Subscribe today to Home Entertainment, and get a FREE GIFT - with “Just ask - the 5 questions you should ask before hiring a custom installer”.
DTS
The following week found us at DTS’ facilities in Agoura Hills, just northwest of Los Angeles. There we had a tour of their deluxe screening room, and soon found ourselves in one of their demonstration sound studios, where a 7.1 system featuring seven KRK Expose E8T monitor speakers was teamed with two Bag End PS18E subwoofers. In lieu of a stack of power amplifiers, this system was instead easily powered by a Denon AVR-2808CI audio/video receiver, and we were treated to a number of high resolution audio and HD video clips from the latest DTS Blu-ray demonstration disc.
After an informative presentation which explained the benefits of their latest codec technologies, we dove right into the A/B comparisons between the original PCM versions and the various DTS codec’d versions. The short clip chosen for us came from a DTS Blue Man Group recording, again using a spare, sparse selection for an easier and more revealing A/B comparison. Again, we found no differencebetween the uncompressed original track and the DTS-HD Master Audio version.
In addition to the DTS HD-Master Audio lossless codec, DTS also offers up a nearly lossless high bitrate format called DTS-HD High Resolution Audio, with up to four times the bitrate of their core DTS format, which we were able to audition via their Blu-ray demonstration disc. We then conducted A/B comparisons between the high resolution Blue Man Group PCM original soundtrack and the core DTS codec which has a Blu-ray and DVD bitrate of either 768 kbps or 1.5 Mb/s, in a somewhat similar but not totally blind fashion that we went through the week before.
It was déjà vu all over again. We switched back and forth between the original PCM master and the core DTS version, and here we found only the slightest, barely noticeable difference. From a frequency response standpoint, both versions were identical, with clearly delineated high frequency details, but the compressed version differed slightly only in barely noticeable presence —that sense of being “there”, with the original PCM track having just slightly greater overall richness. Whatever acoustic elements were removed in the code/decode process were clearly superfluous, at least for the most part, as the audible differences were so minor as to be almost unnoticeable—again, another testament to the capabilities of this highly refined codec.
A/V receiver and surround processor makers are quickly adding these advanced decoders in their new model offerings, and broadening the price range to a wider audience, with A/V receiver models so equipped priced at under $600 available later this summer. Owners of Sony’s Playstation 3 gaming console got the DTS-HD Master Audio decoder as a freebie this past spring, as a feature added during a PS3 system software upgrade, and more HDMI version 1.3 Blu-ray players that can pass these high resolution bitstreams to downstream high resolution surround decoders are entering the market as well.
Conclusion
From both listening sessions, I came away with a newfound respect for the abilities of these audio codecs to deliver excellent sound quality at dramatically reduced bitrates. Ideally, I’d like to see future Blu-ray releases moving away from bit-hog multi-channel PCM tracks and instead use one of these high resolution codecs, as a typical Blu-ray movie’s 5.1 channel PCM soundtrack consumes a whopping 6.9 Mb/s all the time. That’s a large chunk of a disc’s available bitspace, some of which could be better used for maximized video coding precision, for example.
These new high-resolution codecs are backwards compatible with existing decoders, but only in their most basic form. For the better sound you'll need either a player that decodes (and sends that audio out via PCM over HDMI or analog 6-channel out) or a receiver/processor that decodes the format, and a player that will output the bitstream of these codecs.
Dolby Digital Plus and DTS-HD High Resolution offer tremendous sound quality and are extremely efficient for the quality they provide. While still compressed audio, they're closer to the original master than most people will be able to hear.
For those who will settle for nothing but the best, the bit-for-bit accuracy of Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD-Master Audio provide them the confidence that what they’re listening to at home is identical as the original studio master soundtrack.
So Subtle
What impressed, or perhaps surprised, me most about these tests was how good the base codecs actually are. The difference between the original audio and the basic Dolby Digital and DTS is a lot subtler than you’d expect, given the extreme amount of compression (around 10:1, a similar ratio to that of 128 kbps MP3).
That said, I could definitely pick out the difference between the lesser (or perhaps it’s more accurate to say “better”) compressed versions and the higher compressed versions. The difference is mostly in the presence, or ambience. The lossless, Dolby Digital Plus, and DTS-HD High Resolution compressed tracks were just a little more open and airy. I hate to say it, but they just sounded more realistic and transparent. The 448 kbps Dolby Digital and standard DTS tracks were less so, a little more closed off. Between the 640 kbps Dolby Digital and the uncompressed, the difference was even less noticeable. Enough so that most people, even those trained to listen for it, probably won’t be able to hear the difference.
The core DTS call is a little harder, as there wasn’t the same blind system in place to A/B as precisely as at Dolby. Results were similar, though.So by all means go for the new codecs, as they definitely sound better than what was on DVD. Uncompressed PCM, on the other hand, is just a waste of space (though compatible with everything).
If you’ve been listening at home and are sure you can hear a difference on your favorite discs, be wary. There is absolutely no way to tell that compressed and uncompressed tracks on any disc have anything to do with each other. They could come from different masters, they could be mixed differently, or any number of other variables that makes an in-home test, unfortunately, impossible. That said, trust your ears, and go with the one that sounds best to you. –Geoffrey Morrison
Subscribe today to Home Entertainment, and get a FREE GIFT - with “Just ask - the 5 questions you should ask before hiring a custom installer”.
Comments
That was a great article Geoffrey. Thanks for telling us what your ears told you and not exaggerating the differences like so many publications that have to in order to keep the advertisers happy...
OK, heres my 2 cents!...95% of so called "Home Theaters" are in a home. Bonus Room, Family Room whatever. A room full of people. Adults, Kids and Pets. It's never completely quite as in say a Recording Studio. What makes the whole "watching a movie at home" is a Big Screen with a nice sharp, detailed picture with great color and clean, crisp sound. We dont need "microscopic detail" in our pictures or "National Research Council(NRC)Anechoic Chamber perfect audio. And these days...we dont need to spend $25,000 to build it either. Then again...a Holodeck would be cool right? Ron Davidson
Good article. I suppose that the ultimate result of the experience is to trust your own hearing: if you are not able to discern any quality between $10 system and $1K system, it would be foolish for you as a consumer to buy the $1K system. Moral is to everyone according to their own hearing.
So cool!
Hi man great review and thx
Dolby TrueHD & DTS-HD are absolutely awesome!
Thanks for sharing this stuff!
Geoffrey, Geoffrey, Geoffrey, come on! Use some common sense. Well, OK, use some (rather uncommon) math. Listening to the new audio formats is akin to listening to CD music thru a string and a tin can. Most people's, and probably yours too, ears, are accustomed to hearing CD quality music. At 16 bits, the signal-to-noise ratio is 96 db. Most audio equipment, even the best consumer level (or maybe pro), barely goes above 100 db SNR. 24 bit audio is capable of producing a whopping 144 db SNR. Where are you going to find equipment even capable of reproducing such sonic differences? Granted, the amps and speakers you mentioned (you didnt mention the what players were used or the wires) are excellent, but even they don't match up. I have listened to DVD audio discs, using an Audigy sound card and logitech PC speakers, and even I could tell a huge difference between CD quality and 24 bit audio.....
You seem to be using common sense by only taking into account certain facts, while ignoring others?! Let's look at the important facts you ignored:
Commercial recordings (CD or 24bit) never have a dynamic range of more than about 60dB and therefore utilise 10bits or fewer. The remaining 6 or so bits on a CD are just noise. On a 24bit recording there are at least 14bits of just noise. The reason for this limit is the noise floor. The noise floor of an average sitting room is usually 50dB or so, therefore to hear a dynamic range 96dB higher than the room's noise floor would require an incredibly powerful system and immunity from pretty much instant deafness!!
The other fact you omitted is that for more than a decade it has been standard practice to use a procedure known as "noise-shaped dither". This extends the percieved dynamic range of CDs (16bit audio) in excess of 120dB, although of course this extended range is still not utilised.
If you heard differences between CD and 24bit there is either a problem with your ears, a problem with your system or mastering/production differences between the two versions. It is not humanly possible to tell the difference, on any system or in any environment!
>Commercial recordings (CD or 24bit) never have a dynamic range of more >than about 60dB and therefore utilize 10bits or fewer.
---Anonymous, good post - we have a debate! OK, I agree that the dynamic range of CD's is limited to below that of the medium itself. However, as Wikipedia states, "The "intensity" range of audible sounds is enormous. Our ear drums are sensitive only to variations in the sound pressure, but can detect pressure changes as small as 2×10–10 atm and as great or greater than 1 atm. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics)
Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range
The human senses of sight and hearing have a very high dynamic range. A human is capable of hearing (and usefully discerning) anything from a quiet murmur in a soundproofed room to the sound of the loudest rock concert. Such a difference can exceed 100 dB which represents a factor of 10,000,000,000 in power.
Thus, if you are correct that the dynamic range in a typical CD is purposely limited to 60db, then certainly Blurays can exceed 96db.
>On a 24bit recording there are at least 14bits of just noise. The reason >for this limit is the noise floor. The noise floor of an average sitting >room is usually 50dB or so
------ it may be that this is typical, but my argument was 'not' what is typical, it was regarding the assertion of this article that human beings cannot tell the difference btn CD quality and 24 bit quality. Thus, we are talking potential, not necessarily typical.
>The other fact you omitted is that for more than a decade it has been >standard practice to use a procedure known as "noise-shaped dither". >This extends the perceived dynamic range of CDs (16bit audio) in excess >of 120dB, although of course this extended range is still not utilized.
---- not sure what this has to do with my argument
The above arguments you make are regarding the volume level / dynamic range of the two media formats. This may indeed be the weakest aspect to the greater aural quality of the new media. However, consider:
2 speakers for CD sound, versus 5.1 (up to 11.2) speakers. Certainly, a greater number of speakers, inputting sound to a user will create more psychoacoustic information in that person's brain!
The greater sampling rate of up to 96 kHz, at up to 8 channels. The human ear/mind is analog. We can certainly process the greater amount of information contained in 24 bit discs.
Bruce
Signal to noise is only one aspect of sound reproduction. Also, read the article over again, I'm not saying you can't hear a difference. In fact, I'm saying the exact opposite.
Post new comment