 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.222.88.145
In Reply to: RE: player capabilities chart posted by Jack G on January 24, 2008 at 06:13:15
Dolby TrueHD is what we'd be left with should DTS-HD Master Audio not be used. If the encoder wouldn't default to a technically non-lossless format, it would be OK. In its present state, that's not the case. And as I predicted, if DTS were to allow for a Dialog Normalization option it would default to OFF (it does), once again demonstrating that DTS puts emphasis on audio quality first.
Follow Ups:
Valid points, but the problem is, that not everyone is going to want to buy a new receiver, just to hear DTS-MA, even assuming they have a player that streams it. Odds are, that most people will end up hearing the core DTS soundtrack, which pretty much means the MA is a waste. It can't be that hard to have a decoder in the player-are they just too cheap to pay for the chip, or are they too cheap to pay the licensing fees? Do it right or don't use it at all.
Jack
When specs were being released, DTS only gave processing numbers for DTS-HD High Resolution. When asked "how much" processing power would be needed for Master Audio, DTS just said "much more". Kind of vague, especially when these were the guys supporting their codec's "decodability". However, rather than upping the processing power to what would have been worse case scenario numbers, they made some poor decisions/estimations. Kind of shitty, considering the DTS bitrates were known at that time and "mathematical computation" is what these guys do for a living.
Since player manufacturers were waiting for SoC solutions (less $), the delay in fully capable chips pushed DTS-HD Master Audio internal decoding back several months. Add to this development time for new players and it became a waiting game.
The market will probably see all new players released in Q3/Q4 08 with either bitstreaming, decoding or both re: DTS-HD Master Audio. I believe there are 2 (maybe 3) SoC manufacturers for the players, so the competition should keep costs within reason (ie, internal decoding should become less of a "Can we afford not to include it?" to more of a "So, who gets our chip business?").
I believe the licensing fee for DTS is the same, regardless of whether you decode DTS-HD MA or just the core (Dolby's licensing fee works the same way).
Blu-Ray has been out for what, 1 1/2 years now? Did they not know that they would be using DTS-MA? Are they incapable of planning ahead? Why couldn't the BDA tell Fox to hold off on DTS-MA until the CEs could get their act together?
> > > However, rather than upping the processing power to what would have been worse case scenario numbers, they made some poor decisions/estimations. < < <
They appear to do that alot. I confess, I do not understand the logic, unless they just said to hell with our current customers, make them buy another player. This is the kind of thing the BDA does that really pisses me off.
> > > The market will probably see all new players released in Q3/Q4 08 with either bitstreaming, decoding or both re: DTS-HD Master Audio < < <
IOW, everyone has to buy another BD player. Bit streaming alone isn't going to cut it. I'm already on my second BD player, a fact I'm not happy about. I RESENT having to buy another one just because the BDA doesn't have their act together, and I won't do it. For most people, DTS-HD MA is useless, and those discs with it don't have lossless audio. Once again, Blu-ray seems to be showing itself as consumer unfriendly.
Am I missing something?
Jack
> > > However, rather than upping the processing power to what would have been worse case scenario numbers, they made some poor decisions/estimations. < < <
They appear to do that alot. I confess, I do not understand the logic, unless they just said to hell with our current customers, make them buy another player. This is the kind of thing the BDA does that really pisses me off.
I was referring to the chip manufacturers (Sigma Designs and Broadcom), both of which make products for HD DVD player manufacturers (aka Toshiba) to use. It had nothing to do with the BDA.
Why couldn't the BDA tell Fox to hold off on DTS-MA until the CEs could get their act together?
Tell them, no: suggest that they use 5.1 PCM, yes. I doubt FOX would have listened, though (they're quite the renegades at that studio). Besides, FOX was probably under the impression that DTS-HD Master Audio decoding/bitstreaming would not be taking so long. Either way, FOX provide a DTS mix for early players and a lossless mix for current players that bitstream and future players that decode/bitstream the codec.
I can't decode (yet) or bitstream DTS-HD Master Audio with my PS3: however, I'm glad FOX encoded their titles with a lossless codec. They could have pulled a Warner Bros or Paramount and encoded their Blu-ray titles with lossy audio (and no way to get lossless audio, an upgrade, from those titles in the future).
IOW, everyone has to buy another BD player.
Only if you want to decode/bitstream DTS-HD Master Audio. Otherwise, you have a usually nice sounding DTS mix to listen to. Besides, going by what many of the HD DVD supporters have been saying for the past year, lossless audio isn't needed anyway.
> > > I was referring to the chip manufacturers (Sigma Designs and Broadcom), both of which make products for HD DVD player manufacturers (aka Toshiba) to use. It had nothing to do with the BDA. < < <
OK, I didn't get that. Thanks for clarifying that.> > > They could have pulled a Warner Bros or Paramount and encoded their Blu-ray titles with lossy audio < < <
If you can't decode the lossless, what difference does it make?
> > > Only if you want to decode/bitstream DTS-HD Master Audio. Otherwise, you have a usually nice sounding DTS mix to listen to. Besides, going by what many of the HD DVD supporters have been saying for the past year, lossless audio isn't needed anyway. < < <
Actually, I'll eventually have to get another player for advanced video profiles anyway. No, I don't care that much about audio. this is more a matter of principle. Having features that no one can use is very user unfriendly.
Jack
If you stick with 50G discs...
The only real issues would be extralong movies and/or 5.1 24/96 soundtracks.
It's about what the studios will be giving us tomorrow. "Extra value" content is going to start ramping up now that there's a clearer path for High Definition optical media. Studios will be more inclined to give the format more features, commentaries, games, interactive content, deleted scenes, alternate endings, additional language tracks...
I think you get the picture. Weighing in with 48Mb/s of audio-video bandwidth and 50GB of storage space, even Blu-ray is no match for the studios and their inclination to "give us more of what we want" (not that everyone really wants the extras they're giving). What PCM cannot do is save bandwidth and storage space -- the advanced audio codecs can, and when used correctly, are actually better than PCM in several ways.
Remember, this is the "big picture" view, not the "my system" view.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]