Jump to content

Sign up for a free account to remove the pop-up ads

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and remove the pop-up ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.


Who has Dolby Digital, but not DTS (i.e. do we need both 5.1's on a disc?)

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 of 29 OFFLINE   Marty Christion

Marty Christion

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 230 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2001

Posted December 13 2001 - 09:28 AM

It is my impression that there was a few years ('95-'98?) when recievers were available with only Dolby Digital decoders, and no DTS capability. Also, only the first generation of DVD players offered no DTS output. It is also my impression that the people who bought these early products would be most likely to replace them with DTS capable equipment, especially since prices have gone so low. So would it work if studios dropped the Dolby 5.1 track from discs with DTS? We could then have a Dolby 2.0 track, and a DTS 5.1. On a disc like Pearl Harbor, that could make a huge difference! How many people have a 5.1 setup, but no DTS capability? Again, my reasoning is that having both is slightly redundant, (especially on Superbit titles).

#2 of 29 OFFLINE   RyanDinan


    Second Unit

  • 251 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 25 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 09:37 AM

Marty, To be follow the DVD spec, the disc must contain at least one DD track (This could be a mono DD track). You can't (legally) just have a disc with DTS. Yes, it is redundant. In fact, they may have been able to fit Pearl Haror on one disc if they dropped the DD 5.1 track. But I favor quality over convenience. The PQ most likely would have suffered if they tried to cram the whole movie on one disc....especially with the DTS track. I'm not sure how many people just have DD setups...But I bet they're happy to have both. DTS is a 'luxury' on a DVD since it wasn't part of the original spec. -Ryan

#3 of 29 OFFLINE   Brett_B


    Supporting Actor

  • 744 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 26 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 09:45 AM

I am still one that only has DD 5.1 since my first generation player that I spent $800.00 on does not output DTS, but I do have a DD/DTS receiver.


So would it work if studios dropped the Dolby 5.1 track from discs with DTS? We could then have a Dolby 2.0 track, and a DTS 5.1.


So, are you saying that a person like me should not be allowed to have DD 5.1 and have to upgrade to DTS in order to enjoy 5.1? If so, are you willing to give me $800.00 to replace my DVD player. For me, money does not grow on a tree.

The only reason I haven't bought a new player (other than the fact that I never experienced any type of playback problem and I did spend good money on my current player) for DTS is the fact that I still read about "DTS audio drop-outs" on certain titles whereas there are no audio drop-outs with DD 5.1 (at least to my knowledge).

So, I would vote for NO to your suggestion.

#4 of 29 OFFLINE   Larry Sutliff

Larry Sutliff


  • 2,861 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 17 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 10:13 AM

I have a receiver from the early days of DVD that only has DD. I plan to eventually upgrade but I'm in no big hurry and I think DD should always be available for those of us who only have DD or for those who prefer it.

#5 of 29 OFFLINE   Jerome Grate

Jerome Grate


  • 2,937 posts
  • Join Date: May 23 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 10:22 AM

Marty, most of the DTS disc did exactly that DTS 5.1 and then DD 2.0. Now with both tracks on new and upcoming discs as well as redos, I can see why DTS sold out their older discs. The difference in those disc that shared the DVD in reference to 5.1, DTS I believe was rated at a 754 bit rate for sound as oppose to 1509 bitrate. I personally would like to see more disc with the higher bit rate but I can see DTS just sharing the same disc with Dolby Digital. It gives them the opportunity to get used every time a disc is pressed. I use to have Dolby Digital only until April of last year. After hearing so much about DTS back then on how great and wonderful the sound was, I was itching to upgrade and when it came I made sure that DTS was available. I use to think that Dolby Digital was all I need, boy was I fooling myself.
Listen Up People.., Rack Em and Pack Em.., We're Phantoms in 15.

#6 of 29 OFFLINE   Keith_R



  • 1,179 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 16 2001
  • Real Name:Kyle
  • LocationFL

Posted December 13 2001 - 10:29 AM

I believe they should include both. The reason they should is because not everyone owns a DTS capable reciever or DVD player. For me this is not a issue since both my reciever and DVD player are compatible with DTS but not everyone has this luxury. Therefore IMO, DD5.1 and DTS should be included so those that may not have DTS can still enjoy 5.1 sound.

#7 of 29 OFFLINE   Christian Speights

Christian Speights

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 102 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 14 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 10:53 AM

I think DTS may remain a niche format. They were not there at the launch of DVD. 1st gen players couldn't even pass the signal. When they did get titles out it was junk like "Paulie". How many people have the hardware to detect a difference? I think most folks who can notice, and appreciate, the difference have a lot invested in their system. How many people will be dissatisfied with standard issue 5.1? I think even more will feel that if it aint broke, why fix it? I am into HT and the lower compression (although not as low as it used to be) is interesting. But my Mom (who has a modest HT of her own) wont care. At all. You have DD built into the specs for DD and HDTV. It's in satellite broadcasts. It's not going anywhere. It would be nice to see separate DTS releases with the lower compression rate instead of shared discs. But then stores have to stock double of the product, one of which will be of interest to only a select few. Niche products aren't inferior and there's nothing wrong with being one. I use one everyday. It's called a Macintosh. (Oh, and I have DD...not DTS)
Nature abhors a vacuum. I happen to like mine.

#8 of 29 OFFLINE   Bill Buklis

Bill Buklis

    Supporting Actor

  • 519 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 09 1999
  • Real Name:Bill Buklis
  • LocationChicago, IL

Posted December 13 2001 - 11:10 AM

No, they're going to need DD 5.1 for a long time yet. Even still I can't fully appreciate DTS. My main receiver only has Dolby Digital. My first DVD player didn't do DTS, but I've since upgraded to the Sony 7700. But, my receiver is still waiting for an upgrade.

I recently bought a Kenwood HTB setup for my den. This receiver has DTS so I was able to finally enjoy DTS for the first time. However, the quality of this system (although quite decent for the money) is nowhere near as good as my main system. So which sound format is better? For me Dobly Digital blows the doors off of DTS.Posted Image Of course, that's more to do with the hardware than the format.Posted Image
Check out my Flickr stream. Join the HTF Flickr Pool.

#9 of 29 OFFLINE   Barton Lynch

Barton Lynch

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 105 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 1999
  • Real Name:Barton Lynch
  • LocationVenezuela

Posted December 13 2001 - 11:19 AM

Hooooorraaaaaay for Macintosh! Whoohoooooo!!! Ejem... think I got too excited :b Macs rule!
Barton Lynch
...nothing can stop me now

#10 of 29 OFFLINE   Philip Hamm

Philip Hamm

    Lead Actor

  • 6,885 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 23 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 12:35 PM


It is also my impression that the people who bought these early products would be most likely to replace them with DTS capable equipment, especially since prices have gone so low.

[quote]I do not think that this impression is accurate. Some people hold on to older equipment for a long time. If I spent $2000+ on a battleship class receiver with DD only two years ago I'm going to keep the damn thing. Hell, look at my HT site, most of my gear is antiquated.
Philip Hamm
Moderator Emeritus

#11 of 29 OFFLINE   Bryan Acevedo

Bryan Acevedo

    Second Unit

  • 290 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2001

Posted December 13 2001 - 12:51 PM

Also, I think the whole DTS being better than DD is not all it's cracked up to be. Yes, on certain titles that is true, but I don't believe that has anything to do with the bit rates of DTS being superior (like so many people think). There are certain titles I have compared the two, sometimes DTS is better and sometimes DD is better, and sometimes they are the same. What people fail to realize is that usually the differences have nothing to do with the compression algorithm at all, but that they are mixed with different sources, or by different people. You give two guys the same master, and tell them to mix it, their personal preferences are going to come through. DTS may be mixed louder, or with more bass, or more surround effects, or maybe the DD version is. But, that has nothing to do with the compression. Just because DTS uses more bits doesn't make it better. It would only be better if the two algorithms were identical, and the higher bit rate would have more bits for resolution. But since the two algorithms are different, you can't compare on the bit rates alone. Some could argue that DTS is inferior because it can't compress as well as DD. It's all how you look at it. I always find the debate interesting, but I always just listen to the DD version. Why? Because I got tired of trying to figure out which one sounded better on a movie before I even got to sit down and enjoy the movie. I have immediately watched a movie in DTS, thinking, oh this might be better because of all the hype. Then I go back and watch the movie, and a lot of times the DD version sounds better. (Dinosaur is the most recent) So in my opinion, DTS could go away all together, and I wouldn't worry one bit. But DD is not going anywhere. Everyone and their dog has heard of Dolby, the same can't be said about DTS. That Double D emblem to many people is as big as the THX logo. This is all my experience and opinion - so take it for what it's worth. Bryan
"As far as I am concerned, the only level is reference level."
- A quote from my wife - who likes to poke fun at my hobby!

#12 of 29 OFFLINE   Ken Seeber

Ken Seeber

    Supporting Actor

  • 788 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 05 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 01:03 PM

COunt me in as someone else who has DOlby Digital but no DTS. Sure, I have a DTS-capable receiver, but my second-generation Sony DVD player soes not pass the signal. I've thought about upgrading my DVD player, but it has played every disc I've ever put in it perfectly. Every time I read horror stories around here about players that have glitches with certain discs, I change my mind and decide to keep this player. Besides, right now I'd rather spend my money upgrading speakers.

#13 of 29 OFFLINE   Erik_C


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 186 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 15 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 01:36 PM

I've got a Yamaha 2092 receiver and Sony 7000 DVD player. Neither can do DTS. I don't feel the need to upgrade just for a potential small increase in sound quality. I think you can be better served my adding outboard amps to improve sound quality. I did (Parasound), and whoa, what a difference. And a decent outboard amp won't be any more than a good receiver with all the new sound formats. I made my choice, and couldn't be happier. DD sounds fantastic. -Erik

#14 of 29 OFFLINE   Marty M

Marty M


  • 2,919 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 1998

Posted December 13 2001 - 04:16 PM

I also have a DTS capable receiver but a Sony DVD player that will not pass a DTS signal. I have considered upgrading to a DVD player with DVD-Audio or SACD, but have been very happy with the quality of my three year old DVD player. Dolby Digital is also the standard established for DTV, also.
Lawn Ranger Motto: You're only young once, but you can be always be immature.

#15 of 29 OFFLINE   StevenK


    Second Unit

  • 273 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 16 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 04:59 PM

IMO, to really hear a "life altering--will never go back to DD" difference between DTS and DD one needs at the very least a hi-end system with pre-pro's or receivers and speakers at the $$$$$$$ end of the spectrum, and a very well mastered DTS track (which in itself is scarce and hardly a given on any particulary DVD). Apart from most of the members here, many run more mid-fi to low-fi equipment as in your plain jane onkyo's and sony de's mated with htd's or energy's. On such equipment, I believe it is much more difficult to distinguish between DTS and DD (yes, yes, I know many here have golden ears...i'm saying most other), so I think DD5.1 is still a strong and viable format. In fact, a well mastered DD5.1 track can run neck and neck with a DTS track. So I don't think there should be a switch to DTS at the expense of many DD5.1 only owners for the benefit of very few who can afford to wholly appreciate the benefits of DTS.

#16 of 29 OFFLINE   Kevin. W

Kevin. W


  • 1,546 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 27 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 05:17 PM

I maybe wrong but doesn't it cost less to produce a DVD that a VHS tape? If this is true then all studios' should be coming out with 2 disk sets for every movie. Disk 1: Superbit with DTS. Disk 2: Superbit with DD and extra's. Tell me this can't be done?? Kevin

#17 of 29 OFFLINE   Ken Chan

Ken Chan


  • 3,302 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 11 1999

Posted December 13 2001 - 05:42 PM

It's probably true, but I doubt what you suggest will ever happen. It's still an added expense to produce the extra disc that will be passed on to the consumer, and why would the vast majority of them want to pay for an extra disc they would probably never use (either one)? Some consumers want DTS, the balance want DD 5.1, and the studios and retailers would rather have just one version/box. So the current compromise of putting both 5.1 soundtracks on the same disc -- thus reducing the available bitrate for the video -- is what we have. If pan&scan on the fly was viable, they'd probably get rid of separate P&S and widescreen releases too. (And given that doesn't negatively impact the widescreen version, I'm all in favor of it.) //Ken

#18 of 29 OFFLINE   RichardH


    Supporting Actor

  • 742 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 28 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 05:44 PM

Kevin: They can't do that because you could give one of the discs to a friend and then they'd be out a sale. I do agree that releases that have extensive extras should put all the extras on a separate disc and lower the compression on the moive disc.

#19 of 29 OFFLINE   Daryl Furkalo

Daryl Furkalo

    Second Unit

  • 374 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 08 2000

Posted December 13 2001 - 06:41 PM

Well, until this spring, I only had DD ready receiver with a DVD player that had a DD decoder on board, but the DVD player could pass the DTS signal. Among the upgrades this year was a nice mid-range Elite receiver that does DTS, DD, and EX/ES matrix encoding, so I now gladly enjoy DTS with my DD DVD's. However, once picture quality is threatened with TOO MUCH audio information on one disc, one of the formats should go.

#20 of 29 OFFLINE   Marcelo T

Marcelo T

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 124 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 21 2001

Posted December 13 2001 - 06:52 PM

Well, in my 50+ dvd collection I only have 2 dts dvds. On both I couldn't perceive any drastical difference between the DD and DTS track. I end up watching the DTS track because of the cool DTS exploding discPosted Image

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users