Saving Private Ryan - DD vs. DTS (1 Viewer)

[Sergio Z.]

Just wondering how "different" the DTS version is over the DD. I only have the DD and have not heard the DTS (except for in the theater during initial release) but it is one of my top sounds demos for guests. From the basic, non-supertechnical home theater fan (and my guests the same), is it just super tiny bit of difference? Just curious...not sure how the DD sound on this DVD can be beat. Thx guys....

 

[Clint B]

I think this has been discussed in another thread somewhere, but for my money, I bought the DTS. As you know, the DD has a very good documentary that's not on the DTS version, but for me it was about the film and its DVD presentation. The DTS version absolutely blew me away! To my ears, it was no contest between the DTS and the DD version. While the DD does sound great, the DTS will have your jaw dropping on the floor--it's that good. Quite possibly the best sounding DVD I have (and that includes the Star Wars ones).

 

[Dave H]

Yes, this has been discussed NUMEROUS times. Try using the search function.

 

[Adam Barratt]

The differences between the DTS and Dolby Digital versions are fairly small IMO, as they always are, but these differences are definitely in the DTS version's favour.

Adam

 

[Reginald Trent]

Nicely said Adam, and very diplomatic. Ever thought about running for political office or becomimg a negotiator for a swat team?

 

[Mat_M]

Well put it this way: Saving Private Ryan DTS has been recommended by a bazillion members on this forum to demo DTS in your system.

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

Actually, the differences between the DTS and DD are NOT very small. The DTS version uses a completely different (and IMHO, superior) sound mix, so the difference isn't just in the encoding. In other words, I'm not trying to start a DD vs. DTS war... It has been discussed here many times, and the DTS mix is completely different from DD.

The mix on the DD version tends to collapse the rear soundstage if you have EX engaged, while the DTS version sounds very expansive with ES engaged (not that either is intentionally encoded for either format, but it bears mentioning). I definitely recommend the DTS version. For about two weeks, I had both versions and ended up selling my DD one.

 

[kevin_asai]

Why would they used different master for DTS?

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Why would they used different master for DTS?

Because Spielburg owns a stake in DTS, and therefore wishes to make his format look better.

 

[Tim Glover]

The best mix on dvd is the dts version without a doubt.

But for those with Laserdisc playback will want the Dolby Digital laserdisc (only ld version available). Simply awesome with a very strong presence. Great pic quality too.

 

[John C]

People keep mentioning different sound mixes used for films on occasion in regards to the format encoded in. My question is this: Why isn't there 1 master mix used to create all 5.1 audio versions of a particular film? For something like Saving Private Ryan, did they boost the bass level and place audio in different channels for the DTS version? Did they completely remake the soundtrack using all the original audio stems? It doesn't make sense to me why studios would "dumb down" the Dolby mix to intentionally make it sound worse (whatever that may be) and completely overhaul the soundtrack for DTS. Maybe I'm being a bit foolish, but if I was the director of any film with heavy surround use I would want one theatrical and one DVD soundtrack 5.1 master. It wouldn't make sense if I converted the theatrical audio master for the home environment but intentionally mixed it so it wouldn't sound as good as the DTS. Ideally both the DTS and Dolby mixes should be identical so both codecs can compress to the best of their abilities. At least that is what I would think.

 

[Adam Barratt]

The two versions use different masters but the differences between the two are still quite small, despite the claims of many (IMO). They are, in the end, both representations of the same soundtrack.

I have been told in the past that the Dolby Digital master was created with DTV and HDTV in mind, and had been re-equalised, some of its bass re-allocated and its dynamic range mildly compressed.

The master used by the DTS version did not suffer from dynamic range compression or re-equalisation. For reasons of their own DreamWorks chose not to use this master for the Dolby Digital release.

In my opinion, the most obvious difference between the two is dynamic range. The DTS version is also louder, but when level matched has a level of concussive impact that the Dolby Digital version lacks.

Adam

 

[Paul James]

The two versions use different masters but the differences between the two are still quite small, despite the claims of many (IMO).

I know it's only your personal opinion but I think you'd be in the minority to the extreme on this one, having owned both DD & DTS and having listened to both DVD's on systems ranging from high end to the average the difference between them is huge, the DTS is by far the superior.

Paul

 

[Jeff Whitford]

Ditto to what Paul and most everyone else said.

 

[Adam Barratt]

Perhaps so, but then I wonder sometimes whether people realise what they mean by 'huge'. The difference between day and night is huge. The difference in size between an ant and an elephant is huge. The difference between a 1920s mono soundtrack and a modern six-channel extravaganza is huge.

The difference between the DTS and Dolby Digital versions of this title are not 'huge' by any means; noticeable certainly, but 'huge' is an overstatement (as is so often the case when discussing DTS and Dolby Digital, where the exaggeration of small differences is so common).

Adam

 

[Derek Baker]

I'll add my 2 cents worth.

Firstly i'll agree with Adam in that the differences between the two mixes is not 'huge' - but they are there.

Having owned both the DD and DTS versions of the film, doing a A-B test revealed the following (which is no secret);

1. The soundstage is more expansive on the DTS version - especially in the surround channels. The opening beach battle highlights this cleary with the rears much more aggressive and separate than in the DD version.

2. The bass range is less compressed than the DD version (as mentioned by Adam). This is most obvious in the church scene at night where distant bombing explosions can be heard with what is an amazing mix of silence, dialogue and some truly nice bass way down in the mix but really opening up the 'presence' of the mix.

I'm sure this thread has popped up here at the HTF several times before and rightly so - this title alone is sole reason to have a 5.1 HT!

 

[Mitch Stevens]

I wrote a long response, but as soon as I hit "Submit Reply" it told me I had to sign in again, and I lost everything I had written. So, here I go again, at an attempt to write what I had written before:

For what it's worth, I too have owned both version at one time, and have done back to back testing on the mixes. I think that the biggest difference people hear, is their OWN Home Theater system. Everyone's receiver is different, and everyone's speakers are different.

On my particular system, I much prefer the DD version over the DTS version. The DD version is by far the best sound mix I have ever heard. The bass is extremely tight sounding, and the whole dynamic range, has this extreme clarity, that just amazes me, every time I watch it.

The DTS mix, is extremely BOOMY (and I own an SVS properly calibrated) not only in the LFE department, but also in the other speakers as well. It get very fatiguing to my ears, when I play the DTS version. After about an hour, I just have to turn it off, because of un-naturalness of it all. Where as, I could watch the DD version all the way through multiple times, and still enjoy the sound mix.

Like I said, people's systems are going to be the biggest difference to which mix sounds better. I sold my DD version to someone on Ebay, and now, whenever I want to watch it, I rent it, because I can't stand listening to the DTS version. I'm hoping that when I get a new receiver/speakers, that the DTS mix, will actually impress me, and I'll end up listening to that one instead.

 

[Cliff Olson]

Here are the audio bitrates for the two versions:

DTS - 1509.5 Kbps
DD - 448 Kbps

I have the DTS version, and I don't think I need to compare it to the DD version to realize which sounds better. I can say that the sub-bass trough my system (2-12s and 4-10s), is absolutely top rate. No boominess, or flaws of any type. Absolutely reference quality...

 

[Reginald Trent]

BTW I also prefer the DTS version.

 

[Lewis Besze]

DTS - 1509.5 Kbps

Actualy the SPR dvd marked the introduction of the "half bitrate" DTS encoding [754 kbps],and most DTS DVD's use that rate since.
Bitrate means nothing since these are different type of compressiom methods,we're not discussing MP3 here.
I agree with Adam,the differences while observable,not day and night,in any "sane" comparison levels.