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

jimbowne

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
28
0
18,580
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.
 

jimbowne

Distinguished
Jul 8, 2009
28
0
18,580
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.
 

bulabone

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2009
1
0
18,510
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
 

cjl

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
432
0
18,940

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.
 

ender21

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2009
26
0
18,580


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.
 

cjl

Distinguished
Jun 18, 2008
432
0
18,940

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.
 

ender21

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2009
26
0
18,580
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.