DTS-MA / Dolby True HD Question

[anamorphic96]

Plain and simple. Why is DTS-MA being used more than Dolby True HD. It's not audibly based as they are both identical after they are unpackaged and Dolby's dialog normalization is accounted for.

From what I can tell, it seems to be many things.

1. DTS encoders from what I understand are easier to use and deal with.
2. Cheaper equipment.
3. DTS lossy soundtrack integrated into one track. Dolby's is based on a different Meridian based technique which does not allow for lossy decoding. Therefore the extra track is added but this takes up extra space. Since DTS is more integrated it gets the advantage.
4. DTS apparently has a world class marketing team that is very aggressive.

So is it a combination of the above or other things.

Thanks everyone.

[Woochifer]

I think the integrated packaging and scalability of DTS HD has carried the day for them. When a Blu-ray title uses DTS-HD, it outputs a 1.5k DTS track through the coax/optical audio connection. With DVDs, 1.5k DTS was the best possible 5.1 audio, but rarely used because it took so much disc space (most DTS tracks on DVDs use the half-bitrate 756k version). Lack of disc space prevented DTS from attaining wider usage. They have no such limitations with Blu-ray.

Dolby Digital/True HD is not scalable, so that requires either a separate track for backwards compatibility, or foregoing the lossless track altogether. It should be noted that most of the DD tracks included with Blu-ray titles use the higher 640k bitrate (DVDs use either 384k or 448k), which provides improved audio quality over the lower bitrate versions. But, even though the standard predated even the DVD format itself, a few DD decoders (even with newer receivers) cannot read 640k tracks, so some Blu-ray titles have gone back to 448k for the DD tracks.

[anamorphic96]

Thanks Woochifer. I was hoping you would chime in.

I have been on the fence about a receiver upgrade for a year now. From my reading the full bit rate versions differ very little from the lossless versions and the differences are really hard to distinguish. This is in a acoustically controlled room as well with much better equipment.

[pixelthis]

Thanks Woochifer. I was hoping you would chime in.

I have been on the fence about a receiver upgrade for a year now. From my reading the full bit rate versions differ very little from the lossless versions and the differences are really hard to distinguish. This is in a acoustically controlled room as well with much better equipment.

It didn't sound "slight" to me, but that is for you to decide.
When I UPGRADED I let issues pile up (HDMI, lossless codecs) until it became a no brainier,
And when I found a receiver of the brand I wanted on sale I PULLED THE TRIGGER.
If your receiver is more than a few years old I would pull the trigger , as a lot of
goodies have been added of late, like auto room EQ, etc. And prices are down.
If its not a hardship now is a good time to buy, as there is not much on the horizon that
will obsolete a new receiver any time soon, unlike the last five years, where several
changes and upgrades have rendered otherwise nice receivers white elephants.:1: