Post your comparisons of DTS-HDMA (lossless) vs DTS Core (lossy)!

[Ruined]

Now that DTS-HDMA is becoming accessible to more people via the PS3 update, it is clear that many will now have the capability of comparing DTS-HDMA to DTS core. Post your A/B comparisons in this thread, with specific timecodes and/or info on the scenes you compared if you have it.

An easy way to compare the two is to hook up your player to your receiver with both HDMI and optical, then simply switch the digital audio input back and forth - or if you can't do that due to HDMI restrictions, simply change your player's settings so that your receiver is only fed lossy vs. lossless. On the PS3 that would be setting it to bitstream for DTS core, and PCM for DTS Lossless.

Here are my impressions of Terminator 2 DTS-HDMA vs. DTS core from last year, let's hear if anyone has a different experience and on what movie it was from:

http://forums.dvdfile.com/high-defin...tml#post859417

Originally Posted by Ruined

For this next portion of the test, I listened to a variety of material with the player both set to bitstream mode with decoding done in player and PCM mode with decoding being done in player. However, I chose one title to focus in close on and this time the title was the first 10 minutes of Terminator 2: Judgment Day HD DVD (UK Edition). The title has a nice DTS-HD Master Audio track and I was able to directly compare the lossy core vs. the lossless MA track.

Results? Well, I'd have to say that after intense comparison of the first 10 minutes of the film, they sounded mostly identical. I did know exactly what I was looking for as I am familiar with lossy compression techniques and I was able to hone in on a 5-second period of time where the MA track had more detail than the lossy track - prior to the first T1000 we see crushing a human skull, there are some ambient background noises; there is one particular tone of very high frequency that is reproduced for 5 seconds with slightly more detail on the MA track. However, since it is a weird ambient background noise there is no way anyone would tell the difference unless doing this specific type of A/B comparison, especially since you need to crank it to hear the difference on this 5-second passage. The music, dialogue, lasers, sound effects, etc, all sounded the same for the most part on both versions.

Note that this is not a truly scientific comparison as differences heard may be due to decoding in player vs. decoding in receiver, not necessarily actual codec differences - especially with the small nuanced differences I noticed. It also wasn't blind, which can make a big difference (and was why I tried to focus on specific things like frequencies as opposed to more interpretative things like soundstage) But at the time it was the best I could do. PS3 owners might be able to give additional input since it will soon be capable of decoding DTS-HDMA in the player (the HD-A35 could only bitstream it).

[ganthc]

Once I get the update next week, I will be happy to check it out.

[dizzlle01]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Now that DTS-HDMA is becoming accessible to more people via the PS3 update, it is clear that many will now have the capability of comparing DTS-HDMA to DTS core. Post your A/B comparisons in this thread, with specific timecodes and/or info on the scenes you compared if you have it.

An easy way to compare the two is to hook up your player to your receiver with both HDMI and optical, then simply switch the digital audio input back and forth - or if you can't do that due to HDMI restrictions, simply change your player's settings so that your receiver is only fed lossy vs. lossless. On the PS3 that would be setting it to bitstream for DTS core, and PCM for DTS Lossless.

Here are my impressions of Terminator 2 DTS-HDMA vs. DTS core from last year, let's hear if anyone has a different experience and on what movie it was from:

http://forums.dvdfile.com/high-defin...tml#post859417



Note that this is not a truly scientific comparison as differences heard may be due to decoding in player vs. decoding in receiver, not necessarily actual codec differences - especially with the small nuanced differences I noticed. It also wasn't blind, which can make a big difference (and was why I tried to focus on specific things like frequencies as opposed to more interpretative things like soundstage) But at the time it was the best I could do. PS3 owners might be able to give additional input since it will soon be capable of decoding DTS-HDMA in the player (the HD-A35 could only bitstream it).

You should list your player and your receiver so we can know what equipment you are using.

[Derb]

Just checked out this page!




First let me say nice try Mr. S. You should know by now mods here only keep ruined threads alive.

April 15th, daaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnn


Well 4 words come to mind here,

The Day After Tomorrow

[Sehnzeleid]

I wonder what kind of bitrates we'll see on the PS3's on-screen display...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by dizzlle01

You should list your player and your receiver so we can know what equipment you are using.

At the time for that comparison last year quoted above, I used:

Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD player
Integra DTC-9.8 preamp/processor
Parasound HCA-2205A Power Amp
PSB Stratus Goldi mains
PSB Stratus C6i center
PSB Stratus Mini surrounds (or it might have been the newer Image S50 surrounds I have now, I forget)

[Sehnzeleid]

Has anyone here actually heard full DTS-HD MA from any BD titles?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

Has anyone here actually heard full DTS-HD MA from any BD titles?

When I had the BD30 I heard it on quite a few, but I don't remember which ones TBH. There is only one DTS-HDMA codec, though, and its the same thing on any format (mathematically identical to the master like TrueHD/PCM). DTS-HDMA also sounds the same as TrueHD and PCM therefore, they are all just different codecs for lossless audio.

The nice thing about DTS-HDMA is it gives an easier way to do A/B comparisons of lossless vs. lossy, since most likely the same master was sourced for both the DTS-HDMA extension and core track. It would also be useful to identify the bitrate of the lossy DTS core track you are comparing the DTS-HDMA extension to - the core can be anywhere between 754kbps and 1536kbps, the former of which has lesser high frequency repsonse compared to the latter.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

I wonder what kind of bitrates we'll see on the PS3's on-screen display...

That will be interesting. I don't think it will be as high as PCM, but it should beat out Dolby TrueHD.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

That will be interesting. I don't think it will be as high as PCM, but it should beat out Dolby TrueHD.

Don't you mean "lose out"?

After all, its the same end product (mathematically lossless), so less is better.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Don't you mean "lose out"?

After all, its the same end product (mathematically lossless), so less is better.

We're talking bit rates here Ruined, not about which is more conservative. Yes, we all agree it's lossless. But some of us are still interested in the bitrates. And my guess is that it will be lower than LPCM (though I guess since it's variable, it could peak in some spots), but will on average be higher than TrueHD.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by ganthc

That will be interesting. I don't think it will be as high as PCM, but it should beat out Dolby TrueHD.

So far the highest fixed LPCM track I heard was 13.8mbps & TrueHD VBR spiking around 9+mbps. dts-HD LMA might be higher than TrueHD during tons of action in movies or Concerts if Fox releases any.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

We're talking bit rates here Ruined, not about which is more conservative. Yes, we all agree it's lossless. But some of us are still interested in the bitrates. And my guess is that it will be lower than LPCM (though I guess since it's variable, it could peak in some spots), but will on average be higher than TrueHD.

From what I've heard DTS-HDMA has lower peak bitrates than TrueHD, but on the other hand it also has much higher average bitrate than TrueHD so it ends up taking more space in the end.

I also read that it is possible for DTS-HDMA to theoretically take up more space than PCM, but that is only in very rare cases when the encoding basically isn't done properly (core track being bitstarved).

My comment was just indicating that in this case, higher bitrate is actually worse than lower bitrate since all three codecs deliver the same mathematically identical signal in the end.

[Sehnzeleid]

As long as we don't see the ridiculously low bitrates of Warner's TrueHD tracks.

Is DTS-HD MA inherently always 24-bit like standard DTS?

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Sehnzeleid

As long as we don't see the ridiculously low bitrates of Warner's TrueHD tracks.

Is DTS-HD MA inherently always 24-bit like standard DTS?

DTS definitely isn't always 24bit... Usually it is at least 20bit, though, as DTS likes to do most of the encoding for the studio and likes to encode at higher bit resolutions. Dolby does not do encodes for the most part, they let the authoring house/studio take care of that and the decisions with the master. As for bitrate, the only thing it means for a mathematically lossless codec is efficiency - because mathematically lossless by definition is identical to the master in every way. In either case, the bit resolution will depend on how it is mastered. DTS likes to encode stuff themselves, and in general they use 20-24bit depending on the master. However in terms of audible differences of bitresolution there is really no difference between 20bit and 24bit, and arguably very little difference between 16bit and 20bit. Its not until you drop below 16bit (i.e 12bit, 8bit) that you get a significant impact on the audible fidelity of the output. So I wouldn't worry too much about the bit resolution, the quality of the master and mixing is far, far, far more important than 16bit vs 24bit.

TrueHD is more efficient than DTS-HD largely because of the lossy design of each. With TrueHD it only needs to carry a 384-640kbps Dolby Digital lossy track and the lossless track is completely seperate from the lossy track (basically a seperate MLP stream); while DTS-HDMA, on the other hand, needs to carry a 1.5mbps lossy track plus a lossless extension (it can carry a smaller lossy core, but then the lossless extension needs to be bigger and takes up the same space anyway) - which is basically a file that contains all the modifications that must be made to the lossy stream to make it mathematically identical to the source. In practice, the former method appears to take up both a lot less space and also a lot less processing power. That is why TrueHD is so prevalent and DTS-HDMA is so sparse. Playing back lossless DTS-HDMA requires intense mathematically calculations on the fly, while playing back TrueHD is a much more simple decoding process.

I would not critcize DTS too much, though, because to my knowledge virtually everything we are seeing with DTS-HD/HDMA was part of the very first DTS home codec that came out on DVD many years ago. All of this stuff is simply the original DTS codec fleshed out and implemented in its full capabilities. All of this stuff was part of the DTS "Coherent Acoustics" whitepapers, which is why I was a big fan of DTS over DD at the time - it had the headroom to expand while DD did not. Dolby's TrueHD, on the other hand, is a result of Dolby purchasing and renaming Meridian's newer MLP codec. The original Dolby Digital codec could not compete with the DTS codec - nor could even Dolby's own extended DD+ - so they went out and bought someone else's lossless technology to compete with the age-old DTS codec now fleshed out to its full capabilies.

In summary, they are both great codecs but they both do the same thing. They both provide exactly the same fidelity, its just a matter of using a quality master with them. DTS' way of doing things looks a bit outdated, inefficient, and far more processor intensive compared to Dolby's method, and that is simply a function of the age of the codec and the need to preserve backwards compatibility with lossy DTS. DD on the other hand took their old codec and bought a new codec (MLP) to line up next to it in order to provide the same backwards compatibility since the original DD codec was not capable of what the DTS codec was capable of.

[ganthc]

My hope Ruined, is that you won't turn our observations on DTS-HDMA versus DTS core into a placebo argument. Meaning if we do hear differences between the tracks, I hope you aren't using this thread as a forum to denounce what we're hearing.

I am looking forward to tomorrow's update with the ps3.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

My hope Ruined, is that you won't turn our observations on DTS-HDMA versus DTS core into a placebo argument. Meaning if we do hear differences between the tracks, I hope you aren't using this thread as a forum to denounce what we're hearing.

I am looking forward to tomorrow's update with the ps3.

Depends on type of observation. If the observation is something like soundstage, that is something that very well could be a product of placebo effect.

If it is something like hearing a particular sound frequency that is not in one version vs. the other (such as the T2 passage in my OP), that is a repeatable test that we can all look to and hear the difference in. Putting the timecode or referencing the specific scene would help others in repeating the discovery.

The best bet for a test is if you could have a friend or family member do the switching for you, so you don't know if you are listening to DTS core or DTS-HDMA, then see how accurate you are on the same passage repeated 10 times switching back and forth without knowing which is which.

That is not so much fun, though, so I am also interested in the minutia people detect on their own such as the sound effect in the OP.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

The best bet for a test is if you could have a friend or family member do the switching for you, so you don't know if you are listening to DTS core or DTS-HDMA, then see how accurate you are on the same passage repeated 10 times switching back and forth without knowing which is which.

How (other than optical connection) do we do these tests?

From what I gather, there will be no option to switch back & forth from the core & lossless track.

[ganthc]

I just downloaded the firmware an hour ago. I tossed in Independence Day, because it was the nearest one to test it out. There it was on the meter, "DTS-HDMA" with the bit rate averaging about 4mbps. I can't wait to try other titles. I didn't fully watch ID4 because I need to get to bed. Sadly I have an early meeting in the morning, but I was so excited, I stayed up to see if I could get the firmware.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

How (other than optical connection) do we do these tests?

From what I gather, there will be no option to switch back & forth from the core & lossless track.

Just use the optical connection for DTS-HD and HDMI for DTS-HDMA. That should do the trick.

[Sehnzeleid]

Go into the OPTIONS (triangle button) menu ----> A/V Settings ----> Audio Output Format allows you to switch between Linear PCM and Bitstream in-movie on the fly.

Live Free or Die Hard's DTS MA (VBR) seems to have more ambiance (better feeling of the big rig command center driving in the background) and bass (jet rockets hitting the bridge, natural gas explosions) than the core DTS track.

The Devil's Rejects' DTS HD (CBR @ 3Mbps) track is louder (subtle sounds are more noticeable) and overall preferable IMO, the core DTS is quiet and boring in comparison.

[sambow87]

If I understand correctly...Since my PS3 is hooked up to my receiver via Optical (PS3 does not have analogs, and my receiver, an Onkyo 504, does not have HDMI) I should keep everything bit stream correct?

Will I get any benefit with DTS-HDMA?

[Chromy]

Somewhat off topic... I've been playing with a HD-DVD setup where I'm taking the TrueHD and decoding that locally on the toshiba player, and outputing the bitstream to my receiver over co-ax. Is this valid... because it sounds like what you're saying above is that TrueHD doesn't have a core that it can send out... but it's sending out something that my receiver is identifying as DD?

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by sambow87

If I understand correctly...Since my PS3 is hooked up to my receiver via Optical (PS3 does not have analogs, and my receiver, an Onkyo 504, does not have HDMI) I should keep everything bit stream correct?

Will I get any benefit with DTS-HDMA?

Unfortunately, you will not be able to take advantage of any of the high def audio formats with optical on blu-ray. You will get only 2 channel lpcm, or the dts core of the dts-hdma signal. You need an hdmi receiver (and not just one that passes signals either) to receive high def signals. Unless you have analog or hdmi, you are out of luck.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Chromy

Somewhat off topic... I've been playing with a HD-DVD setup where I'm taking the TrueHD and decoding that locally on the toshiba player, and outputing the bitstream to my receiver over co-ax. Is this valid... because it sounds like what you're saying above is that TrueHD doesn't have a core that it can send out... but it's sending out something that my receiver is identifying as DD?

Originally Posted by Ruined

TrueHD is more efficient than DTS-HD largely because of the lossy design of each. With TrueHD it only needs to carry a 384-640kbps Dolby Digital lossy track and the lossless track is completely seperate from the lossy track (basically a seperate MLP stream); while DTS-HDMA, on the other hand, needs to carry a 1.5mbps lossy track plus a lossless extension

No, Ruined is right. The Dolby Digital signal you are getting with co-ax would be the lossy DD track that comes with the TrueHD track. He's simply saying from a processing aspect that the THD is more efficient than DTS with its lossy track, even if DTS has a larger bit rate.