Universal's Blu-ray audio plans revealed, DTS-HD Master Audio included
Filed under: Industry, Blu-ray, HD DVD, Other formats, Universal-HD
Relevant Posts
- Auzen X-Fi HomeTheater 7.1 HDMI sound card does bitstream output from your HTPC (16 days ago - 5 Comments)
- DTS-HD MA Suite toolset hits v1.6, brings Dynamic Automation for DTS Express (83 days ago - 0 Comments)
- CyberLink's PowerDVD wins certification for DTS-HD Master Audio (14 days ago - 4 Comments)
- Corel's WinDVD 8 lands DTS-HD Master Audio certification (31 days ago - 6 Comments)
- First Blu-ray record, Divertimenti, released (38 days ago - 12 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TrentD @ May 1st 2008 8:56AM
That kind of sucks - I'm glad they're making a commitment to use lossless audio codecs, but virtually every player has TrueHD decoding nowadays, but many fewer have DTS:HD MA decoders.
My "HDMI 1.3" Sharp Blu-ray Player can't even output bitstream audio.
kcmurphy88 @ May 1st 2008 12:25PM
I wonder if DTS MA offers the studios a better deal than TrueHD on licensing terms. Must be some reason they keep pushing this hard-to-decode format on all those discs. Yet another thing HD DVD did better: they had TrueHD as standard on all players.
ThePremierAssassin @ May 1st 2008 9:11AM
Awesome! However I'm more interested in PICTURE quality for their films. I want them to make damn sure it looks High Def and if that means using a different codec and working from the ground up then do it.
Why not provide 5.1 and 7.1 Audio though? Is Bluray not big enough for both?
Jim @ May 1st 2008 9:15AM
Buy a PS3. Problem solved.
kcmurphy88 @ May 1st 2008 12:26PM
Zzzzzz.
Achilles @ May 1st 2008 1:54PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ,,,, what, what... did somebody say something??
dj496 @ May 1st 2008 3:37PM
Yeah, I guess not everybody was listening.
mitchelljd @ May 1st 2008 9:46AM
I welcome the DTS HD choice. This is only going to be good for the longterm.
I understand why some in the minority would be unhappy if their early stage player cannot output that format, but it does offer Dolby Digital, so you are covered.
More importantly, they chose quality, and to be honest, the vast majority of Blu-Ray consumers will be playing these discs on PS3's which is very DTS HD compatible.
Which the nice thing for PS3 owners is that it decodes DTS HD in the PS3, then outputs it as uncompressed PCM. so no matter what receiver / pre-amp you have, you get the DTS HD quality.
Achilles @ May 1st 2008 1:51PM
But if you have a 7.1 system, PS3 doesn't do you any favors.
Sean @ May 1st 2008 9:52AM
This is exciting news! I am glad they are taking advantage of the 50GB of space on BD, instead of just using Dolby Digital or continuing there use of Dolby Digital Plus. I know DD+ was used due to space limitations on HD-DVD, but still, you never know a studios intentions till it goes down.
Will be getting titles I ignored on HD-DVD due to non lossless audio.
Justin @ May 1st 2008 10:12AM
if you think back to the first days of DVD, players did not support DTS at all. either it was a region contract with dolby or dts simply couldn't get their act together in time, the first 2 years of DVD were Dolby only even though the rest of the world typically (Europe and Asia predominantly) has DTS as a primary and Dolby as a secondary audio stream.
I'm glad to see Universal pushing for DTS support in the audio dept. It forces other manufacturers to support a full spec sooner and IMHO, DTS just sounds better.
david @ May 1st 2008 10:31AM
Get informed people! Dolby True HD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both lossless, so DTS does NOT sound better in this instance.
Dolby True HD has a lot more hardware support ATM so it's a mystery why Universal would choose DTS instead.
Furthermore buying a PS3 does not "solve the problem" as the PS3 does not support bitstreaming at all.
Mr. E @ May 1st 2008 12:04PM
PS3 DOES solve the problem, because it will internally decode all audio formats and output them over HDMI as multichannel LPCM. Player decoding is better anyway, since it supports live audio mixing for special features.
Even if you're stuck with an "old" receiver that only has SPDIF/Coax digital input (like me, and probably most people), then DTS is a better choice than Dolby Digital. DTS core provides a 1.5 Mbit signal over optical, versus 760 for Dolby Digital.
Basically, you should only use the DD signal if your receiver is so old that it doesn't even support DTS.
Don @ May 1st 2008 5:07PM
I don't get it Mr.E -
Since my receiver does NOT have HDMI inputs, the only way I can hear these lossless codecs is if the blu-ray player outputs 5.1 or 7.1 analog out (bitstream). PS3 does not, so I don't understand your statement about optical...
D @ May 1st 2008 10:36AM
TrueHD is just as good or PCM output...yes, I'm an earlier adopter and I have in player decoding that doesn't output/decode DTS-MA
I'll be happy enough with DD or the DTS-core though
HDintheblood @ May 1st 2008 8:13PM
My player does every new surround format but one, which is DTS HD Master. which stinks
Gus @ May 2nd 2008 12:48AM
I have the Onkyo 605, and on DVD I always thought Dolby Digital sounded far superior to DTS, and on the few HD tracks Ive listened too, True HD has sounded far superior as well. I know both are loseless, so maybe it comes down to the original track, but so far, in my experience, I have found True HD to sound far superior to DTS MA
IamNotFat @ May 23rd 2008 10:16AM
The PS3 I believe, will only output True HD if your receiver has HDMI, because fiber optic does not have the bandwidth capabilities that True HD sound requires. The PS3 last time I checked, does not have DTS HD-MA but why would you need it if you've got True HD.
The PS3 is a great deal for people who enjoy Blu Ray without having to pay a premium for so many other stand alone players on the market that is less feasible. I.e. One of Denon's new Blu Ray players that's only Profile 1.1 for $750. Ridiculous. Plus even if you dont like gaming, you've got the player that can also be used as a gaming rig if you've got kids or relatives that are young.