Warner Bros. says no to DTS! (1 Viewer)

[Roger Dressler]

Ed St. Clair wrote:

>>DD, also adds distortion to the lower frequencies that DTS does not. Not uncommon for the unwashed masses to believe a DD has more "bass", than a DTS soundtrack. When what they are really hearing is distortion.

 

[James Reader]

Not uncommon for the unwashed masses to believe a DD has more "bass",

Stop this elitist nonsense.

 

[Dan Rudolph]

But elitism makes people feel better about themselves. In this case, as he was arguing against DTS, it was anti-elitism. you trying to shout him down is then anti-anti-elitism, making you the happiest person of all. Except me.

 

[DeanWalsh]

What was wrong with the sound on "The Matrix" DVD? I thought it sounded pretty good. I still prefer DTS because a lot of DD tracks just sound flat and compressed to me. That may have more to do with mixing than with the sound format though.

Matrix: see above... As for mixing, people accuse all dts mixes of being 'cooked' but I actually see it being just as likely that the DD mixes are 'undercooked' through the use of dialnorm.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

What cannot be fixed in an encoder upgrade is the bass HF rolloff that DTS decoders impose above 90 Hz, which accounts for the impression of "deeper" bass.

Roger Dressler,
How would 90Hz+ rolloff, give the "impression of "deeper" bass"?
Would that, in a sense, "push up' (by, I would assume, 3db or more) the frequencies under 90Hz, therefore giving the "impression" of, said ""deeper" bass"?
Thanks.

Hey, I am an "ELITIST"!!! :b

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I take anything that DTS or Dolby Labs spokespersons say with a hefty bagful of salt. You think either one would actually be complementary of each other's formats?? God forbid!

As much as I prefer DTS, this lossy compression crap needs to stop. It is time for high resolution audio with our movies! With today's available media technology it can happen. That would be at a minimum:

Lossless compressed 24/96 PCM 5.1 or lossless compressed DSD 5.1 No compression at all when space is available.

I would much rather have:

Lossless compressed 24/96 PCM 8 channel discrete or lossless compressed DSD 8 channel discrete.


Dan

 

[Roger Dressler]

>>How would 90Hz+ rolloff, give the "impression of "deeper" bass"?
Would that, in a sense, "push up' (by, I would assume, 3db or more) the frequencies under 90Hz, therefore giving the "impression" of, said ""deeper" bass"?

 

[Shane Martin]

Roger since you are here...


Can you explain if at all why Dolby 5.1 laserdiscs often sound better than their same DD5.1 counterpart on dvd?

Is this a matter of the mix or could it be something techincal(encoder etc) causing this?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Thanks for the reply, Roger.
To the best of my knowledge, Widescreen Review, level matches channels & frequencies, before reviewing soundtracks.
So, although this 'practice' would definitely affect the vast majority of 'us', it should have 'no' baring on WR scores.

Back to the thread;
I 'blame' DTS, not WB, for the lack of DTS DVD's from WB.
DTS has not proven in the market place that it is 'needed' by WB.
Also, until "The Market Place" proves WB 'needs' to up the DD rate as well, it's not going to happen.
So, we have no one too blame but 'ourselves'!

 

[greg_t]

Dolby Digital 5.1 is not needed in the marketplace either. 5.1 is not the dvd standard. Dolby Surround would met the standard. So really Dolby 5.1 is no more necessary than DTS.

The real point is not which is better, Dolby or DTS. The thing that really bothers me is that the consumers are asking for these things from warner. Warner doesn't do DTS, uses 384kbps Dolby digital, and continues to use snapper cases, knowing that their consumers desire changes in these areas. What bothers me is that they don't listen. There is no excuse why they can't use keepcases, give us DTS and Dolby at 448. All the other studios do it, and with great video and extras. It seems to me that the warner chat was just a bit of advertising for them. Seems like every other comment, they would say "Be sure to look for "whatever" coming out at the end of May", but when asked about DTS, Dolby, and snappers, they just basically said they couldn't do it. Why not set up an online survey site and actually listen to what your consumers want?

 

[Patrick McCart]

They probably listen to suggestions.

Sure, many want DTS, but a lot of people also want extras and other stuff. The sound issue is a lot of the same.

Lets say they DID start supporting DTS... then, they'd get blasted for not putting it on the "right" titles. By not supporting it at all, they don't have to worry about which titles to do DTS on.

Fox has had this problem. They put DTS on some DVDs, but don't for others. Because of this, they've been criticized for not putting it on more discs. Paramount is probably going to have the same problem now.

The thing is...the titles that would get DTS are going to be titles that have DD 5.1 that sounds pretty much the same. You're not going to see Amadeus: DTS Edition or Superman: DTS Edition. You'd see Scooby-Doo: DTS Edition and Analyze That: DTS Edition.

 

[greg_t]

Patrick,

It's not just about DTS. It's also the refusal to drop the snapper cases, which people have moaned about for years. Also, they told me during that chat that they don't use 448kbps dolby because 384 is a balance between sound quality and content. However, the other studios don't have a problem delivering both 448 dolby and content, and DTS 754kbps DTS on some of the titles. And they use keepcases. Warner's titles are no more special as far as video quality and extras's than the other studios. Warner is getting behind on the times, and need to catch up.

 

[Philip Hamm]

IT always has to turn into a DD versus DTS argument.

There is zero objective evidence that a non-remix, non-EQd DTS track is more transparent to the orginal master than DD is.

Well, there are a number of DVD-A discs that have a PCM multichannel original, with both DTS and DD compatability tracks. Seems to me that these would be a pretty easy way to compare at home. Especially if you have multiple discs like this.

I've done some informal comparisons myself. You'd think that a Warner DVD-A title like Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" would sound the same in both formats. It doesn't.

Disclaimor: I think music and critical listening is a little more stressful to a compression codec than movies are.

 

[AlexBC]

You're not going to see Amadeus: DTS Edition or Superman: DTS Edition. You'd see Scooby-Doo: DTS Edition and Analyze That: DTS Edition.

If they were actually to support DTS, Why not?
The Wedding Singer, Mr. Nice Guy, Vertigo got out on DTS LDs. Even a movie like Hope Floats was announced.

 

[Malcolm R]

It wouldn't have to if the Dolby Defenders stopped jumping all over people that have the audacity to express a preference for DTS. I really wonder how much Dolby pays per post that defends their honor?

 

[Michael Reuben]

I really wonder how much Dolby pays per post that defends their honor?

Cheap shots are so easy, aren't they? Of course, the fact that a representative of Dolby is participating in this thread makes this kind of wisecrack particularly inappropriate.

My apologies to Roger Dressler of Dolby Labs. Most of us here at HTF greatly value and appreciate your participation in these threads and sincerely hope that it will continue.

M.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I've done some informal comparisons myself. You'd think that a Warner DVD-A title like Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" would sound the same in both formats. It doesn't.

The only test that has meaning to me is to do separate double-blind tests. One large group compares DTS to the original master in an ABX test. The other large group compares DD to the original master in an ABX test. Nobody compares DD to DTS. Whichever one fools the most people is the most transparent.

I think Dolby is open to such tests.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I really wonder how much Dolby pays per post that defends their honor?

Yeah, if someone disagrees with you, it must be because they're getting paid for it. Riiight...

DJ

 

[Malcolm R]

In a DTS discussion thread, probably yes.

There are other threads all over the forum where we are continually told if you don't like the subject of discussion, then don't read/participate. "Star Wars" haters shouldn't fart in the SW thread. "LOTR" haters shouldn't fart in the LOTR thread. Reality TV haters shouldn't fart in the reality TV threads.

Well, if I'm seeing the pattern of protocol correctly, I'd think DTS haters probably shouldn't fart in a DTS thread either.

Quite frankly, I haven't paid much attention to who, from where, is participating in this DTS thread. I was simply observing that for any single person expressing a preference for DTS, there seem to be a dozen others who jump all over them with an extremely fervent defense of other audio formats. There certainly seems to be an underlying nastiness to it from the anti-DTS factions, more so than should be generated by a simple friendly rivalry between fans of each format.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quite frankly, I haven't paid much attention to who, from where, is participating in this DTS thread. I was simply observing that for any single person expressing a preference for DTS, there seem to be a dozen others who jump all over them with an extremely fervent defense of other audio formats. There certainly seems to be an underlying nastiness to it from the anti-DTS factions, more so than should be generated by a simple friendly rivalry between fans of each format.

Personally, I tend to see it as the other way around, as DTS supporters seems to be much more numerous and vocal. I haven't seen, for example, anyone accuse pro-DTS folk of being paid for their opinion.

DJ