MKV Files No Sorround Sound

Hello, I play mostly mkv files. I have a hdmi cable running from the WD TV to the TV then an optical cord running from the TV to a Samsung HT-C550 Audio receiver. In the option of WD TV I select the HDMI option to auto detect and it only displays dolby digital as an option. The sound works but only plays from the two front speakers as if it is being changed to sterio only. I would love to have sorround sound.

Now the Samsung receiver is capable of DTS but that is not displayed as an option on the WD TV. If I select it manauly it makes no difference. Still no sorround sound.

My questions would be these:

Is this soley the fault of the audio receiver?

What is the most common audio output form for MKV Files?

Is the lacking DTS option the reason the sourround sound is failing?

Is there a way to circumvent this besides buying a new receiver?

Can anyone shed some light on this?

Thank you


From what you describe, your HDTV probably does not decode DTS. This is very common.

What you should do is plug your WDTV Hub into your Samsung AV receiver directly using HDMI. Then, select HDMI in the Setup menu for Audio on the WDTV Hub. I just bought a WDTV Hub and this is how I have it setup:

Now, if your Samsung AV Receiver does not have HDMI, then you should use the Optical SPDIF from the WDTV Hub:

WDTV Hub—>Optical cable (audio)—>Samsung AVR

Bottom line: 

You need a DIRECT input from the WDTV Hub to your Samsung receiver. Don’t go through your HDTV because most HDTVs do not process DTS. This is why you don’t hear anything using ARC (Audio Return Cable).

That makes sense. I do have a rather new TV but I have no idea if it decodes DTS.

One Question:

If I hook the WD TV to the Samsung receiver via HDMI then what is connected to my TV. Does the WD TV Have an hdmi in and out? I simply have not looked. The WD TV is currently connected to mt TV via HDMI so I would think I would need an HDMI in and Out.

It is possible that the receiver is failing to decode this as there was some false advertising claims I read about too. Not sure though, the TV I won is a 55NX810.

I did convert the audio with Popcorn Audio converter to dolby digital and that did work with my soround sound.

Thanks for the suggestions. 


You’d connect like this: 

      WDTV hdmi to your AVR - then hdmi from your AVR to your TV.    Select DIGITAL PASSTHROUGH


     WDTV hdmi to your TV  *and* WDTV optical out to your AVR…  Select DIGITAL PASSTHROUGH via OPTICAL.

Ok, I get it. Unfortunatly in my case for this to work without having to switch cables depending on the activity I would like to do. I would need either two hdmi inputs or two optical inputs on my receiver. Unfortunatly I only have one of each.

I can’t run dierctly to the optical because I only have the one optical input and it is being used by my tx and xbox. That leaves me with one hdmi and with one I cannot do this.

So until then I can convert them to Dolby.

How much better is the digital audio? Is it even noticable?


Have you not heard DTS before, yeah you can tell the difference.

Get something like this above.


Truth be told, if you don’t have a high-end surround sound/home theater system… AC3 is perfectly fine.

DTS is for the audiofiles and high-end consumers who want 7.1 surround sound and higher bit rates.

The majority of people like yourself just want to watch the movie in at least, 5.1 (6 Channel) surround and not two channel mp3 stereo :wink:

I’m not trying to start a flame war, but I think a lot of people get suckered into Dolby’s marketing and think they “must” have DTS for an enjoyable surround sound experience. This is false, IMHO.

AC3 _ is _ Dolby Digital :wink:

DTS is DTS. :slight_smile:

In blind tests, both AC3 and DTS claim transparency at their highest bitrates.  You can’t hear the difference between the source audio, and the encoded digital audio.  It’s up to the theater which soundtrack they play off the film stock.

However, both the DTS tracks and the AC3 tracks on the disc may not be at the highest bitrate… AC3 may only be 448kbit and DTS may only be 754.5kbit, so neither one is transparent.  Internet downloads can often have far lower bitrates as well.

A 228kbit AC3 track vs. a demonstrably transparent 1509.75kbit DTS track?  Of course the DTS will sound better.

A 640kbit AC3 track (with claimed transparency) vs. a 754.5kbit DTS track (known to lack transparency)?  The AC3 track should sound better.

Unless they messed up the mastering, if your disc has 640kbit AC3 5.1, you’ll be hearing exactly what was played in a Dolby Digital 5.1 theatre.

Unless they messed up the mastering, if your disc has 1509kbit DTS 5.1, you’ll be hearing exactly what was played in a DTS 5.1 theatre.

Obviously the 7.1 for BluRay material, and for some theatres is a further improvement.  But a properly duplicated 640kbit AC3 track should be exatcly what was played in a DD5.1 theatre off the film print.

I disagree, not with the principle, all that makes sense and is indeed correct.

But I can tell you without  shadow of a doubt, that if I put a film on and its DTS, the sounds jump around the room much more, DD, whilst still good, does not have the same punch.

wdtvhub wrote:

But I can tell you without  shadow of a doubt, that if I put a film on and its DTS, the sounds jump around the room much more, DD, whilst still good, does not have the same punch.

Well, I never said the sound in a DD theatre and the sound in a DTS theatre was the same. :wink:

But, at home, a “poor sounding” room can easily kill the benefits of DTS… it depends on your equipment, the location of the speakers, any sound absorbing materials, any…

Some living rooms DTS and DD would sound nearly identical… a poorly set-up DTS room vs. a well set-up DD room, the DD still could “win”.  A well set-up DTS room, it should “win”.

But, since many of my commercial DVDs lack the extra DTS track and only have Dolby Digital, it’s not like I have the option of making a choice. :smiley:

I don’t view my films in a theatre :wink:

I thought the op asked if recoding his sound from DTS to DD would give any noticable difference, it does.

Ya, but the OP shouldn’t need to convert the DTS to Dolby Digital for DVDs… the disc will have the DD track already on it.  I’ve personally never even seen a BluRay that was DTS only.

I still stand by my edit that it _ can _ be quite noticible, but that depends on environmental values, and the DD will still sound “as good as” what was heard in a DD theatre.  If the DD track was that bad in terms of being a listening experience, then all theaters would be DTS, and the film wouldn’t have DD on it in the first place. :smileyvery-happy:

Oh, wow. Look at what I started :dizzy_face:

The reason I felt I had to address the OP when he/she asked about any noticeable difference if they recode the audio is because a good majority of people can’t tell a difference one way or another (depending on their home theater equipment).

For example, I have a brand new AVR that can process all the new formats (DTS-MA, DD-TrueHD, etc)… But you know what? There is nothing in these tracks that makes me go “Wow! That sounds so much better than a DD track!” Maybe I’m getting deaf in my old age, but I doubt it.

This is what I meant, when I said, I feel a lot of people… Less tech savvy consumers than those posting on this forum… Get suckered into marketing and think they must have DTS, or the audio is going to sound like muffled two channel stereo.

Like Roofing Guy said… The majority of DVDs are just DD. There aren’t DTS tracks on them, so this is what the majority of the public is used to… And they like it :wink:

The ops first line…

Hello, I play mostly mkv files.

Where does anyone mention DVDs ? :slight_smile:

wdtvhub wrote:

The ops first line…


Hello, I play mostly mkv files.


Where does anyone mention DVDs ? :slight_smile:

I know of no commercial source of .mkv media.  All my Matroska files are ripped from DVDs and BluRays.  The .mkv can easily contain all tracks that were present on the original disc.

Even if the OPs files are illegal infringing downloads, the .mkv rips still presumably came from a DVD or a BluRay.  I doubt the OP bought the film stock from the studio and encoded off of that directly (but even then it would be still be the identical digital audio track as what’s on the DVD or BluRay).

Regardless of whether DVD got specifically mentioned or not, I fail to see how that’s in any way relevant to whether Dolby Digital surround would sound acceptable to the OP.  Am I missing something?

No but you are implying something now. Maybe his original Bluray is scratched, I don’t know or care.

He was just saying he had Mkv files with DTS. If he had DD on them, he would not be asking.

So why feel the need to question how and where ?

Simple fact, if he has the Equipment DTS will sound better, if he has not he has to downsample to DD.

Is there a difference yes.

wdtvhub wrote:

So why feel the need to question how and where ?

Hold up pardner… I was questioning nothing.  I was merely pointing out that it would be easier for future rips to use the existing DD track off the master disc than to try and convert the DTS track to DD.  However, there are valid reasons not to.

Don’t forget… these threads are for anybody who wants to read them, not just the OP.  And he’s free to ignore the suggestion if it’s not applicable (as is anyone else).  But that doesn’t make it any less helpful to others.

You’ve said your piece… ad nauseam.  We’ve heard your opinion several times.  This discussion is already filling hundreds (if not thousands) of internet audiophile and hidef pages.

The general consensus amongst the audio professionals is that with proper equipment and properly sourced files, they should sound about the same.  And DD has their own test results where DD sounded “better” than DTS in their listening tests (of course DTS said the tests are worthless because they were not run by an independent group).

One major factor is that when a disc is already released in just a stock DD version, they have to make the consumers want to buy a second copy when it’s re-released as the “Special Edition” with DTS.  So the DTS track is usually re-mixed to give it some “oomph”.  So that DTS track sounds better, not by the nature of it being a DTS track, but simply because it was mixed to “sound better”.  They could have re-mixed the DD track to “sound better” too, but they generally don’t.  In those cases, you’d be better off converting the DTS track to DD than you would be using the original DD track off the disc.

If the DTS track has been re-mixed and sweetened, then it should sound better – that’s why they did it.  If it’s the stock audio, the DTS and DD should be virtually identical.  And converting the DTS track to DD should sound virtually identical.

If the disc was originally released with both DTS and DD, they may not have played with the DTS track’s mix, or they may have played with the DD track as well to give it the same “oomph”.

The whole original point was to release the disc once with DD only, and then re-release it with the “better sounding” DTS track so you’ll buy a second copy.  Nobody would have bought the second copy if they left the DTS track sounding identical to the DD track that was on the original release.

And all this is long before you factor in the acoustics of a room, or anything like that.  An acoustically dead room can easily kill off any “oomph” that was mixed in and make both sound rather limp and flat and disappointing.

But, there will only be a difference if that difference was _ deliberately _ put there… it’s not an inherent difference between the 2 formats.

_ Hold up pardner… I was questioning nothing. _

I know of no commercial source of .mkv media…

Even if the OPs files are illegal infringing downloads…

You’ve said your piece… ad nauseam.  We’ve heard your opinion several times.

Bit its ok for you to ramble on again.

This is obviously YOUR board and you seem to have an opinion about everybody and everything, but no one else is allowed to question it. You need to stop believing your own hype, and get off that soapbox pardner.