Fooling yourself about 5.1 soundtracks... (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lee]

I guess we hear what we hear (or don't hear) no matter who we are!

bingo dave!

that's exactly my point. assume a level-playing field as far as experience and knowledge goes -- you may hear something that sounds poor, but to me, it may sound great. so who is wrong and who is right?

even roog pointed out that his group could only say there was a difference, but not really qualify what that difference is.

sound is subjective ... pure and simple.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I enjoy a lot of DD mixes, but my favorites are all DTS. coincidence? No.

I watched LOTR in DD many times before the EE came out with DTS, I knew the DD by heart. The DTS sounded better when it came out.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The fact is that there are tests where care was taken to make sure both soundtracks are encoded correctly from an identical source and listeners cannot tell which is which. At a minimum, Roogs' own test if you do not trust Warner.

The 'DTS-is-a-superior-codec' proponents have been completely unable to come up with any test that has shown otherwise.

Until such time, the silence is deafening, and I can only hear crickets chirping.

One argument has meaningful tests, the other has meaningless anecdote.

I say give us more producers like Bob Gale who see no benefit from using both codecs and are unwilling to compromise discs with redundant soundtracks.

 

[Chad R]

This is one of the most unintentionally ironic statements ever.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I don't think DTS is a better technology, but it just seems like whoever does the mix does a better job with it than the DD. I hear DD all the time, mostly boring uninspired mixes. But it seems that when DTS comes out with a huge movie that a lot of time is spent with the mix, as opposed to the DD version.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

In the current issue of Widescreen Review, editor Gary Reber is talking to the AOD-DVD people and starts going on about how DTS ought to be part of the spec because it's obviously superior. They ask him to provide evidence of that, and he says well, read my reviews....as if that were an objective piece of evidence. Their response clearly indicate that they thought he had three heads. Pretty funny stuff; I was surprised they printed it.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The fact is that there are tests where care was taken to make
sure both soundtracks are encoded correctly from an identical source and
listeners cannot tell which is which.

Micheal,

The test that ROOGS performed indicated that somelisteners could hear differences and some of those even preferred one codec over the other...which indicates that some consistency of sound was discernable though(as one would expect) not all listeners reacted the same way or were able to discern to the same degree.

I don't think we'd argue that there may be real sonic difference between DD soundtracks at 348 and 448. Yet it's likely that a double-blind test would produce similar results...with some folks hearing differences, some of those preferring one sound over the other, but with most folks at a loss to identify any real audible distinction.

 

[Clay-F]

Somebody should setup and run a kind of "coke vs pepsi" challenge with DD and DTS.

See which the masses tend to perfer....

This test would be somewhat flawed since it would really only pertain to the dvd that they hear. Not all DD tracks and DTS tracks are equal.

I guess somebody could take several discs that contain both formats and see how close they rank.

 

[Mitch Stevens]

I really didn't mean to start a debate about which sounds better, because we all know that with all things equal, they sound exactly the same. What I'm trying to uncover here, is how some people are "programing" their minds to believe that their Dolby Digital track sounds horrible, only because they want to believe it so badly.

I'm sure it's all psychological. People have been programed to think that DTS will sound better no matter what, even if they don't hear a difference themselves. And these same people will hear a Dolby track, and automatically their brains starts telling them that they are hearing something of horrible quality, and they NEED to hear a DTS track in order to immerse themselves into the film.

The Matrix Reloaded
SW Ep I
SW Ep 2
Fight Club
T3
Toy Story 2

all sound absolutely incredible WITHOUT DTS. I don't that if using the exact same mix that they used for the DD tracks, that the DTS track would say any better. It would lead to wasted disc space, and accomplish nothing.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The test that ROOGS performed indicated that somelisteners could hear differences and some of those even preferred one codec over the other...which indicates that some consistency of sound was discernable though(as one would expect) not all listeners reacted the same way or were able to discern to the same degree.

And many were not able to discern at all, and none heard the kinds of differences that are touted here. No 'this one has tighter based, a more defined midrange, and a more open, seamless soundstage....this must be the DTS track!'.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I really didn't mean to start a debate about which sounds better

How could you not with this topic? If your premise is that people who prefer DTS are "fooling themselves" (your wording), you can hardly expect those people not to respond. And the likelihood is that they'll disagree, as in fact they have.

David's report about the disagreements among sound engineers confirms my longstanding suspicion that this is a debate that is unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future.

M.

 

[Richard Paul]

David, I have to disagree with the statement that Dolby Digital wouldn't sound any better when less compressed. DD comes at different rates for 5.1 channels with 384/448 Kpbs on DVD, 512 Kbps on ATSC, 576 Kpbs on D-Theater D-VHS, and a maximum rate of 640 Kbps which is currently only being used on X-Box games (hopefully 640 Kpbs DD will also be on pre-recorded Blu-ray). I'm not saying the difference between 384 Kbps and 448 Kpbs would be incredible, but there would be a slight improvement in audio quality with 448 Kbps. With the same codec at different bit rates with all other factors equal the less compressed bit rate will always sound better.

 

[Vincent_P]

One thing that gets lost a bit here is that movies are not "mixed" in Dolby Digital or DTS (as some in this thread seem to think, hense using terms like the "DD mix" or the "DTS mix"). They are MIXED in uncompressed digital, then the uncompressed discrete digital tracks are put through either a Dolby Digital or DTS encoder. Just thought that should be clarified...

Vincent

 

[RISUG]

I really hope this doesn't turn into a DD vs. DTS debate

As opposed to?.

 

[Ted Lee]

With the same codec at different bit rates with all other factors equal the less compressed bit rate will always sound better.

emphasis mine. i think that statement perfectly sums up the issue.

i'm not technical enough to cofirm or refute that train-of-thought, but i suspect it's not entirely accurate. if it was as simple as that, would we still be beating this poor horse to death?

 

[Chet_F]

Regardless of how many test are performed, labs completed, etc, etc, etc. Perceptions are subjective at the very least. People will continue to think DTS is better just because they 'think' it is. Whether they are 'fooling' themselves or not is still irrelavent. Who am I to say they prefer track A to track B?

Have you ever tried to talk someone into buying a different type os soda or chips. You may like one but another like sthe 'other brand'. There will ALWAYS be people who prefer DTS over DD. I prefer DTS. Do I go out of my way to get DTS? No. If there are 2 tracks or an option to buy just DTS I chose DTS. I agree with the statements that DTS just sounds clearer or more accurate. Is this a subjective perception? Absolutely yes. Am I wrong? No....there is no wrong or right answer just a preference.

 

[Randy A Salas]

It is time to stop putting redundant 5.1 tracks on DVDs, and use the bits saved to increase picture quality. Simply master and author the single OSL 5.1 track carefully.

I am not anti-DTS, but I am the waste and the compromises in picture quality (and sometimes supplements) that this redundancy causes.

That's exactly what I've been saying for three years, ever since I noted in my end-of-2000 column that the Pitch Black DVD chucked the fantastic making-of/extended-movie feature "Into the Black" in favor of a redundant space-hogging DTS track--which added nothing to the movie experience that wasn't there with the DD track.

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I've found this thread interesting as I've never been completely sure what the difference between DD and DTS was/is supposed to be. I'm still learning I guess.

 

[Ted Lee]

casey -

check out our htf primer. section 2, the first few links.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=120328

also, check out
this link - it's a great article on the two formats.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

David, I have to disagree with the statement that Dolby Digital wouldn't sound any better when less compressed. DD comes at different rates for 5.1 channels with 384/448 Kpbs on DVD, 512 Kbps on ATSC, 576 Kpbs on D-Theater D-VHS, and a maximum rate of 640 Kbps which is currently only being used on X-Box games (hopefully 640 Kpbs DD will also be on pre-recorded Blu-ray). I'm not saying the difference between 384 Kbps and 448 Kpbs would be incredible, but there would be a slight improvement in audio quality with 448 Kbps. With the same codec at different bit rates with all other factors equal the less compressed bit rate will always sound better.

Richard, I agree that you or I might hear a difference. But I don't think my mother would nor would many "normal" listeners. My point is that whatever "dramatic" improvements may tickle the fancy of a seasoned audiophile might drift by another listener all-but-imperceptably. My intension was to illustrate how suggesting that some listeners don't/can't hear differences does not prove that they do not exist. Rather, that if a few listeners do consistently hear differences, that they in fact DO exist.