Superbit DVDs, Why Not use the highest DTS bitrate? (1 Viewer)

[richard plumb]

In fact, I think Dolby Digital 5.1 should have been dropped. Having both DD and DTS is pretty much going to insure that the original Fifth Element will look better, although I hope I'm wrong.

You should be wrong. The original Fifth Element was a single layer disc, and looked fantastic. So even though you add a 768kb DTS track, you also add a whole extra 4GB of disc space to play with.
DVDs like the Fifth Element have shown that you don't need 10Mbps to get a great result. I wonder why Fifth Element looked so fantastic and yet we 'need' these Superbits? Are studios using automatic MPEG2 compression systems these days and not tweaking by hand?
So are superbit DVDs just 'more is better'? an 8Mbps videorate is automatically better than 5Mbps? Even if the former is done by a computer and the latter aided by careful manual tweaking?

 

[cafink]

Even if the former is done by a computer and the latter aided by careful manual tweaking?

Nope. All else isn't equal, in this case.

 

[Ivan Luk]

For the record, the DVD specs calls for a minimum of a DD 2.0 soundtrack. So technically, they can't simply use a 8.6 Mbps video and 1.4 Mbps DTS track--the DD 2.0 track has to be accounted for. Remember, the MPEG 2 video compression is a variable rate as well, so it will never run at the maximum rate all the time.
I agree with Chris--I think they should use a full-rate DTS track. Unfortunately, I think we may be in the minority.

------------------

 

[ChrisA]

For the record, the DVD specs calls for a minimum of a DD 2.0 soundtrack. So technically, they can't simply use a 8.6 Mbps video and 1.4 Mbps DTS track--the DD 2.0 track has to be accounted for.

That 2.0 track could be made to play as a seperate track; one that does not eat bandwidth by running simltaneously, on the fly, with DTS. As far as storage space, a DD 2.0 would be negligible. I think the thing to remeber is their target audience: 'audio/videophiles'. I don't know many audio/videophiles who would care about a DD track once a DTS track is in place. If your going to engineer a superbit DVD, may as well max out the bandwidth properly. I do appreciate wanting to have the best picture quality available. I certainly have invested a lot into the fromt projection system. As was stated earlier, we would already be giving a hell of a lot more to video. We are splitting hairs to some degree, but I would prefer knowing that the audio was improved. I think there is a little more to lossy compression than just the rolloff area. I think the full-rate DTS is more important than giving a small percentage more to the already vastly improved headroom of video.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[Todd Hochard]

That 2.0 track could be made to play as a seperate track; one that does not eat bandwidth by running simltaneously,

AFAIK, it doesn't work this way. All streams are picked off the disc, all the time, and the appropriate one is selected. This would be true, even if the tracks can't be switched on the fly.
I could be wrong, though.
Todd

 

[Alex Shk]

In advance of asking this question, I apologize for my lack of technical knowledge on the subject. That said:
Is it possible or feasible to to have a variable bitrate dts sound track? This would allow bandwidth to be devoted to the video when it needs to be, and at other times providing for full bitrate sound. I understand there is currently a mp3 codec that allows for this. Wouldn't this also be similar (in practice if not theory) to the way that audio mini discs operate?
------------------

 

[ChrisA]

Is it possible or feasible to to have a variable bitrate dts sound track? This would allow bandwidth to be devoted to the video when it needs to be, and at other times providing for full bitrate sound. I understand there is currently a mp3 codec that allows for this. Wouldn't this also be similar (in practice if not theory) to the way that audio mini discs operate?

I was just wondering something similar. I was also wondering if something in-between half-rate, and full-rate DTS would be possible, depending on the disc. Variable would even be better. If the goal is to maximize bandwidth entirely for A/V quality, that would be the best way to do it.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[William Ward]

Since we agree that the disc should have a dolby 2.0 track as per DVD specs, what is gained by going to half DTS and DD?
Audio bitrate using three tracks: 768 DTS, 448 DD, 192 D2.0.
Audio bitrate using two tracks: 1.4 DTS, 192 D2.0.
So by using half rate AND DD 5.1, you only gain about 3.5 kbps vs using full DTS and a dolby 2.0 track.
Does anyone honestly think a 3.5 kbps difference in video bitrate will make a difference when it's already up in the 8 mbps region???
------------------
William
Go Bucs!!
MyDVDs

 

[nolesrule]

I'll tell you what is lost by skipping the DD5.1 track in favor of a full bitrate DTS track. They wouldn't get my sale.
Or the sale to anyone else who is still using a first-gen DVD player that doesn't pass a DTS signal.
------------------
My DVD Collection

 

[ChrisA]

Superbit DVDs are targeted to audio/videophiles.
There is already a fine special edition out with plenty of extras and a 5.1 DD track.
Superbit DVDs are about maximum audio video quality.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[RobertR]

Excellent point, Joe. The presumed Superbit video qualities would be accessible to EVERYONE, whereas CTS would be cutting out the vast MAJORITY of its market by cutting out DD 5.1 in favor of full-bit DTS. That wouldn't be a smart move market-wise.
------------------

 

[Justin Lane]

Chris you state these Superbit DVDs are for audiophiles/videophiles. Humor me a second...Do you think any audiophile in the world might perfer to have a DD track in lieu of a DTS track? This way Sony pleases all the audiophiles you mention....even those who like Dolby Digital
J

 

[Todd Hochard]

Superbit DVDs are about maximum audio video quality.

Or is it max video audio quality, in that order?
Without being able to do the video compression and see the difference for yourself, you'll never know if it matters or not.
I have a display setup that can take FULL advantage of DVD's video. I'd prefer to maximize that end, if I have to choose.
Todd

 

[David-alexander]

Columbia evidently tried a balanced to satisfy the image freaks ( aren't we all ?) and adding dts. I probably would have done the same, it's about business also.
4 on order
hoping they do it for many other of the titles, including FINAL FANTASY.

 

[ChrisA]

Do you think any audiophile in the world might perfer to have a DD track in lieu of a DTS track?

No. At least not a full-rate DTS track. In the strictest sense of the term, it is easy to say that an audiophile would not pick a DD track over a full-rate DTS track.
I also have a video system that is capable of optically resolving 720p and syncing and displaying 1080i (Dwin HD700 + Stewart). I think there have been enough arguments here that state why full rate DTS should be implemented.
------------------
Link Removed

 

[RobertR]

In the strictest sense of the term, it is easy to say that an audiophile would not pick a DD track over a full-rate DTS track.

It sounds like you're defining an audiophile as "someone who must prefer full-rate DTS", Chris.
Many people would disagree with that definition.
------------------

 

[ChrisA]

In the strictest sense, an audiophile would prefer full rate DTS over DD even if it were for the frequency response alone. DTS full-rate allows us to cover the entire frequency range of human hearing while DD does not.
You must be implying that Audiophiles must really be fools for embracing DVD-Audio or SACD then. That might be more of a matter for debate. Quite certainly, the difference between DD and DTS at full-rate, has a much better chance at having an audible difference, than the difference between DTS full-rate and 24/96 or SACD. The math is very straightforward.
So yes, anyone claiming to be an "audiophile" in the strictest sense of the term, would want DTS at full-rate over DD. I'm not a fan of DD or DTS per se, I am just following the math. If anyone wants to claim that DD sounds subjectively better than full-rate DTS, feel free to argue the case.
I do consider myself and image freak, or I wouldn't be putting up with a CRT projector.
------------------
Link Removed
[Edited last by ChrisA on August 25, 2001 at 08:15 PM]

 

[stephen abbot]

My 2cents, many here seem to think that a DD5.1 and a DD2.0 must be included, this is not true, one DD5.1 at 448kb/s is sufficent, no need to add a further track. Users with a 5.1 system will select this track or the DTS is they have it, those without 5.1 will take the players down mixed 2ch track.
I think that Sony are just pulling a marketing stunt here, the advantages will be minimal. However I must admit, I am one here cares little for extras I would prefer a better transfer than extra's, but each to his own.
Interesting many in R4 only come with higher bit rate video (Pal of course) and one DD5.1 track or purhaps another DD5.1 or DD2.0 in french or german.
The difference in a video transfer rate of 6Mb/s a 8Mb/s is trivial in most cases, the quality of the cine transfer and the quality of the film elements are more important. That said, I think an ideal disc should contain.
1x DTS 5.1 1.5Mb/s
1x DD5.1 448kb/s
1x Video channel maxing or maintaining high as possible in the 7Mb/s region 16:9 enhanced of course.
Cheers
Stephen

 

[ChrisA]

quote: I think that Sony are just pulling a marketing stunt here, the advantages will be minimal. However I must admit, I am one here cares little for extras I would prefer a better transfer than extra's, but each to his own [/quote]
I think this will be an opportunity to remove edge enhancement an other undesireables. The *combination* of tweaks, fixes, and 'superbit' should hopefully make a worthwhile difference.
------------------
Link Removed
[Edited last by ChrisA on August 25, 2001 at 08:29 PM]

 

[GregK]

I'll also say Sony is making a smart marketing move
by keeping a DD 5.1 track. ...While DTS decoding is
expanding, DD is still the prevalent decoding format,
with a wider base of decoders ..and all DVD players
are able to pass through a DD bitstream, unlike all
1st and some 2nd generation DVD players w/a DTS bitstream.
..And with DD 'only' being 448kb/s, it won't really
hurt the overall video bitrate that much.
I can see the reasoning behind a DD 2.0 mix, as it provides
a dedicated mix for Pro-Logic listeners, and ensures
there's no tampering of the DD 5.1 mix to ensure a
'proper' Dolby Surround mix down. ..But with with it being
"Superbit"

.. I would rather Sony leave the Dolby
5.1 track alone and let the auto downmix cards fall where
they may and give that space plus a little more to the DTS
track. Besides a flat frequency response, DTS at 1.5mb/s
has a very mild 3:1 audio compression, vs DTS's 768kb/s 7:1
compression ratio. More bits should be better. Aka: A
"Superbit" disc ..And that's what it's all about isn't it?