LPCM vs DTS-HD Master Audio

[Zing]

What's the difference? They're both lossless, right? Why would you ever be given these options on a disc?

 

[heeman]

I am curious to hear what the experts have to say about this, because they DO sound different to me.

And why offer DTS Master Audio, Dolby HD and LPCM Multi-Channel on the same disc?

:angry-tappingfoot: :angry-tappingfoot: :angry-tappingfoot:

 

[Flint]

In my experience in prior DTS formats, the final mastering is performed by DTS sound engineers which creates a different sound, often with louder boomy effects, more extreme surround effects, and a more "exciting" sound.

Dolby is focused on recreating the sound you would hear in a certified.Dolby.movie theater (hence the use of diffuse field surrounds and a general lack of subharmonic bass).

Linear PCM is just the audio tracks as they were created.

You can guess which I prefer.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

In theory, there should be no difference since both are lossless, and exact bits are exact bits are exact bits. In reality, as Flint said, DTS has to get their piss on the fire hydrant by tweaking the sound to their liking and marketing perspective. I'm amazed that the studios and film directors let this happen (actually, I'm not - its a matter of $$$$$$, and most Hollywood movies need all the additional money they can get).

 

[Zing]

In my experience in prior DTS formats, the final mastering is performed by DTS sound engineers which creates a different sound, often with louder boomy effects, more extreme surround effects, and a more "exciting" sound.

Dolby is focused on recreating the sound you would hear in a certified.Dolby.movie theater (hence the use of diffuse field surrounds and a general lack of subharmonic bass).

DTS has to get their piss on the fire hydrant by tweaking the sound to their liking and marketing perspective.

I knew this was the case previously with traditional DTS and Dolby Digital but I thought that practice stopped with the advent of DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

In my experience in prior DTS formats, the final mastering is performed by DTS sound engineers which creates a different sound, often with louder boomy effects, more extreme surround effects, and a more "exciting" sound.

Dolby is focused on recreating the sound you would hear in a certified.Dolby.movie theater (hence the use of diffuse field surrounds and a general lack of subharmonic bass).

DTS has to get their piss on the fire hydrant by tweaking the sound to their liking and marketing perspective.

I knew this was the case previously with traditional DTS and Dolby Digital but I thought that practice stopped with the advent of DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD.

DTS used to use a lossy codec and they had the marketing that their lossy process was "better" to differentiate them in the eyes of the consumer. Now that there is lossless, that is no longer the case, so they had to find another reason that they are "better". Bullshit as usual, nothing to see here.

 

[Zing]

Now that there is lossless, that is no longer the case, so they had to find another reason that they are "better". Bullshit as usual, nothing to see here.

I think those of us that double-dipped on Master & Commander (DVD and then BD) learned that the hard way. The DTS DVD sounds way better than the DTS-HD MA Blu-ray. Another example that comes to mind is Cloverfield. Everyone was talking about the incredible bass when the movie came out on DVD. I held out for the BD and was extremely let down. I've always wanted to pick up a copy of Cloverfield on DVD just to see what I missed.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I think I'm getting a bit jaded and cynical about the audio business; that tends to happen when you've worked in the sausage factory for so long. :angry-banghead:

 

[Barney]

rammisframmis, remember when you discussed with us that with DD in movies, 98% of the audio was thrown away. Is this still the case with the new audio formats ?

 

[Rope]

When that many sound format options are offered, they can charge more money for the disc.

Rope

 

[Flint]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? If you have a bunch of cool tech logos on the box, that makes it "better" than the box with fewer tech logos, right?

I mean, these days when you buy any piece of digital audio gear (like a disc player or receiver) there is a long sticker of logos on the top (or even worse, a bunch of etched logos) to make sure you know that device supports all those branded technologies. Personally, I don't use that nonsense to make my decisions, but clearly it matters or they wouldn't bother adding them.

 

[Huey]

Well, that's the point, isn't it? If you have a bunch of cool tech logos on the box, that makes it "better" than the box with fewer tech logos, right?

I mean, these days when you buy any piece of digital audio gear (like a disc player or receiver) there is a long sticker of logos on the top (or even worse, a bunch of etched logos) to make sure you know that device supports all those branded technologies. Personally, I don't use that nonsense to make my decisions, but clearly it matters or they wouldn't bother adding them.

I may not be comparing apples to apples here, but at least with DVD, if the box had THX on it, the movie usually looked and sounded better than other non thx movies.

 

[Flint]

That's because with DVD there is a ton of data reduction (lossy compression) which can be extremely visible with poor management of the compression tools. THX stepped up and offered expert skills to use the tools properly to get the best results possible with each title they mastered.

BluRay is much less lossy or completely uncompressed, so those detrimental variables are less critical to manage.