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

[jimbowne]

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.

 

[astrallite]

You forgot to leave your employee id #

 

[rexter]

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.

 

[MEgamer]

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.

 

[rexter]

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.

 

[astrallite]

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...)

 

[MEgamer]

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.

 

[MEgamer]

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.

 

[astrallite]

Lossless is the assumption.

 

[rockfellakillswitch]

I've also felt DTS to be more realistic & crisp and i'm yet to experience DTS HD MA.

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.

 

[mumer8637]

You can try converting both to FLAC with max compression.
If they both are indeed lossless, the resultant file size will be the same.

 

[JohnCranberry]

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?

 

[bmcelvan]

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!!

 

[jjb8675309]

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.

 

[ubhatia]

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.

 

[jjb8675309]

On a side note John Wick was probably one of the worst movies of all time.

 

[ubhatia]

Very true but surprisingly Bluray.com & Hidefdigest gave 5 stars for audio!!

 

[jjb8675309]

I could see the audio being good but movie overall, no.

 

[Jo Rio]

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.

 

[JordonB]

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.

 

[RealityIsNotOptional]

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.