BTTF: R1 version will not have dts tracks; Petition needed for 4th disc!!! (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Put me in the camp that would much rather have more extras than DTS, especially if those who've heard both the dts and dd (very few people here I suspect), think any improvement is marginal at best.

 

[Eric F]

Henry, I agree with you 100%. I don't want to have to choose between movies and extras, but the R4 got a stellar quality review so I decided to go that route.
That said I'd like every DVD to offer not only full bitrate DTS, but DTS 96/24, and that's not likely to happen any time soon. Not that they couldn't do that with such source material like LotR, but they'ld probably have to add at least 1 more disc for every movie they gave this treatment to, and they're reducing the # of discs per film, not increasing. :frowning:

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Henry,
the films ARE getting the royal treatment though...just without a dts track.
Was I asleep and missed the point in time when dvd's absolutly HAD to have a dts track on it to be considered great!?
That's ridiculous nonsense.
The whole thing is moot anyway, it's too late, the discs are probably being pressed as we speak, are they supposed to halt production and remaster them all over again with a dts track? That won't happen.
Bottom line, these dvd's are going to be terrific, so just sit back, stop complaining, and enjoy the show. Sheeesh.

 

[Terrell]

Was I asleep and missed the point in time when dvd's absolutly HAD to have a dts track on it to be considered great!?

A perfect question. What is so great about DTS that people will skip buying a film they want on DVD simply because it doesn't have it? Where has this DTS ass-kissing mentality come from, pardon my language? I just don't understand the undying devotion to DTS. Do you guys get paid everytime DTS is stamped on to a DVD? Be happy that films you like are getting a fantastic treatment on DVD period. All I've heard from people is whining about not getting the films on DVD they want. Well, when these films are finally given the royal treament, some people not only refuse to be happy, but they complain about something as minor as no DTS track. I certainly don't understand it.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Outstanding post Terrell!
Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Rich Romero]

Because a film doesn't have DTS won't make me NOT buy it. I just prefer it, it sounds clearer and better on my system. I'll still buy the BTTF trilogy, I'd just strongly prefer a 4th disc and DTS.

 

[Eric F]

Take a deep breath. Relax. We're talking DVDs here, not very high in the big scheme of things.
I reread the whole thread and couldn't find a single person who said they wouldn't buy a disc because it didn't have a DTS track.
In this case, if you can play it, you have the DTS option.
For many folks extras just aren't that important and would rather have a higher quality overall presentation. It's just a matter of preference. No big deal really.
As for whether or not DTS makes a big difference, to me it does. I could only imagine what a full bitrate DTS 96/24 track taken from a 24bit source would sound like. I only hope somebody actually uses this format. Does anyone know how much more space a 96/24 track would take up? I have a DVD-A with it, and no way to play it. It should be fairly easy to implement in PC DVD software.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Eric,
the individals in this thread may not have made that statement...yet, but I assure you that their are people in this forum who will not buy a dvd if it doesn't contain a dts track.
Let me ask you this, why would you even want a full bit rate dts track!? It would be too fricken loud! Half bit rate dts rocks the joint already, are you trying to go deaf?
I believe that The Haunting dvd is full bit rate is it not? I could be wrong. At any rate IMO it's way too overcooked. Too much of a good thing is not good.

 

[Eric F]

Bitrate has nothing to do with volume. It's the amount of information (resolution, if you will) stored in the track.

DVD-A can be 192kHz/24bit (MLP), and SACD is even higher. These two formats are not lossy, unlike DTS 96/24, which might loose a little in the compression, but should sound almost as good as DVD-Audio if done right.

 

[Terrell]

I know I sound like an anti-DTS guy. Really, I'm not. If a director chooses to put a DTS track on a DVD I want, I'll gladly accept. I'll even be happy about it. If the DTS track turns out to be the better track, I'll listen to the DTS track. So, I understand some people like DTS. I can respect that. But I can't understand some of the complaining over what looks to be the lack of a DTS track on DVD that people have screamed for, for years now. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Back To the Future are the 3 trilogies people have begged for. Personally, I'm just glad to finally be getting one of the 3, DTS or not. Let's just remember that everything is being place on 3 discs, and since DTS eats up much more space than DD, it's not surprising they'd cut DTS out of the equation to maximize space for the transfer and the extras.

I could only imagine what a full bitrate DTS 96/24 track taken from a 24bit source would sound like.

Maybe, but since it takes up a lot of space compared to DD, it's not practical considering that DD will almost always be present on most discs. I personally think DTS had a bigger impact on LDs than it does on DVD. But with the advent of staggering DD-EX tracks like the ones on FOTR and TPM, I don't see how people can be unhappy with the quality of those EX tracks. But that's just me.
But there do seem to be some statement going overboard at the lack of a DTS track. Saying things like "this sucks" or {its looks like a good treatment, however it could have been great" is unfathomable to me, since this set looks like a great one. So, simply because it lacks a DTS track means it's not going to be great? Sorry, but that mentality is wrong. DTS is not some automatic seal of greatness.
By the way Eric, bitrate is not the be all and end all of sound quality either. But I have no interest in starting this argument again. Just be happy that these films are getting a great treatment.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Eric,
then why is it such a big deal?

EDIT: Nevermind, I saw your edit.

 

[Brett C]

You couldn't have said it better Eric... Yes to me extras are not that important, I'll watch them once when I get the disc and then that is it. Only thing I'll revisit is the movie itself and yes TO ME DTS is more important.I personally do find it superior to DD and think its a big blow not having it on the r1.So I will be getting the r4 instead because I do think it will offer a better quality presentation of the movies themselves My Opinion. And comments like Where has this DTS ass-kissing mentality come from is what makes this forum such an amusing place to visit... lol

 

[DeanWalsh]

John, you proudly state you are an OAR snob, yet show obvious resentment for any of us who dare care about audio fidelity... whether or not the differences are minimal to your, mine or anyone elses ears doesn't mean we can't complain when an option some of us happen to like is dropped, just as you, me and probably everyone else on this forum would be the first to complain if this set wasn't OAR. A word to all of you... GROW UP! This reminds me of a bunch of 12 year olds arguing over friggin' Playstation vs. Xbox.
You don't like dts? I'm fine with that. But I do have a right to like it myself.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Brett,
laugh all you want to, it doesn't make that question any less valid though. You know what's funny to me? Making such a fuss over an audio track that we havn't even heard yet.

 

[Chad R]

Not to pick on poor Yannick, but he did say that he's not going to buy them because of the lack of DTS.
Me personally, I like DTS, but Dolby is no slouch. I've heard DTS tracks that are better than DD, but that's not to say that the very same DD is bad in any way. It's kinda like how I feel about the difference between "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi", sure one's better but I love them both.

 

[DeanWalsh]

I believe The Haunting dvd is full bit-rate is it not?

No it isn't actually.

 

[Eric F]

Terrel, I agree that higher bitrates aren't the end-all be-all of audio, but then again I think more people would be able to take advantage of that than 6.1 or 7.1 surround in their living rooms.
I have heard some 2-channel DVD-A and SACD sources and they sounded amazing to me on a fairly average setup. I would rather have a higher bitrate than more channels, but then I live in an apartment, and even 5 channels is pushing it (ask my neighbors).
I'm not sure what DTS is trying to accomplish with their 96/24 format. It would have been perfect for DVHS, or maybe HD-DVD, but for current DVD I doubt it will ever be adopted.
Personally I'd rather keep this conversation civil. It's your money, you do what you want with it. This is a forum, and if people say "Hey, I won't buy it unless it has DTS", so be it. It's not like that changes anything. But you never know...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Dean,
you got me all wrong! I like dts, i'm just disaplined enough in HT that I know better than to devote myself to one audio format.
It's silly to do so. I'm crazy like this but, I believe in actually hearing a particular track BEFORE casting dispersions on it and deciding it's not good enough.
Reread my posts, did I say anything negative about anyone wanting dts? Nope, it's their right to want it, but the dts elitists are the one's I have a problem with, the one's who as mentioned, will not buy a dvd because of lack of dts. That metallity just get's under my skin I don't mind saying.
And yes, i'm man enough to admit that I am not an audio purist as I am an OAR purist. The AR of a film and it's audio are not the same animal IMO. The audio a given film is presented in is nothing more than the result of the technology available to the filmmaker at the time the film is made. Yes, it is an artistic choice sometimes as well, i'm not forgetting that. However, don't you think that Robert Zemeckis would have given Back to the Future a DD or dts track for it's theatrical run in 1985 if the technology was available to him at the time? I belive he would have.
So you see sound is subjective and can be changed to make the film better, the AR of that same film cannot be changed to make the film better, unlike the audio, it is an unalterable set in stone fact. Not counting altering it artificially such as in P&S of course.
This my position alright Dean just so you'll understand me, I like Mono if it's good Mono, I like Dolby Surround 2.0 if it's good Dolby Surround 2.0, I like Dolby Digital if it's good Dolby Digital, and yes I like DTS if it's good DTS.
I don't dicriminate against any format, I like em all...as long as they sound good.
quote...
"GROW UP!"
That's exactly my whole point in this thread!
BTW, Playstation 2 is kicking the X-Box's ass!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I wasn't really sure about The Haunting, all I know is it's too much. Outstanding spaciousness and directionality, but I don't care for LFE that can potentially damage my house!

 

[Chad Ferguson]

I would say film quality first which means I want to get the best sound possible. I prefer the DTS or what is most likely studio cheese documentaries. Only in cases like 12 Monkeys when a real documentary is made would I even consider it. Add an extra disc!!!