Okay....dts vs. dd ? ? ? (1 Viewer)

[Elbert Lee]

In the end, neither of these formats will enhance the movie experience over the other. It's only for the OWNER of the equipment to discern these differences and not his/her audience. Should the new DTS 24/96 5.1 format on the horizon sound truly heads over DTS/DD, I'm sure it won't really enhance the film for most audiences - only the proud owner of the HT system!

 

[Rob Gillespie]

Since we seem to have a DTS/DD thread (mostly) full of sane people - who's for a beer?

 

[Sean Oneil]

I'll have a pint ...or three

 

[Artur Meinild]

How's this for display?
[) (] DOLBY
D I G I T A L
&
D I G I T A L
d t s
*SURROUND
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~
[Edited last by Artur Meinild on August 28, 2001 at 06:31 AM]

 

[Michael P]

Wow a DD vs DTS discussion without anyone getting mad at one another. I think the end of the world must be approaching. Next we will be having friendly chats about the merits of buying expensive cables, and whether or not seperates are always better than receivers.

 

[Gary Kellerman]

In the past, I favored D.D. over DTS. The D.D. appeared to play better in simple terms as to the way I had set up my speaker system and bass management. I have been an experimenter for many years and deploy tweaks that I feel might make a system sound far better than its original design.
I recently made a change to my system which is essentially now less "tweeky". I changed the bass management and added two homemade sub concoctions powered by a Nad 3240 int. amp through its power amp section with the sub output of a Sherwood 6095R. Initially, again the D.D. seemed better particulaly in imaging. After some experimentation, I found that to get the DTS to image to my standards I had to turn the volume up two steps and turn the sub pre-amp down 5 steps. It is not at these points that I can "feel" the difference between these two Codecs.
The primary difference to me is that DTS produces not so much as a "louder" sound as so much as a "larger" sound. For example is one had a particular amplifier that could be hooked up to a 8 and 10 inch woofer of identical build characteristics, the 10 inch woofer should sound larger in its bass outlay than the 8 inch woofer. This is what I think is primarily going on. I think that both codecs exhibit some tonal differences which are really not too significant to their performance. It is this "larger" sound that now makes me favor DTS. The scene in "Unbreakable" where Bruce Willis falls into the pool seemed to engulf my listening room far more in DTS that its D.D. counterpart. I must also point out that there are still alot of VARIABLES out there that could make one codec sound better than the other too.

 

[Robert McClanahan]

DTS just seems louder to me.My processor wont compress it for late night viewing either.It will however compress DD.

 

[Billy Fogerty]

DTS is better cause it has its own fanfare on discs. It's worth getting just to see that piano thing...or the one with the exploding CD. DD just can't cut it without that...

Chris, this is the reason you like DTS? I have seen a few discs, where the DD blows away DTS, even though that DTS logo opens the movie. Remember, that DTS logo is optimized for DTS. Alot of times the sound tracks aren't.

 

[William Ward]

I also feel that if there were DD trailers on DD discs such as The Mountain, The Train, Aurora, etc., more people would like DD. I like the DD laserdisc of TPM because it sounds great but also has that cool train trailer. I feel that sound format trailers give a theatrical feel to the movie. Except when like on Gladiator and Prince of Egypt the menu comes up AFTER the DTS trailer. That bums me more than anything.
DTS ROCKS!!!!
DD Sucks!!!!!
just kidding.

They're both cool in my book and in reality, it's more of the mix used than the codec.
------------------
William
Go Bucs!!
MyDVDs

 

[David Judah]

Wow! 34 posts and no one has thrown down the gauntlet yet--suprising
I'll join you for a beer, Rob. What are you drinking? I'll take a Harp.
DJ

 

[YANG]

DD vs DTS...tough one...
Until now,the popular media available for consumers to determine whether which format is the best of all,is still the movie discs.Which may have been remixed using the original audio elements(dialogue+effects) for both theatrical and hometheater presentation via the two formats.This is maybe why there are DD winners and DTS winners.The latter gets the most attention.
I think,the best way to determine whether which format scores the best,is that there is a concert performance recorded using the two format.Then we are able to point out the difference.
Personally,i prefer DTS 5.1,especially on films that are made in this one decade.Older films,if the studios can remaster it well with DD 5.1,i wouldn't expect something spectacular with DTS 5.1.
Judging by the technical specs of DTS,it will show to consumers that they are the best...10hz to 30khz???

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I will now republish my Haiku on the subject from the After Hours Lounge:
Bitrate is the key.
Else, comparisons are moot
Between the codecs.

Regards,
------------------
Ken McAlinden
Livonia, MI USA

 

[Mike Soltis]

I think,the best way to determine whether which format scores the best,is that there is a concert performance recorded using the two format.Then we are able to point out the difference.

Steely Dan '2 Against Nature' has a DD and DTS track on it, and I still kinda prefer the DTS. The sound seems more full, and more lifelike (less 'harsh' although the DD track is in no way harsh).
Coolest DD trailer is the 'City' trailer, for the thump at the beginning along with the flash to make folks jump

------------------
...the internet is a communications tool used the world over where people can come together to bitch about movies and share pornography.

 

[Joe McKeown]

DTS will always provide much better sound than DD when coupled with really expensive speaker wire, and an Optical connection between the player and decoder.
-- That oughta stir the pot a little...

 

[Robert George]

Okay, second page and nobody is yelling, so maybe it's safe...
My thoughts on this, for what it's worth.
I realize I am often accused of being a DTS "basher" by those that choose to read part of what I say then attach their own meaning to it (re; Peter Overduin), so I'll try to be careful here...
DTS, at its full bitrate, on some of the better recorded music material I have heard is rivaled only by the best DVD-Audio recording I have heard (Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors"). Based on technical specs, that is very, very good.
DTS, at its full bitrate, produces some of the best sounding 5.1 film soundtracks I have heard. Low level detail is amazing and low bass is tight and well defined. I believe that full bitrate DTS is sufficiently transparent to the original master that there is no audible loss of quality, or at least so little as to be insignificant in a real world application.
Does this make it a better compression format than Dolby Digital? Sometimes.
On material that requires fundamentals at both the lowest and highest ends of the frequency spectrum to recreate the information in the original master, such as complex musical material in a good multi-channel mix, I belive DTS at 1509 kb/s is superior to Dolby Digital at its highest available bitrate of 448 kb/s.
Comparing the only film soundtrack material I know of that is available in both DTS' highest bitrate and Dolby Digital at its highest rate (for DVD) known to have been mastered from the same source, that being the five movie titles released by Warner, I feel the results are decidedly inconclusive. By that I mean, they are so close as to be the same for all practical purposes.
So, for the record now, my opinion is that DTS at its full bit rate is never any worse than Dolby Digital at its highest consumer bitrate and can be better.
So why do so many people think I hate DTS? Probably because I feel it is unnecessary from a pratical perspective in the form it is now most often used. That being the so-called half bitrate of 754 kb/s.
Although 754 DTS still sounds fine, I cannot site a single instance where I can honestly say it sounds better than the same material (meaning the same master prepared at the same time by the same person) encoded in Dolby Digital at 448 kb/s. Based on that, if 754 DTS is not demonstrably better than 448 DD, what is the purpose of including on DVD, a format with very limited digital real estate to begin with? My contention is that the purpose is to make a given DVD appeal to those people who will buy almost anything if it has a DTS track, and we all know such people exist. Call me a cynic, but that is my opinion.
[Edited last by Robert George on September 02, 2001 at 03:46 PM]