Regulars
Giz Explains: Dolby, DTS and Home Theatre Audio Codec Confusion
Posted by Matt Buchanan at 4:00 AM on July 24, 2008
You actually know what some of the crazy doodles on the side of an HDTV means when it comes to video--720p, 1080i, 1080p. Congrats, you're ahead of most people, like my mother. But do you understand the alphabet soup of audio, the confounding constellation of logos on your Blu-ray player's box? While there are basically two rival home-theatre audio encoders--Dolby and DTS--they each have several different quality levels and options for different scenarios. Yeah, it's a lot to keep up with, and it annoys us too. So we asked Dolby and DTS to put down their guns for a sec and help us sort it out.
We're assuming you know some of the basics--like that 5.1 audio is five channels of audio positioned at centre, front right, front left, back right and back left, and then one subwoofer channel. And that a higher bit rate means more audio data is coming through, which, generally, means it's higher quality and gonna sound better, since you're losing less of the original studio sound.
The building block of digital audio is "pulse code modulation"—an old technology used for CDs and everything since. It can be rendered in several resolutions, from 16-bit stuff on CD to 24-bit on newer DVD and higher-res formats. It can also have varying frequency ranges, typically from 44.1KHz to 96KHz. Without going into more detail, you just need to know that PCM is bulky, and it is this PCM data that both DTS and Dolby work to encode into more manageable files. When audio tracks are decoded in a disc player, they are either sent out analogue via multichannel RCA outputs, or they become PCM tracks that any digital receiver can easily interpret.
We're taking you through the major branded audio formats that you'll run into if you're dealing with a home theatre, or hell, a Blu-ray player.
First up: Dolby. There are basically three tiers of audio: Dolby TrueHD at the top, then Dolby Digital Plus, then good old Dolby Digital.
Dolby TrueHD is a lossless compression format that is bit-for-bit identical to the studio masters. It can handle a bit rate of up to 18 megabits per second, and support as many as 14 channels of audio, though you're more likely to see it at 7.1. It's actually optional in the Blu-ray spec, but it's supported by the PS3 and most other new Blu-ray players. Some players decode the TrueHD internally, then stream out uncompressed PCM audio through HDMI, while others can send the TrueHD file itself out over HDMI in bitstream for the receiver to decode.
Dolby Digital Plus is the next step down. It still delivers 7.1 audio, but at a max bit rate of 3Mbps. It's a more efficient codec than the original Dolby Digital, and is a mandatory minimum in the Blu-ray 1.1 spec. Dolby Digital Plus can be used for Bonus View picture-in-picture audio tracks on a Blu-ray disc, with the main audio track encoded as TrueHD.
Dolby Digital is the lowest rung, at 5.1 audio channels, running at 448Kbps on DVD (though a richer 640Kbps on Blu-ray, used, again for special features or supplement language tracks).
DTS's offerings follow a similar tiered setup.
DTS-HD Master Audio is at the top. It's a lossless format that is also bit-for-bit identical to the studio master. It supports a bitrate up to 24Mbps (though the average Blu-ray flick's audio is only about 2-3Mbps, with 4-5Mbps spikes) and up to eight channels (like 7.1). (It too, is supported by the PS3.)
DTS High Resolution Audio is below that. It also supports eight channels at a constant bit rate of up to 6Mbps. It's for situations where a studio doesn't want to eat up disc space with a full lossless track (like bonus features or tracks), though DTS told us 95 percent of studios who use DTS use the full HD Master Audio.
DTS Digital Surround is down at the DVD end, with support for 5.1 channels and bandwidth up to 1.5Mbps, though post-2000 DVDs typically keep the track at 768Kbps to save disc space.
You may have heard a few things about Dolby ProLogic II or IIx, or maybe DTS Neo:6. These aren't digital codecs, so much as they are "matrix" programs that take stereo tracks and route it to to the different speakers in a surround system. A vestige from pre-digital days, people used to master stereo tracks deliberately for ProLogic—try watching The Simpsons opening credits through your receiver with ProLogic turned on.
Dolby and DTS also have virtual surround technologies that do the opposite of matrixing: They take 5.1 tracks and perform hocus pocus on them so that they sound surround-y, but play through stereo speakers or headphones. It's more subjective, and has a whole different science to it, so maybe we'll save it for another time.
That, in a nutshell, is what all of those Dolby and DTS logos on the back your Blu-ray player, A/V receiver or movie box means. If you want to know how "golden-eared" audiophiles feel about the highest qualities, and how well they fare against uncompressed PCM, check out this informative piece from Home Entertainment Magazine. As a rule, DTS HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD will kick arse, but unless you have a $50,000 sound system, you may not be able to tell the difference between the middle and top tiers anyway.
Something we missed, or you still wanna know? Send any questions about Dolby, DTS, Dubbly, Dobby or anything else to tips@gizmodo.com, with "Giz Explains" in the subject line.
Tags: audio | blu-ray | dolby | dts | feature | giz explains | home entertainment | home theatre | playstation 3 | regulars | top

Comments (AU Comments · US Comments)
There are currently no AU comments for this post.
scarbrtj
Posted 5:35 AM 24/7/08
There is an interesting little side note, of no real interest admittedly, to the audio codec story which I think is Windows Media Audio Pro (WMA Pro). It allowed for up to 9 channels I believe, up to 48 bit/96 kHz.
The Pioneer Elite 59-TXi receiver had a USB port on the back. When plugged into a PC, the PC could stream multi-channel high-res audio (at least as good as DTS-HD in terms of bit rates, sometimes better) directly into the receiver. This audio actually sounded really good. The very few WMV-HD discs with high-res multichannel WMA Pro tracks ("Amazing Caves," "Amazon," etc) sounded great with this receiver.
For a while... I hoped WMA Pro would be a new standard audio format. Well, at least VC-1 made it!
scarbrtj
rbf2000
Posted 5:18 AM 24/7/08
@evilpenguin81: Could be about cost saving, too. It costs money to license the codecs from Dolby or DTS. As far as I know, there is no licensing fee for LPCM. But you're absolutely right, it is just a waste of disc space.
@Marcelo: I had the HD-DVD add on for the 360 and I remember getting Transformers on HD-DVD and being completely underwhelmed by the sound. It just sounded flat to me.
What I didn't realize was that the 360 add on didn't support advanced codecs, so while Transformers did DD+, the 360 didn't, and I was listening to the downrezzed DD track.
I then sold my 360 add on and bought a stand alone player and watched Transformers again. The second time around I got the sound I was expecting. I could definitely hear a difference, everything sounded fuller and livelier. Now, being able to tell the difference between DD+ and TrueHD is a different story...
This was on a ~$2500 (retail price) audio system (don't you just love how marked up speakers are?).
The difference in the audio quality is definitely there, but you're not going to notice it on a $100 HTiB.
rbf2000
FötoGenetix
Posted 5:16 AM 24/7/08
mono sound on tube amps pls
FötoGenetix
whootowl
Posted 4:56 AM 24/7/08
Even CD-audio standards had way more capabilities than consumer electronics or media companies ever supported. For example, I believe CD players were to be able to display song title information. Not until CD players started supporting MP3 playback did the players start displaying embedded song data.
whootowl
pdditty
Posted 4:53 AM 24/7/08
"You may have heard a few things about Dolby ProLogic II or IIx, or maybe DTS Neo:6. These aren't digital codecs, so much as they are "matrix" programs.." - Was the Neo:6 and "Matrix" programs, did I miss something"
@Sora57: That was funny!
pdditty
evilpenguin81
Posted 4:50 AM 24/7/08
Bah, LPCM was all about BluRay trying to call out HD-DVD about its space restrictions. As its mathematically identical to the lossless compressed formats its basically a waste of disc space. That is, unless you like to keep all of your images in bitmap format instead of png.
evilpenguin81
Turing_Machine
Posted 4:45 AM 24/7/08
@BloggyMcBlogBlog:
I've got a brand-new top-of-the-line receiver, and I still miss the purplish glow of my quadraphonic tube amp that I lost moving so many years ago.
Turing_Machine
dMo
Posted 4:39 AM 24/7/08
It would have probably been better if you guys could explain buying a receiver and selecting the appropriate speakers.
When I was in high school I bought a receiver and two bookshelf speakers and a 12 in. sub. It's a 600w receiver and the two speakers and sub amount to less than 600w.
However this is obviously not 5.1 surround which is what i am capable of but don't know which speakers would be the best fit since I tend to lose treble over my bass even on max treble settings.
Advice in this area would be much better. Since I believe I just ignored the whole email with giz explains thing at the bottom...
dMo
Sora57
Posted 4:32 AM 24/7/08
@otis123: So I should get that if I want my balls sucked? Cool. How much?
Sora57
BostonPimpDaddy
Posted 4:29 AM 24/7/08
What happened to good ole left and right? LOL
BostonPimpDaddy
BloggyMcBlogBlog
Posted 4:24 AM 24/7/08
@QAdam: Pfft...everybody knows quadraphonic sound is where it's at.
BloggyMcBlogBlog
otis123
Posted 4:23 AM 24/7/08
my panasonic system i bought last year has no digital inputs, i was very sad, and the wireless rear speakers suck balls.
otis123
Marcelo
Posted 4:19 AM 24/7/08
As a sound effects editor who works for a major motion picture studio, I'm someone who can claim to have some decently capable ears. And even I can't tell the difference between Dolby Digital and TrueHD. Dolby Digital compression is that good.
Heck, you'll get more improvement at less cost by acoustically shaping and tuning your room than by investing in what is essentially an effort to piggyback on the "HD" buzzword.
Marcelo
QAdam
Posted 4:17 AM 24/7/08
i still love me some good stereo
QAdam
rbf2000
Posted 4:17 AM 24/7/08
You forgot to mention LPCM (Linear PCM) which is what many blu-ray discs use. It is basically the same lossless audio that DTS-MA and TrueHD use, except it's not compressed, which means it eats a ton of space on the disc.
rbf2000
Sora57
Posted 4:14 AM 24/7/08
Dolby hasn't been the same since she blinded him with science.
Sora57
Log1c
Posted 4:09 AM 24/7/08
Actually I just found a better quote from the article:
"This is why even keen-eared reviewers simply can't perform an honest evaluation of codec sound quality in their own home theaters - it can only be done under these most rigidly controlled conditions, with specialized equipment and software that is designed expressly for the task."
Good luck in your home.
Log1c
Log1c
Posted 4:07 AM 24/7/08
In addition to the $50,000 set of speakers, the rooms themselves are built to specifications! So you are probably better off with good speakers compared to better codecs.
Log1c
VideoVampire
Posted 6:04 AM 24/7/08
Sweet the PS3 is better than I thought!
VideoVampire
dangj307
Posted 6:03 AM 24/7/08
@evilpenguin81:
Uh, that wasn't just Blu-ray vs. HD DVD. Remember, HD DVD didn't have enough space for even the lossless HD codecs on Transformers HD DVD.
One thing you missed, Giz, is sample rates. This is actually where LPCM is at a disadvantage as well. Due to the greater space taken, LPCM is usually sampled at a lower rate than the lossless codecs.
In theory, the codecs should be lossless, in reality, I don't think it's quite that simple.
dangj307
MastaFalse
Posted 6:33 AM 24/7/08
I lub mai Ps3 :D <3
MastaFalse
bpapa9013
Posted 6:30 AM 24/7/08
you're gonna have to spend ~$400 for a decent Blu-Ray player anyway, why not just get a PS3?
bpapa9013
br4nd0n
Posted 6:28 AM 24/7/08
@VideoVampire:
yeah many people don't realize what having a BD player built into the PS3 can do. You can update it also.
br4nd0n
Wilson Rothman
Posted 6:25 AM 24/7/08
@dangj307: I wouldn't say we "missed" sample rates—we touch on them briefly up top but decided not to go into detail, mainly because the basis for consumer confusion is the proliferation of near meaningless Dolby and DTS tags everywhere. But yes, thanks for continuing the conversation.
Wilson Rothman
andyo
Posted 6:52 AM 24/7/08
and they also don't understand how very freaking powerful the placebo effect can be. It is very underestimated, and very real, and of course, nobody seems to think it applies to them.
andyo
andyo
Posted 6:50 AM 24/7/08
Usually people who swear by the HD hoopla in audio don't understand the concept of a blind test, let alone a double-blind one. I haven't seen any evidence that lossless is better than "high resolution" or DD+, or the regular codecs anyway.
I guess I am a bit bitter because this stupid baseless obsession with lossless and "high definition" audio was one important thing that lost a perfectly stable format (HD-DVD) the war to a mess of a format that's never finished (have you heard of BD+? How about X-protect?)
andyo
Monty
Posted 6:49 AM 24/7/08
Last I checked, I have two ears. I better verify.
Yup. Only two.
I have been trying to grow 7.1 using creams, lotions, potions, animal droppings - all so I can truly enjoy these fancy shmancy audio specs. No luck.
If anyone has any suggestions, I am all ears. Well, not really. Just two - as I said before.
Monty
knyghtryda
Posted 7:17 AM 24/7/08
While the codecs are kind of important, the gear you have makes a HUGE difference. I don't have expensive gear, but going from a $40 logitech 5.1 system (which actually sounds pretty good) to a $400 klipsh 5.1 system (that I thankfully didn't pay $400 for) is like night and day. I'm no audiophile (being a videophile is more my thing) but a decent set of speakers (>$100) is definitely something that should be high on the list of any computer poweruser, cuz yeah, it'll pass a double blind study vs crappy gear. I bet going to a $4000 full on home theatre system would make a drastic difference, thats a jump in magnitude I cannot yet afford, nor would my apartment neighbors appreciate.
knyghtryda
rbf2000
Posted 7:15 AM 24/7/08
@andyo: Audio is a very subjective thing, and the placebo effect can be a pretty scary thing - remember the story about the "danceable cables"?
A lot of the overpriced items do things in theory, but the gain is so minimal it's not noticeable, and in most cases, it's just snake oil.
However, in an A-B test, I bet you the majority of people would be able to tell the difference between the standard codecs and the advanced codecs, given the right equipment.
rbf2000
Weezie
Posted 7:45 AM 24/7/08
All of this is meaningless when 90% of the public stack every speaker (including the sub) on top of their TV.
Weezie
davidron
Posted 9:51 AM 24/7/08
Even the Dolby Digital AC3 track on DVDs sounds PERFECT to me. My ears really can't here the difference between a 192K and a 256K mp3, and AC3 is roughly equivelant to an MP3 in that compression range. (Although AC3 is more roughly related to MPEG-2 layer 2 audio than layer 3 audio.)
I just can't tell the difference between dvd audio and any of the higher resolution audio formats - even the same format at a higher resolution.
Side note:
Anybody interested in ripping DVDs to files you can stick on your USB device for playback on your PS3 with surround sound, check out my blog:
[drratamacue.blogspot.com]
davidron
Lux Aeterna
Posted 12:31 PM 24/7/08
OK, so my reciever has no HDMI inputs (a bit dated, i know...), but can I still get the full benefit of the PS3s audio capabilities through Optical?
Lux Aeterna
PeteeWJ
Posted 1:48 PM 24/7/08
Um, where's Dolby Digital EX and DTS ES? I know these are fairly rare on DVDs but they're still out there.
PeteeWJ
rbf2000
Posted 1:57 PM 24/7/08
@Lux Aeterna: Nope. Optical and digital coax only have enough bandwidth for the normal Dolby Digital and DTS codecs, and since the PS3 doesn't have analog outs, without HDMI, you are out of luck with the new audio codecs.
@PeteeWJ: Those are just other variations of matrixed sound. Just other examples of taking a 5.1 signal and matrixing it to 6.1 or 7.1, just like Matt mentioned in the article with Pro Logic II et. al.
rbf2000
norubiT
Posted 3:10 PM 24/7/08
hmmm my stereo must be having an identity crisis, I have Dolby Digital DTS 5.1 surround as a setting
norubiT
PeteeWJ
Posted 4:17 PM 24/7/08
@rbf2000: Not quite.
From DTS's website:
"DTS-ES is the only digital audio format capable of delivering 6.1 channels of discrete audio in the consumer electronics market."
[www.dts.com]
PeteeWJ
j05hu4
Posted 11:25 PM 24/7/08
@Monty: You have 2 ears but your head can move freely (I hope). Our perception and locating of sound works by moving your head. You'll hear a sound, turn your head and by the shifting of several spectral peaks (which are introduced by the 'funny' shape of your ears) your brain will know were the sound came from. So surround is definately worthwhile when enjoying movies. (Last week one of my friends was complaining about the rainy weather in Holland, not knowing that the sound of the rain was from the movie we were watching, very funny)
j05hu4
j05hu4
Posted 11:45 PM 24/7/08
@andyo: I'll take any blind ABX test. But I'll never say I will have every answer right but I hear differences in stereo image depth, quality of the sounds with a large noise component, and transients (sharp attacks of eg drums). But with higher compressed bitrates it can get very difficult to spot the differences indeed. I do play MP3's just for backgound music but I can't enjoy them during serious listening sessions. So my CD collection has nothing to worry about ;)
j05hu4
Monty
Posted 3:28 AM 25/7/08
@j05hu4: No question that is true. My point (if I had one, which I probably did not) is that we go to great lengths to get the perfect surround system when a good set of headphones could, theoretically, do a better job.
Monty
Spineless
Posted 6:11 AM 24/7/08
Hey! What the heck...
"It can also have varying frequency ranges, typically from 44.1KHz to 96KHz"
That "frequency range" is actually the sampling rate. In PCM terms, the sampling rate is twice the maximum rendered frequency. i.e. a 44.1kHz sampling rate can render a 22kHz tone in the audio stream.
Spineless
pmod
Posted 5:37 AM 24/7/08
"It can also have varying frequency ranges, typically from 44.1KHz to 96KHz."
Those are not frequency ranges, they are sampling rates - it denotes how often the measurement of the waveform is taken and is not (directly) related to the frequency range of the audio itself.
pmod