Which do you prefer: Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD Master Audio?

Hello people. I recently purchased new speakers (Acesonic 510 speakers)and a pioneer 819 av receiver capable of decoding TrueHD and DTS HD. Since my previous setup was only able to decode dolby digital and dts, how much better are the new formats? I imagine they are pretty noticeable considering the difference in quality I heard while comparing dts to dts 96/24. What are your thoughts about the new formats?

-I also have to admit a personal bias favoring DTS.
44 answers Last reply
More about which prefer dolby truehd master audio
  1. The new formats are both 7.1, as opposed to 5.1. I don't know which format is "better" this time around though, although you are right on DTS > DD :D
  2. So I've done some research and have come up with the following:
    If mastered properly,
    DTS HD MASTER = DOLBY TRUEHD = UNCOMPRESSED PCM

    The reasoning behind this is that both DTS HD and Dolby TrueHD are "lossless" compression. Therefore when executed they should (in theory) playback the same as UNCOMPRESSED PCM.

    I am getting a blu-ray player next week and I am curious to see if there is in fact a difference between the formats in reality.
  3. Let us know
  4. Not much difference, except for brand name. I pretty much pick whatever's available, since lossless means lossless.
  5. ^^Nice to know. If both are lossless, it probably comes down to what the source was recorded at.
  6. Ive been using both blu-ray and HD DVD since they came out.... and i can say i have been pissed evey time i have to watch a movie in dolby true HD. My receiver is a Denon 1910 and there is a huge difference between Dolby and DTS Master. All my friends come over to watch Blu-rays and they here the difference as well. DTS Master has so much more power behind it. Makes the house shake, the highs are so much more crisp. The new Star Trek, one of the best movies in a long time.... sounds horrible!!! Iron Man... sounds horrible....the dark night... sounds horrible . Lower end movies that have DTS Master sound amazing... Babylon AD sounds amazing.... Valkyrie sounds amazing..... Pearl Harbor with uncompressed audio.. sounds amazing

    All three audio types are supposed to be uncompressed.... but after a couple years of hearing all three... Dolby True HD doesnt sound any better than reg DVD quality.

    I really wish they would remake Star Trek in DTS Master
  7. they will both sound the same since they are both loseless

    however DD and dts obv process surrounds differently

    so idk one of them will have somewhat pleasing imaging to some listerners.
  8. You know, my experience has been DTS is better. Maybe it that theyre just using more, as said, but it did seem more spatial to me, and just as crisp
  9. then tbf all i can say is IT IS all down to PERSONAL reference
  10. Avi to iphone converter is an powerful video converter to convert avi to iphone 3G.
  11. bulabone said:
    Ive been using both blu-ray and HD DVD since they came out.... and i can say i have been pissed evey time i have to watch a movie in dolby true HD. My receiver is a Denon 1910 and there is a huge difference between Dolby and DTS Master. All my friends come over to watch Blu-rays and they here the difference as well. DTS Master has so much more power behind it. Makes the house shake, the highs are so much more crisp. The new Star Trek, one of the best movies in a long time.... sounds horrible!!! Iron Man... sounds horrible....the dark night... sounds horrible . Lower end movies that have DTS Master sound amazing... Babylon AD sounds amazing.... Valkyrie sounds amazing..... Pearl Harbor with uncompressed audio.. sounds amazing

    All three audio types are supposed to be uncompressed.... but after a couple years of hearing all three... Dolby True HD doesnt sound any better than reg DVD quality.

    I really wish they would remake Star Trek in DTS Master

    They're both lossless. As the happy owner of a setup that can decode both, I have to say - you're full of it (I have a Denon 2808 with B&W speakers). Both sound excellent for the most part, and although some movies do sound worse than others, it has to do with the way it was mastered rather than the format.
  12. I agree wholely, but it just seems theyve done more with DTS from my personal experience, and relish it when I can use it, tho sometimes dolby rocks, but not a gaurantee
  13. cjl said:
    They're both lossless. As the happy owner of a setup that can decode both, I have to say - you're full of it.


    You could say that, but that doesn't mean you'd be right.

    Just being "lossless" doesn't tell the whole story. Soundtracks mixed for Dolby may be mixed differently for DTS, and vice versa. Additionally, a blu-ray player or AVR may decode one differently than the other as well. There is a measure of objectivity and subjectivity in opinions for both.

    And just because something is losslessly compressed doesn't mean it's identical to *anything* but the source soundtrack just prior to compression.

    For example, there are plenty of 16-bit/48kHz Uncompressed PCM soundtracks on early blu-rays. But if the same blu-ray had a Dolby TrueHD 24-bit/48kHz or 24-bit/96kHz soundtrack, would the results be identical?

    Bit-depth and sampling frequency matter.
  14. Yep, front end and back end, if the front end is crap, doesnt matter if both of the back end solutions a perfect or lossless
  15. This topic has been closed by Jaydeejohn
  16. This topic has been reopen by Jaydeejohn
  17. ender21 said:
    You could say that, but that doesn't mean you'd be right.

    Just being "lossless" doesn't tell the whole story. Soundtracks mixed for Dolby may be mixed differently for DTS, and vice versa. Additionally, a blu-ray player or AVR may decode one differently than the other as well. There is a measure of objectivity and subjectivity in opinions for both.

    And just because something is losslessly compressed doesn't mean it's identical to *anything* but the source soundtrack just prior to compression.

    For example, there are plenty of 16-bit/48kHz Uncompressed PCM soundtracks on early blu-rays. But if the same blu-ray had a Dolby TrueHD 24-bit/48kHz or 24-bit/96kHz soundtrack, would the results be identical?

    Bit-depth and sampling frequency matter.

    Oh, absolutely there are differences. The audio track could be mixed poorly, or the recording equipment could be crap. The differences will never be due to the encoding format though. Given an identical initial audio mix, there will always be an identical output stream with either of the two types.

    This is not true with the older types of audio tracks found on DVDs. There, you could make a good case for DTS's superiority.
  18. Agreed, but there's this idea out there that "lossless" means some kind of magic bullet that makes the sound exactly like the master in the mixing studio.

    Lossless only means that its a losslessly compressed version of whatever PCM or WAV files were sent to the encoder.

    If the master is 24-bit 96kHz but the encoder downsamples and quantizes to 16-bit 48kHz and boosts LFE by 10dB along the way, they're obviously not the same thing, despite the lossless compression.

    In the exchange you had with Bulabone, the subjective phrase "DTS has so much more power behind it" is obviously subject to scrutiny. If the DTS master he's referring to was mixed hot, or the TrueHD soundtracks he's evaluated are mixed cold or the LFE track is -10dB versus a similar DTSHD track, those differences should be compensated for prior to evaluation, and of course could lead to the impression that one codec is "bette" than the other. It is possible, though, that his 1910 has an issue with one or more decoders that helps to strengthen his opinion of one codec versus the other as well.

    It would be great to have is a test disc with pink or white noise and/or frequency sweeps encoded in the popular new formats so we can evaluate our playback chain to see what each component does with, at a very minimum, the playback levels. I recall there being significant level differences between Dolby and DTS encoding back when DVD was king, even with plain old pink/white noise.
  19. I think the studios should make it mandatory to use DOLBY TRUE-HD and dtshdma on all back catalogue titles as well as new titles.

    Most if not all 95% of films have been produced using DOLBY.

    I see no reason why I should pay out money for a film that I like, to have dtshdma on it!

    For example DIE HARD was mixed in two forms 35mm DOLBY STEREO A type and for exclusive road show release 70mm 6trcak DOLBY STEREO A type in discrete sound!

    Why should I pay Fox bluray for a film produced in lousy dtshdma a film that doesn’t represent the original theatrical flavour!

    The disc is produced from two-disc DVD set! Also the sound was tampered with on that version! The original theatrical 6trcack DOLBY STEREO mix can only be found on the first edition DVD or the later version THX laserdisc or didn’t you know that FACT!

    Bluray is 98% A CON format to make money! The studios haven’t been honest with us and I don’t see why we or some of us should feed the hand that has been dishonest with us.

    I have since cessed buying bluray because of dtshdma no I don’t like the sound format. The way I see it, there is still a “format war”!

    “The sound format war”!

    The only way to resolve this is to give the paying consumer equal rights of choice to select what sound format we want the film played back in! Arrr! it goes further than that!

    I don’t think films that where produced in DOLBY should get dts its WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Films that where produced and released in dts at the time of 1993 and for a remain few years where only dts release mostly Universal Pictures. At first there was no DOLBY SR-D that was beside the 35mm it was just dts and a back-up analogue soundtrack for cinemas that didn’t have dts decoders.

    I think it was around 1996 or 97 when 35mm prints had all three digital sound formats on the signal print with the DOLBY SR soundtrack on the analogue side in case of DOLBY digital, breakdown.

    I mean bluray SONY doesn’t even support SDDS8Channel! So much for this big headed format that has been bragging its “cinematic” LMAO ROTFLMAO!

    The propaganda that SONY was putting on the extras of some bluray titles where they video actors pretending to be a family to brainwash the masses that have 0 clue!

    Wow if it was perfect picture then we shouldn’t be see EE DNR and colour manipulation SHOULD WE!!!!

    WHAT A CON FORMAT!

    Personally I have turned my back on region2 DVD and turned to region1DVD!

    STUFF BLURAY! I hope the format dies soon it doesn’t have place in this market not when they have been dishoniest with us from the start!

    Remember! First impressions, is what makes it count! Bluray has failed on all those promises from start!!!!!
  20. You forgot to leave your employee id #
  21. Personally, I like the DTS signal; it's cleaner for my hearing, better than Dolby. Like others, I found it crisp... But if someone can't tell the difference then it won’t matter to them if it's DTS HD or Dolby TrueHD.
  22. isnt there a post processing effects added to the signals???

    i mean dolby digital and dts' bass management sounds different when playing through dvd.


    Dolby TrueHD bitstreams carry program metadata. Metadata is separate from the coding format and compressed audio samples, but stores relevant information about the audio waveform. For example, dialog normalization and Dynamic range compression are controlled by metadata embedded in the TrueHD bitstream. TrueHD is a variable bit-rate codec.

    wiki.
  23. Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding about Dolby True-HD (which I read somewhere) is when normalization is applied the encoding process; the audio attenuation on the audio encoder is set to -2dB or is it -4db? (dialog normalization default) resulting in a lower SPL relative to DTS at an equivalent gain setting, so when it's decompress a .1db is loss compared to DTS-HD. Since DTS-HD does not use Normalization, therefore the processed signal is relatively bit for bit.

    If anybody knows more about this, we'd like to know more...

    "In order to minimize the limited space allocated on a DVD for audio soundtracks, DD and DTS utilize lossy data reduction algorithms, which reduce the number of bits needed to encode an audio signal. DD compresses a 5.1 channel surround track to 384 kbps to 448 kbps (DVD Standard limited, DD has the potential of up to 640 kbps) while DTS uses much higher bit rates up to 1.4 Mbps for CD's / LD's and 1.5 Mbps for DVD. A higher bit rate must imply DTS will be superior sounding right? In theory, the less compression used in the encoding process, the more realistic the sound will be, as it will better represent the original source. DD tends to boast that its encoding method is more efficient than DTS and thus does not require the extra bit rates. However, even if DD is slightly more efficient, it is still not 1.5 / .448 = 3.35 times more efficient.. However, both DD & DTS will boast data rates, efficiency, etc, but what actually translates to better sound is a very ambiguous matter..." qoute from audioholics.
  24. It's impossible to tell. We do not know if Dolby Digital or DTS uses equivalent compression methods. There are 8 levels of FLAC. There's also other lossless standards like APE and ALAC. All of these have different bitrates. Of course, the alleged lossless signals might not actually be equal in performance (not quite so lossless...)
  25. but wether they use different compression methods, data should not be lost, when the signal is decompressed, assuming it is lossless.


    both on blu ray

    MAX.18mbps (DD true HD) and 24mbps/VAR (DTS HD MA)

    DTS does not use MLP, method of compressing data.
  26. Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding about Dolby True-HD (which I read somewhere) is when normalization is applied the encoding process; the audio attenuation on the audio encoder is set to -2dB or is it -4db? (dialog normalization default) resulting in a lower SPL relative to DTS at an equivalent gain setting, so when it's decompress a .1db is loss compared to DTS-HD. Since DTS-HD does not use Normalization, therefore the processed signal is relatively bit for bit.

    you may be right.
  27. Lossless is the assumption.
  28. I've also felt DTS to be more realistic & crisp and i'm yet to experience DTS HD MA.
    rexter said:
    Personally, I like the DTS signal; it's cleaner for my hearing, better than Dolby. Like others, I found it crisp... But if someone can't tell the difference then it won’t matter to them if it's DTS HD or Dolby TrueHD.
  29. You can try converting both to FLAC with max compression.
    If they both are indeed lossless, the resultant file size will be the same. ;)
  30. I found this discussion because I too am amazed how crappy True HD sounds compared to DTS. I just watched the Star Trek 2009 movie and it sounds awful and muddy. It's not my Yamaha Receiver 7.1 150 watts HDMI or new Klipsch speakers. When I play the new Star Wars Teaser it blows my mind. I had to turn the volume down almost 15 dec from the Star Trek movie. The room just shakes. Even John Rambo movie sounds muddy also in True HD. It really sucks cause the sound is 80% of the movie. When I play the opening scene to Xmen 1 with the kid magneto bending the gates..omg...it is absolutely off this planet. Why is it so bad? Have anyone figured this out? Is it a setting things?
  31. To JohnCranberry:
    I hate to be the one to say this but you're confusing the issue of volume with sound quality. Many people, yourself included apparently, feel that louder is better. However that is not an actual description of quality, just quantity.

    DTSHDMA, WAV, PCM, LPCM, TrueHD & FLAC are all lossless codecs and therefore mean they have the exact same information in them and will sound identical with a properly set up sound system and the master volume adjusted so the volume coming out of the speakers yields the same decibels. Provided the source material is masted and then the same data is encoded, it's the same. The only way there could be a difference is if the audio was mastered and then encoded by say TrueHD, and then mastered again differently and encoded by say DTSHDMA...however even if it was encoded again with TrueHD it would sound different as well.

    Some of those formats have metadata which trys to tell the receiver or processing unit to adjust the sound in certain ways...however this can all be voided by turning that processing off and adjusting the volume respectively.

    It could very well be that your audio system just isn't good enough to reproduce very high quality sound or quality sound to the volume you would like...if STAR TREK 2009 sounds muddy then I think it's stressing out your system. On my system it sounds crisp, clear and amazing in TrueHD, DTSHDMA, LPCM and in FLAC. I've done them all. It's funny you picked that movie because I used that specific movie to do sound tests on my system. One other consideration about your system could be it's not set up just right either...possible the speakers are slightly out of alignment and your getting interference. And lastly it could be the specific sounds from that movie track are such that they bounce weirdly off the walls, or furniture in your room and make it sound muffled. All these last things can be fixed by a proper optimization of your sound system and speaker placement.

    Lastly, you can't compare different movies and say that he codec is bad. If the audio sounds bad when using any of these lossless codecs, then it's either the recording and/or mastering of the audio that was done poorly, or it's your system not reproducing the sounds properly.

    PS - I almost forgot to add...I like DTS-HDMA better only because it seems to be more compatible with more equipment. My Sony BDP-S590 won't play an mkv file with TrueHD, but is great with the rest of the codecs. Also, lots of software to rip/encode/decode doesn't like or won't do TrueHD where it will DTS. With that said, if you're only ever going to play a bluray disc movie in a bluray player connected to a receiver that can output any of those codecs...than I have no preference...they are all FANTASTIC!!
  32. Without reading every post in this thread, I think DTS is a pretty good compromise. When a 1080p movie with DTS is like 5GB I don't think I would want to go full blown lossless with the audio.
  33. This review is about the audio Dolby tru HD 7.1 of John Wick Dolby tru hd 7.1 blu ray which I watched yesterday. There are many debates going around online about which is the better format DTS-HD OR DOLBY TRU-HD. According to my experience the DTS-HD format is far better than the dolby sound. I have to crank up the volume 10 db more for Dolby encoded blurays than DTS to get the proper sound moreover the dolby audio is not at all crisp & clear as in DTS. Now about the audio of John Wick its pretty dull & flat. I had doubts about my Pioneer LX-85 reciever & OPPO bluray player but at the start of the movie there is this DOLBY ATMOS demo which is very clear & loud at normal volume level. Even Expendables 3 & Ninja turtles audio encoded in dd 7.1 were totaly flat. The sounds where glasses break are totally muddled with dolby tru hd blurays.
  34. On a side note John Wick was probably one of the worst movies of all time.
  35. Very true but surprisingly Bluray.com & Hidefdigest gave 5 stars for audio!!
  36. I could see the audio being good but movie overall, no.
  37. JAYDEEJOHN said:
    Let us know


    I have both with a pretty good system: HK3700 w.polk (rti serie a7\csi6\rti4\sub klipsh220) and they sound very good... I can't tell really which is the best, but i find they sound different anyway.... maybe the mastering.
  38. Been doing this since the start. DTS and DTS-HD are by far preferable to the always nasty AC3 we had for many years. Another nice thing is that if you have a DTS receiver DTS-HD will support it at the Regular DTS bit rate. Lets hope that the new DTS X that their working on will also support legacy. Backward compatibility is very important. DTS was the first sound good enough to make me toss some $$$ on speakers. JBL setup 5.1 Full size speakers although my system will support 7.1. That's simply crazy unless you have a huge house.
    5.1 rocks in DTS and is clear and crisp. compared to Dolby ac3 it's simply incredible even with 55 year old years battered by concerts.
  39. JordonB said:
    Been doing this since the start. DTS and DTS-HD are by far preferable to the always nasty AC3 we had for many years. Another nice thing is that if you have a DTS receiver DTS-HD will support it at the Regular DTS bit rate. Lets hope that the new DTS X that their working on will also support legacy. Backward compatibility is very important. DTS was the first sound good enough to make me toss some $$$ on speakers. JBL setup 5.1 Full size speakers although my system will support 7.1. That's simply crazy unless you have a huge house.
    5.1 rocks in DTS and is clear and crisp. compared to Dolby ac3 it's simply incredible even with 55 year old years battered by concerts.
  40. JordonB said:
    Been doing this since the start. DTS and DTS-HD are by far preferable to the always nasty AC3 we had for many years. Another nice thing is that if you have a DTS receiver DTS-HD will support it at the Regular DTS bit rate. Lets hope that the new DTS X that their working on will also support legacy. Backward compatibility is very important. DTS was the first sound good enough to make me toss some $$$ on speakers. JBL setup 5.1 Full size speakers although my system will support 7.1. That's simply crazy unless you have a huge house.
    5.1 rocks in DTS and is clear and crisp. compared to Dolby ac3 it's simply incredible even with 55 year old years battered by concerts.
  41. Hello JordonB - Can you do us a favor and give more specifics of your JBL setup? Model # etc..
    Thank You..
  42. Anonymous said:
    I think the studios should make it mandatory to use DOLBY TRUE-HD and dtshdma on all back catalogue titles as well as new titles.

    Most if not all 95% of films have been produced using DOLBY.

    I see no reason why I should pay out money for a film that I like, to have dtshdma on it!

    For example DIE HARD was mixed in two forms 35mm DOLBY STEREO A type and for exclusive road show release 70mm 6trcak DOLBY STEREO A type in discrete sound!

    Why should I pay Fox bluray for a film produced in lousy dtshdma a film that doesn’t represent the original theatrical flavour!

    The disc is produced from two-disc DVD set! Also the sound was tampered with on that version! The original theatrical 6trcack DOLBY STEREO mix can only be found on the first edition DVD or the later version THX laserdisc or didn’t you know that FACT!

    Bluray is 98% A CON format to make money! The studios haven’t been honest with us and I don’t see why we or some of us should feed the hand that has been dishonest with us.

    I have since cessed buying bluray because of dtshdma no I don’t like the sound format. The way I see it, there is still a “format war”!

    “The sound format war”!

    The only way to resolve this is to give the paying consumer equal rights of choice to select what sound format we want the film played back in! Arrr! it goes further than that!

    I don’t think films that where produced in DOLBY should get dts its WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Films that where produced and released in dts at the time of 1993 and for a remain few years where only dts release mostly Universal Pictures. At first there was no DOLBY SR-D that was beside the 35mm it was just dts and a back-up analogue soundtrack for cinemas that didn’t have dts decoders.

    I think it was around 1996 or 97 when 35mm prints had all three digital sound formats on the signal print with the DOLBY SR soundtrack on the analogue side in case of DOLBY digital, breakdown.

    I mean bluray SONY doesn’t even support SDDS8Channel! So much for this big headed format that has been bragging its “cinematic” LMAO ROTFLMAO!

    The propaganda that SONY was putting on the extras of some bluray titles where they video actors pretending to be a family to brainwash the masses that have 0 clue!

    Wow if it was perfect picture then we shouldn’t be see EE DNR and colour manipulation SHOULD WE!!!!

    WHAT A CON FORMAT!

    Personally I have turned my back on region2 DVD and turned to region1DVD!

    STUFF BLURAY! I hope the format dies soon it doesn’t have place in this market not when they have been dishoniest with us from the start!

    Remember! First impressions, is what makes it count! Bluray has failed on all those promises from start!!!!!



    that is why i use only dvd player and see only dvd movies because i have only 2 speakers and dolby 2.0 mono or stereo is the best for my 2 speakers and dvd dont use 24 bit audio that is why i love it even more we can not hear more than 20khz anyway
  43. JordonB said:
    Been doing this since the start. DTS and DTS-HD are by far preferable to the always nasty AC3 we had for many years. Another nice thing is that if you have a DTS receiver DTS-HD will support it at the Regular DTS bit rate. Lets hope that the new DTS X that their working on will also support legacy. Backward compatibility is very important. DTS was the first sound good enough to make me toss some $$$ on speakers. JBL setup 5.1 Full size speakers although my system will support 7.1. That's simply crazy unless you have a huge house.
    5.1 rocks in DTS and is clear and crisp. compared to Dolby ac3 it's simply incredible even with 55 year old years battered by concerts.


    I think you think it sounds better specifically because of your "55 year old years battered by concert" ears. DTS is usually louder (louder does not mean better nor more fidelity), it just means louder. However, it is, literally, human nature for louder things to appear better to the human brain. You can hear it more easily and you think it is better. There are numerous papers on this and lots of studies that directly lead to the the 1970s and 1980s advertisement VOLUME HIKE in ads between shows. Louder means you're more likely to listen to it, hear it, like it.

    With that said, in double blind testing, 5.1 AC3 at 640kbps (not the standard DVD 448 but the full 640) has had the same results as somewhere in the ~200kbps mp3s as compared to compressed lossless and uncompressed lcpm audio. THE HUMAN EAR CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE when properly adjusted for volume and encoded from the same source.

    That doesn't mean there aren't a few rare people who really can tell the difference, there might be, but we're talking a really small percentage of people. The human ear range is pretty tight, there are certainly people who can hear better than others but it's not orders of magnitude, there are no "magical" ears, the ears can only hear so much.

    Also, that doesn't mean you can get around your brain either. For example in your case you now think that AC3 sucks and DTS is better or the best. I doubt there is anything that is going to let you (your brain) have an objective opinion about this anymore except for possibly doing a proper double blind audio test.

    However, even if proven wrong, many pyschological studies have shown that you will then be MORE LIKELY to believe the bias because you were proven wrong.

    And in the end no matter what if given the choice you're gonna pick DTS over AC3, it's just how the brain works. Unless you can really stay unbiased and objective, which is very hard for humans to truly do, but can be done with training.
  44. ElBuho said:
    Anonymous said:
    I think the studios should make it mandatory to use DOLBY TRUE-HD and dtshdma on all back catalogue titles as well as new titles.

    Most if not all 95% of films have been produced using DOLBY.

    I see no reason why I should pay out money for a film that I like, to have dtshdma on it!

    For example DIE HARD was mixed in two forms 35mm DOLBY STEREO A type and for exclusive road show release 70mm 6trcak DOLBY STEREO A type in discrete sound!

    Why should I pay Fox bluray for a film produced in lousy dtshdma a film that doesn’t represent the original theatrical flavour!

    The disc is produced from two-disc DVD set! Also the sound was tampered with on that version! The original theatrical 6trcack DOLBY STEREO mix can only be found on the first edition DVD or the later version THX laserdisc or didn’t you know that FACT!

    Bluray is 98% A CON format to make money! The studios haven’t been honest with us and I don’t see why we or some of us should feed the hand that has been dishonest with us.

    I have since cessed buying bluray because of dtshdma no I don’t like the sound format. The way I see it, there is still a “format war”!

    “The sound format war”!

    The only way to resolve this is to give the paying consumer equal rights of choice to select what sound format we want the film played back in! Arrr! it goes further than that!

    I don’t think films that where produced in DOLBY should get dts its WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Films that where produced and released in dts at the time of 1993 and for a remain few years where only dts release mostly Universal Pictures. At first there was no DOLBY SR-D that was beside the 35mm it was just dts and a back-up analogue soundtrack for cinemas that didn’t have dts decoders.

    I think it was around 1996 or 97 when 35mm prints had all three digital sound formats on the signal print with the DOLBY SR soundtrack on the analogue side in case of DOLBY digital, breakdown.

    I mean bluray SONY doesn’t even support SDDS8Channel! So much for this big headed format that has been bragging its “cinematic” LMAO ROTFLMAO!

    The propaganda that SONY was putting on the extras of some bluray titles where they video actors pretending to be a family to brainwash the masses that have 0 clue!

    Wow if it was perfect picture then we shouldn’t be see EE DNR and colour manipulation SHOULD WE!!!!

    WHAT A CON FORMAT!

    Personally I have turned my back on region2 DVD and turned to region1DVD!

    STUFF BLURAY! I hope the format dies soon it doesn’t have place in this market not when they have been dishoniest with us from the start!

    Remember! First impressions, is what makes it count! Bluray has failed on all those promises from start!!!!!



    that is why i use only dvd player and see only dvd movies because i have only 2 speakers and dolby 2.0 mono or stereo is the best for my 2 speakers and dvd dont use 24 bit audio that is why i love it even more we can not hear more than 20khz anyway


    I really don't understand your argument very much. You do realize that:

    NO SOUND IS EVER RECORDED IN DOLBY or DTS, right?

    Those are codecs used when the movie is released for distribution!! And even then if using lossless codecs, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN AUDIO SIGNAL. Unless they are encoded from different mixes or masters of course. There can be modifiers in the code that tell playback devices how to play it back and even these you can usually turn off if you like.

    SOUND IS RECORDED PCM OR LPCM

    or any other RAW audio format that literally just records sound.

    Let me say this, professional audio is recorded this way. Sure cell phone and many other devices can record sound in mp3 or whatever format, but even then I think it is originally recorded in raw and then converted and the raw deleted.

    And then the whole DVD versus BD thing...are you freaking serious? DVDs look okay when played on DVD players and on an old 480p TV. However on newer HD TVs, they look like crap. Bluray BLOWS DVD OUT OF THE WATER!!!

    I don't think you know the difference between new technology/new science, and brand names.

    DVDs are a technology that store information on a physical disc. Blurays or BDs are the exact same thing. They just store the information differently. As a result, you can store nearly 6 times as much information on a BD as a DVD. Because of this difference, BDs contain much better looking (and arguably) better sounding media. That's not really a debate.

    Your whole die hard argument makes no sense to me either. Look I think it silly to pay more for the TrueHD and DTSHDMA tracks, drives me crazy. It costs the same (or more) to convert them to lossy formats than lossless formats, it is marketing sure. BUT, in the case of DIE HARD, they actually had to pay someone to RE MIX THE AUDIO tracks into the new 5.1 or 7.1 or whatever. It's not like they are converting the old sound, they are REMIXING IT!! It doesn't always sound better and you can have someone unqualified to do it of course, but barring something crazy and unexpected, a remixed HD audio version of a movie sound track should sound much better than a dolby stereo version from 30 years ago.

    It goes back to how audio is recorded...it's raw audio data. If it is remixed from the originals (which of course it would be), then you can't have any better starting material...unless of course those originals have degraded.
Ask a new question

Read More

Speakers Dolby HD Audio