Further, why should consumers demand studios include Dolby TrueHD tracks? Essentially, why is TrueHD better than DTS HD MA? If they're both lossless, bit-for-bit codecs, why shouldn't all studios simply adopt the DTS since it appears to be winning the codec war?
The statistics I've seen suggest DTS HD MA is a little less efficient than Dolby TrueHD. I would also imagine that there are licensing fee differences, though which is the lower cost codec is something I can't answer.
I don't think consumers need to "demand" either of them. Receivers are generally built to support both or neither, I've not seen one that supports one but not the other. The only thing I can see on the consumer side is that DTS HD MA's "fallback" is more elegant than TrueHD's - DTS HD MA has a "core" DTS component that can be extracted and played on a plain DTS player, whereas TrueHD needs to either be converted in real time to DTS or AC-3 by the player, or bundled with an additional AC-3 track. HD DVD solved this by making TrueHD support mandatory for players (ie players needed to decode it natively, whereas players only needed to extract the DTS core for DTS HD, not decode the whole thing.) Blu-ray doesn't.
In my previous post, I was suggesting that Steve ask the Dolby reps why the consumer should demand TrueHD over DTS HD MA.Personally, I don't think consumers should demand one over the other, but I'd like to hear why Dolby thinks that there codec is superior. Perhaps they'll mention its greater efficiency, as you did. Perhaps they'll say that it's more widely supported than DTS HD MA (more players can both decode and bitstream it, while there are still some Blu-ray players that can only bitstream DTS HD MA). I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear their spin since they're both lossless codecs.
Personally, I'd welcome a standardization on DTS HD MA because I prefer it over TrueHD. Don't ask me why. To my ears, it just sounds better. Perhaps it's because it's typically louder than a TrueHD track. Whatever the case, we have one next generation DVD format, why not have a single next generation audio format as well?
The Rip is the latest addition to the Boogie eWriter line, devices that let you scribble notes and drawings and can be wiped away with the press of a button.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Further, why should consumers demand studios include Dolby TrueHD tracks? Essentially, why is TrueHD better than DTS HD MA? If they're both lossless, bit-for-bit codecs, why shouldn't all studios simply adopt the DTS since it appears to be winning the codec war?
The statistics I've seen suggest DTS HD MA is a little less efficient than Dolby TrueHD. I would also imagine that there are licensing fee differences, though which is the lower cost codec is something I can't answer.
I don't think consumers need to "demand" either of them. Receivers are generally built to support both or neither, I've not seen one that supports one but not the other. The only thing I can see on the consumer side is that DTS HD MA's "fallback" is more elegant than TrueHD's - DTS HD MA has a "core" DTS component that can be extracted and played on a plain DTS player, whereas TrueHD needs to either be converted in real time to DTS or AC-3 by the player, or bundled with an additional AC-3 track. HD DVD solved this by making TrueHD support mandatory for players (ie players needed to decode it natively, whereas players only needed to extract the DTS core for DTS HD, not decode the whole thing.) Blu-ray doesn't.
Good points, squiggle.
In my previous post, I was suggesting that Steve ask the Dolby reps why the consumer should demand TrueHD over DTS HD MA.Personally, I don't think consumers should demand one over the other, but I'd like to hear why Dolby thinks that there codec is superior. Perhaps they'll mention its greater efficiency, as you did. Perhaps they'll say that it's more widely supported than DTS HD MA (more players can both decode and bitstream it, while there are still some Blu-ray players that can only bitstream DTS HD MA). I'm not sure, but I'd like to hear their spin since they're both lossless codecs.
Personally, I'd welcome a standardization on DTS HD MA because I prefer it over TrueHD. Don't ask me why. To my ears, it just sounds better. Perhaps it's because it's typically louder than a TrueHD track. Whatever the case, we have one next generation DVD format, why not have a single next generation audio format as well?