I am happy to see some details being provided, so that we may now engage in more fruitful discussion. To wit:
Robert AG wrote: >>Yes, do you people REALLY expect me or anybody else to reveal an actual name in a public forum? It is nonsense to demand that somebody publish their identity just "to taken seriously".>3) I can play the commercial DVD against these ProTools masters, but it is far easier and more accurate to record both the Dolby Digital and DTS tracks from the DVD into two more 5.1 ProTools tracks, aligning them in time precisely.>I used the "visit a dubbing stage" example in my original post because this would be the one thing a consumer might be able to do if they happen to know someone who works on a dubbing stage. The Dolby Digital encoding done there for the theatrical realease, depspite what Mr. Dressler says, presents a very revealing comparison between unaltered sound elements and the Dolby Digital encoded one.>Again, I must wonder what the heck I said that was so controversal and that had to be justified - I said that BOTH of these lossy formats degrade the sound compared to uncompressed masters - I should think this is beyond argument! You simply cannot throw out as much as 90% of the audio information and expect it to be completely "transparent".
When I do comparisons, I either listen directly from my preamp/processor, or take the analog outputs of this device into the ProTools HD. Admittedly while this is not as pure a method of extraction as it might be, it is nonetheless the mode that an average consumer would use in actually listening to the DVD.
I specifically spoke of using only title and end credit music for comparison purposes since these are the least likely to have been modified by EQ or compression in any subsequent mastering phase. Is it perfect? No, but is close enough to get a good handle on the relative quality differences, and it yields consistent results.
>>>There are a few issues to mention. You did not create the encoded Dolby Digital files in your studio, or even with your supervision, so the path is in fact unknown between the printmaster and the encoder.
Yes, it is distressing to see some of the marketing hype that gets foisted on the consumer, and I have posted extensively in an attempt to dispell some of these myths. I have found that the Dolby Digital tracks sound the most like what I hear on the masters in controlled experiments, but it seems that the intentionally altered DTS tracks on some DVDs are "preferred" by some listeners for such things as "more bass", "enhanced clarity of dialog", and most distressingly, "more surround ambience" It never occurs to the listener that the surround level might simply be higher in the DTS presentation, or the bass frequencies emphasized. Overall, I preferred the DTS tracks in the comparisons in the Outlaw forum, but this was simply because these tracks were "pumped up" soncically by EQ and level changes, while the Dolby Digital were not manipulated to sound more impressive then the original elements already were.
The DTS 96/24 encoding scheme honestly baffles me. What relavance does 96kHz/24 bit in an original file have to do with lossy encoding? I admittedly haven't examined this process much so maybe I'm missing something.
Robert and Roger, This is really good info you guys are sharing. And these last couple of posts have really helped to explain why most DTS tracks do not sound quite right. (at least to me)
This is exactly what I was referring to in my original post at the start of this thread. Dialogue and sound effects do seem enhanced in DTS. But in most movies I have watched, the sound is overly enhanced and does not sound natural.
Marketing and a way to get "full bit rate" consumer titles out. Unfortunately, with the breakdown of data in a 24/96K encoding you lose 50% of the gain for including the 24/96K information.
The core data (24/48K) takes up 1.1Mbits/second and the enhanced data (24/96K deltas essentially) takes up about 384Kbits/second.
As to the value, I can't speak to it. In all honesty I've not yet had a consumer decoder in to work with yet.
I figured marketing played very heavily into it, considering DTS's reputation for hype. Lossy encoding would seem to trump any audible benefit of higher bit depth/higher sample rate original recordings, with any real-world audible difference being very minimal, if audible at all to the average listener.
This is terribly fascinating. Please continue the discussion along these lines. For once, I've read a plausible explanation for the excessive-seeming "ambience" that characterizes so many dts tracks I've heard.
Aside from higher levels of the surrounds seeming "more enveloping", the Fletcher-Munson curves which plot the frequency "response" verses SPL relationships of our ears can enter into the picture. As the sound pressure level is increased, the audibility of bass frequences (and to a certain extent the high frequencies) is enhanced, so a louder presentation will also sound "fuller". A 3db increase in the level of the surrounds over Dolby Digital (which I noted in the DTS presentations on DVD) can make them seem more enveloping and also more "full" sounding.
There are many subtle and not so subtle sonic tricks that can be played to manipulate how sound is perceived by listeners.
It sounds like it is a matter of EQ adjustment, remember how the "smile" curve on your old multi band EQ made it seem better. It isn't really better since its not flat across the whole spectrum just emphasized in areas that you pickup on. This isn't as noticeable in movies as it would be with music, where the ranges used remain constant throughout a song. In a movie, there aren't many consistent frequencies that are heard throughout all scenes.
When I switch between DD and DTS, I find a number of the DTS tracks to be "hotter" in both bass and treble, and sometimes have the dialogue a little harder to hear in action scenes due to this.
I like to compare certain scenes that have very defined sounds to do an A/B comparison between the two. The best scene I have found is on the DVD "Twister" when the satellite sweeps across the screen during the transition from past to present timeline. The DD version is much cleaner and more defined.
Thanks to Robert and Roger for confirming what alot of us on the forum have thought for some time.
That would seem to be a logical assumption. They are, after all, in the marketing loop when they offer an alternative sound format on their DVDs. I don't have any information one way or another on this however.
I appreciate your contributions, Robert--I wish alot of us here could experience the original, uncompressed masters. That both DD and DTS are significant degradations from the originals is not suprising.
While there seems to be no consensus of preference between the two lossy codecs from conversations I've had with those in the pro sound community and from visiting some of the pro sound forums(much like the disparity we have here on the consumer forums), one thing they all unanimously agree on is that both DD & DTS don't do the originals justice.
I am unclear though about what seems to be your reversal from the what you posted at the Outlaw forum and what you are reporting here. If you are the person I'm thinking you are at the Outlaw saloon, did you not say that in your mind DTS's superiority could not be attributed to just EQ and channel level differences? If I have the wrong person, then I apologize.