Matrix in DTS (1 Viewer)

[Adam Barratt]

Just out of curiousity, anyone know how many kbps a 48KHz, 16-bit, stereo PCM track is?

1.536Mbps.

Adam

 

[Dave Moritz]

I would disagree that some movies there is a big difference. Unless you look at movies like Jaws that did not necisarily need a DTS soundtrack at all. If memory serves me correctly dvd etc or one of the other dvd reviewers gave phantom menace and attack of the clones mediocer reviews on sound. As most Dolby Digital tracks sound muddy and commpressed IMHO. Yes I agree that dolby has been in the game along time and have developed much of the noise reduction and surround formats to this day. This how ever does not mean that now one else couldnt do it better! Dolby in my opinion is aproching dangerous grounds as they can be classified as a monopoly. I do not consider The Matrix, Saving Private Ryan or Phantom Menace dolby digital tracks to be award winning or all that great. I believe that SPR in dts is supperior to dolby as it does not sound compressed and muddy. I feel both the matrix and TPM have great potential and have heard both in DTS in the theater so I know the sound is there. In Dolby mixes the sound is not there. I give Dolby credit for squizing out the fidelity they have gotten. But I think that Dolby should be an example of how not to do digital surround. I would agree that maybe they should return to releasing seperate dts only titles. I would buy them in a heart beat and would have no reason to have DD titles, as long as there was a dts alternative. I just got done watching The Matrix earlier today and I only wish the soundtrack was in dts. I would only hope that Matrix Reloaded gets the dts treatment it deserves even if The Matrix does not. The movie studios need to realize that releasing dts editions = extra $$$. There are many of use who prefere dts and would spend the money on the titles if they where available. DTS is and continues to be my surround format of choice

 

[Dave Moritz]

Heck I would have prefered that SDDS marketed there surround format for home over Dolby. They both use the same compression ratio so why not have something that can be better than Dolby?

 

[Daniel J]

So I'd rather see an edition with a better transfer. I don't know if it's the age of the transfer (which really isn't that old) or the way the film was made, but I don't think that The Matrix transfer is good at all.

Perhaps you are noticing the odd colour push? Scenes in the matrix are very green, with no blue. Scenes in the real world have a slight blue push. I think it all looks fantastic.

 

[RobertR]

I believe that SPR in dts is supperior to dolby as it does not sound compressed and muddy. I feel both the matrix and TPM have great potential and have heard both in DTS in the theater so I know the sound is there. In Dolby mixes the sound is not there.

Really? I know yet another person with inside info who told me about an interesting blind comparison between Dolby and DTS versions of the same mix done by one of the home theater industry's biggest advocates of DTS. The comparison was done with a high end theatrical sound system carefully tweaked for best sound. He was asked which version he preferred (not knowing which one he was listening to).

He chose Dolby. Are you absolutely sure you would choose "correctly" under blind conditions? Based on what?

 

[Adam Barratt]

Heck I would have prefered that SDDS marketed there surround format for home over Dolby. They both use the same compression ratio so why not have something that can be better than Dolby?

Even though you've never heard a domestic SDDS soundtrack? You have a lot of faith that numbers and sound quality are that closely tied (SDDS in theatres uses less compression than most DTS soundtracks on DVD). I must confess I lack that level of faith myself.

Adam

 

[greg_t]

I wouldn't call Dolby a monopoly, they are no doubt an industry giant. In my opionion, what DTS has done in ten years time is very impressive. To go up against a company like Dolby, that is entrenched in the audio industry, and survive and grow, to me says quite a lot.

Think of the Superbit DVDs. Are they big sellers? Probably not

Superbit has been on the market, what nearly two years or so now? If they weren't selling and making money, I doubt CTS would still be producing them. They obviously sell well enough to still be produced.

 

[Craig W]

You have to look at the whole picture and not just one element. Yes, Dolby does have a higher compression ratio, but its the quality of the algorithm for the compression and decompression that will determine the final product. dts may compress less, but that does not mean their codec(compression-decompression) algorithm is better. On the Warner discs that included both tracks, there is hardly any difference. To me, that's redundant and one of those tracks is wasting bandwidth. I would rather have that extra 754kbs or 1508kbs dedicated to the video.

 

[Dave Moritz]

Hey RobertR,

The dvd etc or others that rated the dolby track was concerning the dvd release. I have also seen Phantom Menace in the theater in DD, DTS and SDDS. DTS was more dynamic and had more detailed center channel. Followed by SDDS that kicked Dolbys but on this release. And Dolby I wanted to walk out on but I watched the entire movie anyway.

Hey Adam,

Even though you've never heard a domestic SDDS soundtrack?

I have heard domestic SDDS tracks in the theater as AMC theaters have some SDDS setups. The last SDDS movie I saw was Attack Of The Clones. I admit that I have not seen any SDDS titles since then but I have heard SDDS.

Hey Craig,

I feel that there are differences as far as a more detailed center channel and better surround effects. IMHO the front soundstage apears to be better with DTS. Dolby uses perceptual coding and DTS uses a completly different approch called coherent accustics. And typically DTS uses 24 bit where Dolby is capible of 24 bit but not every title gets the 24 bit treatment with Dolby. It depends on the space avaiable and the number of channels used and the data transfer. I am not sure what Dolby is trying to acomplish by shaving the data rate down to a lower 384 kb/s when what the where using barly did the job? Whats the point I dont think they are trying to save space so the DTS can have more room or so that the picture can have more room when DTS is used as well.

 

[RobertR]

I have heard domestic SDDS tracks in the theater

I think Adam was asking if you've heard SDDS in a home theater (which is what he meant by domestic). That would make your statement an oxymoron.

 

[Dave Moritz]

As far as SDDS in a home theater enviroment goes to my knowledge SDDS doesn't exist for home theater. SDDS is a theatricall only format and as far as I know Sony has no plans to ever bring it into the home market. I feel comfident that I would favor DTS in a blind comparison.

 

[RobertR]

I feel comfident that I would favor DTS in a blind comparison.

So was the guy who wound up picking Dolby.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

I have also seen Phantom Menace in the theater in DD, DTS and SDDS. DTS was more dynamic and had more detailed center channel. Followed by SDDS that kicked Dolbys but on this release. And Dolby I wanted to walk out on but I watched the entire movie anyway.

Unless it was in the same auditorium and at the exact same volume level (and the same print with the same amount of wear in the track area), this is a completely invalid comparison. Sorry.

 

[greg_t]

and the same print with the same amount of wear in the track area)

For theatrical DTS vs. DD, track wear wouldn't be a factor as theatrical DTS is not encoded on the film itself, but on CD-ROMS. The film strip has a timecode to keep in sync with the CD-ROM. DD does encode directly on the film strip and is more Susceptible to wear with repeated viewings. Theoretcially, DTS should sound as good on the first playback as the hundredth.

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

greg,

Yes, I know that's the case (it's my business). But since he brought up the soon-to-be-extinct SDDS (which is the format that's most subject to wear), I wanted to make sure he wasn't hearing a dropout-laden DD presentation and comparing it to a pristine SDDS or DTS showing.

 

[Adam Barratt]

But I also feel that we as the consumer should be allowed to choose for ourselves what format we want.

In other words, you would like to remove the choice of the studios? To force them to include DTS on every DVD? I don't think that's very likely.

Adam

 

[Cliff Olson]

My wife started LOTR Platinum Edition, a little while back. I noticed that it seemed rather "flat" sounding compared to usual (dynamics and a bit muffled). It just didn't have the "oomph" that I usually experience. I didn't think much of it at first, I just thought my equipment was not warmed up yet(?). It started to drive me a crazy after a little while, being the anal person that I am, so I checked out to make sure it was in DTS. BINGO! It was in DD 5.1 mode, NOT DTS, which is the only way I've listened to this movie until that time. So in my "blind" test, I certainly passed, knowing there was a fairly big difference between the two audio formats. To me, DTS is just better sounding, on every movie I've been able to compare. I don't give a rat's a$$ if they use a "different" master. Who cares, it sounds better, and that's all that matters to me. And BTW, isn't that all part of the audio process? If Dolby uses a different master, why is theirs inferior? And, why is that not THEIR fault for using it? They've been around a long time, so they should get first "dibs", right? If that's even an issue.

As far as Star Wars Ep.2 goes, that is one hell of a great sounding DD track! I would question those who say it is mediocre at best (including magazines, etc). This coming from an avid DTS supporter!

For those who don't notice any real difference between DD and DTS, I envy you This madness will never end for me

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Cliff LOTR DD and DTS are 2 completely seperate mixes, and therefore YES is IS invalid. The DD track is an overcooked blown out LFE mess, while the DTS retains the balance present theatrically

I challenge you to take the blind DD/DTS test. A movie from the same mix with equalized sound levels. You'll never tell the difference.

It's not the codec, it's the MIX

 

[RobertR]

I don't give a rat's a$$ if they use a "different" master.

But you should, because without making sure that only ONE variable is changed (the codec), you have NO rational basis for saying that DTS is inherently superior.

 

[Michael Reuben]

I don't give a rat's a$$ if they use a "different" master. Who cares, it sounds better, and that's all that matters to me.

That approach is perfectly fine. But it hardly puts you in a position to declare one format or another to be "better sounding".

M.