No DTS on any of the big summer blockbuster DVDs? (1 Viewer)

[David Judah]

Tests reporting a difference between soundtracks but don't include the original source are meaningless.

Obviously the average consumer isn't going to have access to the original, but with a DTS track more of the original signal is being reproduced throughout the range where we have the most acuity regardless of its more expensive(bit-wise) front end.

DJ

 

[Lew Crippen]

but with a DTS track more of the original signal is being reproduced throughout the range where we have the most acuity regardless of its more expensive(bit-wise) front end.

I'm interested in the source for that statement.

 

[Brent M]

Michael St. Clair,

I was simply stating that Superbit DVDs look damn good and they're able to carry a DTS track in the process, Mr. High and Mighty! Using your logic, every feature on a DVD adversely affects picture quality(commentary tracks, multiple language tracks, animated menus, special features, etc) so DVDs should just be released as movie only with one Dolby Digital 5.1 track and nothing else. That would give you the ultimate in picture quality, right? It would also be the "death blow" to DVD because the mass market now expects more than that from new releases. I'm all for reference quality video, but remember that sound is 50% of the experience and the lack of DTS tracks on these upcoming releases is shortchanging the HT enthusiasts who care about audio as much as video.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Brent,

The mass market does not care about DTS, certainly not to the point of boycotting releases.

And just because Superbits look great does not mean that they cannot look better.

Other extras are less of an impedence to picture quality than excessive soundtracks are, and can always be moved to a second disc. And a DVD-9 has a fair amount of space for supplements for a typical 90-100 minute movie, so not every movie needs to be 2 discs.

Dropping DTS would in no way be a death blow to DVD.

I think I may start an internet campaign to end DTS on DVD.


ps I was a big DTS supporter in the laserdisc days. But I've seen the light.

 

[Chad R]

Do you know why I like DTS? Because whereas all of my friends and family have DVD players, they don't all have DTS. That makes it a little more special, much like LD was to me. It's certainly an elitist thing, somewhere in my mind it justifies my belief that I like movies more than others. It's all psychological (a statement I know carries great weight beyond my use of it).

I'd never dream of not buying a movie I like because it doesn't have DTS. Nor would I buy one I hate simply because it includes DTS.

I wonder, when it really comes down to it, if some others on both side of this fence feel the same way?

 

[Lew Crippen]

I have never considered purchasing or not purchasing a DVD because of the presence or absence of DTS.

This is no doubt why I’m so amazed that anyone does care, but I accept that they do.

And I’m guessing that I care more about audio quality than 90% (probably 99%) of the people who buy or rent DVDs.

 

[Scott Kimball]

but remember that sound is 50% of the experience and the lack of DTS tracks on these upcoming releases is shortchanging the HT enthusiasts who care about audio as much as video.

I have certainly heard many DVDs that contain both DD and DTS tracks, and have frequently preferred the DTS track. But, as has been said, its about a lot more than the codec. Your argument suggests that a Dolby Digital mix cannot sound as good as a DTS mix, and it simply is not true. So, how are HT enthusiasts being shortchanged? Perhaps by a Dolby track that makes too many compromises in the mix for a 2.0 downconversion. Perhaps any of a number of reasons... but it's not because the Dolby format is inherently inferior.

Read David Boulet's review of The Lion King. That disc apparently has a DD 5.1 track that is "enhanced for home theater" (or some such thing). Apparently, it is quite spectacular, and shows what a Dolby Digital mix can accomplish.

Obviously, you'll believe what you want to believe, but an open mind is a good thing. It ain't all black and white.

-Scott

 

[David Judah]

I'm interested in the source for that statement.

Read the white papers and decide where you like the compromises. Dolby Digital relies much more on bit reduction through psychoacoustic masking--its no secret. Of course, we could argue about where the threshold of audibility lies, but I think that it's important to point out when someone mentions transparency to the original.

If one wants more bits for video as a way to stay true to the original, then for consistencie's sake they should want more for audio, as well(more of the original PCM signal being reproduced where our hearing is most sensitive).

DJ

 

[Aaron Garman]

Sure, Dolby Digital can have amazing mixes (check out Toy Story 2, or the Mission: Impossible LD) but thus far on DVD, DTS has consistently amazed me moreso than Dolby Digital. Sure, it could be because of different mixes, but I also think the compression is coming into play. I always notice with DTS that it sounds more natural, and more analog. Even at half bit rate, DTS still sounds "more natural" than the equivilent Dobly Digital mix. Of course, not everyone will hear this, for your ears have to be trained to hear the difference. I have also noticed that theatrically, DTS tends to have the same effect over Dolby in that it sounds more natural and less compressed. In both the home and theatrical venue, DTS does use less compression than Dolby (and SDDS for that matter).

Sure, I want the best picture available, but I also want the best sound. Everytime I get a DTS track, I usually get what I want. With Dolby, it is always a mixed bag (see xXx 2 disc vs. xXx Superbit). I say for major releases, have the typical 1 or 2 disc special editions with mindless fluff extras and Dolby 5.1 tracks that just don't cut it for audiophiles, and also release a full bitrate DTS only disc that when you insert the disc, the DTS trailer plays and the film starts. NO MENUS, no extras, no nothing. Heck, you could call it Mini-LD.

AJG

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Sure, Dolby Digital can have amazing mixes (check out Toy Story 2, or the Mission: Impossible LD) but thus far on DVD, DTS has consistently amazed me moreso than Dolby Digital. Sure, it could be because of different mixes, but I also think the compression is coming into play.

1) 'Thinking' is not the same as demonstrating.
2) If you think compression is the factor, explain why lowly 384k Dolby Digital on laserdisc so often sounds better than any equivalent DVD (whether DD or DTS).

 

[Lew Crippen]

Dolby 5.1 tracks that just don't cut it for audiophiles, and also release a full bitrate DTS only disc that when you insert the disc, the DTS trailer plays and the film starts.

Is this even possible? I thought that a DVD had to have either PCM or DD. A DTS only DVD would not be in spec. At least that is my understanding.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Flawed premise. On the video side, the codec is always MPEG-2, so a bit is a bit is a bit. On the audio side, with multiple codecs, more bits don't guarantee better sound quality; the effectiveness of the algorithms used by the codec are weighted more heavily.

This horse has been beaten so many times I am beginning to think the "DTS is better" crowd are either ignoring it or refuse to believe it. Bad idea, DTS crowd. If you continue to argue that "DTS is better cause it has more bits", you are not only wrong, you are way out of your element and should not be arguing about the differences between codec algorithms, IMHO.

 

[David Judah]

Flawed premise

Not at all if you read a little more carefully, because I'm not saying DTS is more transparent just because it uses more bits than DD in a bit by bit comparison(I am well aware of each codecs intricacies), I'm saying that it could potentially be more transparent because it is reproducing more of the original signal by using a lower masking floor(distortion and FR are a wash, IMO).

The real key here is the point at which we can be fooled psychoacoustically. I don't have a definitive answer and neither does anyone else here, because even the experts disagree.

So in my mind it comes down to having your bases covered. It's similiar to using line conditioners, higher quality analog cables, keeping power cords away from interconnects, having the most direct analog path available with existing equipment, etc...

The potential is there in theory, and it will certainly not do harm, so why not try it just in case? I understand some may disagree with me philosophically and may not accept anecdotal testimonies. That's fine, but it often seems that the level required to open some folks to the possibility is set so artificially high that no one could ever achieve that benchmark.

And so the debate(for those who are interested)continues...

 

[David Judah]

If you continue to argue that "DTS is better cause it has more bits", you are not only wrong, you are way out of your element...

Try to keep up, Jeff, we are well beyond that old argument.

DJ

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The potential is there in theory, and it will certainly not do harm, so why not try it just in case?

Because it isn't worth trading a real reduction in picture fidelity for a possible, very debatable increase in audio fidelity.

These are movies. We have DVD-A, SACD, and other formats for niggling about audio.

Bits should not be taken from picture and given to DTS unless it can be proven that DTS is more transparent.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I'm saying that it could potentially be more transparent because it is reproducing more of the original signal by using a lower masking floor

I beg to differ with your condescension, but "we" are not beyond that old argument, "we" are just surrounding it in theoretical, "potential" theories as to why it is true. No one has proven DTS is a "superior" codec and when the same master is used, I do not hear a difference. Until I see a definitive double blind test using a mix from the same master, no theory or "potential" is going to convince me. I also doubt the line-conditioner, high-end cable crowd and funny enough; they tend to shy away from the double blind test also.

 

[Brent M]

Michael,

Maybe you should re-read my post. I said dropping everything(commentary tracks, foreign lanuguage tracks, special features, animated menus, etc) would be the "death blow" to DVD, not just dropping DTS. This is because the mass market is more concerned about all the extras on new DVD releases than they are with reference quality audio/video. Also, please tell me why a foreign language track or a commentary track is any less of an impedance to picture quality than a DTS track. While you're at it, please tell me what DVD-A and SACD have to do with audio on DVD movies. You seem to just be anti-DTS and are using all these side arguments to bash a sound format you don't like. Why else would you want to start an internet campaign to end DTS on DVD?

 

[Michael St. Clair]

You seem to just be anti-DTS and are using all these side arguments to bash a sound format you don't like. Why else would you want to start an internet campaign to end DTS on DVD?

To maximize picture quality, that's why.


ps I don't hate DTS, I collect DTS laserdiscs to this very day.

 

[TomWoodward]

Funnily enough, Buena Vista have just announced that the region two release of Pirates will be carrying DTS. Although I doubt anyone in region one land will be laughing One day earlier as well.

 

[David Judah]

Because it isn't worth trading a real reduction in picture fidelity for a possible, very debatable increase in audio fidelity.

To quote George Lucas from The Phantom Menace, "You assume too much"(IMO).

If I'm reading Bjoern Roy's comments right, then we can still have the PQ, some extras, and the DTS track like we have with Superbit Deluxes'(of course we sacrifice the commentaries). He is probably the pickiest person in the video dept. and has a display device that is much more revealing of flaws than most of us. According to him, Superbits are unfiltered horizontally, are not softened to hide artifacts, and are usually better than their non-Superbit counterparts.

I'm sure the guys working on DVDs would tell us it's always a balancing act within the limitations of the format and concerns for mass market, but I think it's arrogant to assume that your choice is the only right one. After all, we could follow your logic a little further and wind up with DD 2.0 @ 192 kb/s as the primary audio track.

DJ