Just wondering peoples opinions on the two codecs. To me, DTS HD MSTR sounds clearer than Dolby THD, with the latter seeming more bassy and less detailed. On the dark knight BD, which is dolby THD, I seem to have to crank up the volume a little more than I think I should have to. So, opinions ppl......?
DTS HD Master audio Vs Dolby TrueHD
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Is there any material/disc to compare the two? Same track but in both of the two formats? I think it is either or. And comparing two different discs is apples and oranges.
I would expect no discernable difference between the formats if compared on the same track.
I would expect no discernable difference between the formats if compared on the same track.
exactly - unless you have the same mix/master then encoded to both you can't compare
they are both lossless so should both sound identical, and identical to the master
unless you are one of these special people that can hear the difference say with 2 channel WAV and FLAC
they are both lossless so should both sound identical, and identical to the master
unless you are one of these special people that can hear the difference say with 2 channel WAV and FLAC
jamesf348:Just wondering peoples opinions on the two codecs. To me, DTS HD MSTR sounds clearer than Dolby THD, with the latter seeming more bassy and less detailed. On the dark knight BD, which is dolby THD, I seem to have to crank up the volume a little more than I think I should have to. So, opinions ppl......?i agree, dolby true hd seems more powerful, bassier, whereas dts ma seems more detailed..
Top gun Blu ray has both codecs on one disc. The opening 2 mins certainly sounds better in DTS. Maybe I'm "special"
Sorreltiger
Well-known member
This has been covered before - DTS has a higher bitrate and has the potential to sound slightly better. The HD material is contained on an extra audio track, which plays alongside the core DTS track, whereas the 'normal' Dolby Digital and the Dolby TrueHD track are both self-contained.
professorhat
Well-known member
Sorreltiger:This has been covered before - DTS has a higher bitrate and has the potential to sound slightly better.
True for the older DTS and Dolby Digital codecs but not so for the newer DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD soundtracks. Yes, the DTS HD MA has a theoretically higher bitrate, but in practice, neither the DTS HD MA nor the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks get anywhere near their theoretical maximums. As someone else has said, both are lossless codecs so it's entirely dependent on the master from which they're taken.
Lots of people seem to think DTS HD MA is better but from my experience, the actual studio mastering process is far more important. I've heard fantastic Dolby TrueHD tracks and pretty awful DTS HD MA tracks and of course vice versa - none of this is down to the codec being used, but by the quality of the mix in the studio.
True for the older DTS and Dolby Digital codecs but not so for the newer DTS HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD soundtracks. Yes, the DTS HD MA has a theoretically higher bitrate, but in practice, neither the DTS HD MA nor the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks get anywhere near their theoretical maximums. As someone else has said, both are lossless codecs so it's entirely dependent on the master from which they're taken.
Lots of people seem to think DTS HD MA is better but from my experience, the actual studio mastering process is far more important. I've heard fantastic Dolby TrueHD tracks and pretty awful DTS HD MA tracks and of course vice versa - none of this is down to the codec being used, but by the quality of the mix in the studio.
Dalesman
Well-known member
DTS HD just blows you away,it is much more powerful and detailed than Dolby TrueHD.
I'm a fan of DTS HD Master Audio.
I'm a fan of DTS HD Master Audio.
the main reason people think DTS Master Audio is better than Dolby True HD is that DTS is mastered at 4db higher than TrueHD.. so you have to turn up your receiver higher to volume match True HD.. i would say its irrelevant.. both codecs are lossless.. so should be identical in terms of what they sound like.. there arent many discs out there with both codecs.. i think close enounters of the third kind also has both.. even then its not always a straight forward comparison.. the mixes may have been recorded differently for both codecs..
i have read that lot of the reason for studios moving away from True HD to DTS is that Dolby True HD is a mac only encoder..
From somewhere else....
'The Blu-rays you use every day are created on PCs. In fact one of the reasons why Dolby TrueHD fell out of favor (among many, none of which had to do with the sound quality of the final product) was because it was a Mac-only encoder, requiring authoring houses to keep a fairly beefy machine around that did nothing else.'
Dalesman:
DTS HD just blows you away,it is much more powerful and detailed than Dolby TrueHD.
I'm a fan of DTS HD Master Audio.
i have read that lot of the reason for studios moving away from True HD to DTS is that Dolby True HD is a mac only encoder..
From somewhere else....
'The Blu-rays you use every day are created on PCs. In fact one of the reasons why Dolby TrueHD fell out of favor (among many, none of which had to do with the sound quality of the final product) was because it was a Mac-only encoder, requiring authoring houses to keep a fairly beefy machine around that did nothing else.'
Dalesman:
DTS HD just blows you away,it is much more powerful and detailed than Dolby TrueHD.
I'm a fan of DTS HD Master Audio.
not sure why some people can't get the fact that they are BOTH lossless
lossless means mathematically identical - just like zipping a document, when you unzip you don't only get 99% of it back do you ?
bitrates are irrelevant, they'll be whatever is needed to be lossless
lossless means mathematically identical - just like zipping a document, when you unzip you don't only get 99% of it back do you ?
bitrates are irrelevant, they'll be whatever is needed to be lossless
Dalesman
Well-known member
Buckshar:
not sure why some people can't get the fact that they are BOTH lossless
lossless means mathematically identical
If that is so then WHY do they sound different ?
not sure why some people can't get the fact that they are BOTH lossless
lossless means mathematically identical
If that is so then WHY do they sound different ?
when have you compared the 2 ? - thats the problem
I don't know of any blurays which have both DTS HD MA and Dolby TruHD on them
therefore all you are doing is comparing the SQ from one film to another - its nothing to do with the codecs they use
I don't know of any blurays which have both DTS HD MA and Dolby TruHD on them
therefore all you are doing is comparing the SQ from one film to another - its nothing to do with the codecs they use
Dalesman:Buckshar:
not sure why some people can't get the fact that they are BOTH lossless
lossless means mathematically identical
If that is so then WHY do they sound different ?
It is a difficult one, I know what you mean by them sounding different, they certainly seem to, and I know what other mean about both of them being lossless and so should sould the same. I've also noticed those few discs that have uncompressed PCM tracks on sound different again.
Perhaps is something to do with the way they are decoded in the machine that causes sonic difference (just guessing here)?
not sure why some people can't get the fact that they are BOTH lossless
lossless means mathematically identical
If that is so then WHY do they sound different ?
It is a difficult one, I know what you mean by them sounding different, they certainly seem to, and I know what other mean about both of them being lossless and so should sould the same. I've also noticed those few discs that have uncompressed PCM tracks on sound different again.
Perhaps is something to do with the way they are decoded in the machine that causes sonic difference (just guessing here)?
Dalesman
Well-known member
Buckshar:
when have you compared the 2 ? - thats the problem
I don't know of any blurays which have both DTS HD MA and Dolby TruHD on them
I don't need both formats on one disc to draw a comparison,my hearing is quite capable of concluding that as a format DTS HD Master Audio is a superior format IMO for whatever the reason.I don't care how they are recorded or if they are lossless or not or if they are mathematically identical or long lost twins.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
when have you compared the 2 ? - thats the problem
I don't know of any blurays which have both DTS HD MA and Dolby TruHD on them
I don't need both formats on one disc to draw a comparison,my hearing is quite capable of concluding that as a format DTS HD Master Audio is a superior format IMO for whatever the reason.I don't care how they are recorded or if they are lossless or not or if they are mathematically identical or long lost twins.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
professorhat
Well-known member
Dalesman:I don't need both formats on one disc to draw a comparison,my hearing is quite capable of concluding that as a format DTS HD Master Audio is a superior format IMO for whatever the reason.I don't care how they are recorded or if they are lossless or not or if they are mathematically identical or long lost twins.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
Okay, to make it a bit clearer, take a look at the Blu-Ray for Predator 2 - it contains a DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack so according to your theory, it should sound amazing, but in fact it's lifeless and dull. Compare it with the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack of The Dark Knight and you are literally comparing night and day (apologies
). Or Blade Runner, another film with a superb soundtrack that just happens to be encoded with Dolby TrueHD.
Equally, take a stunning DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack, such as the one on Gladiator and compare it with a rubbish Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, such as Zombie Strippers (I know, dreadful film, but concentrate on the soundtrack and the codec used for now!).
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
Okay, to make it a bit clearer, take a look at the Blu-Ray for Predator 2 - it contains a DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack so according to your theory, it should sound amazing, but in fact it's lifeless and dull. Compare it with the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack of The Dark Knight and you are literally comparing night and day (apologies
Equally, take a stunning DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack, such as the one on Gladiator and compare it with a rubbish Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, such as Zombie Strippers (I know, dreadful film, but concentrate on the soundtrack and the codec used for now!).
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
professorhat:
Dalesman:I don't need both formats on one disc to draw a comparison,my hearing is quite capable of concluding that as a format DTS HD Master Audio is a superior format IMO for whatever the reason.I don't care how they are recorded or if they are lossless or not or if they are mathematically identical or long lost twins.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
Okay, to make it a bit clearer, take a look at the Blu-Ray for Predator 2 - it contains a DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack so according to your theory, it should sound amazing, but in fact it's lifeless and dull. Compare it with the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack of The Dark Knight and you are literally comparing night and day (apologies
). Or Blade Runner, another film with a superb soundtrack that just happens to be encoded with Dolby TrueHD.
Equally, take a stunning DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack, such as the one on Gladiator and compare it with a rubbish Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, such as Zombie Strippers (I know, dreadful film, but concentrate on the soundtrack and the codec used for now!).
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
I agree with the professor - although strictly speaking you don't mean 'examples of codecs' but rather examples of good source material and poor source material in which the codec cannot be blamed since it is a means of storing and reproducing the source material 100% faithfully.
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
Dalesman:I don't need both formats on one disc to draw a comparison,my hearing is quite capable of concluding that as a format DTS HD Master Audio is a superior format IMO for whatever the reason.I don't care how they are recorded or if they are lossless or not or if they are mathematically identical or long lost twins.
What matters to an ordinary consumer like me is not the scientific details but the end result.
Okay, to make it a bit clearer, take a look at the Blu-Ray for Predator 2 - it contains a DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack so according to your theory, it should sound amazing, but in fact it's lifeless and dull. Compare it with the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack of The Dark Knight and you are literally comparing night and day (apologies
Equally, take a stunning DTS HD Master Audio soundtrack, such as the one on Gladiator and compare it with a rubbish Dolby TrueHD soundtrack, such as Zombie Strippers (I know, dreadful film, but concentrate on the soundtrack and the codec used for now!).
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
I agree with the professor - although strictly speaking you don't mean 'examples of codecs' but rather examples of good source material and poor source material in which the codec cannot be blamed since it is a means of storing and reproducing the source material 100% faithfully.
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
Dalesman
Well-known member
professorhat:
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
Ok, agreed exceptions are there and good or bad recordings can appear in both formats. IMO one of the best soundtracks I came across was in the Band of Brothers box set which was again on DTS HD Master Audio. Aboulutely stunning.
What's clear is, there are fantastic examples of both codecs and very poor examples of both codecs - clearly the mix originally recorded in the studio is of far more importance than the codec used to compress it onto the Blu-Ray disc.
Ok, agreed exceptions are there and good or bad recordings can appear in both formats. IMO one of the best soundtracks I came across was in the Band of Brothers box set which was again on DTS HD Master Audio. Aboulutely stunning.
Dalesman
Well-known member
shreddy:
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Dalesman:shreddy:
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
shreddy:Dalesman:shreddy:
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
I remember reading somewhere a few months ago something from Sony who started off putting out discs with mainly PCM and TrueHD tracks but now mainly have DTS-MA tracks that their decision to swap was purely marketing. I wish I could dig out the quote but in essence the person interviewed said that the choice to move away from PCM was simple to save disc real estate but the differences between TrueHD and MA were non-existent and they swapped because the wider public perceived the MA to be higher quality and so they would use that on their discs to satisfy the public's desire for DTS-MA and insodoing raise the perceived value of the discs they release.
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
I remember reading somewhere a few months ago something from Sony who started off putting out discs with mainly PCM and TrueHD tracks but now mainly have DTS-MA tracks that their decision to swap was purely marketing. I wish I could dig out the quote but in essence the person interviewed said that the choice to move away from PCM was simple to save disc real estate but the differences between TrueHD and MA were non-existent and they swapped because the wider public perceived the MA to be higher quality and so they would use that on their discs to satisfy the public's desire for DTS-MA and insodoing raise the perceived value of the discs they release.
f1only
Well-known member
Mmm I agree with PH about both formats, but has anyone noticed that on Dolby HD audio that the centre channel is annoyingly quiet. I have found this on all dolby HD & DD, the rest of the channels are fine,. Every DD / HD film i watch i have to turn the centre channel up a couple of db & not just on my present A/V amp either, in the past i have owned Pioneer THX, Marantz & Technics A/V amps ( & different speakers ) & they all exhibit the same quiet centre channel even after using the amps MCACC or Audiology setup to get the right distances & a sound meter to set all the channels to the same audio level at my listening / viewing point. Am I doing something wrong? or is this just a niggle with Dolby?
Tom Moreno:shreddy:Dalesman:shreddy:
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
I remember reading somewhere a few months ago something from Sony who started off putting out discs with mainly PCM and TrueHD tracks but now mainly have DTS-MA tracks that their decision to swap was purely marketing. I wish I could dig out the quote but in essence the person interviewed said that the choice to move away from PCM was simple to save disc real estate but the differences between TrueHD and MA were non-existent and they swapped because the wider public perceived the MA to be higher quality and so they would use that on their discs to satisfy the public's desire for DTS-MA and insodoing raise the perceived value of the discs they release.
I think the main reason, reading between the lines was one of licensing costs DTS was much cheaper so most blurays contain DTS-HD Master Audio
What may be in question though is whether DTS HD Master Audio gets chosen more often to encode better sounding source material than Dolby True HD. This would then give the illusion that the DTS codec is itself responsible for a superior sound when it is not.
If Leonardo di caprio is starring in all A list productions then he must be a better actor.
Or he's just got a better agent! Ha.
Perhaps what we need is to ask why studios choose DTS more often then Dolby. It may be nothing to do with quality for all we know.
I remember reading somewhere a few months ago something from Sony who started off putting out discs with mainly PCM and TrueHD tracks but now mainly have DTS-MA tracks that their decision to swap was purely marketing. I wish I could dig out the quote but in essence the person interviewed said that the choice to move away from PCM was simple to save disc real estate but the differences between TrueHD and MA were non-existent and they swapped because the wider public perceived the MA to be higher quality and so they would use that on their discs to satisfy the public's desire for DTS-MA and insodoing raise the perceived value of the discs they release.
I think the main reason, reading between the lines was one of licensing costs DTS was much cheaper so most blurays contain DTS-HD Master Audio
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram