Dolby and DTS' new audio schemes worth it?

DBJ listens at Dolby Labs.

(Credit: Home Entertainment)

You bought an audio-video receiver a couple of years ago, and now you're wondering whether it's time to trade up and get a model that features Dolby and DTS' new lossless codecs, TrueHD and Master Audio, respectively.

Judging by the numbers they should sound markedly better than standard Dolby and DTS, but according to a recent article in Home Entertainment magazine, the sonic differences were small to negligible. You can read the full article here.

David Birch-Jones and HE's editor-in-chief, Geoff Morrison, visited Dolby Laboratories and DTS' headquarters to listen to the new formats under ideal conditions, comparing them to standard Dolby and DTS. Birch-Jones and Morrison were hard-pressed to hear significant differences.

I have limited experience listening to the two contenders, and I never managed to do speedy A-B comparisons. That said, from what I've heard, I thought that TrueHD and DTS Master Audio were better than the older formats, especially in the areas of imaging, spaciousness, top-end detail, and "air."

Ah, yes, but Morrison pointed out that even if you can reliably switch between, say, standard Dolby and Dolby TrueHD, and hear a significant difference between the two, the improvement may be traced to differences in the mixes of the two codecs on a given Blu-ray Disc. They may have been sourced from different masters, and that would account for the improved sonics.

Even so, film mixers and mastering engineers are just beginning to take advantage of the potential of the lossless formats, so I expect the sound encoded on discs to improve over the coming years.

How about you? What have you heard? Are you thrilled, or are the new codecs a big yawn?

[kai6novice]

The sonic differences between MP3 and CD were small to negligible. LOL
People rather listen to a large number of MP3 music than a small amount of CD quality music.
Do you think people would still care about quality of music?
Now we have portable device that can hold up to 8G/16G/32G/more of music, however people who use those device, they don't carry CD quality music with them, instead they carry thousands of MP3 music. What do you think?

My comment is you are an idiot. Is english your second language? If not learn how to talk or write. If you are trying to say the mp3 is as good as CD your are like i said an idiot. If not learn how to speak the language retard.

[billwolfe]

It's important to distinguish between music you listen to through earbuds while riding a bike (MP3 is just fine) and music you listen to in the quiet of your own home with top quality speakers (CD quality or better is justified here.)

[XeonBAMF]

What does this have to do with MP3's or CD's? This article was about Lossless Audio on Blu-Ray. I think right now, lossless audio is a gimmick to make the Hi-Def disc based media look like it has something extra special and fill up the disc with at many features as possible. I'm glad my PS3 decodes it so I don't have to buy a new receiver.

[jakebala]

actually, to get the lossless audio not only does your player (ps3) have to decode the audio then send it through a fully equipped 1.3 hdmi but your receiver also has to be able to read it so it can send it to the speakers.

so yes, you do have to upgrade your receiver. although the onkyo tx-sr606 can do it for only 400 bucks, cnet has a review, the 605 got a better review because it has more competition now (that's the one I'm gonna get tho because I need to get audio for my tv because the speakers on it suck)

[wowza3]

your ignorance is amusing, try doing some research before posting. Yamaha also has a decent receiver though at $500 (663) but I fear that all of these companies are focusing too much on inputs than audio quality.

[binarystatic]

I won't claim to have a high-end, audiophile grade system, but from my own listening experience, 7.1 Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD sound on a Blu-Ray disc is noticeably better than 5.1 Dolby and DTS. For some movies, the increase in sound quality with HD audio is even more noticeable than the increase in video quality between upscaling DVD and Blu-Ray.

[gringcorp]

Purchasers of the new line of NAD receivers had to think this through, because NAD decided to almost make it a selling point of not supporting the codecs (seeing the amount of aggravation their implementation of HDMI encountered it was probably a smart move). Their consensus is, I think, that they are desirable, and that it would be possible for the players to decode them instead.

[andrew08867]

I have an old Setton receiver and have been thinking about upgrading the innards while keeping the retro case. Good idea or bad idea? Any tips?

[cardes]

Actually, I think Dolby and DTS sound better than the new formats. I dislike new technology in general, as sound quality suffers. Look at iPods!

[wowza3]

The idea behind the iPod was personal music on the go. The idea behind Blu-Ray and the new HD audio formats is greater sound quality, thats not the focus of the iPod. If you dislike new technology then what are you doing on CNET?

[rockgod1]

this isnt the same as the ipods. ipods use mp3 (or AAC sound formats which are lossy) Dolby true HD and DTS-HD are both lossless so the sound is actually much better. the new increased space on bluray allows for this where it would not have been possible on dvd.

[bob.mcclenahan]

This doesn't surprise me. Most people would be hard pressed to hear a significant difference between a high quality MP3 or AAC file versus the CD.

your an idiot if you think that

[pubmat]

cardes....I disagree with your statement, but i can't speak for what people are capable of hearing. I think if a person's hearing is poor, for whatever reason, then they will not appreciate the difference between the old and newer formats. I'm not saying that your's is bad, but the difference to me is significant enough for me to get these better formats. And by the way, if you import the LOSSLESS format into an ipod, there is no difference between what you're hearing and the original CD. It may even sound better..because of the direct bit stream, with no mechanical interface. This eliminates the jitter from CD's along with the distortion. I have my ipod set up this way and it sounds quite good.

[pubmat]

Bob.mcc...I agree with you, especially when they are imported in lossless format. The only thing that sounds better is sacd or dvd audio, which are worth buying if you appreciate good sound.

[pubmat]

....also, if you read the article, they clearly say that there IS a difference, especially going from original dolby and dts compressed 5.1. But the difference is negligible when going from the dts-hd or dolby-hd, the next step up. The recommend buying the new formats...

[cardes]

I am just poking fun at Steve's apocalyptic reactionist ipod rants that are peppered throughout his articles.

[adlieb]

I am very conscious about the audio formats on the movies I watch. I will very rarely purchase any DVD that has Dolby Digital (DD) mainly because DTS is such a vast sonic difference. However the step up to HD audio can be quite different. As far as Dolby Digital Plus (DD+), I don't care for the audio all that much. I think it shares too many sonic qualities that plague DD, like not enough Center channel frequency range, and muddled bass.

When it comes to the lossless formats, it's a whole different ball game. DTS HD-MA, and Dolby TrueHD are huge steps up in the audio game from their legacy counterparts. TrueHD does not have any of the problems that DD or DD+ have, and HD-MA is just straight up fantastic. I totally agree that certain discs sound better than others (not all the sound engineers out there are perfect at these formats yet), but HD-Audio is truly amazing.

I've done a lot of A/B testing in my own system (Denon AVR, Denon DVD, Toshiba HD-DVD, Definitive Speaker system), with the HD-Audio done through PCM, and I've had hours of A/B testing performed on a reference grade system (Denon AVP/POA separates, Denon Blu-Ray transport, Sony ES Disc changer, BG Radia plannar ribbon speaker system). I will definately say I have great equipment to be working with, but such equipment shows off the sonic differences between all of these formats.

Now when panasonic releases its 7.1 HTIB with Blu-Ray, I doubt it will fill your ears with joy, but it will be different than anything else you've yeard, but it will not be reference grade. If you have an oportunity to visit a reference grade system, or just a high quality one with all the necessary stuff for HD-Audio decoding within the receiver, I recommend you take advantage of the situation and do a good listening test for yourself. My AH HAH moment was doing an A/B with the Matrix DVD and the Matrix HD-DVD (DD vs. Dolby True HD). Similar tests can be done with Spiderman (TrueHD), and Fantastic 4 (DTS-HD MA) on Blu-Ray. Happy listening!!!!

[bluecardinal]

I have been playing around with the differences between the old and new formats for a few months now in my home theater, and for 90% of the movies I have watched, the new formats offer a significant sound improvement. In fact, for most discs the difference was startling. Steve is right to point out that there could be alternative explanations for the difference, but the bottom-line for an audio consumer is that there is a difference, and if you are in the market it is a difference that is, right now, worth the investment according to my ears.

[scaught78]

I think the strength of the lossless formats are in the small details. People's ears tend to perk up during the loud busy moments. I mean, when you are demoing your system to family and friends, you probably go to realy active moments of the film so your system can shine. I know that is what I do.

To my ears, the lossless audio didn't offer much improvements in the busier more explosive moments in my Blu Ray collection. But I couldn't help but notice the clarity the lossless formats provide in the quieter moments. The lossless audio helps clarify the ambient details that are going on throughout all the channels of the system. It is almost like the busy world around the characters is given more life. Some may consider that a small item. But considering the intention of surround sound is ultimatey to immerse you into the film you are watching, I think that is anything But small.

[emgesp]

It all comes down to the source material. Modern action/sci-fi flicks have the most potential when it comes to the new codecs. You will be hard pressed to tell a difference when watching Comedies and Dramas.

Also, you need pretty decent equipment to even take full advantage of the new codecs (speakers being the most important part of the audio chain).

Lastly, even if you have the best source & equipment, this isn't a guarantee that everyone will hear a difference. People still have trouble seeing the difference between SD-DVD and Blu-ray, let alone audio codecs.

[bigboy293]

While I acknowledge that there is a difference between the new lossless formats and the older standards, the difference will not be blatantly obvious to the average movie watcher. If a person is the type that can truly appreciate the difference, then the investment in equipment to properly play these audio formats is probably worthwhile. Personally, the difference was not enough to justify upgrading from my old non-HDMI equipped Dolby Digital Pro Logic II and DTS capable Onkyo TX-SR500 receiver and speaker setup. I would rather spend my money on other things. I can appreciate that to a true audiophile, the utmost in sound quality would be extremely important, and I respect that choice.
If you've got the money and want the sound quality to blow you away, awesome....knock yourself out! =0)

-Ben

[sose114]

I always see AC3 as an audiotrack on my DVD, where does this codec come into the equasion?

<off-topic> I'm always wondering how people fit 7.1 onto their living rooms?
maybe you all have much bigger living-rooms (or no wifes) ;). 5.1 is the most I could manage.

Jim

P.S. Ben, I also have TX-SR500-e and to solve the "problem" I'm going to buy a blu-ray player with an analogue-out (like the panasonic DMP-BD55) then the decoding will happen the the player and my receiver will just amplify the incomming 5.1 signal.

[tushar mandrekar]

I agree with most of the posters above. I have a reasonably good receiver with great D/A conversion and reasonably good speakers and the difference between the old and new is quite noticeable in terms of fine detail and quietness. I would think that unless you have a pretty good sound system you may not benefit. Regarding decoding on the BR or the receiver, I think most of the recent players will decode and send through HDMI. I would be hesitant to rely on analogue outs as analogue circutis on BR players differ brand by brand and if you have spent good money for a good D/A converter on your receiver you are less likely to get a superior conversion on a Blu ray player, though Panasonic, Oppo, and I believe Pioneer do a reasonably good job.