DTS vs Dolby formats

[technobhatt]

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.

You might wanna check Madras Cafe - Bluray. I have this disc.
It has Dolby True HD 7.1 and DTS HDMA 5.1 both. (Bluray.com doesn't have this info updated as their database hasn't yet added DoblyTrueHD 7.1 option for Hindi movies, else I would have updated that.)
Similarly "3 Idiots" also has both DolbyTrueHD & DTS HDMA 7.1 tracks. There may be few more.

Please don't ask me for comparison, as I can't figure out any difference. Also, I don't have any high-end AVR & HT setup; just have a basic HTiB.

 

[spirovious]

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

Thats not debate.I am concerned about bit-rate and improvement in sound quality.As said,FLAC encoding can be done with different bit-rate even though its LOSSLESS codec.
Why would DTS opt for much higher bit-rate when its lossless format?Thats question.Also I read that Sony also moved from Dolby true HD to DTSMA.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1171739/sony-sphe-has-switched-from-truehd-to-dts-hd-ma

Yes,with High end system the decoding processing can be much better than average AV receivers.Like I said earlier that Yamaha decoded Dolby digital much better than DTS many times.

 

[reignofchaos]

You might wanna check Madras Cafe - Bluray. I have this disc.
It has Dolby True HD 7.1 and DTS HDMA 5.1 both. (Bluray.com doesn't have this info updated as their database hasn't yet added DoblyTrueHD 7.1 option for Hindi movies, else I would have updated that.)
Similarly "3 Idiots" also has both DolbyTrueHD & DTS HDMA 7.1 tracks. There may be few more.

Please don't ask me for comparison, as I can't figure out any difference. Also, I don't have any high-end AVR & HT setup; just have a basic HTiB.

Are you sure the alternate track is Dolby TrueHD and not Dolby Digital? Cos till date I've not come across a single movie with both lossless tracks in the same language. The studio wouldn't bother paying double the license fees for no particular reason. A screen shot/photo of the bluray audio track selection menu would be helpful.

Thats not debate.I am concerned about bit-rate and improvement in sound quality.As said,FLAC encoding can be done with different bit-rate even though its LOSSLESS codec.
Why would DTS opt for much higher bit-rate when its lossless format?Thats question.Also I read that Sony also moved from Dolby true HD to DTSMA.
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1171739/sony-sphe-has-switched-from-truehd-to-dts-hd-ma

Yes,with High end system the decoding processing can be much better than average AV receivers.Like I said earlier that Yamaha decoded Dolby digital much better than DTS many times.

The various bit rates for flac encoding do not change the quality of output. It only changes encoding time. So if you are okay with a large file size, you can make do with a lower encoding time. For a loss less format, bit rate is immaterial other than storage space issues. What goes into one end of the pipe comes out of the other end. There is nothing lost in the middle.

I might add though - One thing is for sure though - DTS Core at 1536kbps is much superior to 640kbps ac3. That is a no contest. However the same inequality doesn't hold true with lossless formats.

 

[Nishanth]

Some Yash Raj Blu-rays also have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA. If there is a diffrence between a True HD and DTS HD MA track then it must be due to difference in levels because of dialnorm or dynamic range compression being applied to the Dolby True HD track.

As far as traditional DTS and Dolby Digital goes there are a lot of variables that come into play which can make one format sound better than the other. Generally on paper Dolby Digital @ 448kbps is better than DTS @ 768kbps, some listening tests have also supported this view. But comparing Dolby Digital @ 448kbps with DTS @ 1509 is very tricky, at this bit rates DTS might be as good as Dolby Digital or might be better like how a lot of people report.

When people report than DTS is louder than Dolby Digital then it is most probably because of Dolby Digital's dialnorm, so you should match levels before comparing. Also some older DTS encoders slightly boosted levels while encoding, Dolby reported that the older DTS encoder boosted the level by 0.6dB during encoding.

There will surely be a little difference is sound quality between both the formats just like any other lossy compression codec. But if one finds a big difference in sound quality between a DTS and Dolby Digital soundtrack then most probably two different masters would have been used to enocde the DTS and Dolby Digital. A master is the final mix of a film in a lossless format supplied to the authoring facility which encodes them to various formats like Dolby Digital or DTS for DVD/Blu-ray release. For some early films in DTS like Jurassic Park a separate mix for DTS was done to showcase the format and these mixes were usually superior to Dolby Digital mixes.

For some movies the source used to make the 5.1 mix for Dolby Digital and DTS encoding was different. For older movies which only have a analog source you will have to convert them to Digital for multi-channel mixing, for some films the digital conversion for Dolby Digital and DTS was done at different studios or at different times. So naturally there would be a difference in sound quality.

DTS lossy 5.1 format have 2 constant bitrates... Half bit rate (748 Kbps) & Full Bit rate (1548 Kbps) While doolby has variable birates like Mp3.... Meaning the bit rates can vary.... Hence the difference....

But if you listen to DTS & DD with same bitrate, you may not hear any difference @ all....

Dolby Digital does not use variable bit rate, it has a constant bit rate. If you listen to some content encoded with the same bitrate in Dolby Digital and DTS, then the content encoded with Dolby Digital would sound better. This is because Dolby Digital's compression is more efficient than the DTS codec, so a DTS track should have a higher bitrate to match or to sound better than Dolby Digital.

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?

No matter which bit rate you choose for a losssles codec, the quality of the encode will be the same.

For lossless codecs like FLAC -

Lower Bitrate (more compressed) = More CPU power required
Higher Bitrate (less compressed) = Less CPU powered

So higher bit rate requires lesser processing power, this would be ideal for encoding in devices with low processing power and this would also help in saving power in portable devices.

Lower bit rate is ideal for systems with good processing power and is also ideal for people who want smaller size encodes. Lossless formats like FLAC give you an option of choosing bit rates so that you can choose the one that suits your needs.

Different lossless formats use different algorithms for compression, so bit rates for each codec might be higher or lower depending on how efficient the compression algorithm is.

The studio wouldn't bother paying double the license fees for no particular reason.

There is no licensing fee for Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA, you only pay for their encoders.

 

[reignofchaos]

There is no licensing fee for Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD MA, you only pay for their encoders.

Yep meant the same - apologies for putting it in the wrong way. Why pay for both when one will completely do the job.

 

[technobhatt]

Are you sure the alternate track is Dolby TrueHD and not Dolby Digital? Cos till date I've not come across a single movie with both lossless tracks in the same language. The studio wouldn't bother paying double the license fees for no particular reason. A screen shot/photo of the bluray audio track selection menu would be helpful.

Yes, I'm sure. Primary track on Madras Cafe bluray is DolbyTrueHD 7.1 and secondary track is DTS HDMA 5.1. There is no Dolby Digital track.
As Nishanth said, "some Yash Raj Blu-rays also have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA."

If I talk about my Toshiba-3200 Bluray player, it supports all the audio codecs including DolbyTrueHD and DTS HDMA if played from the bluray disc.
However, only one track is not supported if I play a movie file using its USB port and that track is DolbyTrueHD.

 

[narenkum]

"some Yash Raj Blu-rays also have both Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD MA."

Yes most of the YRF Bluray have both Dolby True HD and DTS HDMA and they even provide a kind of speaker Test setup for Dolby True HD.

I have given below the details of EK THA Tiger Bluray details which list both the formats.

Blu_ray_landing

 

[Nishanth]

Yep meant the same - apologies for putting it in the wrong way. Why pay for both when one will completely do the job.

The cost of encoders is cheap from the point of view of a Hollywood studio or a local studio like Yash Raj. For a small studio on a tight budget or for a individual's use going for a single encoder would make sense from a cost point of view.

When you get a new Dolby encoder it will support encoding in TrueHD, Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus etc. A good amount of content is encoded in Dolby Digital, so the encoder can be used for those jobs even if your not using it for True HD encodes. The DTS-HD MA encoder can also be used for regular DTS format encoding.

Right now DTS-HD MA is the most used format for Blu-ray, but Dolby TrueHD is also used on Blu-rays. Studios also encode a lot of stuff in lossy Dolby Digital and DTS formats. So it makes sense for them to get both encoders.

 

[sdurani]

Thats not debate.I am concerned about bit-rate and improvement in sound quality.

So you can't even answer a simple question asking you to describe what lossless audio is. That explains why you believe bit rate can affect sound quality.

 

[sdurani]

One thing is for sure though - DTS Core at 1536kbps is much superior to 640kbps ac3. That is a no contest.

The few magazines (Home Theatre Mag in the US, Home Cinema Choice in the UK) that have done blind testing of both codecs found DD at 448kbps on par with DTS at 1536kbps, and DD at 640 superior to both.

When DVDs first came out, Warner Home Video did an extensive blind test using recording engineers from Warner Bros. They compared DD at 448kbps against DTS at 1536kbps on three titles: Interview With a Vampire, Twister, and the Lethal Weapon trilogy.

None of their engineers could tell the difference. And these people listen for a living. While Warners did release those three movies on DVD with both codecs, they didn't bother with DTS after those three releases. Make of that what you will.

 

[spirovious]

So you can't even answer a simple question asking you to describe what lossless audio is. That explains why you believe bit rate can affect sound quality.

Saying this,you didn't get my point when I wrote clearly that my point of discussion was bit-rate selection with lossless codec."Lossless" the word itself says that there will not be any change in sound quality and superior to Lossy formats.Still why there are different options.
When it matters only with CPU load and space,still answer is not clear when there is no sound quality difference with lower bit rate(FLAC).In fact it will be easy for high end PC to process lower bit-rate faster and perhaps better and also save space on Hard disc.

 

[spirovious]

However, only one track is not supported if I play a movie file using its USB port and that track is DolbyTrueHD.

Mine plays it perfectly with region free FW.

 

[sdurani]

"Lossless" the word itself says that there will not be any change in sound quality and superior to Lossy formats.Still why there are different options.

If lossless, by definition, means there will not be any change in sound quality, then how can you end up with changed sound quality? Two things can't be identical and different simultaneously.

As for why there are different options, it's because different companies think they can achieve the same result using a better approach (their approach). That's why there are different ways to losslessly pack audio and even documents (WinZip, RAR, etc). But packing and unpacking documents using different algorithms doesn't result in different documents. Same with audio.

In fact it will be easy for high end PC to process lower bit-rate faster and perhaps better and also save space on Hard disc.

It is the opposite with lossless, where it will be more difficult for a PC to process lower bit-rate. The higher the bit-rate, the less data packing has to be done, the easier it is on the CPU.