Warner Bros. says no to DTS! (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

Warner knows how to do DD right. There is zero objective evidence that a non-remix, non-EQd DTS track is more transparent to the orginal master than DD is. Zero.

There is "objective evidence" that DD is not discrete in the high frequencies. DD, also adds distortion to the lower frequencies that DTS does not.
Not uncommon for the unwashed masses to believe a DD has more "bass", than a DTS soundtrack. When what they are really hearing is distortion.
There is plenty of subjective evidence a DTS soundtrack is more open & revealing. Giving the listener a much more cohesive ambient soundfield.
I am not starting a DTS vs. DD war. Just addressing this one statement.
And, I am extremely disappointed with DTS, as a company.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Well, New Line is an AOL/Time-Warner company too and they not only put out great DTS tracks, they also have been remixing to DTS-ES Discrete 6.1, and hiring a quality audio company like Mi Casa to do the home theater mastering. New Line also dropped the awful snapper case.

WB also always modifies 1.85:1 movies to 1.78:1 whether they're open matted or hard matted films. With overscan, that can lead to a very cramped composition on hard matted material. Their stance on non-anamorphic enhancement for 1.66:1 films is short sighted too.

Although the title choices for New Line are a lot slimer, they seem more on the ball than their parent company. Even Morgan Creek has released a DTS track!

Warner Brothers does a great job with video quality on their new titles (their catalog stuff is a mixed bag, however-- and there were numerous stinkers from 1997 and 1998 that need big improvements like Dangerous Liaisons), but the audio could use an improvement (many times quite dull and lackluster-- The Matrix is one such example). The 384 kilobits/sec data rate for Dolby Digital is a mistake that even Dolby Labs admits.

Dan

 

[Harminder]

Everytime I buy a DVD, I usually prey that WB is not the distributor because they release awful DVD's.

I hate the snap cases, I hate the sound quality and I HATE THE SNAP CASES! LOL

By WB not adopting DTS is a mistake, but even if they don't, they can certainly improve on their Dolby Digital 5.1. The Matrix and Swordfish are the two most dissapointing DVD's (I have) soundwise. Picture as usual is great, but the sound is terrible and that's what the focus seems to be these days, sound.

Now there are 3 movies I am definately going to pick up once released on DVD. The Matrix Reloaded, The Matrix Revolutions and Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines. The part that makes me cringe is they are all Warner Bros. distributed movies. Now Matrix 2 & 3 I expected. But if Terminator 3 isn't up to the level of Terminator 2 Ultimate Edition, I will be one seriously pissed off DVD consumer. They HAVE to use DTS for that movie and also the Matrix movies, the sound is just really really lacking.

And those snap cases... let's not start that up. LOL

WB, please listen to this consumers pleas... please see the light and improve your DVD's.

 

[RobertR]

There is plenty of subjective evidence a DTS soundtrack is more open & revealing.

Not under the conditions that Michael stated, with the identity of the codec unknown to the listener.

 

[Adam Barratt]

There is "objective evidence" that DD is not discrete in the high frequencies. DD, also adds distortion to the lower frequencies that DTS does not.

Dolby Digital does indeed use adaptive joint-frequency coding or 'coupling' above some frequencies at bit-rates typically found on DVD, while DTS does not.

However, the absolute frequency response of these Dolby Digital soundtracks (at 448kbps) extends beyond that of an equivalent (754kbps) DTS soundtrack - well beyond when the DTS soundtrack is created with DTS's own hardware encoder.

Clearly there is a trade-off between frequency response and data consumption, and DTS and Dolby have chosen different approaches. Both have their pros and cons, but I couldn't comment on which is the better option.

I haven't heard of additional distortion being added at lower frequencies in Dolby Digital soundtracks, but I am aware of linearity errors present in DTS soundtracks (again using DTS's hardware encoder).

Adam

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't particularly like the cardboard covers, but I do like the hub design in snapper cases. I think the snapper cases have the best hub design of any of these cases. The friction fit of the snapper hubs is tight enough to hold the discs securely but does not make the discs difficult to release. I never have to yard on a disc contained in a snapper. The same cannot be said for a lot of other hub designs out there.

Other manufacturers could take some lessons from the snapper hub design.

 

[Edwin-S]

What was wrong with the sound on "The Matrix" DVD? I thought it sounded pretty good. I still prefer DTS because a lot of DD tracks just sound flat and compressed to me. That may have more to do with mixing than with the sound format though.

There are a couple of scenes in "The Matrix" where low frequencies seem to be "cut off", especially during the elevator and helicopter explosions, but overall the disc sounded decent. A lot of you guys must have some kind of super-hearing to unequivocally state that Warner's DD DVD tracks sound like crap.

 

[Mark Basile]

I could blindly identify on just about any DVD I own the DTS vs. the Dolby Digital track. The DTS IS more transparent, with better imaging and tighter effects.

By the way, for the longest time I didn't buy the 12 Monkeys DTS DVD because a lot of people said they couldn't hear a difference, or that it even sounded worse! Well, I
picked it up the other day and I'm astounded at the difference between the two. All you have to listen to is the guy who calls Bruce Willis "Bob". His voice goes around the entire room much more realistically and transparently. It's not even close. The whole mix is opened up wider.

Warner Bros has so many good candidates for a DTS track. I'm not saying to use a DTS track on EVERY DVD, but using one on movies such as "Heat", "Superman", "The Matrix", "Amadeus", and "The Shawshank Redemption", to name a few, would be great.

 

[Tim Glover]

I've long been a defender of Dolby Digital thinking they had somehow gotten the shaft from certain magazines about being inferior. I've been very suspiciously slow to embrace DTS. One reason was, to be honest, my own personal bias. I feel a great sense of gratitude to Dolby for pushing the theatrical sound of movies to where they are today. For so many years they, alone, with their technology have given us some remarkable soundtracks.

However, I have done some testing myself. Certainly not blind testing so I can't say that I didn't know which track I was listening to. There are some truly great DTS laserdiscs that are far superior to their DD counterpart. Believe me, I wanted to believe that DTS was overrated. On some titles I think DTS has been overrated, but there are some that are so clean and well-balanced it's frightening.

Probably the final straw to convince me of DTS being a little more open was the THX Ultimate Demo Dvd I recently acquired. All those THX trailers, WOW! Montage, Pod Race etc...offered in Dolby Digital and DTS. You would think that Lucasfilm who only releases Dolby Digital tracks on Film dvd's would really make sure this track was great. The DD track is great. It also has stronger bass or just more bass. But as good as the DD track is, the DTS track sounds like someone pulled a towell off my speaker. Punchier, more alive, more air...the bass is weaker so I had to adjust it some. And it's louder so I increased the volume and channels etc... on the DD track and the DTS track still sounds better. For a lack of a better word, the DD sounds sleepy?

Can I live without DTS? Yes. Does DD sound great? Yes. Should we have the option for both? I guess I feel entitled and I say Yes again.

Warner has now become an easy target, but there are other studios who do not release dts titles either.

 

[RobertR]

I could blindly identify on just about any DVD I own the DTS vs. the Dolby Digital track.

Unless you have absolute proof that there are no differences between the two tracks other than the codec used, this proves nothing.

 

[Adam Barratt]

The DTS IS more transparent.

Unless you also have access to the uncompressed masters used, this isn't a supportable statement.

Adam

 

[Dan Hitchman]

This is why I wish to God that HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray will give us superior audio.

As much as I like a good DTS track, I'm sick to death of this lossy compression crap. Compared to uncompressed digital masters, we consumers are getting subpar product.

With a solid, efficient video codec there would enough room for an average length movie on a dual layered Blu-Ray disc with both 1080p and at least 24/96 5.1 PCM using MLP (and with no audio watermarking!). Shorter movies could probably get away with uncompressed audio tracks from the tweaked masters (fixed edit botches, noise, EQ, etc.).

Why Warner Brothers is pushing this red laser HD crap is beyond me (I know: $$$), but enough is enough. Technology cannot stand still just because someone or some company with an alterior motive stands in the way! Another point taken away from WB in my opinion.

Dan

 

[greg_t]

What really bothers me about this whole deal is that many of us on this forum, and many others forums, would clearly like to see DTS on some Warner releases, such as Harry Potter. They don't need to go back and redo their whole catalog. What bothers me is that it is clear that many of us, the consumers who actually purchase these discs, are cleary supportive of DTS sound. Warner, however, doesn't seem to care about what their consumer wants. To me, that is not a good business practice. Same as with the snapper cases. Many on here hate the snappers, but Warner again doesn't listen to the wants of the consumer and continue to use them. I like Warner as much as any of the studios, but they seem to fall behind others in trying to meet the wants of it's consumers.

 

[DaveF]

There are a couple of scenes in "The Matrix" where low frequencies seem to be "cut off", especially during the elevator and helicopter explosions, but overall the disc sounded decent.

I thought the same thing, until I saw The Matrix at the local IMAX. The sound mix had the same feel to it. So I presume that's how it was intended to sound.

 

[Michael Reuben]

What bothers me is that it is clear that many of us, the consumers who actually purchase these discs, are cleary supportive of DTS sound.

It's a tiny minority, in comparison to the overall market.

M.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

thought the same thing, until I saw The Matrix at the local IMAX.

DaveF,
Was that with a DTS soundtrack?

I've always's been disappointed that no DTS DVD has ever surpassed it's DTS LD counterpart.
Can the same be said of DD?
No DD (5.1) DVD has surpassed the sound of it's DD (5.1) LD counterpart?

 

[RobD]

The mix I'd like to see is:
1) Full Bit Rate DTS - 1536KB/sec
2) DD 2.0 - 192KB/sec
Top Quality sound with a decent picture and DD2.0 for those that dont have a DTS decoder (As far as I know most people with a 5.1 setup have DTS compatability). Those that dont have a DTS decoder will typically have stero TV speakers which will sound better with a 2.0 mix anyway.

 

[Tim Glover]

Quote:
"I've always's been disappointed that no DTS DVD has ever surpassed it's DTS LD counterpart.
Can the same be said of DD?
No DD (5.1) DVD has surpassed the sound of it's DD (5.1) LD counterpart?"

To me, I don't have any Dolby Digital 5.1 dvd's that sound better than the Dolby Digital 5.1 laserdisc.

 

[Chris Farmer]

I have 5.1 DD. I don't have dts. Never assume something like that, it's a very dangerous road to take. dts will popular among the enthusiasts, is still in the minority. Even now most of the 5.1 shelf systems "home theater in a box" (which is what I have) that you buy at Best Buy are DD and no dts. I would be quite pissed to lose my 5.1 just to make room for another audio format.

 

[RobD]

Maybe things are a bit different state side. Nearly all current 5.1 systems sold in the UK are DD and DTS or just plain Prologic.

DTS is in far more demand in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan where I'd guess a lot of these "Home Theater in a box" systems are made and a fair few sold. My point is that DTS is fast catching up with Dolby on the amount of 5.1 hardware that can decode thier format.

If the demand for DTS keeps growing, Warner may eventually be forced to include DTS reguardless of if it's worth the space on the disk.

Kinda off topic but Im sure DD2.0 and DTS5.1 would be fine for Columbia's Superbit since DD5.1 versions are also avaiable.