no contest right ? well i think ive got something set up wrong then , i was checking out the dark night , casino royale .. last night , true hd and dd respectively , and i also spun , the forbidden kingdom and avatar , both dts ma , what i found strange , is that i had to turn up the volume much more whilst watching the latter dts pair , than with the first two , to get similar sound , and i still felt the dark knight sounded best of all .. is this anyone elses experience also ??
dts master audio v dolby true hd , dolby digital...
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Are you equating loudness with sound quality?!
I find that regular DD and DTS 5.1 are often louder than the HD codecs; but when you push the volume up the former become harsh and compressed (not surprising) whereas the HD codecs sound more natural and can withstand closer (louder) scrutiny.
As for the Dark Knight, its DTrueHD soundtrack is a real beauty. I think the mastering has more to do with the quality than the choice of codec since DTSHDMA and DDTHD are both faithful to the master used.
Check out the Lord of the Rings blurays for a cracking DTSHDMA track.
I find that regular DD and DTS 5.1 are often louder than the HD codecs; but when you push the volume up the former become harsh and compressed (not surprising) whereas the HD codecs sound more natural and can withstand closer (louder) scrutiny.
As for the Dark Knight, its DTrueHD soundtrack is a real beauty. I think the mastering has more to do with the quality than the choice of codec since DTSHDMA and DDTHD are both faithful to the master used.
Check out the Lord of the Rings blurays for a cracking DTSHDMA track.
That is a bit unusual, as to my knowledge the opposite should have been true. True HD and DTS HD MA should both technically sound the same quality and obviously better than standard Dolby Digital due to the latter being lossy and the former formats being lossless. However, to my knowledge, you should have to turn up the True HD tracks if anything rather than the DTS tracks as Dolby tends to mix their tracks quieter than DTS does, and use volume normalization more, which levels out the volume, meaning that you usually have to turn up True HD tracks to get them to sound the same; I have to do this on discs like Terminator 3 on BD. Usually for a DTS track, with my new Q Acoustics, I don't tend to go above '38' volume, but for True HD that's usually about 41-42. This is also apparently why many people think that DTS sounds better, when it is often just louder, though I must admit I far prefer DTS over True HD for that reason.
That said, The Dark Knight does have a good True HD mix with very active bass, which may explain why you liked that best.
Could it perhaps be that the DTS tracks are getting down converted to standard DTS rather than HD MA by your system if it can't decode the MA track? Otherwise, I'm not sure, but hope that helped it offering some explanation...
That said, The Dark Knight does have a good True HD mix with very active bass, which may explain why you liked that best.
Could it perhaps be that the DTS tracks are getting down converted to standard DTS rather than HD MA by your system if it can't decode the MA track? Otherwise, I'm not sure, but hope that helped it offering some explanation...
f1only
Well-known member
DTS vs DD
DTS is a much better quality over DD, the file sizes are usually at least double that of DD sometimes 3 times the size on a DVD meaning more information on the disc.
Having said that though i have not had the chance as yet to compare the 2 in the HD format. I'll get around to it one day.
DTS is a much better quality over DD, the file sizes are usually at least double that of DD sometimes 3 times the size on a DVD meaning more information on the disc.
Having said that though i have not had the chance as yet to compare the 2 in the HD format. I'll get around to it one day.
guys thanks for the replies , ive just not been turning the volume up high enough with the lossless hd soundtracks , ive just been listening to avatar and the forbidden kingdom , and on higher volumes the sound is very good , and does sound clearer as said above
f1only
Well-known member
For DTS HD looking at the website http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_Master_Audio.aspx
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
it appears that Dolby Digital HD has the upper hand on the sound front regarding bit rate & quality.
Hope that sorts out any arguments.
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
it appears that Dolby Digital HD has the upper hand on the sound front regarding bit rate & quality.
Hope that sorts out any arguments.
f1only:
For DTS HD looking at the website http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_Master_Audio.aspx
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
it appears that Dolby Digital HD has the upper hand on the sound front regarding bit rate & quality.
Hope that sorts out any arguments.
Im sorry but thats wrong (And im really not sure what you were pointing to in your links)
Both formats are lossy (Compressed, but once uncompressed should be exactly the same as a true uncompressed PCM soundtrack)
The only one that has an advantage is that DTS will allow a higher bitrate (But I dont know of any discs that actually reach that high)
Dolby TrueHD:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Compressed Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96, 192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 18.4 Mbit/s
?Dolby TrueHD is a "lossless" compression codec. It is compressed to take up less disc space than a PCM track, but once decoded it is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master at either 16-bit or 24-bit resolution (at the discretion of the studio) and a bit rate up to a maximum of 18.4 Mbps.?
DTS-HD Master Audio:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96,192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 24.5 Mbit/s
DTS-HD MA (previously known as DTS++) is a lossless audio codec similar to Dolby TrueHD. Like Dolby TrueHD, a disc encoded with DTS-HD MA delivers ALL of the information from the original master recording - bit-for-bit. The difference between the two is that DTS-HD MA uses a core+extension configuration. A DTS-HD MA track takes up more disc space than a TrueHD track, but does not require a secondary standard track for backwards compatibility. Since both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD are lossless, they are both 100% identical in quality to the studio master, and hence identical in quality to each other (lossless 24-bit/192 kHz).
For DTS HD looking at the website http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_Master_Audio.aspx
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
it appears that Dolby Digital HD has the upper hand on the sound front regarding bit rate & quality.
Hope that sorts out any arguments.
Im sorry but thats wrong (And im really not sure what you were pointing to in your links)
Both formats are lossy (Compressed, but once uncompressed should be exactly the same as a true uncompressed PCM soundtrack)
The only one that has an advantage is that DTS will allow a higher bitrate (But I dont know of any discs that actually reach that high)
Dolby TrueHD:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Compressed Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96, 192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 18.4 Mbit/s
?Dolby TrueHD is a "lossless" compression codec. It is compressed to take up less disc space than a PCM track, but once decoded it is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master at either 16-bit or 24-bit resolution (at the discretion of the studio) and a bit rate up to a maximum of 18.4 Mbps.?
DTS-HD Master Audio:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96,192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 24.5 Mbit/s
DTS-HD MA (previously known as DTS++) is a lossless audio codec similar to Dolby TrueHD. Like Dolby TrueHD, a disc encoded with DTS-HD MA delivers ALL of the information from the original master recording - bit-for-bit. The difference between the two is that DTS-HD MA uses a core+extension configuration. A DTS-HD MA track takes up more disc space than a TrueHD track, but does not require a secondary standard track for backwards compatibility. Since both DTS-HD MA and TrueHD are lossless, they are both 100% identical in quality to the studio master, and hence identical in quality to each other (lossless 24-bit/192 kHz).
f1only
Well-known member
I was pointing to an explanation of the sound which was in some part of the main question. The 2 websites go some way to explaining. As i had said in a previous post though i had not checked as yet on file size for the 2 HD audio formats in question.
Thankyou for your explanation of it though appreciated..
Thankyou for your explanation of it though appreciated..
I've not been able to compare like for like the HD sound formats - most of the discs I own use either one or the other.
I will say however that I've been more impressed with the DTS-HD MA soundtracks. They just seem to sound more dynamic.
I've also noted that most of the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks I've encountered have had quite badly balanced dialogue, I've had to turn the volume up quite high in order to be able to actually make out what is being said. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the codec, rather the sound mixer, but it does seem to primarily happen with Dolby HD soundtracks.
I will say however that I've been more impressed with the DTS-HD MA soundtracks. They just seem to sound more dynamic.
I've also noted that most of the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks I've encountered have had quite badly balanced dialogue, I've had to turn the volume up quite high in order to be able to actually make out what is being said. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the codec, rather the sound mixer, but it does seem to primarily happen with Dolby HD soundtracks.
The HD codecs are lossless not lossy, as in once uncompressed they should be exactly the same as the original sound, which is not the case for standard DD and DTS, (which lose some information and are thus lossy).
For HD codecs the bit rate isn't relevant as what went in is what will come out, (like a ZIP file). In fact since the same comes out it could be argued that the lower bit rate is better, as the compression is more efficient.
For standard DD and DTS the bit rate is relevant as the higher the bit rate the less information has been lost. DTS definitely wins here but some people still find DD better to listen to. I myself can often hear extra info in the DTS mix, but then find it too bass-biassed.
The HD codecs and the original PCM soundtrack should sound the same in theory, but I think the actual act of decompressing may have some impact, and I'm also not 100% if any sound mixing is done on the original prior to compression which make make either sound different.
For HD codecs the bit rate isn't relevant as what went in is what will come out, (like a ZIP file). In fact since the same comes out it could be argued that the lower bit rate is better, as the compression is more efficient.
For standard DD and DTS the bit rate is relevant as the higher the bit rate the less information has been lost. DTS definitely wins here but some people still find DD better to listen to. I myself can often hear extra info in the DTS mix, but then find it too bass-biassed.
The HD codecs and the original PCM soundtrack should sound the same in theory, but I think the actual act of decompressing may have some impact, and I'm also not 100% if any sound mixing is done on the original prior to compression which make make either sound different.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
maxflinn:no contest right ? well i think ive got something set up wrong then , i was checking out the dark night , casino royale .. last night , true hd and dd respectively , and i also spun , the forbidden kingdom and avatar , both dts ma , what i found strange , is that i had to turn up the volume much more whilst watching the latter dts pair , than with the first two , to get similar sound , and i still felt the dark knight sounded best of all .. is this anyone elses experience also ??
As you've already found out, the HD codecs have a lower audio level, but I've always equated this to CD's where the overall evel is quieter, which leaves plenty of room for dynamics - louder albums tend to be quite flat, having very little in the way of dynamics, because the headroom just isn't there. Maybe this isn't the case, but that's how I've always thought of it.
DTS-MA soundtracks tend to sound fuller than True HD ones, having a stronger bass - a little like the old DTS vs DD contest of old. Although DTS-MA does or can use higher bit rates, there are some cracking True HD encoded movies out there. After getting over the initial period of using The Dark Knight as THE demo disc in AV demos, I soon found it was far from the best sounding disc out there, particularly the opening bank robbing scene - this sounds great on dedicated home theatre speakers packages, but far too bass heavy on normal hi-fi speaker packages.
As you've already found out, the HD codecs have a lower audio level, but I've always equated this to CD's where the overall evel is quieter, which leaves plenty of room for dynamics - louder albums tend to be quite flat, having very little in the way of dynamics, because the headroom just isn't there. Maybe this isn't the case, but that's how I've always thought of it.
DTS-MA soundtracks tend to sound fuller than True HD ones, having a stronger bass - a little like the old DTS vs DD contest of old. Although DTS-MA does or can use higher bit rates, there are some cracking True HD encoded movies out there. After getting over the initial period of using The Dark Knight as THE demo disc in AV demos, I soon found it was far from the best sounding disc out there, particularly the opening bank robbing scene - this sounds great on dedicated home theatre speakers packages, but far too bass heavy on normal hi-fi speaker packages.
interesting views david , i do enjoy the dark knight , but find it hard to set a volume thats suitable for watching the whole movie , the gunshots in the opening scenes are brutal , very loud , ok if one has a detached house i guess thats fine , but i find myself reaching for the remote ..
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha , get a similar crisp , bassy sound without the windows nearly breaking when things hot up , i guess its a learning curve ..
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha , get a similar crisp , bassy sound without the windows nearly breaking when things hot up , i guess its a learning curve ..
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Yeah, it is a pain with some films which have you reaching for the volume control! But you've got to love those dynamics
maxflinn:
interesting views david , i do enjoy the dark knight , but find it hard to set a volume thats suitable for watching the whole movie , the gunshots in the opening scenes are brutal , very loud , ok if one has a detached house i guess thats fine , but i find myself reaching for the remote ..
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha , get a similar crisp , bassy sound without the windows nearly breaking when things hot up , i guess its a learning curve ..
I totally agree with you on that one, I am always using the remote, up - down - up again - down again, but like David said "you got to love them dynamics" like when I first brought my first BLU RAY it was mastered by Disney and there opening chapter with the castle and the fireworks, well I never jumped out of my seat so high in my life.
interesting views david , i do enjoy the dark knight , but find it hard to set a volume thats suitable for watching the whole movie , the gunshots in the opening scenes are brutal , very loud , ok if one has a detached house i guess thats fine , but i find myself reaching for the remote ..
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha , get a similar crisp , bassy sound without the windows nearly breaking when things hot up , i guess its a learning curve ..
I totally agree with you on that one, I am always using the remote, up - down - up again - down again, but like David said "you got to love them dynamics" like when I first brought my first BLU RAY it was mastered by Disney and there opening chapter with the castle and the fireworks, well I never jumped out of my seat so high in my life.
f1only
Well-known member
aliEnRIK:f1only:
For DTS HD looking at the website http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_Master_Audio.aspx
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
Im sorry but thats wrong (And im really not sure what you were pointing to in your links)
Both formats are lossy (Compressed, but once uncompressed should be exactly the same as a true uncompressed PCM soundtrack)
The only one that has an advantage is that DTS will allow a higher bitrate (But I dont know of any discs that actually reach that high)
Dolby TrueHD:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Compressed Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96, 192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 18.4 Mbit/s
??
DTS-HD Master Audio:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96,192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 24.5 Mbit/s
Dolby TrueHD has the possible number of channels as (14) presently up to 8 on Blu-Ray. Quantity over quality? Maybe
If you did not understand the links peviously posted, there is fact sheets on the DTS website, a white paper DTS-HD pdf found on the right side of the webpage in RELATED SOURCES & on the Dolby page at the bottom after a summary there is a link to find out more about the format. I inserted the 2 home page links so readers could get a better understanding of the 2 formats. Some of this you appear to have used in your reply, so you understood it in part anyway.
So to me it looks like if you want more channels ( but possibly slightly less quality ) Dolby is the way to go? Or you prefer DTS-HD MA ( I do ) which has possible better bit rate per channel
DTS-HD MA on my amp / set up is great no problems & stays pretty constant on audio, where as Dolby TrueHD the audio always seems to fluctuate, as said by others on the forum, gets you jumping for the remote.
For DTS HD looking at the website http://www.dts.com/DTS_Audio_Formats/DTS-HD_Master_Audio.aspx
& comparing it with Dolby Digitals website http://www.dolby.co.uk/consumer/understand/playback/dolby-truehd-details.html
Im sorry but thats wrong (And im really not sure what you were pointing to in your links)
Both formats are lossy (Compressed, but once uncompressed should be exactly the same as a true uncompressed PCM soundtrack)
The only one that has an advantage is that DTS will allow a higher bitrate (But I dont know of any discs that actually reach that high)
Dolby TrueHD:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Compressed Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96, 192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 18.4 Mbit/s
??
DTS-HD Master Audio:
OPTIONAL support on BD players
Lossless encoding
Supports up to 8 channels of discrete audio
Sample rates: 48, 96,192 kHz
Bit Depth: 16, 20, 24 bit
Constant bit rate of up to 24.5 Mbit/s
Dolby TrueHD has the possible number of channels as (14) presently up to 8 on Blu-Ray. Quantity over quality? Maybe
If you did not understand the links peviously posted, there is fact sheets on the DTS website, a white paper DTS-HD pdf found on the right side of the webpage in RELATED SOURCES & on the Dolby page at the bottom after a summary there is a link to find out more about the format. I inserted the 2 home page links so readers could get a better understanding of the 2 formats. Some of this you appear to have used in your reply, so you understood it in part anyway.
So to me it looks like if you want more channels ( but possibly slightly less quality ) Dolby is the way to go? Or you prefer DTS-HD MA ( I do ) which has possible better bit rate per channel
DTS-HD MA on my amp / set up is great no problems & stays pretty constant on audio, where as Dolby TrueHD the audio always seems to fluctuate, as said by others on the forum, gets you jumping for the remote.
Technically -Both Dolby Tru & DTS-Master are a lossless codec and they are far more superior to those old school lossy codec - Dolby Digital & DTS , but in the end and to what u might be hearing , it all realy depend on the sound design of the track and those people who's seating behind the mixer.
maxflinn:
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha.
Wow that's loud!! I have the Yamaha AX763 and most of the time my volume is set at -24, my Kef 200.5 three front speakers are set on +9db, rears +4db and the sub on 0db. The volume is set on full on the sub. And even then I have to reach for the remote!
i can however watch avatar on the -10 setting on my yamaha.
Wow that's loud!! I have the Yamaha AX763 and most of the time my volume is set at -24, my Kef 200.5 three front speakers are set on +9db, rears +4db and the sub on 0db. The volume is set on full on the sub. And even then I have to reach for the remote!
f1only:
Dolby TrueHD has the possible number of channels as (14) presently up to 8 on Blu-Ray. Quantity over quality? Maybe
If you did not understand the links peviously posted, there is fact sheets on the DTS website, a white paper DTS-HD pdf found on the right side of the webpage in RELATED SOURCES & on the Dolby page at the bottom after a summary there is a link to find out more about the format. I inserted the 2 home page links so readers could get a better understanding of the 2 formats. Some of this you appear to have used in your reply, so you understood it in part anyway.
So to me it looks like if you want more channels ( but possibly slightly less quality ) Dolby is the way to go? Or you prefer DTS-HD MA ( I do ) which has possible better bit rate per channel
DTS-HD MA on my amp / set up is great no problems & stays pretty constant on audio, where as Dolby TrueHD the audio always seems to fluctuate, as said by others on the forum, gets you jumping for the remote.
So 'what' dont I understand?
Can you please post a direct link to how you claim dolby has more channels? (And how does the number of channels affect quality?)
Dolby TrueHD has the possible number of channels as (14) presently up to 8 on Blu-Ray. Quantity over quality? Maybe
If you did not understand the links peviously posted, there is fact sheets on the DTS website, a white paper DTS-HD pdf found on the right side of the webpage in RELATED SOURCES & on the Dolby page at the bottom after a summary there is a link to find out more about the format. I inserted the 2 home page links so readers could get a better understanding of the 2 formats. Some of this you appear to have used in your reply, so you understood it in part anyway.
So to me it looks like if you want more channels ( but possibly slightly less quality ) Dolby is the way to go? Or you prefer DTS-HD MA ( I do ) which has possible better bit rate per channel
DTS-HD MA on my amp / set up is great no problems & stays pretty constant on audio, where as Dolby TrueHD the audio always seems to fluctuate, as said by others on the forum, gets you jumping for the remote.
So 'what' dont I understand?
Can you please post a direct link to how you claim dolby has more channels? (And how does the number of channels affect quality?)
f1only
Well-known member
http://www.dolby.co.uk/professional/technology/home-theater/dolby-truehd.html
Thats the link, but as i stated in my previous post it says up to 14 channels, with 8 channels for blu-ray playback.
The quality of Dolby TrueHD is supposed to be the same as DTS-HD MA 100 percent lossless technology. As you so rightly said in your earlier post that DTS-HD MA also has 100 percent lossless technology, so by rights they should be very similar or the same.
The point i was putting forward was, what appeared to be the advantage / disadvantage of the extra possible channels that Dolby TrueHD has available.
Regards...
Thats the link, but as i stated in my previous post it says up to 14 channels, with 8 channels for blu-ray playback.
The quality of Dolby TrueHD is supposed to be the same as DTS-HD MA 100 percent lossless technology. As you so rightly said in your earlier post that DTS-HD MA also has 100 percent lossless technology, so by rights they should be very similar or the same.
The point i was putting forward was, what appeared to be the advantage / disadvantage of the extra possible channels that Dolby TrueHD has available.
Regards...
Rocky How is it you have your setting so high? What kind of room do you have, as my amp sets the amp at -12db with volume at 12o clock, and the fronts are at around -2.5, and so the rears, no wonder you can't play at refernce levels.
For the Rest, I would refrain to talk about statistics, the sound of the 3 Losless audio formats (LPCM, DTS and Dolby), is in many ways different not in the content (which is all the same) but in loudness, mix and it really depends on the processing. for example on the old ps3 the LPCM sounded best as it required no procssing on the PS3 which gave a quite light and bright sound, So it is mainly a matter of tastes, some prefer it louder some do not. I like the DTS HD mostly because it is punchier, and it is backwards compatable withe True HD is not, with my older amp (which had no HD audio) I could still get the core 1.5Mbps audio which was far better then standard DD or DTS.
For the Rest, I would refrain to talk about statistics, the sound of the 3 Losless audio formats (LPCM, DTS and Dolby), is in many ways different not in the content (which is all the same) but in loudness, mix and it really depends on the processing. for example on the old ps3 the LPCM sounded best as it required no procssing on the PS3 which gave a quite light and bright sound, So it is mainly a matter of tastes, some prefer it louder some do not. I like the DTS HD mostly because it is punchier, and it is backwards compatable withe True HD is not, with my older amp (which had no HD audio) I could still get the core 1.5Mbps audio which was far better then standard DD or DTS.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
The Audio Cable Fraud (With Ethan Winer)
- Started by ToppingSMSL
- Replies: 5
-
Is hi-fi really getting better? Our technical editor ponders its progression- Started by What Hi-Fi?
- Replies: 16
-
-
-
-
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Suggestions for foundational parts of a longer term vinyl setup- Latest: Fandango Andy
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram