DTS HD Master Audio vs. SACD

[4evaMacnLinux]

There is absolutely no difference between 24/96 DVD-A and 24/96 DTS-HD MAS. They are both lossless, they are both PCM based.
DTS-HD MAS can go to 24/192 in 5.1, and 24/96 in 7.1
DTS-HD MAS encoder suite also includes a desktop StreamPlayer, so requires no hardware at all if you're archiving DVD-A, and it will also render the watermarking pointless too.

SACD/DSD only has noise above 23KHz - and lots of it.
(see attached Spectrum Plot)

DTS HD MA can't do 5.1 at 24/192 it will only output 2 channel max at 24/192.
DVD-A will not sound the same at 24/96 because it only have 5.1 where as DTS HD MA will output 7.1 at 24/96. Therefore, DTS will sound better with two extra channels. I'm a true audiophile and can tell the difference with extra channels xD

 

[grill]

DTS HD MA can't do 5.1 at 24/192 it will only output 2 channel max at 24/192....

I guess you meant "DVD-audio can't do 5.1 at 24/192 ..."

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I guess you meant "DVD-audio can't do 5.1 at 24/192 ..."

Maybe that is what he meant, there have been some 24/192 5.1 DTS-HD MA discs.

 

[neil wilkes]

DTS HD MA can't do 5.1 at 24/192 it will only output 2 channel max at 24/192.
DVD-A will not sound the same at 24/96 because it only have 5.1 where as DTS HD MA will output 7.1 at 24/96. Therefore, DTS will sound better with two extra channels. I'm a true audiophile and can tell the difference with extra channels xD

DTS-HD MAS can indeed create 5.1 streams in full lossless at 24/192 for Blu-Ray. It can "only" do 7.1 at 24/96.
I can hear the difference with extra channels too - it does not take an audiophile to do that - just listen.
As for better - well, that depends on the mix. I have albums where the stereo smokes the surround - Bowie's "Station to Station" & "Glass Spider" comes right to mind, as does Depeche Mode's "Tour of the Universe, as the 5.1 on the latter two are upmixes - and not very good ones at that.
.
Of course a 24/96 5.1 is not the same as a 24/96 7.1 - I never said it was.
Blu Ray does not HAVE to have 7.1, any more than DVDA HAS to have 5.1, and 5.1 on BD is much, much more common.

 

[Headspace]

3 years later and were still having the same conversation. Will see if Auddessy 10.2 takes off.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

3 years later and were still having the same conversation.

Only some people are.

 

[DaneelOlivaw]

I'll admit I've never done any proper A/B comparisons (level matching etc) between the two formats, but every sacd I've heard and on a variety of systems, to me has a vaguely veiled sound to it, or "warm" to use another common description of its sonic personality. It is not unpleasant and reminds me of good vinyl.

But it bothers me that, in my opinion, the DSD format is "coating" every recording with this veil, whereas PCM (CD, dvd-audio, dvd-video) seems to be allowing the character of the original recording come through with more fidelity. To my ears cymbals for example sound cleaner and crisper, but not harsh, with PCM, closer to what I've heard when in the presence of a drum kit at a live venue, or listening to a buddy do an imitation of Mr. Peart. I've noticed over the years many audiophiles prefer warmer sound in general, leading me to believe that that is why they prefer DSD and not because it is more accurate than PCM. I don't particularly enjoy bright and tinkly sound myself, but I do not like the idea of a recording medium, especially one calling itself a high resolution format, imparting its own sonic signature to the music it handles.

 

[leevitalone1]

But no one has answered the original question. Are dts-HD Master Audio BluRays indeed better sounding than SACD or DVD-A? I listen to both DVD-A and SACD and it's hard to imagine anything topping that. Then again I haven't heard any music recorded in DTS HD yet.

I need a logical reason to justify upgrading my receiver. Not that logic has anything to do with it....

My feelings are DTS MA is just as good as dvd audio. simply because it uses MLP that does not add noise like sacd (see above at Niel Wilkes post) I have all 3 formats, and music videos on BD in DTS MA, and I feel it beats every sacd I ever heard in sound quality. I do not know what they used for the DSOTM BD but I have both the sacd and BD and after hearing the BD disc I will probably just keep my sacd as a collectable.

 

[ssully]

DSD noise shaping isn't going to be audible (unless something is oddly wrong with the recording itself, or the playback system), so I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless Guthrie re-EQed the more recent mastering, I would not expect there to be *any* audible difference between the DB and SACD editions of Dark Side, if levels are matched.

 

[wavelength]

Some people say there is a difference; some people say there isn't. What else is new? It's like an endless loop. But I guess it keeps people talking.

 

[0tto]

DSD noise shaping isn't going to be audible (unless something is oddly wrong with the recording itself, or the playback system), so I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless Guthrie re-EQed the more recent mastering, I would not expect there to be *any* audible difference between the DB and SACD editions of Dark Side, if levels are matched.

all depends on recording source. originally physical sound can be expanded to infinity in it's own frequencies range
and consists for every frequency it's own harmonical distortions. those harmonical distortions may be way above of
human's hearing celling. most appropriate example can be human voice. albeit we not able to hear anything above
20KHz anyway we can easily distinguish between live voice and recorded voice if this voice is familiar to us.
more wider range in which voice was captured - the closer it sounds to original.
the problem of DSD technology is that DSD not really able to retain full range of those harmonics, as is limited to 22KHz
range. that's ok. for archiving the sound, previously captured on obsolete equipment and mediums. but since 60th-70th-80th
there were big changes in technologies of recording and recreation of the sound.

 

[leevitalone1]

DSD noise shaping isn't going to be audible (unless something is oddly wrong with the recording itself, or the playback system), so I wouldn't worry about it.

Unless Guthrie re-EQed the more recent mastering, I would not expect there to be *any* audible difference between the DB and SACD editions of Dark Side, if levels are matched.

I guess we got off the track a bit, but we cannot hear above 20k so if anything above 22 on sacd is noise, why does it make such a diff.? I seem to be under the impression that between the 2 productions (sacd/bd immersion) that the bd disc is so much better. ????? I'm no expert either but just my opinion. BTW I run my high res. all analog and the oppo 93 book says to set the output at 96/124 as it affects the analog out put, and it is recomended.