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

[Michael St. Clair]

You know, at least commentaries and foreign language tracks add something different from a content standpoint. DTS does not. Why reduce picture quality for redundant soundtracks?

Funnily enough, Buena Vista have just announced that the region two release of Pirates will be carrying DTS.

I'm sending Disney a note thanking them for leaving DTS off the R1 release.

 

[Brent M]

Michael,

It's a shame you don't care as much about sound as you do about video. If you did, you would certainly support DTS and campaign for the studios to drop Dolby Digital from DVD releases instead. Sound is 50% of the movie experience and DTS provides better sound than Dolby Digital. Period. If your ears can't tell the difference, that's not my problem. My ears, however, can hear a difference every time I compare DTS to Dolby Digital and I feel cheated when I'm stuck with an inferior audio track on a DVD. You can make all the ridiculous arguments you want, but the bottom line is that most audio enthusiasts prefer DTS when given a choice between it and Dolby Digital. I'm done arguing with you about this.

 

[Jason Seaver]

and DTS provides better sound than Dolby Digital. Period. If your ears can't tell the difference, that's not my problem.

Except that you haven't definitively stated why DTS provides better sound than Dolby, especially considering that the two are often encoded starting from different base data.

 

[David Judah]

Unfiltered doesn't mean that the maximum detail exists in the coded version. Filtering is used to allow greater compression, but that doesn't mean that increasing encoded bitrate on an unfiltered source will not reveal even more detail

Bjoern doesn't make that jump as far as I can tell. He seems to imply that in addition to filtering to aid compression, it is also done because the DVD players are sometimes the limiting factor since not all can resolve up to 6.75 MHz. I don't see anything that implies that throwing more bits at a Superbit would make the picture on his display look better in the DVD format as it exsists.

That argument is bordering on sophistry. But look, if the Superbits aren't good enough for you, then I'm sure that DVD isn't good enough for you in general. I assume you'll be first in line when HD-DVD becomes available.

The fact that every title is not a superbit is most certainly true and that's an idictment against the other studios(there are exceptions), not DTS. Of course with some titles it's not going to be financially feasible, but I believe Brent was referring to the big blockbusters, which should have the budget for every attention to detail.

DJ

 

[RexW]

Ah.....
The benefits of being region free in a foreign land.
You can choose which version you want.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I, personally, am appalled at the idea of dropping all extras off of DVDs in favor of a DTS soundtrack.

I've heard DTS mixes that have sounded noticably better; I would put that off to different mixes being used rather than the codec. I could be totally wrong. I've never really had an issue with well done DD tracks.

What I do have issues with are DVDs that have a big fat DTS track and no extras. As a film fan and a film student, I really look forward to the entertaining and informative commentaries. Would the Citizen Kane DVD really be better if they swaped Ebert's commentary for a DTS track? I don't even think mono films (with the exception of music releases or films where they have the original elements to remix into surround sound) need to be put into 5.1 DTS or DD.

I read an interesting comment from Robert Harris on the recent Sleeping Beauty review thread. He said something to the effect of: remember, it's only video, no more, no less. What we're seeing is not film. We're seeing an approximation of a theatrical experience, not a product meant to replace the film going experience. I find the current DD tracks, when not done poorly, are more than enough to match their MPEG-2 encoded visual counterparts. Since DVDs are not film and never will be, I'd prefer to get something on the DVD that I couldn't get in the theater: extra features. Not the fluffy stuff that's more of a press kit, but the good extras.

...and as a film fan (and not a cultural snob) I would absolutely advocate tossing out dubbed soundtracks on films unless there was a really really good reason to have them on there.

Just the two cents of a film fan who would be devistated if good extras were sacrificed for DTS tracks.

 

[David Judah]

Until I see a definitive double blind test using a mix from the same master, no theory or "potential" is going to convince me

That's fine. Mild doses of skepticism can be a healthy thing. It is because we don't have access to that type of test, we discuss theory and potential. I would love to participate in the exercise you describe though.

Incidently, even Roog's test that the two Michaels mentioned did not fit your criteria.

DJ

 

[Aaron Garman]

Michael wrote

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.

Oops! Just put a 192kbps DD Mono on there so it meets the DVD spec.


And finally a message for Josh,

I DO like extras as well. I am also a film student, and enjoy pillaging good extras. However, it is imperative that the film itself be presented in the best way possible. Sure, the LE of Lawrence was good and had good extras, but it still wasn't what was supposed to be seen. Thanks to Mr. Harns (sorry, couldn't resist) and Sony, we now have a version available that is correct. As for Citizen Kane, that is an example of a film that doesn't need Dolby or DTS, but a PCM Mono track. I'm wondering if it would have been possible to include that instead, and still have the commentaries and whatnot. You're right in that EVERY film doesn't need DTS or Dolby. Gone with the Wind, Halloween, and Jaws do not need 5.1 so it irks me when they are made into 5.1. Yes, Jaws was "cool" in 5.1 but I'd rather have the original mix in PCM mono. I say the studios should hire some of us junkies to get them to understand what we really want. Most average consumers wouldn't care one way or another, so why not cater to us die hard fans?

AJG

 

[greg_t]

If DTS went away, we wouldn't have these great threads for us to waste time on and keep from doing more important things.

 

[AaronMK]

I won't get into DTS vs. Dolby in terms of potential sound quality. This thread should not have turned into that (even though it was inevitable). But the fact remains that the inclusion of a DTS track will make a release more appealing to many in the HT community. Who can blame those people for not being happy when the DTS option was scrapped for the sake of fluff piece "special features"?

I do think it is strange that "2 Fast 2 Furious" doesn't have a DTS track when "The Fast and the Furious" does. No DTS on a sequel when the predecessor had it just doesn't feel right. The same would go for the inclusion of a DTS track on "The Matrix Reloaded". It just prevents the releases of that series from going together as they should. (Maybe someone else can put this into better words.)

This is true to a lesser extent with "Bad Boys II", "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle", and "T3", since in each of those cases there was a DTS release of the predecessor, even if it wasn't the "mainstream release".

In the case of "Pirates Of The Caribbean", I think the lack of a DTS track can be forgiven since they are not dishonoring that movie by giving people the option to buy a MAR non-release.

Whatever you may say about DTS vs. Dolby Digital, compromising the quality of an audio track for the sake of downmixing is a despicable practice. If studios feel that the DD 5.1 must be compromised in that way, then I imagine even those in the "codec is not a factor" camp would want a DTS track included.

 

[Matt-Brooks]

Buena Vista Home Entertainment have announced the UK Region 2 DVD release of the summer hit Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl for 1st December 2003. Arriving a day prior to the R1 release this UK DVD will also be a two-disc set packed with extra features plus we get the added bonus of DTS audio! The full list of features are:
Commentary by Director Gore Verbinski and Star Johnny Depp, producer Jerry Bruckheimer, Keira Knightly, Jack Davenport and screenwriters Stuart Beattie, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio and Jay Wolbert
An Epic at Sea
Fly on the set
Diaries
Below Deck
Blooper Reel
Deleted Scenes
Moonlight Serenade scene progression
Image Gallery
Pirates in the parks
Enhanced computer features
DTS Sound

 

[Jeff Gatie]

That's fine. Mild doses of skepticism can be a healthy thing. It is because we don't have access to that type of test, we discuss theory and potential. I would love to participate in the exercise you describe though.

I would also, but please do not confuse your argument as being anything but "DTS is better cause it has more bits" dressed up with talk about "transparency" and "masking floor". You still claim DTS has more of the original signal in it and that may be true, but it does not mean the implementation is superior in reproducing the original master. As I said (and was rudely rebuked), this is the dead horse that's been beaten for years and although you may be using a fancy new whip, it's still the same horse.

 

[John_Berger]

it's still the same horse.

It that what that thin, red film on the floor originally was?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I(s) that what that thin, red film on the floor originally was?

John, would that be a thin, red, "transparent" film on the "masking" floor?

 

[Lew Crippen]

But Roog's is the cloest to it that we'll probably ever hear. I doubt that the Dolby and DTS folks will ever come together for an official comparison.

For now, his is as good as it gets. Certainly the one with no self-interest and the only one that I’ve seen that compared both to the master. Interestingly he did comment that differences were heard, just that they were not necessarily significant or conclusive (I’m paraphrasing here).

For me the most telling point in their being no discernable difference is that neither DTS nor Dolby has funded an independent test. If either lab truly believed that listeners could easily identify the difference between the two, and had a real preference for one over the other (and that this preference was repeatable), they would have a significant marketing advantage.

The fact that neither has done so, tells me that neither lab believes their product would prove consistently superior under rigorous conditions.

One reason that I am in the ‘neither side is superior’ camp.

 

[John_Berger]

One reason that I am in the ‘neither side is superior’ camp.

Exactly. Both sides have enough clout and I'm sure abilities, financial and otherwise, to perform a Roogs-style, head-to-head, scientific, multi-blind test right now if they really want. The fact that both sides are unwilling to do so does speak volumes of how they think their codec really compares to the other.

Even beyond that, what the DTS folks are not willing to accept is that DTS receivers also accept Dolby Digital; however, there are many Dolby Digital receivers that do not accept DTS. Since both offer at least 5.1 sound and are already miles ahead of mono or basic stereo, by offering only DD 5.1 the DTS folks are not really losing anything except perhaps one additional discrete channel. The market from what I understand has more DD 5.1 users than DTS users (especially considering that there are still low-end receivers sold every day that are DD but not DTS). So by going to DTS a large number of people will be isolated whereas by going to DD 5.1 no one in either camp will be isolated yet will still be miles ahead of those who have no surround capabilities whatsoever.

 

[Brent M]

John,

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you about this. I said DTS sounds better TO ME and it does so that's all the proof I need. If you're happy with Dolby Digital, good for you, but I still feel it is the inferior format of the two and I haven't heard a DD track yet that's superior to its DTS counterpart. I don't need any scientific proof to tell me otherwise, thank you very much.

 

[John_Berger]

Don't try to backpedal!

I don't need any scientific proof to tell me otherwise, thank you very much.

Then don't expect anyone to take your views seriously.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I don't need any scientific proof to tell me otherwise, thank you very much.

This sounds vaguely familiar . . . Oh yeah, it's the same thing they said to Galileo when they sentenced him to death .

 

[Scott Kimball]

I suppose this bit of news won't prove surprising:

The Horse Has Died.

--Scott