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.
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.
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.