What's new

I'm beginning to become a "DTS GUY". (1 Viewer)

DaViD Boulet

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 24, 1999
Messages
8,826
As the inherent resolution of both formats is greater than 16-bits, I don't really see how this would be an issue in your example. And as the real-world resolution of normal DTS is lower than 20-bit (probably around 18-bit at best), the same could also be said of DTS were a 20-bit master being used. I think you'll find that there are virtually no DTS soundtracks that are encoded with peak levels dead on 0dBFS in any case.

As DTS don't generally encode themselves anymore, the claim that DTS masters are 20-bit "as a rule" is now incorrect. Generally speaking they will use a master with the same resolution as that used by the Dolby track.
Quite true that Both DTS and DD are capable of encoding at higher-than-16-bit resolution

Pracitce however has not maximized this potential in all cases. NO DTS soundtrack on LD or DVD has *ever* been mastered with a resolution lower than 20/48 (yes, your right...wihtout reaching max headroom we could say that the "effective" resolution of many DTS mixes may actually be 19 or 18 bits since some db is left unused).

However, most DD soundtracks, regardless of the resolution of the master, have been encoded at a 16-bit resolution level. At least this is what I've been told by several folks in the DVD mastering business (anyone who actually masteres DD soundtracks care to chime in??). Factor in the unused db and we're down to 15 or 14 bits of effective resolution.

Oh...many of the DTS soundtracks that sound more natural to me *do* use the same master. Why are folks acting like it's impossible that the DTS algorithm can't sound better than DD? At the very least, if 448 DD can sound better than 384 kbps, and if the 648 (exact number eludes me) DD on D-VHS sounds even better than that...then why is it so impossible to suggest that DTS at 754 might sound better than DD at 448 or 384???

To my ears, DTS sounds *consistantly* more natural, smoother, more silky, and just more "analog". It sounds better than CD, which is something I generally can't say for DD.
 

Cliff Olson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
167
Exactly. My system can handle DTS and DD...and I've compared many different movies. Some of them, the DD track is superior. (BLASPHEMY! )
Could you list the titles, Tony? I am very curious to know which ones, outside of the above mentioned Rock on Criterion (mine is still sealed, or I'd compare for myself).
 

Jeff Kleist

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 4, 1999
Messages
11,266
Most DD tracks that people say are better tend to have an overblown LFE, like FOTR Blade 2 and The Rock,
 

Cliff Olson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
167
This has always puzzled me. It seems like whenever a DTS soundtrack sounds "better" it is assumed that a different master was used. You'd think that if there was alot of that going on, it wouldn't always be the DTS version getting the "better" master--that it would be spread out evenly, or if anything the DD version would more often benefit since it is more common.
I've asked this question in other posts, David. I never seem to get a response from the DD guys. Bottom line is which DVD sounds better, DTS or DD? It doesn't matter that a different master or mix was used to me. It's all about the fidelity of the FINISHED product! DTS wins *most* of the times on my system, but I've yet to hear a track that sounds "better" in DD, than in DTS.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
It doesn't matter that a different master or mix was used to me.
It does matter if you're making claims about the superiority of the DTS codec. I rarely, if ever, see a DTS devotee post "I prefer how the DTS track was mixed/mastered". It's essentially always expressed as "DTS rocks/rules/is better", etc.
 

Michael St. Clair

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 3, 1999
Messages
6,001
Intentionally or not, DTS has 'cooked' the bass in the past.

It is a fact that many DTS discs do not even use the same mix as the DD release.

There has been evidence that half-bitrate DTS does not have a flat frequency response. To the best of my knowledge DTS has not countered this with published test data.

It is a fact that the vast majority of people, when "testing" in their own homes, do not match levels or perform any kind of double-blind testing.

Science has proven many times that the placebo effect is real. And audio experts have proven time and time again that a couple db of volume or equalization will bias the listener.

Those who say "I listen at home and most of the time DTS sounds better" is nothing more than subjective opinion and anecdotal evidence. Such observations have absolutely zero relevance as to which codec is more transparent .

A series of controlled, double-blind A/B/X tests comparing audio encoded with each codec to the original master (not to each other) is the only meaningful test as to which is the most transparent/accurate. Whichever one fools the listeners the most wins.

Again, listening (not measured) tests comparing DD to DTS cannot determine the relative fidelity of either.

If you "feel" one sounds "better", be happy with how it makes you feel. No harm, no foul.
 

Jeff Gatie

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
6,531
RobertR,

That is the simplest answer, but you cannot make some people see it. I also do not care if someone prefers the DTS mix to the DD mix. I also prefer the DTS mix on many films, no argument. It's when they blindly assume there is something technically superior to the DTS codec because it sounds better in some mixes that are not the same as their DD counterparts. Saying "DTS sounds better so therefore it is a better codec" is just as bad as saying "DTS has less compression, so of course it is better". Both are incorrect and are easily shown to be incorrect, but for some reason these misconceptions live on and on.

Saying DTS sounds better, therefore the codec is better is like saying a wet sidewalk causes rain.
 

Bruce White

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Messages
115
Real Name
Bruce
I'm one of those "I prefer DTS" people. I admit to having my opinion colored by my first few exposures to DTS tracks. I bought my first HT equipment about 2 years ago, getting a receiver that had DTS capabilities without a clue as to what that actually meant except that DTS was a sound delivery system that was competing with Dolby Digital.

When I did my own comparisons--unscientific, etc.--I found that "in general" I preferred the DTS because, to my ears, the dialog came through with greater clarity. Often, on non-DTS disks, I have to crank up the center speaker to balance the dialog with the rest of the sound. I seldom if ever have to do this with DTS. Just my opinion.

Oh yeah, before I forget, DTS rocks AND rules! :wink: :wink:

Bruce
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
It is a fact that many DTS discs do not even use the same mix as the DD release.
But again, as I mentioned in the previous page, is this necessarily DTS's doing? Or could it be the downmix-safe DD process which we KNOW is going on? Again, DTS does not do its own encoding for DVDs, every major studio/authoring facility has a DTS encoder. So either someone at every facility is cooking it, or the downmix safe versions are to blame for the different master (after all, just lowering the volumes on the rears for downmix safe versions is enough to make people think there are different masters being used).

And finally, I have no problems admitting I can't tell the difference on the Lethal Weapons I own. But I can tell the difference on some other tracks, and that's after level matching. Widescreen Review swears by them, and that's more than just BS - they've got hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of equipment just ANALYZING the signal - they can tell if the only difference is just volume of if there is something qualitatively different. Having been there twice now, and talking with the guys, I'm inclined to believe it ain't just marketing BS.
 

Cliff Olson

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Nov 9, 2002
Messages
167
There has been evidence that half-bitrate DTS does not have a flat frequency response. To the best of my knowledge DTS has not countered this with published test data.
That's a pretty vague statement. What exactly are you saying? ALL 754bit DTS does not have a flat freq. response? And ALL DD soundtracks do?? I seriously doubt it.
 

Bruce White

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Messages
115
Real Name
Bruce
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did my own comparisons--unscientific, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for proving the point.
RobertR,

Not sure which point you thought I proved.

As a professional statistician, I wholeheartedly agree with Michael St. Clair's suggestion of some type of scientifically, statistically valid side-by-side comparison of the two methods would be useful. However, even the design of such a test would generate debates similar to what we have going on here.

That being said, I believe the best sort of test would be similar to a taste test. Using a suitable sampling of films having both a DTS and a DD track available, and using a suitably random sample of people to give their preference without knowing which track is which, then valid conclusions can be made.

The question that such a study would answer is "Which sound track do most listeners prefer?". In using the phrase "sound track" I'm aware that the differences are more than just the codec--it includes who does the mixing or remixing, what master is used, what are the sampling rates, etc. You mentioned such criteria in your post and I agree. Such a study would not address anything about the which technique is better, only which one, in general, pleases the most people.

Such a suggestion was made by someone else in this post. It ultimately boils down to one's preference.

Bruce

PS I hope you took my comment about "DTS rocks and rules" as the tongue-in-cheek remark it was meant.
 

Michael Reuben

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 12, 1998
Messages
21,763
Real Name
Michael Reuben
the DD guys
There really aren't any "DD guys". Some of us just don't share the assumption that anything in DTS will sound better, and we find it rather silly when people post stuff like: "Title X doesn't sound good to me; it must be reissued with DTS!", or "Title Y won't have a DTS track? No sale!"

M.
 

MarkHastings

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2003
Messages
12,013
we find it rather silly when people post stuff like: "Title X doesn't sound good to me; it must be reissued with DTS!", or "Title Y won't have a DTS track? No sale!"
I agree.

I'm the type that always likes when there is a DTS version available...Just knowing that the DTS offers less compression is enough for me to be sold, but I do realise that DD is not what one should consider an "Inferior Format".

I just watched "Harry Potter 2" the other night and I thought the DD track was amazing. :emoji_thumbsup:

I can agree that DTS can sound better, but DD sounds great to begin with so there's no reason to be a DD basher.
 

Holadem

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2000
Messages
8,967
There really aren't any "DD guys". Some of us just don't share the assumption that anything in DTS will sound better, and we find it rather silly when people post stuff like: "Title X doesn't sound good to me; it must be reissued with DTS!", or "Title Y won't have a DTS track? No sale!"
Although I side with the "DTS almost always sounds better to me" camp (codec, mix, I don't care), I fully agree with the above.

Assuming the same price, I always chose DTS by default, unless it comes at the expense of some extra that I want (I rarely bother with extras...). That said, I don't go out of my way for it, and certainly don't miss it when it's not there...

--
Holadem
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
My own personal experience is that DTS vs. DD has yielded two results (again for me only):

1. DTS sounds a better (whether it's a little bit or a lot).

2. Can't tell the difference.

Obviously DD can (especially at the 448 bit rate and when it's not downmix-safe, ala the Lethal Weapon series) sound just as good. But there are factors, whether it's the downmix safe or whatever, that can lead it to sound inferior.

If DD kept a pure 5.1 track intact, at 448, I probably wouldn't even be tempted to buy a DTS version. I like my extras too, so it's often a bummer when a DTS version sacrifices some extras. I don't own stock in DTS so it really doesn't matter to me.

But unfortunately, DTS has, at worst, sounded the same, and at best sounded better than DD, so I purchase the DTS whenever possible.
 

David Judah

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 11, 1999
Messages
1,479
Science has proven many times that the placebo effect is real. And audio experts have proven time and time again that a couple db of volume or equalization will bias the listener.
I guess DTS is lucky that the studios continue to give their versions of the soundtracks the deluxe treatment in many cases while not performing the same studio tricks for the DD version, since there are so many listeners being biased.;)

DJ
 

JeremyFr

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 28, 2003
Messages
794
couple of observations I've made, First I typically prefer DTS over DD and and I strongly say typically. To me the DTS mix sounds more open and analog than DD and at full rate I dont personally feel that DD can no touch the audio quality. One other thing I've noticed that I never see discussed is that DTS also offers a Variable or "open" bit rate that is also sometimes used I have "The Police" "greatest hits" on DTS-CD and it does not have a set bitrate so my reciever displays it as "open" for the bitrate and the audio quality is quite good.

My biggest complaint about DD is that at lower bitrates especially 384kbps 5.1 or 128kbps 2.0 you get alot of noticeable artifacting in the higher frequencys much like you do with MP3 and it drives me nuts I've never heard this on a single DTS mix ever which is the primary reason I dont enjoy Dolby is that they even allow this to happen in what is supposed to be a high quality codec.

Honestly I could care less how good a codec is etc I dont see how 384kbps can yield a decent quality sound for 6 channels of "hi-fi" audio, and typically when I listen to dolby at 384 I think it personally sounds like ****. But thats me and we all have our opinions.

Really I think it comes down to how much info they throw into each channel regarding how good it sounds at what bit rate.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,814
Messages
5,123,666
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top