Again I have to question the validity of these comparisons. If you haven't heard them both in the same listening environment and through the same equipment (preferably immediately after one another), how can your comparisons be valid? Such comparisons must be based on memory and influenced by preference more than anything.How do you figure that the only way to get a valid comparison is to hear it off the same print and the same enviroment. You cant have a valid comparison unless the print has been played a low number of times. Since both DD and SDDS are suseptible to damage and wear. Most chain theater all use the same QVC amplifiers and JBL speaker set up. So the only differences between them would be room size and speaker configuration. And sence the THX program is ment to equilize the theaters so there is very little difference from theater to theater. So it would be valid to see the same movie in different locations. To say that it isnt would be to question that valitity of the THX program. All three formats use different algorithm’s so they will not all sound the same. Also a valid compaison can be done in the home between DD and DTS as the same speakers, amps, processor and dvd is used. Then it ouly becomes a mater of what sounds better! Granted that doing a compaison on a low cost budget system may not be the best platform. Middle of the road systems should be good enough for the purposes of evaluation. As the average consumer does not normally own anything about middle of the road. In order to recreate multi-channel audio it requires a certain amount of bits or information. Dolby seems to think that they can shave it even further and still acheive maximum audio resolution. DTS i feel recreates a richer sound with more fine detail and more depth in center channel and a better seperation of channels. Recreating a more realistic and ballanced sound. Dolby has its place but I do not think that it should be a replacement nor should it be the only surround format for the movies we all watch. We where given a choice and some people prefere Dolby Digital and some people prefere DTS. For certain directors that are unable to distiguish the difference to come along and take our choice away. It is not acceptable nor is it right.
Back To The Future was to be offered in DTS but then the desion to exclude it was made. Speilburg has been one of the biggest supporters of DTS and he has released a few of his movies in DTS. So I guess the question is why did he not push for the DTS release of Indiana Jones? Why did he not push for the DTS release of Back To The Future? The number of extras on the BTTF was not good enough to warrent the exclussion of DTS. The extras did not go into enough detail to talk about how they did all the different effects and scense in the trilogy. An extra disc could have been added for this purpose and would not have made a major difference in cost. Disc's do not cost that much to manfacture in mass quanities.
The only difference I can see is in the bottom line! If you have just one format on the disc then you are not paying the competitor to use there format. Thus you keep that much more for yourself. And it does not become an issue of which one is better but what company is cheaper to offer on the most popular format (dvd) ever released.
The subject of who is better DD or DTS is very subjective as we all hear sound differently. I and many others would agree for us the DTS is the dominant and supperior format. And there are also others that would disagree and say that Dolby is the supperior format. Then there are some that litterly can not tell the difference or dont care. My main objective was to see how many others agreed that The Matrix should get DTS treatment. Weather it was a DD/DTS release or a seperate DTS only release?
IMHO I dont think the video market would be any better if Dolby was able to cornet the market. And be the only digital format available. If Dolby Digital was the only format avaible I would seriously consider not buying movies anymore. And would just rent them and watch them on dish or cable. The sound would make it not worth the money to go out a invest money on dvd's or the next format that may or may not replace dvd. There have been days when I will stop a movie before it is half way through due to the lack luster DD track. And yes that may be alittle extreme and picky but I have my own standards just like everyone else. Audio has come along way since the days of analog cinima came along and evolved into the multi-channel digital power house that it is today. Dolby has been qround the block many times but that does not make them the best! I have listened to DD on inexspensive systems and high end systems and DD does not impress me. IMHO i feel there are many improvements to be made to DD.
Where in my post did I put that DTS is "inherently superior"? I simply stated that in all the movies that I own, it sounds better, if offered with both surround soundtracks. Second, you guys are missing the *point*. 
