Why do so few films feature Dolby or DTS HD sound formats?

Rob20 · 09-11-2007, 9:55 PM

It seems to me that few HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray films carry either Dolby True HD or DTS Master Audio, (I keep reading about DTS HD core only!?). This is one of the many stumbling blocks as far as I'm concerned. I thought half of the point of having Hi-Def movies was that they came with HD sound as well as HD pictures. It frankly seems like a con to me so that the same movies can be released at a later date as special editions with the new HD sound formats. It's akin to buying dvds with pro-logic as far as I can see.

The more I research into the possibility of buying into either format the more I'm convinced to sit it out a few years. First of all I only have a 26" HD lcd so I'm not sure there are any significant picture benefits from 1080p. Then there are 2 competing formats with the potential for backing the wrong format. Incomplete HD versions of films due to the lack of HD sound on most discs at present, (as I've mentioned above). With the cost of the discs sometimes £10 more expensive than there dvd counterpart. On the other hand I do own an Onkyo 875 and am excited by the prospect of lossless audio.

Jeff · 09-11-2007, 10:11 PM

True HD and DTS HD MA aren't always HD sound although they certainly can be. HD DVD also has the option of lossy HD sound in the form of DD+ this gives you HD sound at a fraction of the bandwidth. It's similar to video, why use uncompressed SD video when you can have compressed HD video for less bandwidth and space?

Nic Rhodes · 09-11-2007, 10:25 PM

If I get a high bit rate DD+, then I am a happy camper. These are capable of very high quality in my book. If I have this I would not worry about TrueHD, PCM or DTS HD MA too much (on either format). It isn't a numbers game but what gives high quality.

Rob20 · 09-11-2007, 11:48 PM

Is it true that some HD-DVD titles won't feature Dolby HD due to a lack of disc space?

Jeff · 10-11-2007, 12:01 AM

It's true that in some cases they have opted for high bit rate DD+ as a compromise in order to have more audio tracks. Space doesn't tend to be an issue though, bandwidth is more of an issue. If you really care about sound quality though, a low to mid range receiver playing lossless audio isn't really the answer. I'm getting better quality with lossy over spdif than virtually any lossless solution currently on the market.

Nic Rhodes · 10-11-2007, 8:48 AM

I thinks Jeffs sums it up nicely, space I don't think think is an issue here.6 Gigabytes/hour. This will give you about 12 mbit/sec for the video and 2 mbit/sec or so for lossless audio or a few lossy tracks. This will give you high quality video 'like Batman Begins' and would allow about 5 hrs of film material on a 30Gb disc, if you forget all the other goodies that they now give you with your 3 or 3.5 hr film. The quality of sound yo get is ultimately down to the engineering in your supporting kit, which is why I still use HQ SPDIF solutions as well.

HugoFJH · 10-11-2007, 11:36 AM

Well to me its more obvious when a DD+ soundtrack is ropey compared to a True Hd/ DTS MA one

DD+ IS capable of great depth (like in WindTalkers with Nick Cage) however I also thought the audio of Transformers could have been alot better (PQ was stunning)

Yes it does depend on the type of film and the way the soundtrack was designed in the first place - but lossless will usually be better and certain studios have already stated they ran out of space on HD-DVD to put a lossless track on the disc

Jeff · 10-11-2007, 11:44 AM

Paramount may have said that Transformers didn't have enough space for lossless, but it certainly wasn't the correct thing to say since the disc has 6GB free space!. They probably meant bandwidth. It's a bit like people saying a computer has run out of memory when they mean disc space. I thought Transformers was a bit bass light in some scenes, but lossless doesn't effect bass output so it wasn't because of that. Comparisons on discs between lossless and DD+ are usless because no film has ever been made with Lossless and 1.5Mb DD+ on the same disc.

Nic Rhodes · 10-11-2007, 12:16 PM

I blew a fuse on one of my subs with xfmers! Can't have been that bass light

**Bald Monkey** · 10-11-2007, 3:37 PM

Likewise I guess BR has not got enough space either then, as I have a BR 2 disc version of Spidey 3 here, with extras on the second disc.. If Sony hadn't put TrueHD and PCM in various languages on the mian disc, there probably would have been enough room for the extras and film on a single disc. So If you wish to suggest that HD-DVD doesn't have enough space then IMO it's only fair to say BR doesn't either. As proved by Spidey3

Although IMO it's probably better to just remember that both formats have finite amount of space and the studios will fill it however they see fit.

SibTiger33 · 10-11-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff

Paramount may have said that Transformers didn't have enough space for lossless, but it certainly wasn't the correct thing to say since the disc has 6GB free space!. They probably meant bandwidth. It's a bit like people saying a computer has run out of memory when they mean disc space. I thought Transformers was a bit bass light in some scenes, but lossless doesn't effect bass output so it wasn't because of that. Comparisons on discs between lossless and DD+ are usless because no film has ever been made with Lossless and 1.5Mb DD+ on the same disc.

umm i also though the bass was light with transformers (thought it was a problem with my kit at one stage!)_

Creamstick · 11-11-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SibTiger33

umm i also though the bass was light with transformers (thought it was a problem with my kit at one stage!)_

Same here - I checked out my setup using the same couple of DVDs I always use (the car-through-the-window scene from Spider-Man 2, the aeroplane scene from Fight Club and the scene with Sabretooth and Wolverine in the snow from X-Men), and all were fine.

Transformers, by comparison was resolutely bass-light. I did find that it gradually picked up towards the end of the film though, and that by the final battle, while my sub wasn't exactly being given a work-out, it was at least there.

HugoFJH · 11-11-2007, 3:39 PM

I played Face Off straight after Transformers and the base on the 2nd film really impressed me, and it was blatently obvious how much T was missing it

SibTiger33 · 11-11-2007, 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Creamstick

Same here - I checked out my setup using the same couple of DVDs I always use (the car-through-the-window scene from Spider-Man 2, the aeroplane scene from Fight Club and the scene with Sabretooth and Wolverine in the snow from X-Men), and all were fine.

Transformers, by comparison was resolutely bass-light. I did find that it gradually picked up towards the end of the film though, and that by the final battle, while my sub wasn't exactly being given a work-out, it was at least there.

the shocker for me was the start of the film in which we see the first bot taking out the US army base -- pretty much no bass at all?
i seriously thought someone was wrong so i did was most seem to have done and tested out another movie just to make sure

Sheks · 11-11-2007, 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SibTiger33

umm i also though the bass was light with transformers (thought it was a problem with my kit at one stage!)_

Strange, I consider this movie to be a bass fest IMO

From start to finish it pressurises my room regularly. Demo material IMO, a few friends who have watched it with me also commented on the bass levels at certain points.

Die Hard 4 also had some good bass moments in it - but is still ecplised by Transformers. IMO

Sheks