Roogs Benoit's DD/DTS test (ORIGINALLY "Ever wish they would drop DTS to fit movies on one disc - Page 2  

Didn't I used to say that? I guess my sound mastering experience doesn't count.

(actually, it really doesn't count... don't want to be sued )

Regardless, DTS & DD debates are like car accidents. You know it's pointless to get involved but it makes you want to look anyway.

As I said, no qualifications were made in the blanket "All". I must also have just misread the follow-up:


This makes no sense to me, as many of these soundtracks undoubtedly used 16-bit masters. It sounds like what you are hearing is a side-effect or distortion caused by DTS encoding, and judging this to be an improvement (as may be the case with perceived analogue "smoothness").

I don't see how this could be a genuine improvement if it is (apparently) altering the sound of the source in such a way.


Domestic soundtracks are frequently (normally) modified from their theatrical presentations, but this applies equally to DTS and Dolby Digital.


Both DTS and Dolby Digital are 24-bit capable, and Dolby's Engineering Guidelines manual recommends using a 24-bit master whenever possible.


I'm surprised to see this old chestnut brought up. The 'more bits equals better sound' argument still doesn't hold water. The fact also remains that DTS uses its available data much less efficiently than Dolby Digital, even if more bits are available.


There's no 'has' about it. Dolby Digital includes internal options that allow perfectly respectable downmixing without the need to alter the source at all. I suggest you look up the paper Metadata Issues for ATSC Audio on the ATSC or SMPTE websites, or A Guide to Dolby Metadata on Dolby's website for more detail.


This again often boils down to an internal function (dialog normalization) which doesn't require any alteration of the source. The volume difference that results has long been a subject of debate, but that's all it is, a difference in playback volume.


This is what many people here have been saying for a very long time.

Roogs, thanks for your comments. They're very much appreciated.

Adam

Where are all of the double-blind, stastically significant objectivists? They usually come out of the woodwork when this topic pops up, but are now conspicuous by their silence. Interesting.

DJ

Okay- I'll be the odd one out in this thread...

My own experience with DD and DTS is that while DD5.1 can at times lack definition and sound a bit hollow or muffled, DTS to my ears is a lot fuller sounding but kind of shrill and harsh. I don't care to listen to DTS for more than a few minutes as it makes my ears feel tired and kind of "sore" (for lack or a better decscription). I probably won't be able to explain this very well, but it's almost like something metallic is being carried along each sound, and it's noticeable both in sound effects and dialog. Whenever I've mentioned this on other forums people want to either blame my equipment (not the fanciest, but SPL'd properly) though I also hear this in theaters (though I am aware the home and theatrical DTS codecs are slightly different from what I've read, but I could be wrong on that). Or they want to get in a peeing contest over who has better hearing, or some just say I'm wrong or must be lying.

So most times I tend to sit these threads out, but the things that caught my attention was first Roogs mention of anomolies (the fact that they exist in both codecs doesn't surprise me at all) but then this:



What I'm wondering (not that anybody probably has an answer) is if the same "effect" or whatever it is that makes DTS sound really good (or more "analog" as people describe it, though in my case it's the reverse) to a lot of people the same thing that makes it difficult to me to listen to comfortably?

I'm not trying to be flamey or anything so don't get me wrong. I've just been trying to figure this out.

I think that's an oversimplification because of a different design approach. First, they stack more bits on the front end in encoding so the decoder can be relatively simple and require less upgrading as improvments are made. And secondly, they rely less on psycho-acoustic masking thus reproducing more of the original signal.

DJ

David, I was trying to keep my reply as simplistic as the original argument.

Your point that the the two data management approaches are fundamentally different just reinforces the fact that the cross-system 'more bits is better' argument isn't even worth debating in this case.


This looks a little familiar, but I appreciate your attempts to educate me.

Adam

Yes, I agree--just giving it a bit of context. I'm here if ya need me.

DJ