# DTS-HD Master Audio vs Dolby TrueHD



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Yeah, its kinda depressing. I actually prefer dolby over dts, but looking at new releases most all are dts.


----------



## spartanstew (May 7, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*



TypeA said:


> Yeah, its kinda depressing. I actually prefer dolby over dts, but looking at new releases most all are dts.


Ditto.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

I'm personally in the DTS camp. I think it's the dialog normalization that has bothered me about dolby. The DTS just sounds more raw and aggressive IMO of course.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

Let me clarify: there seems to be about a 3-db difference between the two and the dialnorm seems to be a bit more restrictive on the Dolby.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

I think thats why, dts always seems _overly_ aggressive and out of control. My Infinity/Hsu system is much more dynamic and powerful than my old Bose 901 VCS10 and 301 'system' (which always seemed to sound better fed dts), so I guess you should take my dolby preferences with a grain of salt.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

Not at all, there are some great Dolby TrueHD transfers such as Kung Fu Panda and Transformers, both of which are very aggressive and are often test material for me. :bigsmile:


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*



TypeA said:


> I think thats why, dts always seems _overly_ aggressive and out of control. My Infinity/Hsu system is much more dynamic and powerful than my old Bose 901 VCS10 and 301 'system' (which always seemed to sound better fed dts), so I guess you should take my dolby preferences with a grain of salt.


No, this makes sense, and I can understand your sentiments from the way many DTS tracks have been encoded and subsequently recorded on varying formats -- the DTS track on the War of the Worlds DVD, for example, is often times considered by many professionals and enthusiasts alike to be "too hot" and "overcooked" as the LFE track on that disc shakes most subs into the ground with varying degrees of loose, sometimes sloppy low end. It's often described as the "out of control" effect you mention above -- but the overall experience of DTS tracks I prefer over Dolby Digital counterparts.


----------



## merc (Oct 3, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

My goodness, i am so lost in this thread, but so intrigued as my best DVD player is currently using a 7.1 analog audio chain?
Is it worth upgrading my Krell to their next unit in order to enjoy the benefits of Blu-Ray audio???

How does the best digital "lossless" compressed audio on Blu-Rays compare to older ones on equivalent DVDs?


----------



## merc (Oct 3, 2009)

*Re: Is It My Imagination...*

When you say lossless, are we talking analog 7.1 output or some sort of promised digital output externally processed algorithm?


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

I am starting this thread in order to move recent discussions that have taken over another thread.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

I think this thread is hilarious:rofl:

Does anyone realize that both of these codecs are lossless, and produce results that are identical to the studio master? Neither of these codecs will produce better results than the other. This is not lossy Dts and Dolby digital, these are lossless compression codecs designed to save space on the disc, but preserve all of the information on the master. If you are hearing any differences between them, it is likely something happening somewhere in your signal chain, but not at the codec stage.


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Its a difference in processing, DTS is different than Dolby, some rigs make it more obvious than others tho...


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

TypeA said:


> Its a difference in processing, DTS is different than Dolby, some rigs make it more obvious than others tho...


If they are both bit for bit identical to the master, then how it gets there is irrelevant. When dialog norm is not used on TrueHD, they both will yield exactly the same sonic results. The difference in processing is irrelevant. 

If anyone hears any differences between the two codecs, it is because they WANT to hear a difference(placebo comes to mind).


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

Sir Terrence said:


> If they are both bit for bit identical to the master, then how it gets there is irrelevant. When dialog norm is not used on TrueHD, they both will yield exactly the same sonic results. The difference in processing is irrelevant.
> 
> If anyone hears any differences between the two codecs, it is because they WANT to hear a difference(placebo comes to mind).


Interesting point Terrence. Do you know of a TrueHD movie that does not use Dialog Normalization? I don't recall one but would love to hear one for reference.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

dsr7997 said:


> Interesting point Terrence. Do you know of a TrueHD movie that does not use Dialog Normalization? I don't recall one but would love to hear one for reference.


Since all of my systems convert the codecs to PCM in player, it does not list the dialog offset when the flag is detected. This is probably because all of the metadata gets processed during conversion, and is basically stripped away from the transcoded PCM track.


----------



## Dale Rasco (Apr 11, 2009)

Ah, that makes sense. I decode at the receiver, but I guess as a test I could decode on the Panny and that should yield the desired results. Seems like something to do on a Monday evening before the Texans get slaughtered on ESPN. :rolleyesno:


----------



## TypeA (Aug 14, 2010)

Sir Terrence said:


> If anyone hears any differences between the two codecs, it is because they WANT to hear a difference(placebo comes to mind).


Ill try to remember this 'placebo effect' the next time my subs rattle the pictures off the wall for some innocuous event on screen.

Do you have links to the dts deal? Not doubting you, just curious to read more.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

TypeA said:


> Ill try to remember this 'placebo effect' the next time my subs rattle the pictures off the wall for some innocuous event on screen.
> 
> Do you have links to the dts deal? Not doubting you, just curious to read more.


These kinds of deals are not for public consumption. I know because I work for a major Hollywood studio in their post production department. I also have friends who work in post production departments and facilities all over Hollywood, and we talk amongst ourselves quite a bit. 

The loudness of the LFE is absolutely no indication of audio quality. Remember, you have 8 other octaves that must be encoded as well, and those octaves land more towards the increased sensitivity of our ears than what comes out of a LFE channel.


----------



## taoggniklat (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't care as long as it sounds good. 

But I guess if I had to choose, I will choose DTS first. But I guess that might be because of emotional attachment...I used to work for a company that developed one of the first add-on DTS Decoders.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

taoggniklat said:


> I don't care as long as it sounds good.
> 
> But I guess if I had to choose, I will choose DTS first. But I guess that might be because of emotional attachment...I used to work for a company that developed one of the first add-on DTS Decoders.


I've always chosen a DTS track over a Dolby Digital variant when they're available on the same disc...i.e. Sony's Superbits, some other random Universal titles...


----------



## Cory Phoenix (Nov 7, 2010)

I agree with the posters that believe a lossless codec is a lossless codec. In theory, the information being sent to your audio processor should be the unaltered, uncompressed studio master regardless of the "packaging." 

I believe that If you seem to prefer one codec over the other, what you're actually preferring is the mix created by the sound studio rather than the vehicle used to get the audio from the disk to your speakers. It makes more sense to prefer sound studios rather than lossless codecs. 

All that being said, I also agree with whoever posted that DTS-HDMA tracks tend to be mixed about 3-4db louder, and the LFEs appear to be a little hotter....same info, just mixed/delivered a little differently....


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

codog said:


> I agree with the posters that believe a lossless codec is a lossless codec. In theory, the information being sent to your audio processor should be the unaltered, uncompressed studio master regardless of the "packaging."
> 
> I believe that If you seem to prefer one codec over the other, what you're actually preferring is the mix created by the sound studio rather than the vehicle used to get the audio from the disk to your speakers. It makes more sense to prefer sound studios rather than lossless codecs.
> 
> All that being said, I also agree with whoever posted that DTS-HDMA tracks tend to be mixed about 3-4db louder, and the LFEs appear to be a little hotter....same info, just mixed/delivered a little differently....


Actually Dts is not mixed hotter as we don't mix for each codec. The dialog norm usage on Dolby digital(and TrueHD) encodes lowers the volume 3-4db when compared to a Dts track(depending on the value inputted to the encoder). If you compared each track absent of Dialog norm, they would playback at the same volume. One of the best examples of this is on the Twister DVD which has both lossy codecs sans dialog norm on the Dolby Digital tracks. If you compared the Dts track directly to the master, you will find their volume is identical. 

As far as the LFE being hotter, that can be the case. However, one has to look at the effect of having a 225 degree phase lag between the bass in the main channels, and from the LFE on Dolby Digital encodes. The interaction could possibly lower the overall bass levels when bass management is used. It certainly does make the bass sound boomy and less distinct when compared to the master.


----------



## Cory Phoenix (Nov 7, 2010)

Sir Terrence said:


> Actually Dts is not mixed hotter as we don't mix for each codec. The dialog norm usage on Dolby digital(and TrueHD) encodes lowers the volume 3-4db when compared to a Dts track(depending on the value inputted to the encoder). If you compared each track absent of Dialog norm, they would playback at the same volume. One of the best examples of this is on the Twister DVD which has both lossy codecs sans dialog norm on the Dolby Digital tracks. If you compared the Dts track directly to the master, you will find their volume is identical.


I stand corrected. This sounds like a very logical explanation for any volume difference I seem to experience.


----------



## sakuma (Nov 6, 2010)

how come in the credits of the movies it says dolby digital yet we get DTS etc which not even mentioned in the credits.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

sakuma said:


> how come in the credits of the movies it says dolby digital yet we get DTS etc which not even mentioned in the credits.


The credits are taken directly from the theatrical prints which always have a Dolby Digital track.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

My receiver decodes both DTS and Dolby Digital (NOT HD versions) but I have noticed that on my particular receiver there is a ton less bass output (on DVD) with DTS than on Dolby Digital...like an unnatural amount less. As a result I have always chosen Dolby for the best sound. I thought the problem to be with the way my receiver decoded the DTS.

However, since I've gotten blu-ray (and all the tracks have been in DTS that I've gotten) I've not noticed the lack of bass that I used to with DVD. Weird.

I am using spdif for input to the receiver. It always recognizes the DTS signal from the blu-ray even though I'm not able to get the HD audio track over this connection.

Just an observation. I do have an old receiver but wondering if some sort of decoding implementation could be affecting things.

-V


----------



## taoggniklat (Mar 30, 2010)

vann_d said:


> My receiver decodes both DTS and Dolby Digital (NOT HD versions) but I have noticed that on my particular receiver there is a ton less bass output (on DVD) with DTS than on Dolby Digital...like an unnatural amount less. As a result I have always chosen Dolby for the best sound. I thought the problem to be with the way my receiver decoded the DTS.
> 
> However, since I've gotten blu-ray (and all the tracks have been in DTS that I've gotten) I've not noticed the lack of bass that I used to with DVD. Weird.
> 
> ...


I believe the HD versions are only supported via HDMI. It sounds like maybe your AVR might have a setting set differently. Less bass is generally not what is commented about DTS vs Dolby. At least you are the first person I have heard say that.


----------



## vann_d (Apr 7, 2009)

I've had it set up as:

Oppo DVD to AVR via Coax
Oppo DVD to AVR via Toslink
HTPC to AVR via Coax
HTPC to AVR via Toslink

Always DTS has no bass compared to DD.

Now with Blu-ray audio via Coax or Toslink via Oppo BD-83 or HTPC the track sounds good. 

Weird but must be some thing with my JBL AVR which is primitive (in some regards) and had limited production


----------



## imbeaujp (Oct 20, 2007)

If DTS Master and Dolby true HD are not a different mix, but just a different codec from the same mix, could you tell me why we use them on the same disk ? That makes no sens to me.

They must be a different mix, no ?

JP


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

vann_d said:


> I've had it set up as:
> 
> Oppo DVD to AVR via Coax
> Oppo DVD to AVR via Toslink
> ...


I am going to throw this out there because this has been my experience. Some receiver already compensate for the way the LFE channel is encoded, others do not. My experience has been to set Dolby digital LFE levels at a 0 setting, and Dts at a +10 setting to compensate for the way each is encoded onto the disc. If you can do this on your reciever, it will result in the proper playback of both codecs.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

imbeaujp said:


> If DTS Master and Dolby true HD are not a different mix, but just a different codec from the same mix, could you tell me why we use them on the same disk ? That makes no sens to me.
> 
> They must be a different mix, no ?
> 
> JP


No they are not. Having both on the same disc only satisfies a market strategy, not a technical one. One codec on each disc is all that is necessary as lossless is lossless. We create one mix that is encoded by both audio formats. If we did separate mixes for each audio codec, the disc would probably cost a bit more than it does now.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

Really DTS-HD Master Audio is the superior codec. Not because it sounds better. I think it sounds just as good as Dolby TrueHD. It's better because it only requires one codec on the disk rather than 2 with Dolby True + Dolby Digital. The codec is smarter in that the codec can be decoded by DTS only (not HD) equipment. That means less of a footprint on the disk.

Other factors:
- DTS Master Audio is not limited to the number of discrete channels whereas Dolby True is limited to 14. That limit doesn't really mean too much right now however. 
- The maximum bitrate of Dolby True is 18 Mbit/s and DTS MA is up to 24.5 Mbit/s.
- Dolby TrueHD however supports 5.1 channels in 192Khz/24 bit samples whereas DTS MA is 96KHz/24 bit in multichannel.


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

MatrixDweller said:


> Really DTS-HD Master Audio is the superior codec. Not because it sounds better. I think it sounds just as good as Dolby TrueHD. It's better because it only requires one codec on the disk rather than 2 with Dolby True + Dolby Digital. The codec is smarter in that the codec can be decoded by DTS only (not HD) equipment. That means less of a footprint on the disk.


Superior might be a poor choice of words. More graceful is probably better. When talking about audio codecs superiority, sonics are the driving factors not the implementation of the processing. The drawback of the Dts codec is(and it really isn't a problem to you and I, but to the manufacturers of receivers and pre-pro), is while it only requires one soundtrack on disc, it also requires MUCH more intensive processing horsepower. The upside for Dts is that it takes up less disc space than Dolby TrueHD. 



> Other factors:
> - DTS Master Audio is not limited to the number of discrete channels whereas Dolby True is limited to 14. That limit doesn't really mean too much right now however.
> - The maximum bitrate of Dolby True is 18 Mbit/s and DTS MA is up to 24.5 Mbit/s.
> - Dolby TrueHD however supports 5.1 channels in 192Khz/24 bit samples whereas DTS MA is 96KHz/24 bit in multichannel.


The amount of channels beyond 8 is a red herring issue. The idea of getting even audiophiles to adopt more than that is unrealistic.

Neither Dts's 24.5Mbps or Dolby's 18Mbps will be challenged by anything, so maximum data rate is also a red herring. 2L reference recordings had 5 tracks running including a PCM and Dts-HD Master audio track, and the maximum bitrate was about 16Mbps. 

The Dts-HD Master audio codec can also do 5.1 at 24/192khz just like Dolby TrueHD can. 2L recordings have Dts 5.1 tracks at the bit and sample rate. My encoder gives me the choice of sample rates for 5.1 up to 192khz.


----------



## MatrixDweller (Jul 24, 2007)

Like I stated, sound quality wise they are pretty much on par. The superiority is in it's implementation only and in that I'm referring to it's backwards compatibility. Other than that the two formats are pretty much equal, but given that backward compatibility, DTS HD Master Audio has that one big plus.


----------



## Osage_Winter (Apr 8, 2010)

MatrixDweller said:


> It's better because it only requires one codec on the disk rather than 2 with Dolby True + Dolby Digital. The codec is smarter in that the codec can be decoded by DTS only (not HD) equipment. That means less of a footprint on the disk.


But wait a minute -- doesn't DTS-Master Audio also contain the backwards-compatible DTS "core" mix as well, as Dolby TrueHD contains the Dolby Digital subcore?


----------



## Sir Terrence (Jun 8, 2006)

Osage_Winter said:


> But wait a minute -- doesn't DTS-Master Audio also contain the backwards-compatible DTS "core" mix as well, as Dolby TrueHD contains the Dolby Digital subcore?


Dts uses core plus metadata lossless extension. If you don't have a lossless decoder, the Dts decoder will only recognize the core bitstream. Dolby TrueHD is a encoded PCM file zipped by Meridian Lossless packing. Unfortunately Meridian Lossless packing does not support lossy files, so a separate Dolby Digital encode must accompany any TrueHD file on disc.


----------

