lossy decoders on millions of legacy equipment. DTS is a core + extension format, the 1.5Mbps core is used by legacy lossy decoders, the higher bit-space/rate core + extension is used by lossless decoders, no soundtrack duplication on the disc to comply with both. Which by the way was the main subject of the DTS white paper you provided, highlighted on this statement:
"A third advantage is that the size of the core + extension data is generally smaller than the combination of a standalone legacy audio track and standalone lossless audio track offered by competing audio formats. With DTS-HD, content creators can encode a lossless encode and a compatible core in a single data stream with very efficient use of disc space."
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra
I always preferred DTS in every format when both tracks are available, especially in concerts.
Others do not notice a difference, either choice should be respected because they are based on many unmatched variables, such as different listening environments (from a family room with fireplaces/large glass windows/sky slanted ceilings, to dedicated audio rooms with proper sound treatments, heavy carpets/curtains), and different quality in audio equipment (low-cost do-it-all A/V receiver to Ferrari-cost separates), balanced/matched speakers/sub (or a $200 HTiB), wiring quality, and last by not least the hearing ability of the listener (which is not only about deafness), from the casual "I like it" (without even sitting on the sweet spot) to the trained-ears audio-phile that usually pays more attention to sound quality and accuracy of reproduction while others just enjoy the content regardless the distortions.
The answer to your question about why content providers may use more DTS it is most probably due to better utilization of disc space for backward compatibility with 5.1 lossy decoders on millions of legacy equipment. DTS is a core + extension format, the 1.5Mbps core is used by legacy lossy decoders, the higher bit-space/rate core + extension is used by lossless decoders, no soundtrack duplication on the disc to comply with both. Which by the way was the main subject of the DTS white paper you provided, highlighted on this statement:
"A third advantage is that the size of the core + extension data is generally smaller than the combination of a standalone legacy audio track and standalone lossless audio track offered by competing audio formats. With DTS-HD, content creators can encode a lossless encode and a compatible core in a single data stream with very efficient use of disc space."
Best Regards,
Rodolfo La Maestra