DTS core 1536kbps vs DD 640kbps

[lithoc]

What about sound quality?
Please help me to clarify my doubts.

We have already know DTS 1536kbps is better than DD 448kbps in DVD.
But what about DD 640kbps (core)? With extra 192kbps, a lot more information can be stored.

1.) DTS 1536kbps(from TrueHD) vs Studio DD 640kbps(TrueHD core)
2.) Software encoded (eg Surcode) DTS 1536kbps encoder efficiency vs Studio DTS 1536kbps (core) efficiency
3.) Software encoded AC3 640kbps efficiency vs Studio AC3 640kbps(core) efficiency

On my findings, DTS 1536kbps will sound muffle when there're a lot of discreate surrounf effects.

I hope i can find answer to that.

[madshi]

I'd say:

DTS latest version ("Master Audio Suite") > DTS previous version ("Pro") > Surcode

Don't know where exactly AC3 640kbps belongs. Maybe about equal with 1536kbps Surcode? Or maybe slightly worse. But most probably worse than the official DTS encoders at 1536kbps. As far as I've heard, the open source Aften encoder comes pretty close to the official Dolby AC3 encoder, but I can't say for sure, either...

[tebasuna51]

...
We have already know DTS 1536kbps is better than DD 448kbps in DVD.
Warning, sometimes the mix sources was different.

But what about DD 640kbps (core)? With extra 192kbps, a lot more information can be stored.

I only know this comparative (http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/tec_doc_t3324-2007_tcm6-53801.pdf) between multichannel formats.

[jj666]

Nice comparison, thanks. It makes you wonder why they don't use DD+ if they're not able to put a HD audio codec on Blu-rays (for example, The Fugitive with its glorious 448kb/sec AC3 track).

Cheers again,

-jj-

[madshi]

Nice comparison, thanks. It makes you wonder why they don't use DD+ if they're not able to put a HD audio codec on Blu-rays (for example, The Fugitive with its glorious 448kb/sec AC3 track).
Oh, that has multiple reasons:

(1) DD+ on Blu-Ray is kind of stupid: It has a conventional DD core and the additional DD+ packets are mainly used for the back channels. I think the DD+ packets can also replace the DD 5.1 core data, but not extend it. So IMHO DD+ on Blu-Ray is just not very useful.

(2) DD+ is optional on Blu-Ray and most Blu-Ray standalone players don't support it. Well, they support the DD core, but not the additional DD+ packets.

[lithoc]

Nice comparison, thanks. It makes you wonder why they don't use DD+ if they're not able to put a HD audio codec on Blu-rays (for example, The Fugitive with its glorious 448kb/sec AC3 track).

Cheers again,

-jj-

Correct me if I'm wrong. When HD-DVD and Bluray finalise their draft. I would say 99% of the AV Receiver doesn't support the new format (DD+, TruedHD, DTS-HD/MA). Many AV receiver that time don't even have HDMI input for LPCM.

That's why Bluray force the manufacturer to have backward compatible stream output via spdif (DD core, DTS core) / analog 5.1 / hdmi lcpm .

BTW, The Fugitive DD audio is encoded as 640kbps.

On my own comparison, Dolby core 640kbps is better than DTS core 1536kbps in term of compression efficiency. But Dolby is affected by Dialog Normalization & Dynamic Range Compression which somehow it doesn't have the full dynamic that DTS has.

I'm not too sure about this, Dolby is 16bit and DTS is 16 or 24bit.

16bit maximum dynamic range is 96db where 24bit is 144db.

Thanks

[madshi]

BTW, The Fugitive DD audio is encoded as 640kbps.
I think the HD DVD DD+ was 640kbps, but the Blu-Ray DD audio was only 448kbps. Or something like that...

Dolby is affected by Dialog Normalization & Dynamic Range Compression which somehow it doesn't have the full dynamic that DTS has.
DRC should be adjustable in your receiver (if it's any good). Dialog normalization can not, however. But you can patch it away by using eac3to.

I'm not too sure about this, Dolby is 16bit and DTS is 16 or 24bit.
Both Dolby and DTS can encode full 24bit information just fine.

[jj666]

I think the HD DVD DD+ was 640kbps, but the Blu-Ray DD audio was only 448kbps. Or something like that...

The older MPEG-2 blu-ray has 640kb/AC3, the newer VC-1 blu-ray has 448kb/AC3 :-)

Cheers for the comments all...!

-jj-

[lithoc]

[QUOTE=Both Dolby and DTS can encode full 24bit information just fine.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info.

FYI, I just found a mandarin movie called "Red Cliff". It has TrueHD(640kbps ac3 core) DTS-MA(1536kbps dts core). I hope someone can really compare the core audio quality.

I'm not too sure about comparing LPCM, TrueHD & DTS-MA cos it's theoretical the same.

[Sagittaire]

I think the HD DVD DD+ was 640kbps, but the Blu-Ray DD audio was only 448kbps. Or something like that...


448 Kbps max for DD on HDDVD
3 Mbps max for DD+ on HDDVD (11.1 and 24 bits)
640 Kbps max for DD on BD

[madshi]

448 Kbps max for DD on HDDVD
3 Mbps max for DD+ on HDDVD (11.1 and 24 bits)
640 Kbps max for DD on BD
I was not talking about the bitrate the HD DVD and Blu-Ray specifications allow. I was talking about which bitrate Warner actually used on their "The Fugitive" HD DVD and Blu-Ray discs.

[jj666]

My fault for mentioning bitrate, I should have known Sagittaire would appear ;-)

-jj-

[quantum]

I found this article interesting:
http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/dolby-vs-dts.html

"When the DTS soundtrack is encoded at the highest bit-rate of 1.5Mbps defined by this DTS standard, DTS claims that it is capable of achieving indistinguishable audio fidelity from its original un-coded source content.

Similar claims come from Dolby Labs, namely that when Dolby Digital is encoded at the maximum 640 kbps defined by this standard, it is capable of achieving similar audio perceptual transparency results, in that the listener would not be able to distinguish between the original un-coded source and the output from a coded soundtrack."

[DJ Bobo]

I shall remind you of the document tebasuna posted:
It is interesting to note that that broadcasters who were using Dolby Digital at a bitrate of
448 kbit/s several years ago made the right decision, although it was not made on scientific basis
but was based merely on practical "trial-and-cut" experience. Today, Dolby Digital still represents a
good compromise between bit rate and quality. Broadcasters who use DD at 448 kbit/s for 5.1
multi-channel audio are able to offer excellent multi-channel audio quality. This conclusion is
equally true for standard TV, HDTV and radio broadcasts
Where
and DTS still requires around 1.5 Mbit/s for
"Excellent" quality

If DD@448kbps is similiar to DTS@1536kbps, then I'd rather go for DD@640kbps than for DTS.