The Mummy Returns DTS or not !?! (1 Viewer)

[David-alexander]

Pete
Note I edited my last post
As for the level, I got to admit that some dts sound 8 or 10dB louder ( well, the encoding level is higher since to sound 10dB, that would require A LOT of extra watts ) and this more than the dialnorm/cooking down results.
But anyway, careful, professional (!) encoding can get excellent results based on dolby 383/448, just take for instance THE LOST WORLD DD ld (which still is better sounding than the remastered dts dvd, I said better, more natural!) or TOY STORY 2 dd dvd or THE PATRIOT or TPM dd ld.
As much as the masters matter a lot, so does the job done by the sound encoders/engineers. And there, it's a jungle.
Anyway, I still wonder how the extra 300kbps or so from a 1/2 dts would not be a plus, sonically speaking. People denying this fact puzzle me.
Argh, those days of full rate dts laserdiscs, AC3 lds , PCM lds......

 

[Pete Calderwood]

>>
As for the level, I got to admit that some dts sound 8 or 10dB louder ( well, the encoding level is higher since to sound 10dB, that would require A LOT of extra watts ) and this more than the dialnorm/cooking down results.
>>
Well, if different masters are used, combined with Dolby's dialnorm, it's very feasible that this may happen on occasion. Generally the difference between DTS DVDs and DD DVDs is far less than 10db... DTS isn't always louder, though. For some reason on the Warner DD/DTS re-releases, the Dolby Digital soundtracks were the louder ones. Who knows why
>>
But anyway, careful, professional (!) encoding can get excellent results based on dolby 383/448, just take for instance THE LOST WORLD DD ld (which still is better sounding than the remastered dts dvd, I said better, more natural!) or TOY STORY 2 dd dvd or THE PATRIOT or TPM dd ld.
>>
Oh I totally agree, Dolby Digital sounds awesome, especially for its size. In fact with the latest lame codec using non-joint stereo and VBR 192-320kbps encoding I'm even starting to be impressed by MP3! (gasp). Specifically with "The Lost World", though, Universal really blew the mastering of JP 1 & 2 on DVD, both DD and DTS. Thankfully they fixed JP1 DTS, but JP1 DD is still lacking (albeit, less than the DTS version was lacking), as is The Lost World (both DD and DTS versions lacking equally - the dts version was not remastered) when compared to the laserdiscs. If you compare the new remastered DTS DVD of Jurassic Park to the LD, it is very similar.
I just entered this thread (enraged) because of the casual misinformation being spread, such as Obi's claim about DTS' inferiority, and more recently the claim that Home DTS combines channels, which it does not. What ticks me off is that the administrators seem to think they know all, and that if you aren't an administrator, your claims must be false; hopefully now they have learned that they can still learn from "people with 18 posts", now that multiple people have proven the admins "corrections" wrong. Not to mention that the amount of posts someone makes on a web forum isn't a great judge of their knowledge - personally I rarely post here because I find the posting interface of Forte Agent for Usenet much easier, faster, and less cumbersome than UBB web interface. Which is also why I use the carets instead of the fancy UBB "quote" code, since that's what I'm used to. I've been posting about DVD in Usenet and chatting on IRC (as an op in the #dvd channel) since '97. Not to mention I sold, installed, and did minor repairs on hifi home theater equipment throughout college. But then again, I only had 18 posts! Oh, and I didn't use a paragraph break in my first post either, I mustn't know what I'm talking about!

>>
As much as the masters matter a lot, so does the job done by the sound encoders/engineers. And there, it's a jungle.
>>
Very true... Again, look at the Jurrasic Park DVD fiasco
>>
Anyway, I still wonder how the extra 300kbps or so from a 1/2 dts would not be a plus, sonically speaking. People denying this fact puzzle me.
>>
Well, again, the extra 768kbps that full bitrate DTS requires mainly only improves on one thing - frequency response. Half-bitrate DTS does a gentle rolloff from 15khz to 19khz, while full-bitrate DTS gives full response up to 24khz. The reason many don't see the benefit of full bitrate DTS is simply because few will actually notice the difference if a soundtrack responds up to 19khz vs 24khz, especially when a full 5.1 channels are going. I offered this in another thread; if you want to hear the difference the extra frequency response gives you, I can send a short sound clip from a CD, one with a 15-19khz rolloff, and the same clip with response up to 22khz (close enough). That way you can burn it to CD, and decide for yourself on your own home theater whether or not the extra frequency difference is worth worrying about. Ironically, some of the best sounding CDs have little audible information over 15khz... The ones that usually have an abundance of over-15khz response are ones with synth-generated music like techno/trance/goa etc.
>>
Argh, those days of full rate dts laserdiscs, AC3 lds , PCM lds......
>>
Hehe, remember though, those days weren't all roses either. You had early DTS LDs with improper channel levels, THX-approved DD LDs with the channels completely swapped, laser rot, etc. What really annoys me these days is not half rate DTS or no DTS, but when they have concert DVDs or other 2 channel material encoded at 192kbps Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital is capable of a much higher stereo bitrate on DVD (On the Godzilla DVD there is a Wallflowers video with a 384kbps DD2.0 soundtrack), and for stereo concerts (can we say Les Miserables Sony?) use PCM not DD!
P.S. -- Where is the Casper DVD??!!!

------------------
Dai miei incubi e nei miei sogni -
Un' Esistenza Rovinata...
[Edited last by Pete Calderwood on August 25, 2001 at 04:38 AM]

 

[David-alexander]

true.
btw, when I said the extra 300kbps or so, I meant from 448 dolby to 768 dts.

 

[Cees Alons]

Pete,
We really do like intelligent discussions about the HT related topics, but you have to tone down a bit.
Even if you think you have a reason to be "enraged" (as well when you don't think so ), you cannot go on using the tone and methods you're apparently used to on those other boards you like so much better.
Someone's opinion on technical subjects is NOT related to his moderatorship on this forum. Nor is the intrinsic value or quality of that opinion. We don't think so, nor should you.
Whether or not someone carries an opnion over a prolonged period doesn't make the opinion less valuable, nor more. That goes for Robert George's opinion as well as yours. It simply isn't an argument.
And certainly not by making it look suspicious suggesting it's a prejudiced opinion. You should concentrate on scientific and professional arguments here. Leave the person out.
If moderators step in to steer a discussion along the lines we prefer on this forum, they are fully entitled to consider someones low number of posts in his favour. To allow him the benefit of the doubt. No-one here believes that the number of posts has any relationship with your knowledge in professional fields. It's insulting actually to suggest that's what we do think.
But the number of posts may explain why someone - you in this case - blatantly misses the boat qua tone and manner of discussion.
Note, BTW, that I haven't entered the DTS discussion here with you (or anyone else).
I urge you to join this forum the way it is intended. Also, unfortunately, consider yourself warned. We simply do not like your aggressive tone. We have members ranging, based on their opinion of DTS, from highly in favour and promoting it to unbelieving it's higher value - or even being indifferent. They ALL have a place here.
But irritatingly aggressive members, displaying paranoid reactions have not.

[Edited last by Cees Alons on August 25, 2001 at 06:34 AM]

 

[Quint van der Vaart]

This is exactly what I was affraid of, people are now only
talking about the DTS VS DD thing......god how I hate that.
THIS TOPIC IS ABOUT THE MUMMY RETURNS DTS YES OR NO.
It is NOT about how great DTS or DD is.
I think it is how people personally feel about both codecs.
If you like DOLBY DIGITAL that's great , and if you like DTS
that's great also.
We should respect one's personal choice here and not attack
people on it.
So please get back to what this topic is all about ok.
Be good little children and play nice

 

[Adam Barratt]

quote: DTS, on the other hand, has the ability to do 24bit, 192khz 4096kbps, 8.1 channel lossless compression
>>
>On DVD Video? No, I didn't think so...
And I mentioned DVD-Video... where? Later on in the post. That's right, read the entire post before replying. I was doing a comparison of the two codecs, not just the two codecs on DVD-Video.[/quote]
Since the comments you objected so strongly to were directly related to 754kbps DTS, what exactly was the point of a discussion of the codec's theoretical capabilities?
quote:
It will come in a lot more handy than the 5.1 max channels Dolby Digital will ever pump out. And considering that the max number of channels we get in the theater, never mind home theater, is 8 + LFE (SDDS), 8.1 is more than enough for any future home format[/quote]
If we're discussing theoreticals then why not include multichannel PCM, SDDS, MLP or MPEG 7.1, all of which are 'possible' on DVD/HD-DVD. I have yet to hear of any concrete plans to use them, though. Just like 8-channel DTS.
quote: On standard DVD however, due to space constraints the best DTS has achieved is 24bit/96khz 6.1 channels at 1509kbps lossy compression.
>>
>96kHz? I don't think so.
It's a shame you don't think so. The 24/96 DVDs will be arriving shortly; here is a brief paper for you to read in the meantime, which details how 24/96 DTS audio will work great with DVD-Video, something DD can never achieve: http://www.dtsonline.com/9624.pdf
quote: However, at 754kbps it begins to simply rolloff frequencies at around 15khz, instead of combining channels and causing sound misdirection/channel bleeding like Dolby's codec does.
>>
>And this makes DTS better?
Yes, it's generally better for a discrete sound format to actually be discrete.[/quote]
The operative word being 'generally'. At these frequencies sounds aren't highly directional, so it makes no real-world difference whether they're joined or not. It sure sounds good on paper to have a truly discrete system (like DTS's, ahem, DTS ES 'Discrete' 6.1 system), though.
quote:
You honestly think frequencies above 15khz are completely non-directional? I can give you tons of URLs with reviews of products, tech evaluations, etc many of which illustrate frequencies being directional above 15khz[/quote]
I didn't say they're completely non-directional, but given the low directionality of these frequencies this isn't something I'm going to lose sleep over. It would be interesting to know how many of the reviewers in these links are over 25 and can't even hear 15kHz, though.
quote: yes, I'd rather have a rolloff than misdirected sound. This is also likely why many reviewers notice that the soundfield of DTS soundtracks do not "collapse" like many of their Dolby Digital counterparts.[/quote]
Suit yourself. I don't think I've ever heard of any credible reviews claiming that the soundfield "collapses" (maybe Widescreen Review pre-'98?)
quote: DTS does not just "chop them off", it does a gentle rolloff from 15khz to 19khz, the latter of which few people can ever hear.[/quote]
Well, most people can't hear 15kHz either. If they actually can hear 19kHz, wouldn't it be nice to hear (sense) 20kHz too (as they would with 448kbps Dolby Digital, but not 754kbps DTS)?
quote: Again, I like my discrete sound formats to actually be discrete. I just think it's silly to believe that channel bleeding is a positive thing for a discrete sound format.[/quote]
It isn't a positive thing, but given the nature of the human auditory system and the frequencies in question it isn't something to get your panties in a knot about. As far as I can tell, its primary use is as a paper argument for some people to use to justify their personal preferences
quote: Didn't you just say how great it is that DTS is backwards-compatible? Yet it's a bad thing when it's Dolby Digital.
The difference is DTS being backwards compatible does not harm or change the original DTS 5.1 soundtrack in any way. When a DD5.1 soundtrack is made backwards compatible, the original 5.1 soundtrack has the LFE bastardized, and the low frequency of the main L/R channels changed.[/quote]
I think I'm lost here. We're not talking about the codec, or the CAE-4 anymore, yes? We're talking about the optional practice of altering for downmixing? Once again, as a user option, this doesn't have anything to do with the format.
quote: Hmm, strange. I think you also fail to mention that DTS is also capable of downmixing to two-channel; it just hasn't been used.
>
DTS has stated they will never use any form of downmixing which compromises the original 5.1 soundtrack, such as Dolby's. DTS can easily be downmixed by any DTS decoder, after the decoding, which is the proper way to do it[/quote]
Well, since those without multichannel capabilities are already being catered to by PCM, MPEG or Dolby Digital, this isn't something that would be necessary. This leaves them free to attack the process that was (clearly accidentally ) also included in the Coherent Acoustics system. Most convenient.
quote: Also, as any decision to alter for downmixing is entirely up to the people producing the soundtrack, what does it have to do with the codec?
>
Dolby actually recommends that engineers bastardize the soundtrack when a DPL soundtrack is not included on the DVD, and if the engineers do not, DPL users will get little bass due to the design of many DVD players and the DD codec[/quote]
That may be so, but this is only a recommendation, and only when a two-channel soundtrack isn't present, so once again has nothing to do with the codec. There's no reason why downmixed audio should receive "little" bass. The LFE channel is discarded, but the downmixed main channels are all capable of reproducing 20Hz or below bass content; the LFE channel isn't the only channel to include bass. Mixing the LFE content into the downmixed soundtrack would be most unwise and completely unnecessary.
quote: If they do make the change, DPL users get the bass, but DD5.1 users get an inaccurate soundtrack[/quote]
Assuming the playback system is set up properly, bass relocation should make little to no audible difference to 5.1-channel listeners.
quote:
>>
In the end, DTS is a clearly superior codec, and I think only a truly biased, deaf, or unwitting person would not realize this
>>
>
In the end, DTS isn't a clearly superior codec. You just think it is, and feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with your opinion.
>
Sorry, it was just obvious to me; Dolby Digital 5.1 offers no room for upgrade in the future (HD-DVD), and cannot compete with DTS in the present in either number of channels or sampling rate.[/quote]
Ah, back to the codec. True, DTS is capable of higher sampling rates and more channels, but since these are (with the exception of ES 6.1) only theoretical advantages, or tasks performed better by other formats, so what? How would being biased, deaf or uninformed impact anyone's opinion in this case, since there's nothing to have heard.
quote:
In addition, the majority of those who have done unbiased (read: not conducted by Dolby) A/B comparison tests have preferred the DTS version of titles available. These three things lead me to believe that overall DTS is a better codec.[/quote]
This is an entirely different subject. Considering the huge number of variables (masters, encoding facilities, engineers, dialnorm: any one of which could explain why one version is preferred) how could anyone come to the conclusion that audible differences must be attributed primarily to the codec used? This is quite a leap.
quote:
My original posting, and obviously the thoughts of some others who replied such as DanR, was simply one to send a message that some need to get off their high horse[/quote]
Their high horse? You mean stating an opinion you disagree with. You could easily have done this without attacking an individual's integrity, honesty or ability. These may be allowed in usenet groups, but we try to remain civil here. Those who can't do so are unwelcome.
This has nothing to do with being right or wrong. As stated above, you could have stated you disagreed without resorting to character assassination.
This thread wasn't intended to be a discussion of the merits of DTS or Dolby Digital, so I won't continue along this line. I will also reiterate the statement that attacks against members (administrators or not) will not be tolerated and will lead to account suspension.
Adam
[Edited last by Adam Barratt on August 25, 2001 at 07:20 PM]

 

[DanR]

Shhh.... If they put that, I'd buy the DVD in a heartbeat...

Too bad I'm not in charge of Universal Home Video . . . because I'd make The Mummy Returns a truly special Special Edition for all us guys out there.

You just have to know your audience, and I think DVD and movies like TMR are HEAVILY skewed towards males!!!
Maybe they'll put the contest on the Ultimate Edition.
Regards,
Dan

 

[PhilipG]

Heated technical debate is alive and well at the HTF! Joe Caps (get well soon!) would be proud.
Please, continue the debate (keeping it cool)! I am learning much about the codecs in the process. Thank you!
Not that it's of any relevance, but with my HT setup, DTS always sounds better. A DTS track on TMR would certainly sway my purchase decision - otherwise I'll just wait for the UE.

 

[Jeremy Anderson]

This whole discussion is like comparing ribbed condoms to french ticklers -- WHATEVER GETS YOU OFF, MAN!

That being said, I hope The Mummy Returns has a DTS track because even at 768k, DTS seems more transparent to me on my particular system with material created from the same master and with no sweetening. DD just doesn't place things BETWEEN channels as well as DTS on MY PARTICULAR SYSTEM (have I stressed those three words enough?), and I think DTS handles music with a more spacious soundstage on MY PARTICULAR SYSTEM.
So again the question at hand, avoiding the obvious two pages of flame-baiting, is:
DOES ANYONE KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER THE REGION 1 RELEASE OF THE MUMMY RETURNS WILL BE GETTING A DTS TRACK?
And also... the other question: What movies has Rachel Weisz been naked in?

 

[Quint van der Vaart]

Well Jeremy to answer your question : NO
Nobody knows for surtain.
That's the whole trouble with Universal these days, you just
can't be for sure anymore.
In the early days when Universal supported DTS as one of the first you just knew that the bigger titles would get an
DTS track.
But with the job Universal has been doing lately with their
press-releases it's just not that normal any more.
Like The Grinch for instance.
They released a press-release with specifications and NO
DTS on it.
A couple of weeks later they added the DTS-track without any
reason.
The same goes for Nutty Professor 2 Uncut and Shadow of the vampire, initially NO DTS but when the discs were released
they had DTS.
I am worried about this.
What will it do to all our other favourite titles like
FAST AND THE FURIOUS or JURASSIC PARK 3 ?!?
I almost know that JP3 will have DTS because Spielberg is involved , it may even be DTS-ES Discrete because of the Surround EX track that was on the theaterical release.
Now they announce 12 Monkeys UE with DTS which will be nice
but still I don't care much for Ultimate Editions.
If Universal pulls the same thing with The Mummy Returns as
they did with the first Mummy I am buying the Region 2 version which already features 2 discs and DTS.
So here is hoping that Universal will do The Mummy Returns
with DTS the first time around.

 

[Perry Sun]

The R1 DVD does not have DTS. Still, an excellent, very active soundtrack.
"The Mummy Returns" is featured on the cover of our Issue #53 (October 2001), which just went to press.
------------------
Movie Sound Editor,
Widescreen Review
www.widescreenreview.com

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Looks like they're pulling the ol' minimal Collector's Edition with no DTS then a few months later a packed DTS Ultimate Edition trick again (but with Pan and Scan thrown in-- ugh!)...
Hmmm, let's see it'll be out just before The Scorpion King's theatrical release with a free ticket coupon inside. Wanna make it a bet?
Dan
------------------
Stop HDCP and 5C-- Your rights are at risk!
[Edited last by Dan Hitchman on August 25, 2001 at 05:24 PM]

 

[David-alexander]

Jury: us
evidence: the region 1 dvd does NOT feature dts
verdict: recommended to avoid this release and wait for the coming special edition with dts since pal speedup is disturbing.
case closed
August 2001
thank you thank you.

 

[DanR]

Thans for clearing that up Perry, we appreciate it.
Gees, I guess Universal thinks Region 1 customers are a bunch of suckers.
Everyone in Region 1 do us all a favor. Buy this movie ONE time (Oct 2 or wait for the inevitable Ultimate Edition), and refuse this seemingly blatant attempt to double-dip us folks in Region 1.
Regards,
Dan

 

[Aryn Leroux]

Mummy Return's what a dissapointing movie
they can release the super duper ultimate edition
with some sorta garuntee to meet rachel weisz and i still wouldn't buy it, okay im lying about RW bit but you catch my drift

 

[Robert McClanahan]

I think the original Mummy dvd sounds fantastic in Dolby Digital which is why I kept it and didnt buy the DTS version.I like how DTS sounds though,especially at its full bitrate.

 

[Dan Brecher]

The R1 DVD does not have DTS. Still, an excellent, very active soundtrack.

Good enough for me!
Dan (UK)

 

[Artur Meinild]

I'm puzzled as to the reasons why Dolby is much more defended here...

Dolby is "defended" because people always yell about how superior DTS is, when in fact it's not.
You never hear a person say: "Dolby Digital is SO MUCH better than DTS!" (and if you did, please show me where, there can't be many occasions), whereas the opposite is posted day out and day in.
Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of this (and I'm sure not alone), and I just think we should be happy that we once in a while have the choice between DD and DTS, so everyone can choose whichever sounds best on his or her equipment.
Please note I have nothing against DTS, and maybe 1509kbps DTS offers slightly better resolution than 448kbps DD, but saying that DTS is vastly superior to DD is highly exaggerated.
------------------
~ Stud. Polyt. ~ Artur Meinild ~

 

[Quint van der Vaart]

Thanks for the update Perry on this matter.
Well I am still a bit dissapointed though knowing that Universal has not put DTS on this dvd.
Well I will be buying the Region 02 version then which does
feature DTS and I will wait and see what Universal will be
doing early next year when they are releasing The Scorpion King in theaters.

 

[Justin Lane]

I will just be getting the the October release. Packaging wise it will match much better with my original Mummy DVD that I decided not to upgrade. Universal will only get my money once....I don't like upgrading to Ultimate Editions (which may or may not even happen) where I am esentially paying for a Pan and Scan transfer, handicapped DTS, and the same exact extras.
J
------------------
Don't be a luddy-duddy! Don't be a mooncalf! Don't be a jabbernowl!