Does it actually sound better or is it just a change of name??
If it does sound better, in what way?
If it does sound better, in what way?
Anyone find TrueHD audio better than DD 5.1??
- Thread starter Nick_Shepherd
- Start date
Sound in HD is like comparing SD images to HD images, to me, sound is sharper and fuller and much more detailed. still I find The DTS HD master audio superior to Dolby TrueHD, and I prefer choosing DTS HD then Dolby.
But I guess it's just opinion or taste.
But I guess it's just opinion or taste.
On most of the blu-rays I have watched I must admit I think DTS HD Master Audio sounds better, but as the previous poster says I guess its just a matter of opinion.
But I think that True HD is much better than DD 5.1, the sounds is much clearer and I dont have to turn my receiver up as loud when watching films.
But I think that True HD is much better than DD 5.1, the sounds is much clearer and I dont have to turn my receiver up as loud when watching films.
Is it like the HD picture in how it works?
I get that a standard picture is 576 or whatever and a full HD picture is 1080p, so its clear that it should look better, and of course it does.
What is a HD audio track doing that a DD 5.1 is not?
(trying to understand it all a bit better)
I get that a standard picture is 576 or whatever and a full HD picture is 1080p, so its clear that it should look better, and of course it does.
What is a HD audio track doing that a DD 5.1 is not?
(trying to understand it all a bit better)
Yes it is immeditely noticble that the audio is louder and clearer, so is dialogue, so you might need not turn the amp too loud.
DD usually steams between 384 and 640Kbps, True HD Can go at much higher bitrates usually around 1,200 to 2,000KBps on BD and the type of encoding is lossless, hence identical to the studio master. So it's like The Video, Hd Audio get much higher bitrates as does HD Video
Nick_Shepherd:
Is it like the HD picture in how it works?
I get that a standard picture is 576 or whatever and a full HD picture is 1080p, so its clear that it should look better, and of course it does.
What is a HD audio track doing that a DD 5.1 is not?
(trying to understand it all a bit better)
An example would be that dolby digital sounds tracks contain upto 640kbps (kilobits per seconds) and the True HD & DTS MA contain upto 18mbps (mega bits per seconds) although most movies I've watched the bitrate has been around 4-7 mbps, so your getting around (at least) 10 times more information in the soundtrack. Correct me if I'm wrong though guys!
Is it like the HD picture in how it works?
I get that a standard picture is 576 or whatever and a full HD picture is 1080p, so its clear that it should look better, and of course it does.
What is a HD audio track doing that a DD 5.1 is not?
(trying to understand it all a bit better)
An example would be that dolby digital sounds tracks contain upto 640kbps (kilobits per seconds) and the True HD & DTS MA contain upto 18mbps (mega bits per seconds) although most movies I've watched the bitrate has been around 4-7 mbps, so your getting around (at least) 10 times more information in the soundtrack. Correct me if I'm wrong though guys!
Everton monkey is completly right DTHD Movies I.ve seen are around 2MPS and DTS HDMA Between 4and 6 MBPS and LPCM around 4.6MBPS
EvertonMonkey: and the True HD & DTS MA contain upto 18mbps . Correct me if I'm wrong though guys!
Sorry to have to do this Monkey, but...I'll correct you !
Dolby True HD can indeed support maximum bitrates of up to 18 Mbit/s but DTS-HD MA can support bit rates (variable) up to 24.5 Mbit/s.
The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable, as is the difference between vanilla DTS and HD MA. I don't even think that you have to own a perfect pair of ears to distinguish between the two. It's quite obvious when doing an A/B switch.
Sorry to have to do this Monkey, but...I'll correct you !
Dolby True HD can indeed support maximum bitrates of up to 18 Mbit/s but DTS-HD MA can support bit rates (variable) up to 24.5 Mbit/s.
The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable, as is the difference between vanilla DTS and HD MA. I don't even think that you have to own a perfect pair of ears to distinguish between the two. It's quite obvious when doing an A/B switch.
So is the difference in bit rates (of the same source, say DTHD) dependent on the film maker? You say bit rates can be 'up to', is the amount down to the film maker thus some tracks will be better than others? (budget depending maybe)
Point being that some movies will sound better than others and show the best or worse of your system?
Point being that some movies will sound better than others and show the best or worse of your system?
The_Lhc
Well-known member
THE_FORCE: The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable,
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant, I defy anyone to tell the difference between the DD5.1 and TrueHD tracks on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray. Thye're identical, I spent ages flicking between the two and there's no difference at all.
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that, I put it down to Warner Bros being a bit lazy with the re-mastering on an old film (although it could conceivably be duff programming on the disc as well I guess).
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant, I defy anyone to tell the difference between the DD5.1 and TrueHD tracks on the Dirty Harry Blu-Ray. Thye're identical, I spent ages flicking between the two and there's no difference at all.
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that, I put it down to Warner Bros being a bit lazy with the re-mastering on an old film (although it could conceivably be duff programming on the disc as well I guess).
the_lhc:
THE_FORCE: The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable,
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant,
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that,
Hmmm so really saying that it's 'soundtrack dependent' doesn't hold much merit when directly afterwards you state that it's 'unusual and it's the only disc I've found like that' ? Sounds like Dirty Harry is a one off case then !
THE_FORCE: The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable,
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant,
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that,
Hmmm so really saying that it's 'soundtrack dependent' doesn't hold much merit when directly afterwards you state that it's 'unusual and it's the only disc I've found like that' ? Sounds like Dirty Harry is a one off case then !
The_Lhc
Well-known member
THE_FORCE:the_lhc:THE_FORCE: The difference between vanilla DD and True HD is audibly noticeable,
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant,
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that,
Hmmm so really saying that it's 'soundtrack dependent' doesn't hold much merit when directly afterwards you state that it's 'unusual and it's the only disc I've found like that' ? Sounds like Dirty Harry is a one off case then !
Of course it holds merit, I can clearly hear the difference on every other disc I own, so obviously it's just the Dirty Harry disc that's different. I probably should have pointed out I only have about a dozen blu-rays (and DH is the oldest film in that collection), so my search is hardly exhaustive.
Caveat: This is soundtrack dependant,
This is unusual though it's the only disc I've found like that,
Hmmm so really saying that it's 'soundtrack dependent' doesn't hold much merit when directly afterwards you state that it's 'unusual and it's the only disc I've found like that' ? Sounds like Dirty Harry is a one off case then !
Of course it holds merit, I can clearly hear the difference on every other disc I own, so obviously it's just the Dirty Harry disc that's different. I probably should have pointed out I only have about a dozen blu-rays (and DH is the oldest film in that collection), so my search is hardly exhaustive.
So, is the quality (or bit rate) dependent on the movie maker and or the producer of the BD disc?
Sorry lhc I was taking the pee. XD
The fact is if the original studio master is lame, then no matter what audio format it's encoded to - it'll still sound wack.....unless the whole master gets reprocessed ! The HD Audio codecs simply allow for a bit-for-bit identical copy to the studio master at a much higher data transfer rate than their vanilla siblings.
The older films are going to benefit the least from this (i.e Dirty Harry), due to studio technology that was used at the time. Newer soundtracks that are produced in 24-bit at 96khz or 192khz sound that much lusher in HD Audio.
The fact is if the original studio master is lame, then no matter what audio format it's encoded to - it'll still sound wack.....unless the whole master gets reprocessed ! The HD Audio codecs simply allow for a bit-for-bit identical copy to the studio master at a much higher data transfer rate than their vanilla siblings.
The older films are going to benefit the least from this (i.e Dirty Harry), due to studio technology that was used at the time. Newer soundtracks that are produced in 24-bit at 96khz or 192khz sound that much lusher in HD Audio.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 16
-
Integrated amplifier with HDMI arc and self turning on on Optical input
- Started by sirfabio
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
Remote Control not able to access alpha letters only numbers Help please?
- Started by AntH
- Replies: 3
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram