Why Arent We Seeing 7.1 TrueHd Tracks?

[Supermodified]

I dont get it and im sure its been posted before. How come we arent seeing 7.1 TrueHd tracks? Its already bad enough that Dolby only does a minimum of 1.5 mbp at a min but no 7.1 on top of it. Anyone know why?

[Josh Z]

99% of Hollywood movies are mixed for 5.1. In fact, most of the 6.1 and 7.1 soundtracks available on Blu-ray or DVD are post-processed in the studio to matrix a center rear channel before disc encoding. The results are not much different than applying ProLogic IIx decoding to a 5.1 track at your receiver.

TrueHD is capable of 7.1 channels of audio. There's nothing preventing it, other than studio politics. The only studios making a concerted push for 7.1 are/were New Line (now defunct) and Lionsgate, both of whom happen to prefer DTS for other business reasons.

Also, there's no point in complaining about the bit rate of a lossless audio format like TrueHD. A lossless track is by definition bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. TrueHD and DTS Master Audio use different compression methods and thus have different bit rates, but the results are both 100% identical to their masters. If they weren't, they couldn't be called lossless.

[rmoody]

dunno, but I would love to see more 7.1 stuff seeing how much I (foolishly) spent on my setup. Oh well.

[LastSonOfKrypton]

Originally Posted by rmoody

dunno, but I would love to see more 7.1 stuff seeing how much I (foolishly) spent on my setup. Oh well.

Unless it was over 6 figured I'd NEVER consider a HT setup foolish

[rmoody]

Originally Posted by LastSonOfKrypton

Unless it was over 6 figured I'd NEVER consider a HT setup foolish

Well, it wasn't, used my BB employee accommodations Was fairly economical. Still, wish I had either gotten two Klipsch B-3's instead of the extra S-3's. But, oh well. Still sounds awesome!

[Supermodified]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

99% of Hollywood movies are mixed for 5.1. In fact, most of the 6.1 and 7.1 soundtracks available on Blu-ray or DVD are post-processed in the studio to matrix a center rear channel before disc encoding. The results are not much different than applying ProLogic IIx decoding to a 5.1 track at your receiver.

TrueHD is capable of 7.1 channels of audio. There's nothing preventing it, other than studio politics. The only studios making a concerted push for 7.1 are/were New Line (now defunct) and Lionsgate, both of whom happen to prefer DTS for other business reasons.

Also, there's no point in complaining about the bit rate of a lossless audio format like TrueHD. A lossless track is by definition bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. TrueHD and DTS Master Audio use different compression methods and thus have different bit rates, but the results are both 100% identical to their masters. If they weren't, they couldn't be called lossless.

I dont mean to complain but, DTSHD is less compressed and YESS, I can tell the difference between DTSHD and TrueHd

[Coolpplse]

Originally Posted by Supermodified

I dont mean to complain but, DTSHD is less compressed and YESS, I can tell the difference between DTSHD and TrueHd

If you are referring DTSHD as DTS High Resolution and not DTS HD Master Audio sure, but DTS HD Master Audio is lossless and so is Dolby TrueHD, they are bit for bit identical to the original source when they use the same bit depth and sample-rate. The only times you would hear differences is if the people responsible for the encode turned on codec specific features that changed the original presentation of the source for a particular sound format like Dialogue Normalization or if theres decoding issues from either the player or AVR.

Or perhaps if the people responsible for the audio portions were altering the sources before encoding them to DDTrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio, then you would hear a difference also.

[Aurora]

Originally Posted by Supermodified

I dont mean to complain but, DTSHD is less compressed and YESS, I can tell the difference between DTSHD and TrueHd

What are you comparing? The only domestic release that offers both is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Any other comparison between the codecs is inherently unfair due to the lack of consistency in program material.

In other words, you can't compare a TrueHD track from I Am Legend to a DTS-HD MA track from I, Robot and make any useful conclusion about the superiority of one codec over the other.

[Supermodified]

Originally Posted by Coolpplse

If you are referring DTSHD as DTS High Resolution and not DTS HD Master Audio sure, but DTS HD Master Audio is lossless and so is Dolby TrueHD, they are bit for bit identical to the original source when they use the same bit depth and sample-rate. The only times you would hear differences is if the people responsible for the encode turned on codec specific features that changed the original presentation of the source for a particular sound format like Dialogue Normalization or if theres decoding issues from either the player or AVR.

Or perhaps if the people responsible for the audio portions were altering the sources before encoding them to DDTrueHD and DTS HD Master Audio, then you would hear a difference also.

Correction, I meant DTSMA

[Supermodified]

Originally Posted by Aurora

What are you comparing? The only domestic release that offers both is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Any other comparison between the codecs is inherently unfair due to the lack of consistency in program material.

In other words, you can't compare a TrueHD track from I Am Legend to a DTS-HD MA track from I, Robot and make any useful conclusion about the superiority of one codec over the other.

my point is the low rate. Example, 300 pcm track compared to the TrueHd. I can tell a difference between those two. Even though pcm is not DTSMA, My point is it has a higher rate and its noticeable in sound. I still dont understand why we arent seeing 7.1 TrueHd tracks.

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by Supermodified

my point is the low rate. Example, 300 pcm track compared to the TrueHd. I can tell a difference between those two. Even though pcm is not DTSMA, My point is it has a higher rate and its noticeable in sound.

No, you aren't.

Of course a TrueHD track has a lower bit rate than an uncompressed PCM track. The whole point of compression is to reduce amount of bit storage used. TrueHD is a lossless compression codec.

Lossless = No loss.
No loss = Identical to the master.
Identical to the master = You can't hear a difference, because there isn't one.

Any differences you think you hear are the result of not properly matching the volume between the two. A louder track seems "better", even though it's really just louder. Match the volumes and the difference goes away.

I still dont understand why we arent seeing 7.1 TrueHd tracks.

That's been explained to you above. Read.

[view-it-purple]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

No, you aren't.

Of course a TrueHD track has a lower bit rate than an uncompressed PCM track. The whole point of compression is to reduce amount of bit storage used. TrueHD is a lossless compression codec.

Lossless = No loss.
No loss = Identical to the master.
Identical to the master = You can't hear a difference, because there isn't one.

Any differences you think you hear are the result of not properly matching the volume between the two. A louder track seems "better", even though it's really just louder. Match the volumes and the difference goes away.





That's been explained to you above. Read.

Supermodified you have to understand that Josh has high hard-one for the second-string Dolby.

DTS in a theater > Dolby Digital in a theater
DTS > Dolby Digital
DTS ES > Dolby EX
DTS Neo6 > Dolby ProLogic IIx
DTS HD MA ? Dolby TrueHD

Guess what is next in the pattern? I thought you might.

As far as definitions goes that lossless = lossless.

Josh thinks he is getting 100% beef when he eats at McDonalds because the wrapper says so.

[singhcr]

I do not understand the confusion regarding PCM, TrueHD and DTS-MA.

PCM is uncompressed and lossless, meaning that it is identical to the studio master and does not have to be decoded, as it is essentially a raw WAV file.

With TrueHD and DTS-MA, one has to use their algorithms to de-compress the file, just like one would do with a ZIP file. Once the track is de-compressed (this happens on the fly), these tracks are also lossless and are therefore exactly the same as the PCM track. If I sent you a MP3 file, would it affect the sound quality if I sent the actual file to you directly or sent you a ZIP file to save space? Once you unZIP the file, it sounds exactly the same. Mathematically lossless=lossless.

Now technically a 24-bit lossless track should sound better than a 16-bit lossless track (for the same movie) but we are entering a point where the only percieved difference is in one's head. If you want to give this a shot you can watch the US release of Spiderman 3 where you can compare the 16-bit PCM track to the 24-bit TrueHD track.

[view-it-purple]

Originally Posted by singhcr

I do not understand the confusion regarding PCM, TrueHD and DTS-MA.

PCM is uncompressed and lossless, meaning that it is identical to the studio master and does not have to be decoded, as it is essentially a raw WAV file.

With TrueHD and DTS-MA, one has to use their algorithms to de-compress the file, just like one would do with a ZIP file. Once the track is de-compressed (this happens on the fly), these tracks are also lossless and are therefore exactly the same as the PCM track. If I sent you a MP3 file, would it affect the sound quality if I sent the actual file to you directly or sent you a ZIP file to save space? Once you unZIP the file, it sounds exactly the same. Mathematically lossless=lossless.

Now technically a 24-bit lossless track should sound better than a 16-bit lossless track (for the same movie) but we are entering a point where the only percieved difference is in one's head. If you want to give this a shot you can watch the US release of Spiderman 3 where you can compare the 16-bit PCM track to the 24-bit TrueHD track.

Are you touched in the head?

Mathematically lossless=lossless.

PCM eats up gobs of space. Doesn't sound = to me.

If watching a movie in DTS HD MA with out a lossless receiver you will get 1.5 DTS core track. Will you get a 1.5 core track from TrueHD? NO! Doesn't sound = to me.

If DTS is paying that kind of attention to it's encoding and Dolby isn't, you think there giving the movie the royal treatment.

Mathematically lossless=lossless. Really?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by view-it-purple

Are you touched in the head?

Mathematically lossless=lossless.

PCM eats up gobs of space. Doesn't sound = to me.

If watching a movie in DTS HD MA with out a lossless receiver you will get 1.5 DTS core track. Will you get a 1.5 core track from TrueHD? NO! Doesn't sound = to me.

If DTS is paying that kind of attention to it's encoding and Dolby isn't, you think there giving the movie the royal treatment.

Mathematically lossless=lossless. Really?

Yes, mathematically lossless=lossless. Really.

That is the entire point behind TrueHD and DTS-MA. Once the tracks are decoded/uncompressed, the resulting sound is bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. PCM eats up a lot of space because it is not compressed. You sacrifice disc space for the luxury of not needing a decoder to play back the PCM file. This is common knowledge here. If you disagree with me, that's fine, but these are the facts. Additionally, you do not need to insult me if you disagree with what I am writing. I did not insult you.

I am not talking about legacy tracks like the 1.5 core track for DTS-MA, I have no idea why you brought that up.