# TrueHD vs DTS-HD



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I'm assuming that because the are both lossless it's impossible to hear a difference? Has anyone noticed a difference or a trend with one over the other?

Anyone have a simple explanation as to why DTS is more prevalent?


----------



## typ44q (Apr 7, 2008)

They should be the same, I think you will find that any difference is going to be in how it is mixed.
DTS does seem more popular but I think it is just that they got more studios to use their system and not that it is actually any better but I could be wrong on that.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I've notice that DTS is more prevalent... Or at least it appears to be. I think your assumption is probably correct...


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

The bottom line here is probably DTS is cheaper to buy a license to use than Dolby so more studios use it.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

What made me ask, is that in Dale's review of Super 8 he made a comment to the effect that Dolby is doing everything it can to prove truehd is not an inferior codec.

Just made me wonder if that was a common perception...


----------



## typ44q (Apr 7, 2008)

It is interesting that with SD-DVD's Dolby Digital was much more common than DTS but DTS was usually considered superior because of the much higher bitrate. I wonder if that has had a lingering effect on how people view the new codecs even though they should both offer the same audio quality.


----------



## Thunderheader (Jan 25, 2009)

Both are great however to me I prefer DTS...DTS seems to be hotter.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Both are bit-for-bit identical to the encoding master. It's not possible for one to somehow be _more identical_ than the other.


----------



## 86eldel68-deactivated (Nov 30, 2010)

I recall reading somewhere a few years ago that DTS 5.1 was presumed to be better because it was "mixed louder" than DD 5.1. Not sure if that was actually the case...or if that was the case back then and is the (similar) case with DTS-HD MA vs. Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

Gives Thunderhead's impression legit support! ;-)


----------



## koyaan (Mar 2, 2010)

With SD DVDs I generally found the DTS mix to be stronger in the bass. I don't seem to have anything with both of the new codecs so I can't really compare them directly.


----------



## arclight (May 1, 2006)

From my understanding DTS is a more streamlined process on the encode side and simpler/cheaper all around to use and implement.

What truly surprises me is how little difference I hear with the full bit rate lossy versions vs lossless.


----------



## Savjac (Apr 17, 2008)

arclight said:


> From my understanding DTS is a more streamlined process on the encode side and simpler/cheaper all around to use and implement.
> 
> What truly surprises me is how little difference I hear with the full bit rate lossy versions vs lossless.


They are both equal in reality but it seems DTS logos sell better. 
As far as differences HD versions both DTS and Dolby the biggest difference is in clarity and huge dynamic range. Troy was a good example early on in that if one were to adjust for dialog then the action scenes would be quite loud...as it should be.


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

It's nearly impossible to compare the two because the paths between master and final track on disc are not guaranteed to be the same. In the past DTS tracks were more often mastered "for home use", which could mean a lot of things from a louder mix, re-EQ, more or less bass, etc. Dolby tracks were more often representative of the original master, but also not 100% of the time. But with all that going on, there's no point in trying to compare two lossless codecs based on what we get on releases. In theory they're lossless, so should be identical. The fact that we may hear differences just underscores the fact that we don't know what's going on between the original track and the DVD or BD tracks. Never assume the path to Dolby and DTS is the same, though.

My personal wish is that the industry become consistent. Either standardize the re-mastering for home use process and do it to everything (a little late for that now, though), tag the specific tracks as to the fact they are remastered or not, or don't bother remastering for the home at all and let all that happen in the AVR or pre/pro where we have tools calibrated to our specific listening conditions. I favor the last choice, but it aint up to me. Remastering for the home has made the whole re-EQ issue a total mess.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

jaddie said:


> It's nearly impossible to compare the two because the paths between master and final track on disc are not guaranteed to be the same. In the past DTS tracks were more often mastered "for home use", which could mean a lot of things from a louder mix, re-EQ, more or less bass, etc. Dolby tracks were more often representative of the original master, but also not 100% of the time.


That was true during the laserdisc era, when DTS did the "encoding" themselves. A few years later, studios got their DTS encoders, which meant that DTS tracks no longer had the elevated surrounds and goosed up LFE that would occur when DTS corporate used to do the encoding. DD tracks typically played back 4dB quieter due to their dialnorm feature, but that could be easily compensated for by simply turning up the volume 4dB. 

With the amount of time and money it costs to mix a soundtrack, studios don't have the luxury to create separate mixes for Dolby and DTS encoding. If movie studios can tweak the soundtrack to sound better at home, then they would encode both Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA tracks with the better sounding master; there would be no reason to encode only one of those codecs with the better mix. What would the studios gain by doing that? Since both codecs are lossless, down to the last bit, there is no difference in sound quality.


jaddie said:


> My personal wish is that the industry become consistent.


That's not likely to happen, because different movie studios have different approaches to home video. Some studios, like Disney and Lionsgate, remix some of their theatrical soundtracks, going so far as releasing discrete 7.1 versions of soundtracks that were 5.1 in theatres. Other studios, like Sony, remaster their theatrical soundtracks, where they merely re-equalize the audio for nearfield listening without actually remixing the track. And yet other studios, like Paramount, simply port the theatrical soundtrack to Blu-ray.


jaddie said:


> Remastering for the home has made the whole re-EQ issue a total mess.


It's not that bad. If I'm watching a movie and it sounds too bright, I turn on Re-EQ. If it sounds fine, then I don't. When the solution is a button push away, it's not a big problem; certainly not a "total mess".


----------



## jaddie (Jan 16, 2008)

Guess it depends on how sensitive you are to either no re-eq or double re-eq. Bugs me to distraction, might not bother others.


----------



## CoZZm0 (Jan 3, 2007)

One thing I like about DTS is that it always includes the 'core' track so it can play on any device. TrueHD doesnt always have an underlying DD track within.


----------



## SI.Theater (Feb 4, 2011)

eljay said:


> I recall reading somewhere a few years ago that DTS 5.1 was presumed to be better because it was "mixed louder" than DD 5.1. Not sure if that was actually the case...or if that was the case back then and is the (similar) case with DTS-HD MA vs. Dolby TrueHD.


I don't know if it's the movies or the format, but on my system DTS-HD MA movies do seem hotter than Dolby TrueHD.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

CoZZm0 said:


> One thing I like about DTS is that it always includes the 'core' track so it can play on any device. TrueHD doesnt always have an underlying DD track within.


Do you have an example of TrueHD track that doesn't have a DD companion track interleaved in the bitstream? I ask because the Blu-ray Disc spec requires a legacy DD or DTS track for backwards compatibility.


----------



## CoZZm0 (Jan 3, 2007)

I am basing this experience on my WDTV Live which i use for streaming. 

I have my HD-DVD and BluRay collection archived in MKV format on my media server. The WDTV Live cannot bitstream DTS-HD over HDMI (only DTS), but it can Bitstream TrueHD. However, when using the Optical output, the WDTV will only output DTS or DD5.1 tracks (obviously), it cannot output or down convert them internally. So when i play a DTS-HD track, i get a DTS track output always and when i convert a movie, i select only the DTS-HD track (although the DTS Core is separately selectable). When playing TrueHD track with optical output, i get no output at all. All discs must contain a legacy track, but for Dolby, this is often a separate track.

I remember researching this a while ago and came upon several posts such as this one from doom9 forums (can't post links yet) :

"THD doesn't always contain an AC3 core
DTS-HD DOES always contain a DTS core

So, if your THD does contain an AC3 core, you can extract this natively without any transcoding.

If your THD does NOT contain an AC3 core, you must decode the THD and re-encode to AC3 (presuming you want AC3 output, of course!)"


Cheers.


----------



## the_rookie (Sep 30, 2008)

Based on my reading, I knew a lot of AVRs in the SD Dvd era the DTS Codec decoder was sometimes optional, while almost always Dolby Digital was standard. Now days though DTS and Dolby Digital is pretty much on everything. And DTS HD-MA is also kinda the same way, some lower end AVRs I was looking at didn't support it, while the majority that I wanted supported TrueHD.

The reason DTS has always seemed hotter, or had more bass was because it sends full range signals to all channels its supported for in that mix regardless of the speakers capabilities, AVR capabilities, and the Players capabilities. While from what I read, the Dolby doesn't send full range audio to all channels, but just to the LFE.

"Work on the format started in 1991, four years after Dolby Labs started work on its new codec, Dolby Digital. The basic and most common version of the format is a 5.1-channel system, similar to a Dolby Digital setup, which encodes the audio as five primary (full-range) channels plus a special LFE (low-frequency effects) channel for the subwoofer."

"Other, newer DTS variants are also currently available, including versions that support up to seven primary audio channels plus one LFE channel (DTS-ES). These variants are generally based on DTS's core-and-extension philosophy, in which a core DTS data stream is augmented with an extension stream which includes the additional data necessary for the new variant in use. The core stream can be decoded by any DTS decoder, even if it does not understand the new variant. A decoder which does understand the new variant decodes the core stream, and then modifies it according to the instructions contained in the extension stream. This method allows backward compatibility."

-Courtesy of Wikipedia


----------



## primetimeguy (Jun 3, 2006)

Both have full range main channels, that is not why one is hotter. The reason is dolby formats include dial norm which can offset the volume a few db compared to dts, typically around 4db. And it all depends on how your receiver adjusts based on dial norm.


----------



## fokakis1 (Feb 29, 2012)

I have noticed a few differences. 

1) I usually have to turn the volume up a few db on TrueHd (about 4 db).
2) I usually turn the sub level up a few db on TrueHD (about 2db).
3) Bitrate readings for Dts-MA usually double that of TrueHD (20-25Mbps vs 10-12Mbps on average).

Even so, I've never heard a difference in quality, and I can't do an A/B test because my movies don't have both lossless tracks.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

fokakis1 said:


> Bitrate readings for Dts-MA usually double that of TrueHD (20-25Mbps vs 10-12Mbps on average).


Considering they're both 100% lossless, wouldn't double the bitrate mean that one of them is really inefficient at packing the data?


fokakis1 said:


> I can't do an A/B test because my movies don't have both lossless tracks.


I think 'Close Encounters' is the only BD I've seen with both lossless tracks (don't know why they would waste the space).


----------



## fokakis1 (Feb 29, 2012)

sdurani said:


> Considering they're both 100% lossless, wouldn't double the bitrate mean that one of them is really inefficient at packing the data?


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Jules Winnfield (Jul 8, 2012)

fokakis1 said:


> I have noticed a few differences.
> 
> 1) I usually have to turn the volume up a few db on TrueHd (about 4 db).
> 2) I usually turn the sub level up a few db on TrueHD (about 2db).
> ...


I can attest to your experience in #1. I always thought it was just my mind playing tricks on me.

I have never noticed the sub issue described in #2, but I'm gonna have to pay closer attention now that you've mentioned it.


----------



## Todd Anderson (Jul 24, 2009)

I wonder if one is more prone to authoring errors? I only bring that up because of the recent audio issues with the TrueHD audio on Total Recall (2012)....

One could have nothing to do with the other... but...:innocent:


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

typ44q said:


> they should be the same, i think you will find that any difference is going to be in how it is mixed.
> Dts does seem more popular but i think it is just that they got more studios to use their system and not that it is actually any better but i could be wrong on that.


i agree


----------



## BenniW (Mar 20, 2013)

Glad I found this thread!

I've been recently trying to work out what, if any difference there is between TrueHD and DTS-HD.

For whatever reason, TrueHD movies seem to sound really compressed and just harsh on my system, whereas DTS-HD sounds absolutely wonderful, really full and natural. DTS-HD gives me a well balanced seamless mix between my fronts and center, whereas TrueHD leaves me with what I can only describe as a broken up sound stage, with no blending of the 3 speakers.

After reading this thread I can only assume my AVR is just doing a terrible job of handling TrueHD.

My system isn't anything special:
Onkyo TX-NR579
Paradigm S.7 Monitor 11 (fronts)
Paradigm S.7 Center 1 (center)
Energy Point 1e (rears)
Sherwood SW-10 (sub)
Panasonic BMP-BDT220 (BluRay)

Not sure whether I'd be surprised or not if I discovered the Onkyo wasn't handling the signal well. It is a very low end model, though I'd hope they wouldn't attempt it if they can't pull it off properly. I would assume though, for economics, they'd use the same decoding processor/board for the majority of their units.

It's a bit of a head scratcher... and no way I can think of to definately prove one way or the other, unless anyone knows of a movie encoded with both formats from the same master/mix?

Do the higher end AVR models have TrueHD specific settings you can adjust?

Any help in satisfying my curiosity would be most appreciated.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

BenniW said:


> For whatever reason, TrueHD movies seem to sound really compressed and just harsh on my system, whereas DTS-HD sounds absolutely wonderful, really full and natural. DTS-HD gives me a well balanced seamless mix between my fronts and center, whereas TrueHD leaves me with what I can only describe as a broken up sound stage, with no blending of the 3 speakers.
> 
> It's a bit of a head scratcher... and no way I can think of to definately prove one way or the other, unless anyone knows of a movie encoded with both formats from the same master/mix?


Are you comparing two different movies, with two different sound mixes, and using that to judge lossless packing codecs? 

By that logic I could write a post describing how dynamic and enveloping TrueHD sounded when listening to _'Transformers'_ compared to how boring and front-heavy DTS-HD MA sounded on _'The Notebook'_.


----------



## BenniW (Mar 20, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Are you comparing two different movies, with two different sound mixes, and using that to judge lossless packing codecs?
> 
> By that logic I could write a post describing how dynamic and enveloping TrueHD sounded when listening to _'Transformers'_ compared to how boring and front-heavy DTS-HD MA sounded on _'The Notebook'_.


No, obviously not comparing different movies, that would be silly. It's more of an average I've noticed over a range of movies. I get the same impression, regardless of the genre. I've watched a selection of various genres over both formats, though admittedly much more DTS-HD as that seems to be the more popular one.
I have wondered if it was a mix thing, but then I'm sure more people would be commenting on the difference and their preference. From what I read people can't really tell the difference. Which is what leads me to think something is wrong at my end.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

BenniW said:


> No, obviously not comparing different movies, that would be silly.


Earlier you said _"unless anyone knows of a movie encoded with both formats from the same master/mix"_. 

If you were obviously not comparing different movies, then you were comparing TrueHD to DTS-HD MA on the same movie. Which one?


----------



## BenniW (Mar 20, 2013)

sdurani said:


> Earlier you said _"unless anyone knows of a movie encoded with both formats from the same master/mix"_.
> 
> If you were obviously not comparing different movies, then you were comparing TrueHD to DTS-HD MA on the same movie. Which one?


As previously stated:
"It's more of an average I've noticed over a range of movies. I get the same impression, regardless of the genre. I've watched a selection of various genres over both formats, though admittedly much more DTS-HD as that seems to be the more popular one."

I'm not aware of any movies released with the same format, but I don't presume there are none, hence asking the question.

Do you have any useful or interesting feedback, or would you just like to continue to pick apart my question?


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

BenniW said:


> I'm not aware of any movies released with the same format, but I don't presume there are none, hence asking the question.


Then you _are_ comparing different mixes from different movies (while simultaneously saying it would be "silly" to do so). You've invalidated your own comparison. Like comparing WinZip to RAR (both lossless) using different sources.


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

Kill Bill blu-ray has both.......they sound the same. ....the dolby digital in other languages are compressed so it sounded terrible compared to true hd & dts-ma


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

Yup, as I mentioned in post #24, _'Close Encounters'_ also has both. Like you said, they sound the same.


----------



## BenniW (Mar 20, 2013)

Sanjay, what don't you get about the concept of taking an average from various material? 
I'll explain. One might watch say 15 truehd movies and another 15 dtshd movies, both selections contain a variety of content from a wide range of genres. Even though the titles are not the same, is possible for the listener to identify traits of each format, should they be performing differently, which in my case, they seem to be.


Good to know about kill bill and close encounters, useful information. I'll try them out. Cheers.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

BenniW said:


> Sanjay, what don't you get about the concept of taking an average from various material?


What don't you understand about introducing multiple variables (different movies, different soundtracks, different mixes, different mastering) to a comparison and then drawing conclusions about one variable (different codecs)? If you're going to make a claim about comparing codecs, then all other things have to be equal, otherwise you're comparing more than codecs.


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

Spiderman 3 BLU-RAY has Dolby Truehd and lpcm that comes thru my receiver as DTS u can switch thru them they sound the same


----------



## CoZZm0 (Jan 3, 2007)

Check your settings in your bluray player. It might not be set to BITSTREAM the audio outputs.


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

It is all my blu-ray lcpm tracks show as DTS on my receiver...have it set at bitstream thru digital optical cable from ps3


----------



## CoZZm0 (Jan 3, 2007)

Stab in the dark here, the PS3 is transcoding to DTS because it doesn't or can't handle LPCM over Optical. Perhaps someone with a PS3 can confirm that, because really, if its LPCM, and its really bitstreaming, it should be showing up as LPCM on your receiver. 

Also you'll never get an HD Audio steam via an Optical connection. Any HD Audio streams will be either transcoded to DD5.1 (if no core exists) or for DTS HD audio streams the DTS Core will be what is being sent via the Optical cable.


----------



## hyghwayman (Jan 15, 2008)

For SD DD and DTS I always prefered DTS and even made some of my buying decisions based on which was used. Now, with HD I don't care so much but probably just like seeing DTS HD displayed on my receiver because that is the first thing I still look at when I pick up a movie case/disc


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

Don't forget that LPCM over S/PDIF (optical or coax) is limited to two audio channels, although potentially with matrixed 4 channel surround sound. 

If you want 5.1 discrete channels of surround sound through S/PDIF, you have to bitstream the audio, not decode it in the player. (Although some BD players can re-encode into DD 5.1 for S/PDIF, which often is used when audio mix of directors' commentary is enabled.)

S/PDIF also is limited to lossy DD and DTS for discrete multichannel audio. To get lossless surround sound with discrete channels, you have to use HDMI or multichannel analog connections.


----------



## asere (Dec 7, 2011)

tonyvdb said:


> The bottom line here is probably DTS is cheaper to buy a license to use than Dolby so more studios use it.


Interesting. I always thought DTS was superior than Dolby.


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

PS3,-optical -on bitstream......lpcm comes out as DTS ON MY ONKYO TX-NR509


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

DA DREAD said:


> PS3,-optical -on bitstream......lpcm comes out as DTS ON MY ONKYO TX-NR509


"Bitstream" means "stream the bits unchanged from the disc to the output."
If it's converting lossless LPCM into lossy DTS, that's obviously not bitstreaming.  

In this case, the term "bitstream" for multichannel LPCM could apply only to the signal provided on its HDMI output, not on its S/PDIF output. Presumably there's a separate setting in your PS3 which tells it how to re-encode multichannel audio when using its S/PDIF output. Or it could just be the default.


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

asere said:


> Interesting. I always thought DTS was superior than Dolby.


Apparently many people mistakenly thought the higher bitrate of DTS meant that it was using a less-damaging lossy encoding method than Dolby was using, and this was reinforced by it being decoded with a higher sound level: slightly louder audio sounds "better". Of course, this then passed into audio folklore without all the qualifiers being mentioned.


----------



## sdurani (Oct 28, 2010)

selden said:


> Apparently many people mistakenly thought the higher bitrate of DTS meant that it was using a less-damaging lossy encoding method than Dolby was using, and this was reinforced by it being decoded with a higher sound level: slightly louder audio sounds "better". Of course, this then passed into audio folklore without all the qualifiers being mentioned.


Indeed, a few (very few) people thought that the higher bitrate of DTS meant that it using a more inefficient lossy encoding method than Dolby was using. 

The audio folklore ended up giving DTS something that no codec has ever had: a fan base. For an audio compression codec, of all things. 

Amusingly, this didn't subside when lossless codecs were introduced, as fans continued to believe that DTS-HD MA sounded better than Dolby TrueHD (it's "more identical") and LPCM (better than the original).


----------



## DA DREAD (Jul 12, 2012)

Seldon......thanks for your help


----------



## selden (Nov 15, 2009)

You're very welcome, for what little assistance there was!


----------



## hyghwayman (Jan 15, 2008)

I saw this pop up on Twitter earlier today :sad:my condolences to the family.


> *SVS* ‏@*SVSSoundExperts*
> Ray Dolby, a true audio industry visionary and founder of Dolby Laboratories, died today. RIP


----------



## GeorgioDavid (Aug 17, 2013)

RIP


----------

