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

[David Prior]

This tells me there's really no issue with space, it's just a money saving factor for the studio.

Sorry John, but you couldn't be more wrong. The fundamental issue with DTS is bit rate. When the film is long enough that the inclusion of even a partial bit rate DTS track will negatively impact the quality of the picture, there's a lot of hard questions to ask. Questions like: is the DTS going to be a big enough improvement? When compared to a properly done DD encode, the answer is no. Is the marketing value of saying there's a DTS track on the disc going to signifigantly boost sales? Often the answer is also no. I like DTS as much as anyone, but I've never met resistance to DTS because of cost. It just takes up a lot of space.

As to why releases differ internationally, that's a complicated and thorny issue. Once we have HD-DVD, hopefully this won't be an issue.

Cheers,
David

 

[AlexBC]

I think the majority of people here is making a storm in a glass of water, by speaking so theoretically and about ideal situations.

But the fact is, even though no codec superiority can be proven, DTS tracks tend to get better mixes and/or are not usually compromised as DD tracks when it comes to overprocessing for downcovertion or any other intended purpose. So we have to be realistic, we know studios aren't gonna drop extras or move them to a second disc all the time to include another soundtrack (though I'm all for both these options to get the best possible presentation of the movie). Moreover, although the best solution was to make a propper uncompromised DD track (considering that the codecs don't yel any difference) and then spend all the remaining bitrate on video; we must be realistic again and see that its not gonna happen anytime soon and that the R3 (Korea and Hong Kong) and R4 (Brazil and South America) releases are all NTSC and will boast DTS tracks along with the same US R1 transfer (R2 Jpn is also NTSC but their DVDs are not usually distributed by the studios themselves so the transfer may be different from the US one).

So, I belive everyone demanding DTS on the R1 wants it this way(I'm pretty much assuming that), not because DTS is actually better than DD, but because the DTS track will sound better for whatever reason (mix, no downcovertion etc..) and there won't be any difference transfer wise. And who wants the best looking and souding release is gonna have to agree with these guys that want the DTS track on the R1 (like I do) or buy imported discs.

 

[Dharmesh C]

Watched 2 fast 2 furious; quite frankly I didn't miss the DTS track. The film is more fun than the first one, but still, it's crap, a crap that you enjoy after an evening of spicey food.

 

[Gregory William]

Pirates of the Caribbean now has a DTS track, according to disney's web site.

 

[Cliff Olson]

The Haunting, Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan are examples where it has been pretty well established that the DD and DTS tracks use different mixes. That being the case, the question shouldn't be, "Why aren't they including a DTS track?" It should be, "How can we be sure that the very best available mix is being used for the DVD?"

Please define exactly what you mean by "well established". I think what you imply is, there are a lot of folks out there who "think" they are two different mixes. When, in all actuality, there is not one bit of proof to support that argument. So to summarize what I've learned from this thread alone; it seems that DTS supporters must come up with proof to support their argument(s) (ie. which codec is superior), but DD supporters can throw out speculation, since they out-number the DTS supporters, and hence, it can be dismissed as a "well established" point. That's why I love this forum!

 

[John_Berger]

NO!!!!! This thread has returned!

Just when you thought it was safe to go back onto HTF...

 

[Bjoern Roy]

Cliff,

Please define exactly what you mean by "well established". I think what you imply is, there are a lot of folks out there who "think" they are two different mixes. When, in all actuality, there is not one bit of proof to support that argument.

Of course there is proof. Maybe you aren't around long enough to have witnessed the horde of religous DD vs DTS threads that we had over the last 5 years here.

The 3 most popular titles that get mentioned for DTS's supposed superiority are U-571, Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan. The differences here are inddeed striking, but they do indeed use different mixes.

I have measured lots of titles where arguments started about differences. A few can be seen in my SPL reviews on my site.

Here are a few examples of DD vs DTS mixes.

Note 1:The upper graph is always the Left Front Channel as a representative of the main channels. The lower graph is the LFE channel. DD should be red and DTS pink in most cases, its noted on the right.

Note 2: The differences of the LFE channel graphs above 120hz are irrelevant!

Note 3: All graphs have been measured 'after' compensating for the difference in overall soundtrack volume due to DD's DialNorm feature.


Titan AE:


This is what a typical graph looks like for a title where the same mix is used when the DTS track was encoded at the 768kbps bitrate with the CAE-4 DTS encoder. The 2 graphs are basically identical apart from 2 differences. The CAE-4 encoder drops about 10db above 15kHz and the LFE channel drops atypical towards higher frequencies (-3db @ 90hz). I explain both issues in some of my SPL reviews.



Coyote Ugly:


ElDorado:


These 2 are also quite typical. There is slightly more deviation in general level between DTS and DD, but always only about 1db and not in favor of any of the 2 codecs, probably a combination of encoding tolerances and measurement inaccuracies. But the major differences are again the 2 DTS 'issues' -3db @ 90 hz and -10db @15kHz.

Again, the difference in SPL in the LFE graph above 120hz is irrelevant



Gladiator:


This is what it looks like if one of the supposed titles of striking DTS 'domination' is measured. Its immediately obvious, that the DTS mix is a completely different one from the DD mix. This is a complete re-mix.



U-571:


The biggest difference between the U-571 DD and DTS mix is that on the DTS track, the explosions have considerably more 'umpf' to them (even after properly adjusting overall level differences due to DialNorm). Yet the difference is not due to DTS's superiority but rather because of a mastering difference. Either the DTS's LFE track is encoded 4db too loud, or the DD's LFE track 4db too soft. Since i use that movie mostly to shake off my leg-hair, i use the DTS track myself



Jurrasic Park:


The same thing as on the U-571 track, but with the DD LFE track being 4db higher can be witnessed on the first pressing of the Jurrasic Park DVDs. I investigated the issue including the differences against the DD laserdisc version on my site. After the complains, the DTS version of JP has been rereleased.


Twister:


This is a rare example of a DTS track being encoded at the superior 1536kbps bitrate. It doesn't show the two 768kpbs issues of -3db @ 90hz and -10db @ 15kHz. Both graphs are basically identical apart from the DTS track being about 1 db louder overall. This is consistent with what i found in all comparisons where the DTS track was encoded at 1536kbps. Dolby claims this is another issue with DTS's encoder at that rate. Considering the obvious issues at the 768kbps DTS rate, i tend to believe them.

Thus, to make a listening comparison as fair as possible, i would suggest raising the volume 1db on the DD track if the DTS track is encoded at fullrate. This is 'on top' of the usual DialNorm compensation, btw. Although the Warner DTS fullrate titles like Twister are the rare case where DialNorm isn't used on the DD track.


Can't find my measurements of Saving Private Ryan at the moment. But they were more along the lines of Gladiator, indicating a 'completely' different mix.


Here is my rundown on the DD vs DTS issue:

- Many people who really claim DTS's superiority on a 'fanboy-ish' basis tend to use titles as their premiere examples where the DTS track simply uses a different master, see above.

- Many people still don't understand Dolby's Dialog Normalization (or to make things even more complicated, the Dialog Normalization 'Compensation' feature), thus listen at completely different overall volume levels when they compare DD and DTS.


BUT, there will also be a small (probably less than 10%) minority of people (and everyone is obviously going to claim to be in this group ), who are technically fully aware of the 2 issues above and STILL claim to prefer DTS, at least in 'most cases'. My experience is that these folks don't really come across as 'fanboy-ish' but rather open minded.

One interesting thing i noticed in this regard, that i don't think has EVER been mentioned in one of our holy DD vs DTS debates, is the role that equipment plays in this regards.

On the one hand its obvious that doing a comparison at 'equal playground' (same mix, volume adjusted), will reveal differences that are rather SUBTLE and nowhere close to the 'A blows B out of the water' flavor that is proclaimed so often. To even appreciate and reveal these subtle differences, the reproduction related components like speakers, amps and the listening room need to be at a level that many would consider fairly above 'average'. This is rather obvious.

But on the other hand, i noticed an angle that i think hasn't been mentioned yet. Over the last few years, i noticed that one part of the equipment equation, namely the DECODER, plays a rather big role in the opposite direction than usually anticipated. It would be rather normal, to expect that similar to speakers, amps etc, that the 'better' the decoder (pre/pro) gets, the 'bigger' the difference between DD and DTS gets and the more easily it is apparent. My experience is that the opposite is the case.

It appears to me, that the better the pre/pro gets, the better the 'overall' sound quality obviously gets due to better D/A converters etc. BUT at the same time, i noticed that the difference between DD and DTS narrows down to the level of being rather inconsequential.

This would indicate that the DTS decoders that can be found in entry and mid-fi level equipment are already much closer to 'ideally' decoding DTS streams than DD decoders are. So that in highend pre/pro's the difference narrows down, due to the DTS decoder only improving marginally, yet the DD decoder improving considerably.

In my case, i always found the difference between DD and DTS to be rather considerable up to the day i got my Lexicon pre/pro. Ever since, i find myself to be choosing DTS mostly because its a rather save bet that IF there are differences in the mix, its usually the DTS one to have it. Which is a REAL shame!

Similarily about 4 out of 5 audiophile friends of mine who all happen to have Lexicon MC-1, MC-8, MC-12 or Meridian pre/pro's also don't really care about DTS as a codec, but rather want 'a good mix', no matter in what form its delivered.

It has to be said, though, that i fully respect these 1 out of 5 oddballs who DO see DTS as a inevitable ingredient to their holophonic listening experience.

At the same time, basically ALL of my friends with entry level equipment or mid-fi gear swear up and down that DTS blows DD out of the water every time. Few of them can be bothered with the technical issues like different masters or overall volume level due to DialNorm.

My personal preference is to not really care about DD or DTS if the corresponding bitrates are the higher rate (448) for DD and the lower rate (768) for DTS. More often than not, i found these to sound rather identical or sometimes even prefering the DD on 'MY' equipment with these rates, if the mix is indeed the same. And these are the current 'common' bitrates. I wouldn't hesitate to choose the DTS track, if it were encoded at the high rate (1536) and the DD track at the low (384).


You might get the impression that its unfair of me to swim along the common notion of calling DTS supports 'fanboys' and at the same time not calling the rest DD 'fanboys'. The thing is, few people are DD fanboys. Most build up a certain 'resistence' against DTS glorification.

I love DTS. Some of the best listening experiences of my life were in DTS. I fully agree with many reviews that claim a certain DTS tracks superiority. Whether the main reason is the codec or the mix is another issue.

At the same time, i love DD, since many of my most amazing listening experiences were in DD (Toy Story, Rules of Engagement, etc).

As soon as the differences tend to get blown out of proportion and tend to center around the codec only, i tend to mutate to a DD 'fanboy', simply to build a reasonable antithesis against any glorification.


Cheers
Bjoern

 

[Michael Reuben]

Bjoern --

It appears to me, that the better the pre/pro gets, the better the 'overall' sound quality obviously gets due to better D/A converters etc. BUT at the same time, i noticed that the difference between DD and DTS narrows down to the level of being rather inconsequential.

I have often wondered about this. Your references to Lexicon pre/pros are apt, because Lexicon doesn't use off-the-shelf DD decoding firmware. I've often suspected that's one of the reasons why I've never been able to hear the differences between DD and DTS that others report; all of my DD/DTS decoders have been Lexicons.

M.

 

[RobD]

Bjoern,

Thanks for the great info, your sites a decent resource too.

There is one thing I've noticed with music DVDs at lesat in Europe. Those that include DTS tend to have the best 5.1 mixs (In DD or DTS) and whilst technical superiority seems to be non existent its a great help in guessing the quality of an unreviewed music DVDs soundtrack.

Whilst on the subject, do you think discrete 6.1 is important?

 

[Michael Reuben]

Whilst on the subject, do you think discrete 6.1 is important?

That would be somewhat off-topic for this thread, but there's a thread in Receivers devoted to the subject:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...&highlight=6.1

M.

 

[John Beavers]

Funny, looking back on this thread. I wonder what if any difference the super versions of the DTS/DD debate have going on now. LOL Bet the debate still rages on.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by RobD

Bjoern,

Thanks for the great info, your sites a decent resource too.

There is one thing I've noticed with music DVDs at lesat in Europe. Those that include DTS tend to have the best 5.1 mixs (In DD or DTS) and whilst technical superiority seems to be non existent its a great help in guessing the quality of an unreviewed music DVDs soundtrack.

Whilst on the subject, do you think discrete 6.1 is important?

No. Discrete 6.1 will never catch on.


Oh wait..