DTS vs Dolby formats

[reignofchaos]

DTS HD Master is better sounding than True HD,even Dolby High resolution audio in Yamaha too. DTSMA has better resolution and details.Also instruments sounds very good with good sound stage and space.

They both are lossless bit perfect codecs. Technically one can't be better than the other. The reason why you hear a difference could potentially be because your receiver is mangling bits of one but not of the other due to an imperfect process.

 

[musicbee]

have used DTS HD master audio ..It was awsome..

However My stand is on DTS & DTS HD master audio side...may be because of my hearing taste..

DTS HD Master is better sounding than True HD,even Dolby High resolution audio in Yamaha too. DTSMA has better resolution and details.Also instruments sounds very good with good sound stage and space.

+1 to DTS and DTS-HD Master Audio. Even my DVD collection is primarily of DTS and only rarely DD.

Coming to Blu-rays, have to admit DTS-HD Master Audio is more prevalent than Dolby TrueHD (not that I'm complaining).

They both are lossless bit perfect codecs. Technically one can't be better than the other. The reason why you hear a difference could potentially be because your receiver is mangling bits of one but not of the other due to an imperfect process.

I've always felt (and heard) DTS was better than DD and that has carried on with the case of DTS-HD Master Audio vs. Dolby TrueHD... probably biased but then this is an audiophile forum where people claim to hear a difference with everything and anything (never mind blind tests would prove otherwise).

 

[Santy]

More BluRays coming out on DTS-MA than Dolby TrueHD I suppose has to do more with business reasons than technical superiority. May be DTS does better marketing or offers more competitive pricing for license. Theoretically both should sound same. I find both hi-res formats equally good.

 

[elangoas]

i read somewhere the reason why DTS-HD MA is there on most of the discs is because of the compressed loss-less audio format ( Just like FLAC)... Which Dolby True HD don't have this compression i believe....

Not sure how far this is correct...

 

[reignofchaos]

i read somewhere the reason why DTS-HD MA is there on most of the discs is because of the compressed loss-less audio format ( Just like FLAC)... Which Dolby True HD don't have this compression i believe....

Not sure how far this is correct...

Nope! Both are lossless compressed formats like FLAC. However there is a difference between the two.

- A Dolby TrueHD stream does not have an embedded Dolby Digital stream in its payload. The Dolby TrueHD stream is completely incompatible with receivers that support only Dolby Digital. So bluray discs that have a Dolby TrueHD stream must have a Dolby Digital track in addition for legacy compatibility.

- A DTS Master HD stream on the other hand has a vanilla DTS stream in its payload. This DTS stream can be decoded by any old legacy receiver. As a result it is not necessary to waste excess space for a separate DTS stream. So more space on the bluray is available for video and additional content.

 

[elangoas]

- A DTS Master HD stream on the other hand has a vanilla DTS stream in its payload. This DTS stream can be decoded by any old legacy receiver. As a result it is not necessary to waste excess space for a separate DTS stream. So more space on the bluray is available for video and additional content.

So is that called the DTS Core ? which is approx 1548 Kbps ?

 

[reignofchaos]

So is that called the DTS Core ? which is approx 1548 Kbps ?

Yes! Exactly. It is 1536kbps.

 

[spirovious]

i read somewhere the reason why DTS-HD MA is there on most of the discs is because of the compressed loss-less audio format ( Just like FLAC)... Which Dolby True HD don't have this compression i believe....

Not sure how far this is correct...

Its the Bit rate which is more with DTSMA. Like 320kpbs mp3 sounds much better than 128kpbs.

 

[sdurani]

DTS HD Master is better sounding than True HD,even Dolby High resolution audio in Yamaha too. DTSMA has better resolution and details.Also instruments sounds very good with good sound stage and space.

They're bit-for-bit, 100% identical. That's what "lossless" means.

I can understand having Dolby vs DTS discussions for lossy codecs, since they don't all sound the same. But with lossless codecs, the discussion is meaningless, since they all result in sound that is identical to the original.

It would be like saying that documents unzipped using RAR are better than documents unzipped using WinZip. Makes no sense. Maybe people don't understand what "lossless" means.

 

[sdurani]

Its the Bit rate which is more with DTSMA.

For a lossless codec, having a higher bit rate is a bad sign. Since the outputs of lossless codecs are 100% identical, lower bit rates demonstrate better engineering and efficiency.

Like 320kpbs mp3 sounds much better than 128kpbs.

Do you understand the difference between lossy audio codecs (MP3) and lossless audio codecs (DTS MA)?

 

[spirovious]

Do you understand the difference between lossy audio codecs (MP3) and lossless audio codecs (DTS MA)?

Yes surely,I have put an example.
Another one,You can rip a CD with lossless codec like FLAC,still there are options to select a bit rate in some softwares.They what should it make different when its lossless codec? also If lower bitrate is good for lossless audio,then why would DTSMA opt more one?

 

[spirovious]

I can understand having Dolby vs DTS discussions for lossy codecs, since they don't all sound the same. But with lossless codecs, the discussion is meaningless, since they all result in sound that is identical to the original.

Its not true,DTSMA can express sound better according to my comparison.I have compare them many times using 667.Technically both are lossless,but not in real world of performance at least with Yamaha 667.You will find same opinion with many online discussions.
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=99529

Have you compared both the formats seriously yourself?

 

[musicbee]

They're bit-for-bit, 100% identical. That's what "lossless" means.

I can understand having Dolby vs DTS discussions for lossy codecs, since they don't all sound the same. But with lossless codecs, the discussion is meaningless, since they all result in sound that is identical to the original.

It would be like saying that documents unzipped using RAR are better than documents unzipped using WinZip. Makes no sense. Maybe people don't understand what "lossless" means.

For a lossless codec, having a higher bit rate is a bad sign. Since the outputs of lossless codecs are 100% identical, lower bit rates demonstrate better engineering and efficiency.

Sounds right on paper but how about people who claim to hear a difference between ALAC and FLAC... especially Apple fanboys.

Good folks on this forum claim WAV is better than FLAC.

Do you understand the difference between lossy audio codecs (MP3) and lossless audio codecs (DTS MA)?

OT but I know people who cannot hear a difference!!!

 

[kaptan]

Guys cmon, Both DTS & Dolby provides perfect sound the movies needs. Lets sit back and enjoy them:licklips:.

 

[Rockfella]

I second this. I have experienced this with DTS and I find it to be overall superior than Dolby. DTS licencing is also expensive as compared to Dolby for some reason.

Dolby Digital is sometimes too bass heavy while DTS is always very sharp with the right amount of bass punch.Dialogues seem to be more clear and on your face kind in DD than in DTS.

my 2 cents

 

[reignofchaos]

Its not true,DTSMA can express sound better according to my comparison.I have compare them many times using 667.Technically both are lossless,but not in real world of performance at least with Yamaha 667.You will find same opinion with many online discussions.
DTS-HD Master Audio vs Dolby TrueHD - Blu-ray Forum

Have you compared both the formats seriously yourself?

What exactly is your basis for comparison? No movie till date has both a Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master HD track on the same disc. If you can't compare with the same source material, there is basically no comparison.

While I do agree that certain things about sound can probably not be measured, any comparison of two encoding standards must be done with the same source - that can't happen unless someone decides to release a mix for a movie in both the formats - something that is highly unlikely.

 

[Santy]

I was about to write the same. There is no material with both the formats. I am not even sure if a BD can hold both formats due to their sheer size. I really liked the sound of TrueHD in Transformers, Kungfu Panda, How to train your dragon, etc. But ofcourse, we have majority of the hit movies encoded in DTSMA. They must be having 70% share easily.

 

[spirovious]

What exactly is your basis for comparison? No movie till date has both a Dolby TrueHD and DTS Master HD track on the same disc. If you can't compare with the same source material, there is basically no comparison.
.

I agree that,still to me DTSMA sounds little better.Its personal experience.

 

[sdurani]

I have compare them many times using 667.Technically both are lossless,but not in real world of performance at least with Yamaha 667.

Have you compared both the formats seriously yourself?

Yes, on a Lexicon MC-12HD Balanced pre-pro feeding an ATI balanced amp. Zero difference. Not surprising considering they're bit-for-bit identical.

BTW, I compared using the Blu-ray of 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind', which has TrueHD and DTS-HD MA soundtracks (english 5.1).

Close Encounters of the Third Kind Blu-ray: 30th Anniversary Ultimate Edition

 

[sdurani]

Yes surely,I have put an example.

OK, then what's the difference between lossy and lossless codecs?