How do we get Paramount to add DTS? (1 Viewer)

[John Beavers]

what practical advantages does 754kbps DTS offer over 448kbps Dolby Digital? I can't think of any.

Less compressed sounding digital audio. At least on my system and to my ears. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Jerry Gracia]

"I collect movies, you collect DTS" -Robert George
I love that quote!
------------------
LuvLBX

 

[Mark Zimmer]

DTS SUPERIOR! dolby digital inferior.

Gary Reber, didn't you read forum rules? You can't post under pseudonyms!

------------------
"This movie has warped my fragile little mind."

 

[Duncan Harvey]

John, I take it you're another person with an oscilloscope between your ears...
Personally when doing the Pepsi challenge, I cant identify which is which.
Havent the technical specs shown that whilst DTS may be superior at its full rate, its actually less efficient at the half rate than DD 448kbps?

 

[John Beavers]

Duncan,
Technical specs are limited to revealing that which can be measured. If an engineer can look me in the eye and tell with honest scientific surety that what's being measured is all there is to what is being output to my ears, and that there is and never will be anything else to consider in that element, then I'll start questioning my hearing. In the meantime I'll continue to go by what I hear coming out of my speakers. And based on that measurement there is a difference between DD & DTS, and 9 times out of 10 I will prefer the more detailed sounding DTS track.

 

[Neil Joseph]

If they release a 2 disk dts of Titanic, or Deep Impact, I would immediately buy. Bring them on.
------------------
Link Removed
------------------
My Favourite DVD's

 

[Dave H]

I would be very surprised to see DTS on the Indy movies because these are Lucas films and I would have to believe he's calling the shots on these which would probbaly mean Dolby Digital.

 

[YANG]

"I would be very surprised to see DTS on the Indy movies because these are Lucas films..."
I was about to say the same thing.LUCAS is a possible DTS hater,he will scare that DTS will take over the popularity of DDEX...which he had a little part to the format.

 

[Robert George]

LUCAS is a possible DTS hater...

Oh c'mon. That's just downright silly.
You might entertain that possibility that LucasFilm have considered the pros and cons of what DTS has to offer in the consumer world (DVD primarily) and come to the same conclusion myself and others have. It just isn't necessary.
You "DTS lovers" just can't seem to understand that for many of us, this issue isn't about emotional attachment to a particular codec. It is about what is best for presenting movies on a compressed digital medium taking into account ALL relevant factors.
The fact that there are people that try to drag this debate into the realm of "love and hate" seems just surreal to me.

 

[Dalton]

As far as DD vs. DTS goes, this has been beat like a dead horse(but here i go anyway). While there are alot of DVD's out there with both formats that are pretty much too similar sounding to tell the difference, there are instances where DTS sounds clearly superior(to me at least). The biggest difference i usually notice is in the bass response. I have both versions of Jurrasic Park(DTS corrected version) and the DTS clearly has better bass response(tighter,deeper). Seven platinum edition also comes to mind. The scene where they find the gluttony victim when they are outside in the rain the sound in DTS is much more detailed than the DD version. The Haunting DTS has some of the most incredible bass I have ever heard. Gladiator is another title that comes to mind. As far as Paramount offering DTS, we'll just have to wait and see(not holding my breath). At first I thought that the Indy trilogy might be in DTS but whan I realized that these were Lucasfilm productions, my hopes have diminished

 

[Mark_Wilson]

can't comment on DTS v. DD but I most certainly can tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi!!

 

[YANG]

DTS affects picture quality? Isn't THIN RED LINE,that runs about 170mins with FULL BITRATE DTS5.1 have picture quality that is as stable as the first edition? Now i am puzzled!

 

[Shad R]

I bought a 2nd generation reciever (NO DTS!!!!) personally, I love Dolby Digital. My friend has both DTS and Dolby Digital. He says there's usually no difference. Also, he PREFERS the DD track of The Rock to the DTS, but prefers DTS of Gladiator. I'm confused. Why would one format sound better on a certain movie, and the other format better on a different one, especially if DTS supposedly has a better bit-rate. Shouldn't it be consistant! Seriously, I'm confused!
Any explination would be appreciated.

 

[Tom-G]

quote: You "DTS lovers" just can't seem to understand that for many of us, this issue isn't about emotional attachment to a particular codec. It is about what is best for presenting movies on a compressed digital medium taking into account ALL relevant factors.[/quote]
I'm an ardent supporter of DTS, but I completely agree with you Obi. Most times, DTS sounds better to me, but when it would compromise the picture quality e.g. X-Men, I would prefer not to have dts included.
With DVD, the difference between Dolby Digital and DTS is almost negligible. DTS laserdiscs, though, sound superior to Dolby Digital tracks of the same titles. I don't know this to be true, but I assume it's because full bit rate was used on LDs where as most DVDs use half rate.
We should consider ourselves fortunate that we can watch movies in the comfort of our homes in Dolby Digital or DTS. They both sound fantastic when mixed properly.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace
AIM: Aureus91 / DVDs / ICQ: 58566493
[Edited last by Tom_G on November 08, 2001 at 08:24 PM]

 

[Robert George]

Why would one format sound better on a certain movie, and the other format better on a different one, especially if DTS supposedly has a better bit-rate.

Simple. The differences you are hearing have nothing to do with the codec. The job of DTS and Dolby Digital is to carry 5.1 (or whatever) channels of audio using digital compression to take up less space and still maintain as close to audible transparency to the original master as possible. If both do their job, which by most accounts they do, at least at their respective higher bitrates, then all one should hear is what was encoded in the first place.
If one hears notable differences between a DTS and a Dolby (448 kb/s) encoding of the same material, then it isn't the same material.

 

[MikeEckman]

I know Im a small majority here, and most of you guys will beleive it when you see it, but Paramount will release their first DTS disc within the next year.
I guarantee it.

 

[David Judah]

Shad,
There are many factors in the chain of production of DVDs, which codec is one part--that is why it can be inconsistent. Of course, as you can see from this and other similar discussions, not all of us agree on how much codec influences the final product.
As I've said before, each codec makes different compromises to reduce space. IMO, the codec has the potential to influence the quality of the final output because of those differences.
If it was simply a space saving issue, DD would easily win, but with improvements in compression technology some of us don't think we should have to be constrained with that space saving limitation.
Not wanting to sacrifice video quality is often brought up as a reason for not offering a DTS track, but it should be judged on a title by title basis, instead of across the board, which is what some of us feel Paramount is doing.
DJ
[Edited last by David Judah on November 09, 2001 at 01:22 AM]

 

[John Haghighi]

You know I am tired of this. You guys are living in the Dark Ages with this DTS debate.
PARAMOUNT:
D T S in 24/96!!!!! (forget that 5.1 crap)

 

[Anton Ruzic]

We wouldn't be arguing about this DD vs. DTS crap if the studios had just stuck to uncompressed PCM stereo. Humans have only two ears, so why the hell do we need 6+ audio channels?
Anton
[Edited last by Anton Ruzic on November 09, 2001 at 06:07 AM]

 

[Jerry Gracia]

Anton,
I'm not sure if you're serious or not...but, yes, we do have 2 ears but you can still hear what direction a sound is coming from, can't you?
That's what 5.1 is supposed to do...put you in the movie audibly.
------------------
LuvLBX